I dump tons of carbon into the environment each day driving my big lifted jeep to work, and some days, I even drive my bigger F350 diesel truck, just because I can. AND, AND, on the weekends I take my RV and boat out and play, dumping even more carbon. I don't feel the slightest bit guilty about any of it, nor do I give a damn whether the morons who come with this garbage like it.. Carbon footprint, another bit of greenie garbage pseudo science, just like the social science feel good crap they've been foisting on the world for generations.
I'll use all the oil I want and I don't give a damn what you think, because I'm going to post as an Anonymous Coward so you don't know who I am!
But I only ride my bike for exercise, thus I don't save anything vis-a-vis my commute to work, and I have the food energy cost. Therefore my bike riding definitely has a carbon footprint.
Oh noes. Guess I better stop riding and turn into an obese blob for the sake of the environment.
But you need to look at the *net* carbon footprint. If you didn't bike for exercise and instead drove your car to the gym to ride an electrically powered exercise bike, then you still have a net reduction in carbon footprint.
This study isn't telling you how to have a zero carbon footprint, but just telling you the carbon footprint of some alternatives. No one can have a zero carbon footprint, but (at least in the USA), there are many things people can do to reduce their carbon footprint to match that of other developed countries. The per capita carbon footprint of the USA is about twice that of the UK.
Even if you don't believe that CO2 contributes to global warming, most of the USA's energy use comes from oil, which means vast quantities of money flowing out of our country, much of it into the pockets of regimes that aren't exactly aligned with our interests.
According to the article the major contribution to the CO2 footprint is the construction of infrastructure. They divide the construction cost of bicycle infrastructure with the number of bicycles to get a CO2 footprint. So the argument goes: If there were twice as many bicycles then we would need twice as many bicycle lanes.
In most cities (in the USA), there are so few bike commuters that doubling the number of bikes on the roads wouldn't need any infrastructure upgrades. On bike to work day in San Francisco (when many more people bike commute than usual), I barely noticed any increase in bikes on my route to work. And (at least in my city) there's very little new construction involved in creating bike infrastructure - usually bike lanes are squeezed into existing traffic lanes (sometimes by removing parking)
If there was a significant shift from cars to bikes, bikes could take over more of the car infrastructure without any additional construction cost (which would require much less maintenance - a bike causes a tiny fraction of the road wear compared to a car/truck).
I don't understand why having two microphones means that the hardware is "thought through"? Wouldn't hardware that was really "thought through" have only a single high quality microphone (or maybe an array of noise cancelling mics) instead of "an odd little add-on microphone poking out from the bottom"being necessary because "[the company] wasn't satisfied with the quality of the internal one."
And why does omitting Powerpoint Editing make for a simplified interface? Is the ability to edit Powerpoint presentations what makes other computers so complicated?
The London Underground has looked at enabling mobile phone access, but their tunnels aren't well suited to reception (they're deep, narrow and follow the roads). At the moment it appears that mobile phone access is going to be restricted to the above the surface lines and stations using regular ground based antennae.
None of that matters if they really wanted to provide phone service. The way this is typically done is to use hardwired repeaters and leaky coax throughout the tunnel. It doesn't matter if the tunnels are 10 feet underground or 100 feet underground, how wide they are or what path they follow.
Of course, with a large system like the London Underground, this type of system becomes quite expensive since many repeaters are needed.
what kind of doctor is poor enough to take a fucking subway/regional rail?
not a medical doctor who deals with emergency patient situations, for sure.
BART is not just for poor people.
But to answer your question...probably the kind of doctor that doesn't want to get stuck in the daily afternoon Bay Bridge traffic. For those that work close to downtown and live relatively close to a BART station, BART can be faster (sometimes *much* faster) than driving.
FWIW, I know a doctor who lives in the East Bay and takes BART, then walks to work. She's not an ER doc, but is called in to take on emergency Neurology cases at times. She could certainly afford to drive to work, but chooses to take BART for her 9-5 jobs, though she would drive in to take after hours emergencies.
