Out of curiousity - what type of hybrid do you drive exactly?
Honda Civic hybrid. I'm having a lot of hybrid-oriented issues with the thing which make me REALLY happy I leased the thing rather than buy it. Honestly I just wanted a buffer until better tech comes around, during which they have to fix everything that breaks.
That's expected. Current hybrids sacrifice fuel economy for reduced emissions meaning they need to run the engine more to keep it warm.
I know mileage drops in the winter. But going form ~45MPG to ~25 or even less? That's quite a difference.
Either way - it won't be "no notice!!!" issue
What I'm worried about is the batteries in my car can go a little schizo on you. They'll show full and then two seconds later they say they're at 20%. My assumption is that this is a crappy Honda thing (and I've had this happen on more than one Civic Hybrid, and the mechanics have told me this is a common issue with this as well as the Insight).
Anyway, this is all stuff I'm worried about, but am not dismissing the whole idea of fully electric cars. Like I said in my original post, I really am looking forward to them and would love to have one. Those are just a couple of things I'd like to know are figure-out-able.
I actually looked into it. Same car costs a lot more in Canada due to taxes or something. Might be legal issues, too - I know car dealers in the US can't sell new cars to Canadians, no idea if that works in reverse.
I didn't say I can't. I'm saying that's how it should be. SOME cars in the past/present want you to install a Home Charging Station and have been known to use proprietary plugs and other nonsense like that. I'm hoping they don't continue/go back to that.
One of the things that annoys me with my car is that if you buy the same car in Canada (all of a couple hundred miles north of me) you get a whole lot of cold weather gear standard. But not in Minnesota cause it doesn't get cold here apparently.
Not right now and with current technology. I'd assume THAT would advance, too, along with greater adoption.
Don't get me started on how impractical it is to get my house solar/wind powered. I'd LOVE to get that done, but it's just insanely too expensive at this point.
And so are electric cars. SOMEone needs to start early-adopting these things to make them viable for the masses.
What if I set up a couple of nice solar panels to charge my car? Or a wind turbine? That's all pretty doable. Might not be here yet but I do think it COULD happen.
I drive a hybrid car now, and in the LOVELY Minnesota winter, the batteries just DIE. I'm not kidding, they've had to be replaced. Even when they work my mileage almost halves in the winter. This makes me a it worried about an all-electric vehicle. A surprise "Hey your vehicle's range just dropped form 100 miles to 50 miles with no notice!!!!" is NOT a good thing.
Second, I want to be able to plug the thing into a regular ol' outlet.
No, I know all this. But given all that, why on Earth would you be willing to pay for your own hardware that you can't do whatever the hell you want with?
Why on Earth would a user want to pay for (obviously more expensive) hardware they won't be allowed to use however they want? Why would any user ever agree to that?
But the phone company sets up a network SPECIFICALLY for the phone users. They make certain promises as to it's security. I'm pretty sure they're not the same as what they expect IT to do on their internal machines.
How about cut'n'pasting an email? How about stopping keyloggers? How about stopping p2p clients? How about enforcing patch levels? How about ensuring antiviruses are up to date? etc etc etc.
I disagree. Why not a centrally managed internal "app store" to manage licenses, etc. -- each employee can download any app they choose from the company store. Outside installations would, of course, be verboten.
But can you block people from installing whatever they want if it's THEIR computer? SHOULD you be able to? This is my point, I don't think you have any control of these things if it's not your computer. If your employee paid for it, your employee can do whatever he or she wants with it. If you're somehow forbidding them from installing outside apps, that means they've given you control. Which I don't think would happen with their personal property.
You don't go ahead and assume that your network is so secure that one machine can't break it. Just because it's extremely unlikely doesn't mean you ignore it.
Here's an example. You let an employee use his own personal computer to connect. You have NO IDEA what's going on on that computer. Might have viruses, trojans, keyloggers, you name it.
Now lets say someone gains unauthorised access to that computer, because it's not patched against whatever the latest Zero Day IE exploit is. This someone installs the above keyloggers. This person can also check what software your employee is using to access your network (and can easily install it on their OWN computer(s)) and of course now knows their passwords.
Lets say all this person manages to access is the employee's email.
Can you imagine how much damage can happen JUST based on that?
Now sure, if you're a tiny company with like five employees it might not be a big deal. But imagine you're a company with 1,000 employees. Now 10,000. Now 100,000+. IT needs to have more and more control the more people are on there, because it becomes impossible to use the honour system.
As someone mentioned above, you HAVE to assume people are trying REALLY HARD to access your network, and you have to assume they'll get in. If you're IT Security, it's your job to be paranoid. It's also your ass if something happens.
I/am/ a system admin, and I specialise in security, and yes, you DEFINITELY design your network thinking that some day, someone will gain unauthorised access to it and you plan so that when this happens, damage is minimised.
That said, you don't just leave the gates open with unnecessary risks. Having 100% locked down devices RADICALLY reduces the risk of people gaining that unauthorised access.
