PS: Because I just realized this could be misinterpreted...
"Am I in the minority in making informed choices about my purchases?" was not intended to imply in any way that someone who purchases an iPhone did so because they somehow did not make an informed choice.
Apple lock-in is a feature of the iPhone, and TO ME it was enough of an undesirable feature to make the unit unacceptable despite its obviously desirable features.
Other people will, obviously, prioritize their buying based on other criteria.
Hmm. OK, I kinda see your point, but I think you're defining a monopoly very broadly (or, defining it over a very narrow segment of a larger marketspace).
Since Nintendo in the eighties, we've quietly accepted that the maker of a device should have complete control over what runs on it. We shouldn't have.
"Should have" and "can have" are two different arguments. Apple currently "can have" that control because they do not have a monopoly on mobile devices. If the iPhone suddenly becomes the only (or even the significant majority) game in town, then I'd be concerned about them having a monopoly.
I'm not about to start advocating regulating things that market forces are capable of controlling. If and when Apple gets a monopoly on some significant segment to where *people have no choice but to run them* for some specific purpose, then I'll be the first to point and yell "Monopoly" and insist that there be a competitive device to fill that purpose *or* Apple be subject to monopoly rules on the device.
We should have said, "that's abusing a monopoly in one area [iphone-compatible hardware] to get a monopoly in another [iphone-compatible software]".
I don't see iPhone-compatible hardware as being a market segment to which "monopoly" can apply, it's a subsegment of smart phones. I don't think that can really be considered a monopoly in a legal sense.
Can I buy third-party iPhone-compatible hardware? No. I agree with you as far as that goes.
Is there anything preventing me from filling the same need I *could* fill with an iPhone with another device from another manufacturer? I'd say "no". In fact, I have proof of that - the Blackberry on my belt right now. And if someone writes software that is compatible with the Blackberry, I can run it. RIM has an app store, but it's not an exclusive - I can load anything I please on my BB without involving the app store.
Am I in the minority in making informed choices about my purchases? Maybe. But free market choices still exist, and therefore I don't feel that Apple has a monopoly on anything. If they want to control the device, I think they'll find eventually that it makes the device undesirable. Or maybe not, but as long as other choices exist, they get to make the device they want and sell it the way they want.
I know there are a lot of Waldorf schools, and they each apply the concepts in slightly different ways. Since Steiner was deeply religious and emphasized the spiritual, some schools are very Christian, which fortunately doesn't appear to be the general case in our local school. There are aspects of the spiritual, but it is expressed in a general sense rather than a specific dogma.
Since the kids follow a single teacher through the first 8 years, I could see how that teacher's worldview could also be a much greater influence (for good or ill) than in a public school where teachers change every year. It gives them consistency, but of course a cult of personality works well only when the personality is constructive.
I deeply appreciate your pointing out your observations of real graduates. I'll have to be on the lookout for those sorts of issues.
I agree that creativity and science are not mutually exclusive, in fact one cannot stand without the other.
I'm sorry, "open" is exactly how I would not describe Apple, unless I'm misunderstanding your use of the term. In exactly what way is Apple "open" in your view?
I'm with you on the protecting their customers from crap, scams, etc.
If half of Apple's lockdown is forced by their partner (AT&T) then pray tell why can I tether my Blackberry, why do I have MMS on my Blackberry, and why can I run Google Voice on my Blackberry? AT&T has never said "boo" about ANY of those things.
As far as "priced cheaper over two years" versus a Blackberry, I'd like to see the numbers. My wife picked up her Blackberry Pearl for $50 after all the rebates and stuff - she could have gotten a Curve for the same bucks. The cheapest iPhone started in the $100 range post-rebate. It was all AT&T. Same voice plans, same data plans, same instant messaging plans. So she saved $100 out of the gate, and would have paid the same monthly fee. How does the iPhone become cheaper over time?
As far as getting a signal from a Verizon tower... I had no idea the iPhone supported EVDO, because Verizon sure as hell doesn't support GSM/CDMA/EDGE on their towers. At least not where I live, where Verizon is actually dominant. I know I'm not getting any signal off the Verizon towers around here, unless AT&T also has an antenna on the same tower.
I wish more people would choose to not buy those things.
Precisely. You don't like the lockdown and you wish people chose not to buy it. That's your right.
But.. people DO choose to buy these things, knowing that Apple can be real assholes about controlling what you've bought from them. Not only do they choose them, they get in long lines and pay outrageous amounts of money for it.
But, in the end, they are choosing. Which means there's a free market out there - you can buy an Android, or a Blackberry, or a -- god, there are hundreds of smartphones out there, just pick one.