So, 20 terrorists want to take down 20 planes. 1 terrorist spends the time to get listed as a pilot for some minor airline. Then that 1 terrorist moves 100 pounds of explosives (and detonators) through security without being checked. The other 20 terrorists buy tickets and travel without weapons. Once past security, the "pilot" hands the bombs off to the 20 terrorists.
And all that would have been avoided if the pilots had to go through the same screening as everyone else.
Your'e making this harder than it needs to be:
1 terrorist gets hired at an airport restaurant, one at a food distributor (or driving a delivery truck). They hide explosives in a food package (i.e. buried in the middle of a big Subway bag of lettuce, or maybe inside a beer keg. Or maybe he becomes an airport mechanic and brings the explosives in on a jet engine pallet, or one of dozens or other jobs that involve bringing in equipment/supplies that are hard to inspect thoroughly.
No need to go through the trouble to get pilots training or undergo any kind of real background scrutiny - I can't believe that a minimum wage airport restaurant worker undergoes any deep background check, if any at all.
The reason airport security will never work is that there are 600 commercial airports in the USA - a security breach at any one of them can compromise any (or many) of the other ones.
No it isn't stupid. Maybe the pilot wants to live and would never crash their own plane, but would be happy to carry some explosives or a weapon through security to hand to some already-screened, whacked-out passenger on the other side who is planning to board an entirely different aircraft and cause it to crash. Maybe the pilot is getting paid money to act as a courier. Who knows. But they don't have to die to cause a serious problem for others.
If a single person can walk through without screening, then they can hand any unscreened material they want to someone on the other side who will do the actual deed.
And of course, the pilot doesn't even have to think it's a bomb or weapons. The terrorist could pay the pilot $500K to smuggle "drugs" past the checkpoint. The top of the explosives can even be covered with white powder that looks like cocaine. Or even real cocaine. So the pilot is thinking he's getting 10 years of salary (in cash!) just to smuggle in one box of drugs. Shouldn't be hard to find some down-on-his-luck pilot in some small regional airline to take the bait.
But the signal is more-or-less continuous, so you are trying to locate the source of a very powerful continuous buzz.
This is trivial to DF.
Ahh, good point, when I first read the article, I thought the key was sent at the beginnning of a voice stream, but in rereading, it looks like it's sent with every packet, so the jammer would need to operation more or less continuously. LIke in a 3.7% duty cycle (as it says in snippet of the article I quoted).
But still, there's safety in numbers, with a 100 point sources sending out jamming signals, it's much harder to triangulate on any single one.
Well, more like a typo, meant to type "10ms", noticed that it after I posted, but didn't think it warranted a correction, since it doesn't change the basic premise of my post.
But thanks for the correction, you've added a lot of value to my post, Anonymous Coward!
A jammer synchronized to attack just the NID subeld of voice transmission would need to operate at a duty cycle of only 3.7% during transmissions. Such a pulse lasts only about 1/100th of a second.
So not only does this mean that your jamming transmitter can be small (not much power to dissipate when you're only transmitting a 100ms pulse, but it means that the power source can be small, and the short duration of the signal makes it hard to find.
So when you're ready to create your civil disruption, you drop 100 of these jammers around town (they can be quite small, powered by a couple D-cell batteries for a few days), with so many jammers, it's hard to triangulate on any single one of them.
Any EE undergrad should be able to build these jammers using easily obtained off-the-shelf components.
Once people shift to using cloud-based software, the very reason for people to use Linux on the desktop (software freedom) is lost in any case. It will be a case of getting past the post after the race is over.
While that may be a reason why *some* people use Linux, those users won't suddenly stop using Linux because LibreOffice and Openoffice are fighting. For companies, however, its issues like cost, manageability, security that are important. Companies don't care how free and open LibreOffice is compared to Openoffice, they just know that users want MS Office.
Let companies ditch MS Office for online alternatives, and suddenly companies won't find MS Windows on the desktop so neccessary. And along with it goes a large and expensive MS infrastructure (Active Directory, Exchange, windows file servers, and a whole host of other MS applications that companies run because they already have a Windows infrastructure so they may as well stay on Windows).