Lets say you let remote users have laptops. As a security minded person you assume some of them will get lost/stolen, but since you have 100% control you enforce extremely strong encryption on them. You also lock down the software so nobody's seeding torrents running other P2P stuff off them, you know that an anti virus is run on a regular basis, and you know for a FACT these machines are still secure when they connect to your network because the 100% locked down VPN software tests all this before you are allowed to logon.
Now if this is the employee's machine, can you force him to give you complete control of it? I don't think so. So you give him one of your computers which you CAN control.
IT shouldn't 'provide support'. If you want a secure network, IT needs TOTAL CONTROL of the machines. They need to be 100% locked down so that ANY software on the thing was specifically put there by IT.
My point was that if this is the employee's computer, the employee would rightfully assume he or she can install whatever the hell he or she wants on it and inevitably you'll get the viruses/trojans and keyloggers that steal passwords. Along with that you'll get people copying what is supposed to be private information to their own desktop because "it's faster" than going through the VPN. Their unencrypted desktop. With the viruses/trojans/keyloggers. It's just a horrible, horrible idea.
That's a bit on the ridiculous side, especially for large enterprise. An employer needs to secure their network, and that includes all devices connected to the network. ALL OF THEM. If people own the computers then they can rightfully put whatever programs they want on them and then security goes out the window. You may THINK that if you citrix/whatever in there, but employees will eventually use their personal desktop space for critical and sensitive information instead of leaving it on the "secure" network, and you'd have no way to check or enforce this.
Of all the shows AciFi has cancelled (*cough*Farscape*couch*), I really don't think this is the one we actually need to save. They should never have started it in the first place, it was a pointless Milking The Franchise show. I hear it eventually got "better" but I kinda gave up on it midway through. I just couldn't bring myself to care about any of the characters.
If there was an all-out war between dogs and cats, dogs would win.
Cats have built-in ninja power. In a one-on-one fight, a cat might easily take a dog. But DOGS would get together and go "Hey, lets group up" or "Lets build these machines" or whatever. It wouldn't even occur to cats to work together as a team.
And just because I know this is slashdot and people will yell, that's a joke and a generalisation.
Slashdot Mirror
Out of curiousity - what type of hybrid do you drive exactly?
Honda Civic hybrid. I'm having a lot of hybrid-oriented issues with the thing which make me REALLY happy I leased the thing rather than buy it. Honestly I just wanted a buffer until better tech comes around, during which they have to fix everything that breaks.
That's expected. Current hybrids sacrifice fuel economy for reduced emissions meaning they need to run the engine more to keep it warm.
I know mileage drops in the winter. But going form ~45MPG to ~25 or even less? That's quite a difference.
Either way - it won't be "no notice!!!" issue
What I'm worried about is the batteries in my car can go a little schizo on you. They'll show full and then two seconds later they say they're at 20%. My assumption is that this is a crappy Honda thing (and I've had this happen on more than one Civic Hybrid, and the mechanics have told me this is a common issue with this as well as the Insight).
Anyway, this is all stuff I'm worried about, but am not dismissing the whole idea of fully electric cars. Like I said in my original post, I really am looking forward to them and would love to have one. Those are just a couple of things I'd like to know are figure-out-able.
I actually looked into it. Same car costs a lot more in Canada due to taxes or something. Might be legal issues, too - I know car dealers in the US can't sell new cars to Canadians, no idea if that works in reverse.
I live in Minnesota. My car does, too. It needs to be able to function when it's well below freezing~
I didn't say I can't. I'm saying that's how it should be. SOME cars in the past/present want you to install a Home Charging Station and have been known to use proprietary plugs and other nonsense like that. I'm hoping they don't continue/go back to that.
I live in MN. We get more sunlight than Florida. And like I said, I'm worried about the cold killing these things, too.
And you think wind turbine and battery technology have reached their absolute peak and will not ever advance anymore?
One of the things that annoys me with my car is that if you buy the same car in Canada (all of a couple hundred miles north of me) you get a whole lot of cold weather gear standard. But not in Minnesota cause it doesn't get cold here apparently.
Not right now and with current technology. I'd assume THAT would advance, too, along with greater adoption.
Don't get me started on how impractical it is to get my house solar/wind powered. I'd LOVE to get that done, but it's just insanely too expensive at this point.
And so are electric cars. SOMEone needs to start early-adopting these things to make them viable for the masses.
What if I set up a couple of nice solar panels to charge my car? Or a wind turbine? That's all pretty doable. Might not be here yet but I do think it COULD happen.
I'd love an all-electric vehicle.
Except for a couple of things (I think).
I drive a hybrid car now, and in the LOVELY Minnesota winter, the batteries just DIE. I'm not kidding, they've had to be replaced. Even when they work my mileage almost halves in the winter. This makes me a it worried about an all-electric vehicle. A surprise "Hey your vehicle's range just dropped form 100 miles to 50 miles with no notice!!!!" is NOT a good thing.
Second, I want to be able to plug the thing into a regular ol' outlet.
No, I know all this. But given all that, why on Earth would you be willing to pay for your own hardware that you can't do whatever the hell you want with?
Why on Earth would a user want to pay for (obviously more expensive) hardware they won't be allowed to use however they want? Why would any user ever agree to that?