And most of the other vendors are pretty good about apps. Blackberry has their own (thinly-veiled clone of the Apple) app store, but I can also install software directly from the authors and/or download it and install it from my desktop. I'm not tied to it. And I have yet to download anything on my Blackberry that AT&T has told me I cannot use.
Precisely. In real life, I have choices. Which is why I'm using a Blackberry. Apple offered the velvet handcuffs, and I declined. It was real life, and I had choices.
Apple has a monopoly on iPhones like Toyota has a monopoly on the Camry. Apple does not have any more of a monopoly over the SMARTPhone market than Toyota has a monopoly on the 4-door sedan market.
The iPhone comes with a free exclusive lockdown to the App Store, unless you jailbreak it. It's part of the deal. iPhone buyers know this going in, and if they don't they need to educate themselves on what they are buying before they sign for a 2-year contract and plunk down the bucks.
It would be nice if the App Store was a neutral network, but it's not. It's a business, designed specifically to cater to a willing customer base who knew how Cupertino feels about their product - that no one can sully/enhance it with features they didn't intend to be there in the first place.
Is this an active t-band scanner as the article is trying to promote worry about? No, this is an x-band scanner. We know about the dangers of x-rays, and we know that low doses of them are relatively safe. You'd still find me in the "frisk me" lane if my only option was an active scanner (regardless of band).
But, according to what I've read, the current crop of passive t-band scanners are being developed to replace the very device you refer to - active x-band units.
The summary clearly states that active t-band scanners may represent a new hazard, which is probably realistic given that this is a pretty darned energetic wave and has some good penetrating power.
But then the summary states that active t-band units are currently going into production, which is not, at least to my knowledge, true.
Yes, active scanners exist in airports. But not active t-band. Passive t-band is currently in testing for airports, in the hopes of replacing some of the active x-band units. Passive t-band is safer than active x-band.
Active t-band, if it is ever used on humans, will probably be reserved for medical use where the risks to certain patients are outweighed by the need for information right now.
I do believe that we need to push for some clear labeling on these machines that can be read from a distance.
If I see a bunch of people strolling through a scanner lane and a long line at the "frisk me" line, I'd like to know whether I'm being asked to choose an active or passive scanner and what band it is employing so I can make my own choice.
If it's a passive unit, I'm whisking right on through it with nary a thought. If it's active unit and I travel a lot, I'm going to limit my exposure - maybe only choosing it on days when I'm truly rushed, or whatever.
Google's Satnav app for getting you to the nearest parking lot, then switching over to a Geocaching app like BlackStar for the Blackberry or Geocaching's iPhone app for the "final sprint" to the cache.
Personally, I have a Blackberry and since I started using BlackStar I pretty much abandoned my dedicated GPS. The ability to just say "show me the 20 caches nearest to me right now" and go find one on the spur of the moment, then log it immediately - that's too compelling to ignore, and is FAR better than a dedicated unit.
I rarely need turn-by-turn directions and can't justify the cost of having a dedicated GPS unit in my car. When I need turn-by-turn, I use Google Maps for Blackberry (which is clumsy) or something like Nav4All. Both require signal to get maps, but both cache the route and basic roads upon calculation of the route. So even if I lose signal enroute I can get where I need to go. And for the very casual use I employ, that works.
If I did a lot of car navigation, I'd probably buy a dedicated navigation unit that doesn't require a continuous connection. But a lot of people like me only need it occasionally, and we always have our Crackberries with us.
I suspect companies like TeleNav probably see a lot more threat to this than companies like Garmin. There will always be a decent market for devices that need to be rugged, have long battery life, and keep the maps onboard. There will NOT always be a decent market for navigation software that runs on existing smartphones, if Google decides to expand this to other platforms.
For the record, agreed. However, scanning of you and your luggage is here to stay. Whether it's truly useful or not, it FEELS useful and it's not going to go away.
A passive t-band scanner sounds (according to the articles) like you could pretty much walk through it fully clothed and carrying your luggage, and the scanner would simply be looking for markers that indicate explosive or otherwise dangerous substances.
In other words, you'd walk through a tunnel single-file for airport security, instead of waiting in a line and taking your shoes off and putting your stuff on an x-ray belt.
Heck, you might even be able to carry water into security again.
This sounds like a "make the best of a bad situation" solution, that increases the detection of bad stuff while reducing the delays involved in getting through security.
And if it can truly detect substances accurately, it might possibly catch real threats that the current inspection system could easily miss.
The MIT article has no citations to any models coming out that use active scanning. Meanwhile, the article summary clearly implies, no, actually STATES, that they are being introduced already into airports. Which is patently false. Active scanners ARE being introduced, but they are milliwave body scanners, and these passive t-wave scanners appear to be a more effective and safer alternative.