So I say -- bring on the cloud! I don't care about the desktop applications, let me give user's a thin workstation that runs only a web browser to get to all of their applications.
If you think RIM is incapable of reading your BES-server email communications, you're dumber than you look.
Do you have evidence that RIM is able to decrypt customer communications? RIM says:
RIM says it doesn't have 'master key' That architecture, RIM said, is "based on a symmetric key system whereby the customer creates their own key and only the customer ever possesses a copy of their encryption key. RIM does not possess a 'master key,' nor does any ‘back door’ exist in the system that would allow RIM or any third party to gain unauthorized access to the key or corporate data." In fact, the system is "purposefully designed to exclude the capability for RIM or any third party to read encrypted information under any circumstances," the company said. "RIM would simply be unable to accommodate any request for a copy of a customer's encryption key since at no time does RIM, or any wireless network operator, ever possess a copy of the key."
You know, even though I long ago forsook my BB, I understood why business & government wanted them.
Secure reliable communications.
Today....reliability? Sure, if you pull the battery once a day (yes, I know you can reset it without yanking the battery. Still stupid as fuck you have to reboot them constantly) Secure? RTFA.
Which BB did you have to reboot once/day? I have a BB Tour and I've never had to reboot it (aside from software upgrades). And it runs for 3 - 4 days on a single charge (as opposed to about the 18 hours I get on my Android device).
As for security, I read TFA and though it speculates that RIM handed over the unencrypted chat messages, it's not clear that they did or even can.
But it doesn't matter to me because as a Corporate user, I'm more concerned about the security of my emails, not my SMS's, and the encryption key for those messages lives on my BES, not in RIM's network.
There's lots of reasons to dislike blackberries, but security is not the best example, especially when compared to most of the rest of the options.
You just press the button on the device and hold it to the scanner.
And the info sent by the scanner can't be intercepted? The device can't be stolen or cloned? It's just a fancy-dancy password.
It can't be intercepted if they do the protocol right - your device should sign their (unique) authentication request with your private key, then they verify the request with your public key. Someone can intercept the transaction, but they can't replay it because each authentication request is unique, they'd need your private key to impersonate you.
The device could be stolen, but would presumably be protected with a password and the user would soon notice and report it stolen so it would have a limited lifetime and would immediately arise scrutiny to see what areas the account accessed after the device was reported stolen.
Use biometrics (fingerprint, iris scan, etc) to protect the passkey stored on the NFC device, and then even if the user wants to share it with another user, he can't. (otherwise he could just give his device+password to a whoever he wants to share access with)
The device could be stolen, cloned, and seamlessly returned to the user, but this kind of attack is so difficult that it's not worth the trouble for most secrets (no one is going to creep into your house at night, steal your NFC device, clone it and return it to your house by morning just so they can download a few IOS images). Tamper resistant devices that resist cloning and reverse engineering make it even harder to do this without the user knowing that the device was compromised. They may be able to cut it open and extract your private key, but putting it back together and having it still work is harder.
Susie Secretary likes to set the thermostat to 60, then turn on the 1850W space heater under her desk and flip the breaker.
In my office, Susie Secretary can't control the thermostat (only Facilities can), and since there's limited cooling zones, they have a hard time making everyone comfortable. When Joe Boss with the corner office starts getting afternoon sun through the windows, Susie Secretary outside of his office suffers because the air handlers are sending so much cooling to that zone that it's 67 degrees in her office and 73 degrees in his.
Sure, it's possible to fix it with a system redesign and maybe some more walls to zone out the cooling better, but when finance looks at $80K to redesign the cooling system for the entire office and compares with telling Susie to wear a sweater in August, guess who wins?
Me too, I moved to KDE briefly, but after a couple months of periodically running into a bug (weekly) that made KDE unable to open new windows I started to look for alternatives. I'd already tried and rejected Gnome3 and Unity, so I switched to xfce and haven't looked back - runs as well on my 1GB laptop as on my 8GB desktop, which was not the case with KDE.