That's kind of my point.
But the phone company sets up a network SPECIFICALLY for the phone users. They make certain promises as to it's security. I'm pretty sure they're not the same as what they expect IT to do on their internal machines.
How about cut'n'pasting an email? How about stopping keyloggers? How about stopping p2p clients? How about enforcing patch levels? How about ensuring antiviruses are up to date? etc etc etc.
But can you block people from installing whatever they want if it's THEIR computer? SHOULD you be able to? This is my point, I don't think you have any control of these things if it's not your computer. If your employee paid for it, your employee can do whatever he or she wants with it. If you're somehow forbidding them from installing outside apps, that means they've given you control. Which I don't think would happen with their personal property.
You don't go ahead and assume that your network is so secure that one machine can't break it. Just because it's extremely unlikely doesn't mean you ignore it.
Here's an example. You let an employee use his own personal computer to connect. You have NO IDEA what's going on on that computer. Might have viruses, trojans, keyloggers, you name it.
Now lets say someone gains unauthorised access to that computer, because it's not patched against whatever the latest Zero Day IE exploit is. This someone installs the above keyloggers. This person can also check what software your employee is using to access your network (and can easily install it on their OWN computer(s)) and of course now knows their passwords.
Lets say all this person manages to access is the employee's email.
Can you imagine how much damage can happen JUST based on that?
Now sure, if you're a tiny company with like five employees it might not be a big deal. But imagine you're a company with 1,000 employees. Now 10,000. Now 100,000+. IT needs to have more and more control the more people are on there, because it becomes impossible to use the honour system.
As someone mentioned above, you HAVE to assume people are trying REALLY HARD to access your network, and you have to assume they'll get in. If you're IT Security, it's your job to be paranoid. It's also your ass if something happens.
I /am/ a system admin, and I specialise in security, and yes, you DEFINITELY design your network thinking that some day, someone will gain unauthorised access to it and you plan so that when this happens, damage is minimised.
That said, you don't just leave the gates open with unnecessary risks. Having 100% locked down devices RADICALLY reduces the risk of people gaining that unauthorised access.
Lets say you let remote users have laptops. As a security minded person you assume some of them will get lost/stolen, but since you have 100% control you enforce extremely strong encryption on them. You also lock down the software so nobody's seeding torrents running other P2P stuff off them, you know that an anti virus is run on a regular basis, and you know for a FACT these machines are still secure when they connect to your network because the 100% locked down VPN software tests all this before you are allowed to logon.
Now if this is the employee's machine, can you force him to give you complete control of it? I don't think so. So you give him one of your computers which you CAN control.
IT shouldn't 'provide support'. If you want a secure network, IT needs TOTAL CONTROL of the machines. They need to be 100% locked down so that ANY software on the thing was specifically put there by IT.
My point was that if this is the employee's computer, the employee would rightfully assume he or she can install whatever the hell he or she wants on it and inevitably you'll get the viruses/trojans and keyloggers that steal passwords. Along with that you'll get people copying what is supposed to be private information to their own desktop because "it's faster" than going through the VPN. Their unencrypted desktop. With the viruses/trojans/keyloggers. It's just a horrible, horrible idea.
That's a bit on the ridiculous side, especially for large enterprise. An employer needs to secure their network, and that includes all devices connected to the network. ALL OF THEM. If people own the computers then they can rightfully put whatever programs they want on them and then security goes out the window. You may THINK that if you citrix/whatever in there, but employees will eventually use their personal desktop space for critical and sensitive information instead of leaving it on the "secure" network, and you'd have no way to check or enforce this.
I haven't clicked yet, but that better be what I think it is.
*click*
Yup, good job.
Funny thing, I saw that for the first time when I was 8, and I didn't get a BIT of it. And I only recently realised that he goes "Squad! Camp it UP!"
Of all the shows AciFi has cancelled (*cough*Farscape*couch*), I really don't think this is the one we actually need to save. They should never have started it in the first place, it was a pointless Milking The Franchise show. I hear it eventually got "better" but I kinda gave up on it midway through. I just couldn't bring myself to care about any of the characters.
Hah! Thanks, I needed that. (:
I know, and house-cats DO get along. But they don't hunt in packs and are still primarily solitary creatures, unlike, say, lions.
Then again, so are cheetahs, but I saw a documentary that showed these three wild cheetahs that learned to hunt as a pack, so you never know.
Either way, I seriously hope there's never a cat vs dog war... I'd hate to choose sides!
If there was an all-out war between dogs and cats, dogs would win.
Cats have built-in ninja power. In a one-on-one fight, a cat might easily take a dog. But DOGS would get together and go "Hey, lets group up" or "Lets build these machines" or whatever. It wouldn't even occur to cats to work together as a team.
And just because I know this is slashdot and people will yell, that's a joke and a generalisation.
I have both dogs and cats and I love 'em both.
> Can't we mock him and feel a smug sense of superiority?
That was fun back when it was Ed Muth spouting nonsense. Honestly after over a DECADE of this, it's not really that fun anymore.