"With terahertz scanners already appearing in airports and hospitals, the question that now urgently needs answering is what level of exposure is safe."
The "terahertz scanners already appearing in airports", like the cited ThruVision T5000, are passive units. There is no discussion about "what level of exposure is safe" because there is no exposure to terahertz radiation. It's detecting what your body and possessions are already emitting.
The t-band scanners are being tested for two reasons that seem to make sense to me, at least:
1. Their imagery can detect materials more accurately whilst simultaneously not getting as accurate a picture of the actual body. This is better scanning with better privacy. 2. The new scanners are passive t-ray detectors as opposed to active milliwave detector.
Better scanning, less violation of privacy, no active emitter. If true, this sounds like a trifecta to me. I'd much rather pass through one of these than a milliwave unit.
If and when ACTIVE t-band scanners start being introduced into general airport use, I'll share your concern and be right there with you in the pat-down line.
Not to go all "Clinton" on you, but I should explain (in case you care, which you probably don't) what I mean by "my daughter is not on the Internet".
- She does get email from grandparents, and with our assistance replies to that email.
- When she wants to learn about something she's heard about, say a new animal or something, we go together and look it up, and I use that as a launchpad for the kinds of creative play her daughter's school encourages (we look up owls, and she goes and draws some owls, cuts them out, and acts out a puppet show about what she's seen).
- She does NOT have a Facebook account, or use the computer herself.
Google Earth, and science/nature related Internet sites are good things, even within the framework of an education that looks "troglodyte-based" from the outside. They are the modern equivalent of the most fantastic encyclopedia in history, and if used properly can enrich the educational framework I've chosen to use. TV is much more rarely so.
She will be exposed to the Internet, and get more exposure to TV, and electronics as she gets older.
It's just that, at seven, her brain is still in a stage of development where exposure to a lot of that sort of stimulation hampers more important aspects of her mental, emotional, and physical development.
Or at least so goes the theory behind her school.
As I posted in another reply, an in-depth discussion of what is behind her school's methodology is way beyond a Slashdot post.
But, as you say "each to their own". My worst nightmare would be having the government force my preferred approach down the throats of every American family.
Read the request for comments, and replace "electronic media" with "community playgrounds". You'll find that most of the comments still apply - they give children educational opportunities but come with a small risk of children being exposed to something inappropriate and run a very small risk of children being targeted by those who would do them harm.
Personally, I have a 7-year-old daughter, and the TV is relegated to the basement where it has no influence over our lives. Despite the fact that I am an acknowledged geek, my daughter is not on the Internet and won't be for a while yet. This has nothing to do with the dangers from strangers, but the negative influence electronic media have on the developing mind, and is based on a request from her school to minimize what they call "screen time".
Having said all that, this is a conscious choice I make for my daughter, because I feel it is in her best interests. I personally feel this is a conscious choice that every American family should make, and I'm a rather vocal proponent of "kill your television" (at least until the kids reach their teens and the major brain development is completed). I am NOT, repeat NOT in favor of giving the US Government the power to dictate this to every family. This should be a decision that every family makes on their own.
As to "protecting the children from inappropriate content", what "inappropriate content" are we protecting them from, exactly? As far as I'm concerned, the most damaging thing you can do to a young mind is fill them with violent conflict, because it takes a lot of time and emotion to process that conflict and understand it, and that's time better spent by the brain developing free play skills and engaging in creative activities. Are we afeared that a couple of titties or a wanker might permanently scar the them for life? That's nothing compared to the impact that commonly-accepted kids programs are already having. So if the FCC is looking to regulate this, they've already approved what is probably the LEAST appropriate content possible. Bus has left the station, folks, and the FCC missed it.
Make your own decisions for your own family. Don't allow the government to do it for you. This one's gotta go down. The government has no place dictating this.
Oh, and for you parents out there, I urge you to please consider "killing your television". Please. As a conscious and informed decision, not as a government mandate.
Yes, you're absolutely correct. However, the question was "now that WPA/TKIP is broken, is WEP more secure than it?"
WPA/TKIP has vulnerabilities inherited from WEP, yes, but those vulnerabilities are still hidden behind a layer that, for now, is still protective. Trouble is, people are starting to discover larger and larger vectors for inserting attacks.
The shields are still holding - I haven't heard of a successful data breach or DNS spoof on a WPA/TKIP (someone correct me if there is an actual working breach out there), and there are measures that can be taken (turn off QoS/WMM, update your client stack) that will close the holes.
But only FOR NOW. Upgrading to AES is the correct answer.