Gee, what are the chances that a MARKETING director would want to get rid of online anonymity - of course she does, it's much easier to market to someone when you know who they are and can tie together their activity throughout the internet and the real world. Anonymity makes this harder.
A user has asked for Airprint to be supported. a quick google search of "windows airprint", gives instructions how to do it. its an easy fix.
However, you rather tell your users they should be using windows 7 instead.
No, you're reading too much into my post. I told him to come back to me when he has a corporate supported iPad (we do have some) since we don't allow personal devices on our internal network, and we'll help him make printing work. Unlike users, I have a regulatory mandate to protect our network from rogue devices.
I certainly didn't recommend Win7 as a solution since 30% of the devices on our network run OSX (including the laptop on my desk).
If the company is willing to relieve me of my responsibility to protect our network and abide by the regulatory policies that our company is subject to, then I'm happy to allow users to bring any devices they please and we'll put it on the network.
The IT department isn't your enemy, we have a finite budget and have to meet all regulatory requirements (like SOX, HIPAA, PCI, etc), provide end-user support (even with the fad device du jour that is going to change the industry (I've got about 30 old tablet PC's sitting in storage after users decided they weren't the panacea they thought they were)), and do application support - even for cloud applications that supposedly need no support thus never have any suppport costs budgeted.
MIDS are going to march into corporate I.T. like a storm. A huge sea change in the way we develop and deploy solutions is coming. We are seeing the beginning of the end of MS as the corporate go-to solution, at least their current offerings. Sure people will still use MS infrastructure crap for decades, but the desktop as we know it is going to die. Your computer is going to be a MID that docks when you get to your desk and then syncs to the cloud storage (intra/inter-net). When it docks up it will be much like a traditional desktop you see now.
I really don't understand the whole MIDS thing -- why would I want a device in my pocket powerful enough to run my financial forecasting spreadsheets and display them across 3 monitors? Seems much better to have a central repository for my data (i.e. my office network) and VPN in to access it remotely. Or at the very least, carrying a 32GB MicroSD card around with all of my data seems much more portable and easier than carrying some powerful MIDS. I can keep that MicroSD card in my phone so I can look at a spreadsheet on the train.
In reality, my company uses a remote desktop server - I disconnect my session when I pack up for home, and reconnect again at the office and pick up where I left off. Works well. I can connect with my Android, but the small screen makes it pretty worthless for real work.
Interestingly, in the past 2 weeks I've had 3 people turn in their iPhone or Android phone asking for a Blackberry because:
1. Battery life is much better 2. Email integration is much better
I can't imagine that a quad core MIDS that is powerful enough to run my office applications is going to be any easier on batteries than my Android device that needs charging every 18 hours (assuming light use).
Sure, some things and components can be consumerized, but I'm just not seeing this 'consumerization of IT' being as all-pervasive as TFA implies that it is.
I had one user tell me that we *have* to support AirPrint so users can print from their iPads. He said that as soon as we do that, IT will save a bundle since people will start abandoning desktops and laptops and move solely to the iPad since printing is the last thing keeping them on traditional computers.
So I pulled out the last 10 purchase requisitions for computers and pointed out that all of them included dual monitors (even for laptops), and wondered why if people are so willing to work on a 10" iPad screen, they need two 24" monitors to work on a traditional desktop. Is IOS really that much more efficient than Win7 for screen real estate?
Slashdot Mirror
I dump tons of carbon into the environment each day driving my big lifted jeep to work, and some days, I even drive my bigger F350 diesel truck, just because I can. AND, AND, on the weekends I take my RV and boat out and play, dumping even more carbon. I don't feel the slightest bit guilty about any of it, nor do I give a damn whether the morons who come with this garbage like it.. Carbon footprint, another bit of greenie garbage pseudo science, just like the social science feel good crap they've been foisting on the world for generations.
I'll use all the oil I want and I don't give a damn what you think, because I'm going to post as an Anonymous Coward so you don't know who I am!
But I only ride my bike for exercise, thus I don't save anything vis-a-vis my commute to work, and I have the food energy cost. Therefore my bike riding definitely has a carbon footprint.
Oh noes. Guess I better stop riding and turn into an obese blob for the sake of the environment.
But you need to look at the *net* carbon footprint. If you didn't bike for exercise and instead drove your car to the gym to ride an electrically powered exercise bike, then you still have a net reduction in carbon footprint.
This study isn't telling you how to have a zero carbon footprint, but just telling you the carbon footprint of some alternatives. No one can have a zero carbon footprint, but (at least in the USA), there are many things people can do to reduce their carbon footprint to match that of other developed countries. The per capita carbon footprint of the USA is about twice that of the UK.
Even if you don't believe that CO2 contributes to global warming, most of the USA's energy use comes from oil, which means vast quantities of money flowing out of our country, much of it into the pockets of regimes that aren't exactly aligned with our interests.
According to the article the major contribution to the CO2 footprint is the construction of infrastructure. They divide the construction cost of bicycle infrastructure with the number of bicycles to get a CO2 footprint. So the argument goes: If there were twice as many bicycles then we would need twice as many bicycle lanes.
In most cities (in the USA), there are so few bike commuters that doubling the number of bikes on the roads wouldn't need any infrastructure upgrades. On bike to work day in San Francisco (when many more people bike commute than usual), I barely noticed any increase in bikes on my route to work. And (at least in my city) there's very little new construction involved in creating bike infrastructure - usually bike lanes are squeezed into existing traffic lanes (sometimes by removing parking)
If there was a significant shift from cars to bikes, bikes could take over more of the car infrastructure without any additional construction cost (which would require much less maintenance - a bike causes a tiny fraction of the road wear compared to a car/truck).
I don't understand why having two microphones means that the hardware is "thought through"? Wouldn't hardware that was really "thought through" have only a single high quality microphone (or maybe an array of noise cancelling mics) instead of "an odd little add-on microphone poking out from the bottom"being necessary because "[the company] wasn't satisfied with the quality of the internal one."
And why does omitting Powerpoint Editing make for a simplified interface? Is the ability to edit Powerpoint presentations what makes other computers so complicated?
The London Underground has looked at enabling mobile phone access, but their tunnels aren't well suited to reception (they're deep, narrow and follow the roads). At the moment it appears that mobile phone access is going to be restricted to the above the surface lines and stations using regular ground based antennae.
None of that matters if they really wanted to provide phone service. The way this is typically done is to use hardwired repeaters and leaky coax throughout the tunnel. It doesn't matter if the tunnels are 10 feet underground or 100 feet underground, how wide they are or what path they follow.
Of course, with a large system like the London Underground, this type of system becomes quite expensive since many repeaters are needed.
what kind of doctor is poor enough to take a fucking subway/regional rail?
not a medical doctor who deals with emergency patient situations, for sure.
BART is not just for poor people.
But to answer your question...probably the kind of doctor that doesn't want to get stuck in the daily afternoon Bay Bridge traffic. For those that work close to downtown and live relatively close to a BART station, BART can be faster (sometimes *much* faster) than driving.
FWIW, I know a doctor who lives in the East Bay and takes BART, then walks to work. She's not an ER doc, but is called in to take on emergency Neurology cases at times. She could certainly afford to drive to work, but chooses to take BART for her 9-5 jobs, though she would drive in to take after hours emergencies.
So, 20 terrorists want to take down 20 planes.
1 terrorist spends the time to get listed as a pilot for some minor airline.
Then that 1 terrorist moves 100 pounds of explosives (and detonators) through security without being checked.
The other 20 terrorists buy tickets and travel without weapons.
Once past security, the "pilot" hands the bombs off to the 20 terrorists.
And all that would have been avoided if the pilots had to go through the same screening as everyone else.