Downgrading to WEP is not the correct answer, unless the question is "What security protocol is the easiest to break?"
Alternatively, they could simply turn off QoS/WMM and buy a little more time, since that is (currently) a requirement for this specific attack vector, according to the submitted paper.
There are also fixes available to TKIP that could extend its life a little longer.
But, yeah, it's time to go AES.
Having said all that, I fear the backlash from people who have routers that are only capable of WEP and WPA/TKIP and decide WPA/TKIP is "less secure" because no one is talking about how insecure WEP is any more. Given a choice, WPA/TKIP is still the better selection of the two. As far as I know, no one has demonstrated or claimed the ability to actually compromise the datastream in WPA/TKIP, though I'm sure that's a matter of time.
3 little pigs analogy: Open = living under the stars. Wolf eats you now. Opwn/hidden SSID = living under the stars with a wet paper towel as a shield. Wolf eats you in 2-3 seconds. WEP = straw house. Wolf eats you in 5 minutes. WPA/TKIP = wooden house with reinforcements. Wolf hasn't figured out how to eat you yet, but it's a matter of not much time before he does. Change or wolf will eat you soon. WPA2/AES = Sealed concrete bunker 100 feet underground. Wolf will figure out how to get into it eventually, but you're safe for a while.
Nothing is ever permanently secured against the wolf. Eventually WPA2/AES will be broken and we'll be on to the Next Big Thing. But for now, I'd call WPA/TKIP "OK for home use, but start shopping for a router and new wireless gear, like, right now."
WEP has been broken. Terribly, horribly, and completely broken. Not only are attacks possible, they are out there, and they are the data-intercept type. It's somewhat more secure than running Open and hiding your SSID, but not a lot more.
WPA/TKIP has a vulnerability that malformed packets may be inserted in to the data stream. This opens the door for possible attacks. That does not mean attacks are currently possible, nor does it necessarily mean that data-intercept attacks will be possible near-term. You are "nearly safe" running WPA/TKIP. WPA/TKIP uses the same encryption methodologies as WPA but encrypts more data and is a lot harder to break.
WPA/AES has, to my knowledge, no presently-known attack vector vulnerabilities. That can (and probably will) change.
But if your gear is capable of WPA/AES, switch to that. If not, leave it as WPA/TKIP.
And for the love of Pete, switch to a longer password with some nice scrunchy numbers, letters (upper and lower) and a few special characters. 10 total characters should do it if you use the prefix of some phrase and replace a few letters with special characters.
Example: The Lord of the Rings is the Greatest Series Ever Written
TLotRitGSER This is actually a decent-security password, you've got decent length, 11 characters, and some upper/lower goodness.
Now add the concepts that it was originally actually one book, (&1b), and not about the 7 dwarves (!7d) to the end. TLotRitGSER&1b!7d
Seriously secure password, and you're going to remember the hell out of it. Of course, it helps if you use something memorable to you.
Then you'll never go around saying "Amazing! That's the exact same combination I have on my luggage!"
[CRASH] Homer (muttering): "Stupid bad genetics.." [CRASH] Homer (muttering): "Stupid bad genetics.." [CRASH] Homer (muttering): "Stupid bad genetics.." [CRASH] Homer (muttering): "Stupid bad genetics.."
Perhaps not surprising, but the news is not that they've discovered the fact that traits are inherited through genetic markers. Good ol' Chuck Darwin had that one figured a while back.
The news is that they've possibly identified one of the specific markers, and found a potential correlation between that and a specific subset of skills.
In addition to the "blue eyes" and "red hair" gene, we may have found the "hold my beer and watch this" gene.
If scientists can demonstrate how this happens, there may be changes to the way training is done to better curb this deficiency.
For example, if the deficiency is in attentiveness, then people with that genetic marker may need some extra training in defensive driving and awareness. Training that, while useful for all drivers, is especially useful for the genetically predisposed group.
This is the first step - science has identified a possible problem. Now science should probably check to make sure it's not an anomaly (for example, people with this gene may happen to be in families where poor driving habits are routinely demonstrated to the kids by their parents, but the gene itself is correlation without causation - the gene is present but the observation of poor driving is the cause).
Then again, there really could be a "hey, hold my beer and watch this!" gene.
Slashdot Mirror
PS: Because I just realized this could be misinterpreted...
"Am I in the minority in making informed choices about my purchases?" was not intended to imply in any way that someone who purchases an iPhone did so because they somehow did not make an informed choice.
Apple lock-in is a feature of the iPhone, and TO ME it was enough of an undesirable feature to make the unit unacceptable despite its obviously desirable features.
Other people will, obviously, prioritize their buying based on other criteria.