Your'e making this harder than it needs to be:
1 terrorist gets hired at an airport restaurant, one at a food distributor (or driving a delivery truck). They hide explosives in a food package (i.e. buried in the middle of a big Subway bag of lettuce, or maybe inside a beer keg. Or maybe he becomes an airport mechanic and brings the explosives in on a jet engine pallet, or one of dozens or other jobs that involve bringing in equipment/supplies that are hard to inspect thoroughly.
No need to go through the trouble to get pilots training or undergo any kind of real background scrutiny - I can't believe that a minimum wage airport restaurant worker undergoes any deep background check, if any at all.
The reason airport security will never work is that there are 600 commercial airports in the USA - a security breach at any one of them can compromise any (or many) of the other ones.
No it isn't stupid. Maybe the pilot wants to live and would never crash their own plane, but would be happy to carry some explosives or a weapon through security to hand to some already-screened, whacked-out passenger on the other side who is planning to board an entirely different aircraft and cause it to crash. Maybe the pilot is getting paid money to act as a courier. Who knows. But they don't have to die to cause a serious problem for others.
If a single person can walk through without screening, then they can hand any unscreened material they want to someone on the other side who will do the actual deed.
And of course, the pilot doesn't even have to think it's a bomb or weapons. The terrorist could pay the pilot $500K to smuggle "drugs" past the checkpoint. The top of the explosives can even be covered with white powder that looks like cocaine. Or even real cocaine. So the pilot is thinking he's getting 10 years of salary (in cash!) just to smuggle in one box of drugs. Shouldn't be hard to find some down-on-his-luck pilot in some small regional airline to take the bait.
The Millenial ad network claims that Android ad impressions exceed iPhones:
http://www.tuaw.com/2011/08/12/millennial-android-beats-ios-in-ad-impressions-apple-top-manuf/
This SDK gives you easy access to multiple ad networks on Android (and iPhone too):
https://www.adwhirl.com/doc/android/AdWhirlAndroidSDKSetup.html
Does that answer your question?
But the signal is more-or-less continuous, so you are trying to locate the source of a very powerful continuous buzz.
This is trivial to DF.
Ahh, good point, when I first read the article, I thought the key was sent at the beginnning of a voice stream, but in rereading, it looks like it's sent with every packet, so the jammer would need to operation more or less continuously. LIke in a 3.7% duty cycle (as it says in snippet of the article I quoted).
But still, there's safety in numbers, with a 100 point sources sending out jamming signals, it's much harder to triangulate on any single one.
"transmitting a 100ms pulse"
You want to try that again?
Well, more like a typo, meant to type "10ms", noticed that it after I posted, but didn't think it warranted a correction, since it doesn't change the basic premise of my post.
But thanks for the correction, you've added a lot of value to my post, Anonymous Coward!
From the study itself:
A jammer synchronized to attack just the NID
subeld of voice transmission would need to operate at
a duty cycle of only 3.7% during transmissions. Such a
pulse lasts only about 1/100th of a second.
So not only does this mean that your jamming transmitter can be small (not much power to dissipate when you're only transmitting a 100ms pulse, but it means that the power source can be small, and the short duration of the signal makes it hard to find.
So when you're ready to create your civil disruption, you drop 100 of these jammers around town (they can be quite small, powered by a couple D-cell batteries for a few days), with so many jammers, it's hard to triangulate on any single one of them.
Any EE undergrad should be able to build these jammers using easily obtained off-the-shelf components.
Once people shift to using cloud-based software, the very reason for people to use Linux on the desktop (software freedom) is lost in any case. It will be a case of getting past the post after the race is over.
While that may be a reason why *some* people use Linux, those users won't suddenly stop using Linux because LibreOffice and Openoffice are fighting. For companies, however, its issues like cost, manageability, security that are important. Companies don't care how free and open LibreOffice is compared to Openoffice, they just know that users want MS Office.
Let companies ditch MS Office for online alternatives, and suddenly companies won't find MS Windows on the desktop so neccessary. And along with it goes a large and expensive MS infrastructure (Active Directory, Exchange, windows file servers, and a whole host of other MS applications that companies run because they already have a Windows infrastructure so they may as well stay on Windows).
So I say -- bring on the cloud! I don't care about the desktop applications, let me give user's a thin workstation that runs only a web browser to get to all of their applications.
If you think RIM is incapable of reading your BES-server email communications, you're dumber than you look.
Do you have evidence that RIM is able to decrypt customer communications? RIM says:
RIM says it doesn't have 'master key'
That architecture, RIM said, is "based on a symmetric key system whereby the customer creates their own key and only the customer ever possesses a copy of their encryption key. RIM does not possess a 'master key,' nor does any ‘back door’ exist in the system that would allow RIM or any third party to gain unauthorized access to the key or corporate data."
In fact, the system is "purposefully designed to exclude the capability for RIM or any third party to read encrypted information under any circumstances," the company said. "RIM would simply be unable to accommodate any request for a copy of a customer's encryption key since at no time does RIM, or any wireless network operator, ever possess a copy of the key."
You know, even though I long ago forsook my BB, I understood why business & government wanted them.
Secure reliable communications.
Today....reliability? Sure, if you pull the battery once a day (yes, I know you can reset it without yanking the battery. Still stupid as fuck you have to reboot them constantly) Secure? RTFA.
Which BB did you have to reboot once/day? I have a BB Tour and I've never had to reboot it (aside from software upgrades). And it runs for 3 - 4 days on a single charge (as opposed to about the 18 hours I get on my Android device).
As for security, I read TFA and though it speculates that RIM handed over the unencrypted chat messages, it's not clear that they did or even can.
But it doesn't matter to me because as a Corporate user, I'm more concerned about the security of my emails, not my SMS's, and the encryption key for those messages lives on my BES, not in RIM's network.
There's lots of reasons to dislike blackberries, but security is not the best example, especially when compared to most of the rest of the options.
You just press the button on the device and hold it to the scanner.
And the info sent by the scanner can't be intercepted? The device can't be stolen or cloned? It's just a fancy-dancy password.
It can't be intercepted if they do the protocol right - your device should sign their (unique) authentication request with your private key, then they verify the request with your public key. Someone can intercept the transaction, but they can't replay it because each authentication request is unique, they'd need your private key to impersonate you.
The device could be stolen, but would presumably be protected with a password and the user would soon notice and report it stolen so it would have a limited lifetime and would immediately arise scrutiny to see what areas the account accessed after the device was reported stolen.
Use biometrics (fingerprint, iris scan, etc) to protect the passkey stored on the NFC device, and then even if the user wants to share it with another user, he can't. (otherwise he could just give his device+password to a whoever he wants to share access with)
The device could be stolen, cloned, and seamlessly returned to the user, but this kind of attack is so difficult that it's not worth the trouble for most secrets (no one is going to creep into your house at night, steal your NFC device, clone it and return it to your house by morning just so they can download a few IOS images). Tamper resistant devices that resist cloning and reverse engineering make it even harder to do this without the user knowing that the device was compromised. They may be able to cut it open and extract your private key, but putting it back together and having it still work is harder.
After reading this article and seeing the pictures, I'm buying a Prius!
Striking a car with enough force to trigger a four-car chain reaction suggests the Google car was moving at a decent clip
It caused all that carnage and I can't even see a scratch on the Google Prius or the Prius in front of it!
Susie Secretary likes to set the thermostat to 60, then turn on the 1850W space heater under her desk and flip the breaker.
In my office, Susie Secretary can't control the thermostat (only Facilities can), and since there's limited cooling zones, they have a hard time making everyone comfortable. When Joe Boss with the corner office starts getting afternoon sun through the windows, Susie Secretary outside of his office suffers because the air handlers are sending so much cooling to that zone that it's 67 degrees in her office and 73 degrees in his.
Sure, it's possible to fix it with a system redesign and maybe some more walls to zone out the cooling better, but when finance looks at $80K to redesign the cooling system for the entire office and compares with telling Susie to wear a sweater in August, guess who wins?