Hmm. OK, I kinda see your point, but I think you're defining a monopoly very broadly (or, defining it over a very narrow segment of a larger marketspace).
Since Nintendo in the eighties, we've quietly accepted that the maker of a device should have complete control over what runs on it. We shouldn't have.
"Should have" and "can have" are two different arguments. Apple currently "can have" that control because they do not have a monopoly on mobile devices. If the iPhone suddenly becomes the only (or even the significant majority) game in town, then I'd be concerned about them having a monopoly.
I'm not about to start advocating regulating things that market forces are capable of controlling. If and when Apple gets a monopoly on some significant segment to where *people have no choice but to run them* for some specific purpose, then I'll be the first to point and yell "Monopoly" and insist that there be a competitive device to fill that purpose *or* Apple be subject to monopoly rules on the device.
We should have said, "that's abusing a monopoly in one area [iphone-compatible hardware] to get a monopoly in another [iphone-compatible software]".
I don't see iPhone-compatible hardware as being a market segment to which "monopoly" can apply, it's a subsegment of smart phones. I don't think that can really be considered a monopoly in a legal sense.
Can I buy third-party iPhone-compatible hardware? No. I agree with you as far as that goes.
Is there anything preventing me from filling the same need I *could* fill with an iPhone with another device from another manufacturer? I'd say "no". In fact, I have proof of that - the Blackberry on my belt right now. And if someone writes software that is compatible with the Blackberry, I can run it. RIM has an app store, but it's not an exclusive - I can load anything I please on my BB without involving the app store.
Am I in the minority in making informed choices about my purchases? Maybe. But free market choices still exist, and therefore I don't feel that Apple has a monopoly on anything. If they want to control the device, I think they'll find eventually that it makes the device undesirable. Or maybe not, but as long as other choices exist, they get to make the device they want and sell it the way they want.
Thank you. That's some really good feedback.
I know there are a lot of Waldorf schools, and they each apply the concepts in slightly different ways. Since Steiner was deeply religious and emphasized the spiritual, some schools are very Christian, which fortunately doesn't appear to be the general case in our local school. There are aspects of the spiritual, but it is expressed in a general sense rather than a specific dogma.
Since the kids follow a single teacher through the first 8 years, I could see how that teacher's worldview could also be a much greater influence (for good or ill) than in a public school where teachers change every year. It gives them consistency, but of course a cult of personality works well only when the personality is constructive.
I deeply appreciate your pointing out your observations of real graduates. I'll have to be on the lookout for those sorts of issues.
I agree that creativity and science are not mutually exclusive, in fact one cannot stand without the other.
I'm sorry, "open" is exactly how I would not describe Apple, unless I'm misunderstanding your use of the term. In exactly what way is Apple "open" in your view?
I'm with you on the protecting their customers from crap, scams, etc.
If half of Apple's lockdown is forced by their partner (AT&T) then pray tell why can I tether my Blackberry, why do I have MMS on my Blackberry, and why can I run Google Voice on my Blackberry? AT&T has never said "boo" about ANY of those things.
As far as "priced cheaper over two years" versus a Blackberry, I'd like to see the numbers. My wife picked up her Blackberry Pearl for $50 after all the rebates and stuff - she could have gotten a Curve for the same bucks. The cheapest iPhone started in the $100 range post-rebate. It was all AT&T. Same voice plans, same data plans, same instant messaging plans. So she saved $100 out of the gate, and would have paid the same monthly fee. How does the iPhone become cheaper over time?
As far as getting a signal from a Verizon tower... I had no idea the iPhone supported EVDO, because Verizon sure as hell doesn't support GSM/CDMA/EDGE on their towers. At least not where I live, where Verizon is actually dominant. I know I'm not getting any signal off the Verizon towers around here, unless AT&T also has an antenna on the same tower.
I wish more people would choose to not buy those things.
Precisely. You don't like the lockdown and you wish people chose not to buy it. That's your right.
But.. people DO choose to buy these things, knowing that Apple can be real assholes about controlling what you've bought from them. Not only do they choose them, they get in long lines and pay outrageous amounts of money for it.
But, in the end, they are choosing. Which means there's a free market out there - you can buy an Android, or a Blackberry, or a -- god, there are hundreds of smartphones out there, just pick one.
And most of the other vendors are pretty good about apps. Blackberry has their own (thinly-veiled clone of the Apple) app store, but I can also install software directly from the authors and/or download it and install it from my desktop. I'm not tied to it. And I have yet to download anything on my Blackberry that AT&T has told me I cannot use.
Precisely. In real life, I have choices. Which is why I'm using a Blackberry. Apple offered the velvet handcuffs, and I declined. It was real life, and I had choices.