Me too, I moved to KDE briefly, but after a couple months of periodically running into a bug (weekly) that made KDE unable to open new windows I started to look for alternatives. I'd already tried and rejected Gnome3 and Unity, so I switched to xfce and haven't looked back - runs as well on my 1GB laptop as on my 8GB desktop, which was not the case with KDE.
But I need access to a data center with thousands of servers, petabytes of storage, and gigabits/s of bandwidth to demonstrate it.
Ok done! You can find it here: http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/
Can't wait to see your demo!
Gee, what are the chances that a MARKETING director would want to get rid of online anonymity - of course she does, it's much easier to market to someone when you know who they are and can tie together their activity throughout the internet and the real world. Anonymity makes this harder.
A user has asked for Airprint to be supported. a quick google search of "windows airprint", gives instructions how to do it. its an easy fix.
However, you rather tell your users they should be using windows 7 instead.
No, you're reading too much into my post. I told him to come back to me when he has a corporate supported iPad (we do have some) since we don't allow personal devices on our internal network, and we'll help him make printing work. Unlike users, I have a regulatory mandate to protect our network from rogue devices.
I certainly didn't recommend Win7 as a solution since 30% of the devices on our network run OSX (including the laptop on my desk).
If the company is willing to relieve me of my responsibility to protect our network and abide by the regulatory policies that our company is subject to, then I'm happy to allow users to bring any devices they please and we'll put it on the network.
The IT department isn't your enemy, we have a finite budget and have to meet all regulatory requirements (like SOX, HIPAA, PCI, etc), provide end-user support (even with the fad device du jour that is going to change the industry (I've got about 30 old tablet PC's sitting in storage after users decided they weren't the panacea they thought they were)), and do application support - even for cloud applications that supposedly need no support thus never have any suppport costs budgeted.
MIDS are going to march into corporate I.T. like a storm. A huge sea change in the way we develop and deploy solutions is coming. We are seeing the beginning of the end of MS as the corporate go-to solution, at least their current offerings. Sure people will still use MS infrastructure crap for decades, but the desktop as we know it is going to die. Your computer is going to be a MID that docks when you get to your desk and then syncs to the cloud storage (intra/inter-net). When it docks up it will be much like a traditional desktop you see now.
I really don't understand the whole MIDS thing -- why would I want a device in my pocket powerful enough to run my financial forecasting spreadsheets and display them across 3 monitors? Seems much better to have a central repository for my data (i.e. my office network) and VPN in to access it remotely. Or at the very least, carrying a 32GB MicroSD card around with all of my data seems much more portable and easier than carrying some powerful MIDS. I can keep that MicroSD card in my phone so I can look at a spreadsheet on the train.
In reality, my company uses a remote desktop server - I disconnect my session when I pack up for home, and reconnect again at the office and pick up where I left off. Works well. I can connect with my Android, but the small screen makes it pretty worthless for real work.
Interestingly, in the past 2 weeks I've had 3 people turn in their iPhone or Android phone asking for a Blackberry because:
1. Battery life is much better
2. Email integration is much better
I can't imagine that a quad core MIDS that is powerful enough to run my office applications is going to be any easier on batteries than my Android device that needs charging every 18 hours (assuming light use).
Sure, some things and components can be consumerized, but I'm just not seeing this 'consumerization of IT' being as all-pervasive as TFA implies that it is.
I had one user tell me that we *have* to support AirPrint so users can print from their iPads. He said that as soon as we do that, IT will save a bundle since people will start abandoning desktops and laptops and move solely to the iPad since printing is the last thing keeping them on traditional computers.
So I pulled out the last 10 purchase requisitions for computers and pointed out that all of them included dual monitors (even for laptops), and wondered why if people are so willing to work on a 10" iPad screen, they need two 24" monitors to work on a traditional desktop. Is IOS really that much more efficient than Win7 for screen real estate?
The big skid mark they left. Either that or they're too awesome to even notice us.
Skid mark or sediment flow due to currents?
In any case, a skid mark doesn't neccessarily mean a crash landing, sometimes it's just a way to help slow down for a normal landing:
http://www.superstock.com/stock-photos-images/1886-2038