Apple has a monopoly on iPhones like Toyota has a monopoly on the Camry. Apple does not have any more of a monopoly over the SMARTPhone market than Toyota has a monopoly on the 4-door sedan market.
The iPhone comes with a free exclusive lockdown to the App Store, unless you jailbreak it. It's part of the deal. iPhone buyers know this going in, and if they don't they need to educate themselves on what they are buying before they sign for a 2-year contract and plunk down the bucks.
It would be nice if the App Store was a neutral network, but it's not. It's a business, designed specifically to cater to a willing customer base who knew how Cupertino feels about their product - that no one can sully/enhance it with features they didn't intend to be there in the first place.
Right.
Is this an active t-band scanner as the article is trying to promote worry about? No, this is an x-band scanner. We know about the dangers of x-rays, and we know that low doses of them are relatively safe. You'd still find me in the "frisk me" lane if my only option was an active scanner (regardless of band).
But, according to what I've read, the current crop of passive t-band scanners are being developed to replace the very device you refer to - active x-band units.
The summary clearly states that active t-band scanners may represent a new hazard, which is probably realistic given that this is a pretty darned energetic wave and has some good penetrating power.
But then the summary states that active t-band units are currently going into production, which is not, at least to my knowledge, true.
Yes, active scanners exist in airports. But not active t-band. Passive t-band is currently in testing for airports, in the hopes of replacing some of the active x-band units. Passive t-band is safer than active x-band.
Active t-band, if it is ever used on humans, will probably be reserved for medical use where the risks to certain patients are outweighed by the need for information right now.
I do believe that we need to push for some clear labeling on these machines that can be read from a distance.
If I see a bunch of people strolling through a scanner lane and a long line at the "frisk me" line, I'd like to know whether I'm being asked to choose an active or passive scanner and what band it is employing so I can make my own choice.
If it's a passive unit, I'm whisking right on through it with nary a thought. If it's active unit and I travel a lot, I'm going to limit my exposure - maybe only choosing it on days when I'm truly rushed, or whatever.
Right, now imagine having both on one device.
Google's Satnav app for getting you to the nearest parking lot, then switching over to a Geocaching app like BlackStar for the Blackberry or Geocaching's iPhone app for the "final sprint" to the cache.
Personally, I have a Blackberry and since I started using BlackStar I pretty much abandoned my dedicated GPS. The ability to just say "show me the 20 caches nearest to me right now" and go find one on the spur of the moment, then log it immediately - that's too compelling to ignore, and is FAR better than a dedicated unit.
I rarely need turn-by-turn directions and can't justify the cost of having a dedicated GPS unit in my car. When I need turn-by-turn, I use Google Maps for Blackberry (which is clumsy) or something like Nav4All. Both require signal to get maps, but both cache the route and basic roads upon calculation of the route. So even if I lose signal enroute I can get where I need to go. And for the very casual use I employ, that works.
If I did a lot of car navigation, I'd probably buy a dedicated navigation unit that doesn't require a continuous connection. But a lot of people like me only need it occasionally, and we always have our Crackberries with us.
I suspect companies like TeleNav probably see a lot more threat to this than companies like Garmin. There will always be a decent market for devices that need to be rugged, have long battery life, and keep the maps onboard. There will NOT always be a decent market for navigation software that runs on existing smartphones, if Google decides to expand this to other platforms.
For the record, agreed. However, scanning of you and your luggage is here to stay. Whether it's truly useful or not, it FEELS useful and it's not going to go away.
A passive t-band scanner sounds (according to the articles) like you could pretty much walk through it fully clothed and carrying your luggage, and the scanner would simply be looking for markers that indicate explosive or otherwise dangerous substances.
In other words, you'd walk through a tunnel single-file for airport security, instead of waiting in a line and taking your shoes off and putting your stuff on an x-ray belt.
Heck, you might even be able to carry water into security again.
This sounds like a "make the best of a bad situation" solution, that increases the detection of bad stuff while reducing the delays involved in getting through security.
And if it can truly detect substances accurately, it might possibly catch real threats that the current inspection system could easily miss.
The MIT article has no citations to any models coming out that use active scanning. Meanwhile, the article summary clearly implies, no, actually STATES, that they are being introduced already into airports. Which is patently false. Active scanners ARE being introduced, but they are milliwave body scanners, and these passive t-wave scanners appear to be a more effective and safer alternative.
"With terahertz scanners already appearing in airports and hospitals, the question that now urgently needs answering is what level of exposure is safe."
The "terahertz scanners already appearing in airports", like the cited ThruVision T5000, are passive units. There is no discussion about "what level of exposure is safe" because there is no exposure to terahertz radiation. It's detecting what your body and possessions are already emitting.
The t-band scanners are being tested for two reasons that seem to make sense to me, at least:
1. Their imagery can detect materials more accurately whilst simultaneously not getting as accurate a picture of the actual body. This is better scanning with better privacy.
2. The new scanners are passive t-ray detectors as opposed to active milliwave detector.
Better scanning, less violation of privacy, no active emitter. If true, this sounds like a trifecta to me. I'd much rather pass through one of these than a milliwave unit.
If and when ACTIVE t-band scanners start being introduced into general airport use, I'll share your concern and be right there with you in the pat-down line.
Not to go all "Clinton" on you, but I should explain (in case you care, which you probably don't) what I mean by "my daughter is not on the Internet".
- She does get email from grandparents, and with our assistance replies to that email.
- When she wants to learn about something she's heard about, say a new animal or something, we go together and look it up, and I use that as a launchpad for the kinds of creative play her daughter's school encourages (we look up owls, and she goes and draws some owls, cuts them out, and acts out a puppet show about what she's seen).
- She does NOT have a Facebook account, or use the computer herself.
Google Earth, and science/nature related Internet sites are good things, even within the framework of an education that looks "troglodyte-based" from the outside. They are the modern equivalent of the most fantastic encyclopedia in history, and if used properly can enrich the educational framework I've chosen to use. TV is much more rarely so.
She will be exposed to the Internet, and get more exposure to TV, and electronics as she gets older.
It's just that, at seven, her brain is still in a stage of development where exposure to a lot of that sort of stimulation hampers more important aspects of her mental, emotional, and physical development.
Or at least so goes the theory behind her school.
As I posted in another reply, an in-depth discussion of what is behind her school's methodology is way beyond a Slashdot post.
The study of what is behind what you call "depriving" is way beyond the scope of a Slashdot post, and probably would be marked as off-topic anyway.
http://www.whywaldorfworks.org/02_W_Education/index.asp
But, as you say "each to their own". My worst nightmare would be having the government force my preferred approach down the throats of every American family.
Read the request for comments, and replace "electronic media" with "community playgrounds". You'll find that most of the comments still apply - they give children educational opportunities but come with a small risk of children being exposed to something inappropriate and run a very small risk of children being targeted by those who would do them harm.
Personally, I have a 7-year-old daughter, and the TV is relegated to the basement where it has no influence over our lives. Despite the fact that I am an acknowledged geek, my daughter is not on the Internet and won't be for a while yet. This has nothing to do with the dangers from strangers, but the negative influence electronic media have on the developing mind, and is based on a request from her school to minimize what they call "screen time".
Having said all that, this is a conscious choice I make for my daughter, because I feel it is in her best interests. I personally feel this is a conscious choice that every American family should make, and I'm a rather vocal proponent of "kill your television" (at least until the kids reach their teens and the major brain development is completed). I am NOT, repeat NOT in favor of giving the US Government the power to dictate this to every family. This should be a decision that every family makes on their own.
As to "protecting the children from inappropriate content", what "inappropriate content" are we protecting them from, exactly? As far as I'm concerned, the most damaging thing you can do to a young mind is fill them with violent conflict, because it takes a lot of time and emotion to process that conflict and understand it, and that's time better spent by the brain developing free play skills and engaging in creative activities. Are we afeared that a couple of titties or a wanker might permanently scar the them for life? That's nothing compared to the impact that commonly-accepted kids programs are already having. So if the FCC is looking to regulate this, they've already approved what is probably the LEAST appropriate content possible. Bus has left the station, folks, and the FCC missed it.
Make your own decisions for your own family. Don't allow the government to do it for you. This one's gotta go down. The government has no place dictating this.
Oh, and for you parents out there, I urge you to please consider "killing your television". Please. As a conscious and informed decision, not as a government mandate.
Right. Some people think it is. Some people also think MAC address filtering is. Both sets of people are wrong.
I'd set up a password and have the SSID set to "Beer to Apt 243 means free WiFi". Then change the password every few days. ;)
Extra layer of security, or a typo? You decide. :)
Good catch. LOL
Yes, you're absolutely correct. However, the question was "now that WPA/TKIP is broken, is WEP more secure than it?"
WPA/TKIP has vulnerabilities inherited from WEP, yes, but those vulnerabilities are still hidden behind a layer that, for now, is still protective. Trouble is, people are starting to discover larger and larger vectors for inserting attacks.
The shields are still holding - I haven't heard of a successful data breach or DNS spoof on a WPA/TKIP (someone correct me if there is an actual working breach out there), and there are measures that can be taken (turn off QoS/WMM, update your client stack) that will close the holes.
But only FOR NOW. Upgrading to AES is the correct answer.
Downgrading to WEP is not the correct answer, unless the question is "What security protocol is the easiest to break?"
Alternatively, they could simply turn off QoS/WMM and buy a little more time, since that is (currently) a requirement for this specific attack vector, according to the submitted paper.
There are also fixes available to TKIP that could extend its life a little longer.
But, yeah, it's time to go AES.
Having said all that, I fear the backlash from people who have routers that are only capable of WEP and WPA/TKIP and decide WPA/TKIP is "less secure" because no one is talking about how insecure WEP is any more. Given a choice, WPA/TKIP is still the better selection of the two. As far as I know, no one has demonstrated or claimed the ability to actually compromise the datastream in WPA/TKIP, though I'm sure that's a matter of time.
3 little pigs analogy:
Open = living under the stars. Wolf eats you now.
Opwn/hidden SSID = living under the stars with a wet paper towel as a shield. Wolf eats you in 2-3 seconds.
WEP = straw house. Wolf eats you in 5 minutes.
WPA/TKIP = wooden house with reinforcements. Wolf hasn't figured out how to eat you yet, but it's a matter of not much time before he does. Change or wolf will eat you soon.
WPA2/AES = Sealed concrete bunker 100 feet underground. Wolf will figure out how to get into it eventually, but you're safe for a while.
Nothing is ever permanently secured against the wolf. Eventually WPA2/AES will be broken and we'll be on to the Next Big Thing. But for now, I'd call WPA/TKIP "OK for home use, but start shopping for a router and new wireless gear, like, right now."
"As God is my witness, I thought packets could fly!"
no. Actually, let me rephrase that... "NO!!!!!!"
WEP has been broken. Terribly, horribly, and completely broken. Not only are attacks possible, they are out there, and they are the data-intercept type. It's somewhat more secure than running Open and hiding your SSID, but not a lot more.
WPA/TKIP has a vulnerability that malformed packets may be inserted in to the data stream. This opens the door for possible attacks. That does not mean attacks are currently possible, nor does it necessarily mean that data-intercept attacks will be possible near-term. You are "nearly safe" running WPA/TKIP. WPA/TKIP uses the same encryption methodologies as WPA but encrypts more data and is a lot harder to break.
WPA/AES has, to my knowledge, no presently-known attack vector vulnerabilities. That can (and probably will) change.
But if your gear is capable of WPA/AES, switch to that. If not, leave it as WPA/TKIP.
And for the love of Pete, switch to a longer password with some nice scrunchy numbers, letters (upper and lower) and a few special characters. 10 total characters should do it if you use the prefix of some phrase and replace a few letters with special characters.
Example: The Lord of the Rings is the Greatest Series Ever Written
TLotRitGSER This is actually a decent-security password, you've got decent length, 11 characters, and some upper/lower goodness.
Now add the concepts that it was originally actually one book, (&1b), and not about the 7 dwarves (!7d) to the end. TLotRitGSER&1b!7d
Seriously secure password, and you're going to remember the hell out of it. Of course, it helps if you use something memorable to you.
Then you'll never go around saying "Amazing! That's the exact same combination I have on my luggage!"
[required slashdot meme]
I, for one, welcome our Einstein-validating overlords.
[CRASH]
Homer (muttering): "Stupid bad genetics.."
[CRASH]
Homer (muttering): "Stupid bad genetics.."
[CRASH]
Homer (muttering): "Stupid bad genetics.."
[CRASH]
Homer (muttering): "Stupid bad genetics.."
Marge: "Homie, why not try the brakes this time?"
Perhaps not surprising, but the news is not that they've discovered the fact that traits are inherited through genetic markers. Good ol' Chuck Darwin had that one figured a while back.
The news is that they've possibly identified one of the specific markers, and found a potential correlation between that and a specific subset of skills.
In addition to the "blue eyes" and "red hair" gene, we may have found the "hold my beer and watch this" gene.
If scientists can demonstrate how this happens, there may be changes to the way training is done to better curb this deficiency.
For example, if the deficiency is in attentiveness, then people with that genetic marker may need some extra training in defensive driving and awareness. Training that, while useful for all drivers, is especially useful for the genetically predisposed group.
This is the first step - science has identified a possible problem. Now science should probably check to make sure it's not an anomaly (for example, people with this gene may happen to be in families where poor driving habits are routinely demonstrated to the kids by their parents, but the gene itself is correlation without causation - the gene is present but the observation of poor driving is the cause).
Then again, there really could be a "hey, hold my beer and watch this!" gene.