AFAIK, there are carrier agreements in place that set those tariffs in a "if I don't hurt you that you don't hurt me" style fashion. Your argument doesn't hold up if you compare how the roaming tariffs differ between operators. The main chunk you pay is to your local operator who charges you a premium for having the nerve to step over a border.. Telcos *love* travelers because it offers lots of opportunity to charge for all the stuff they can no longer do when you're "at home", like receiving calls (over which you have no control), SMS (which is already a fantastically overpriced service and which actually does NOT costs more to carry as it's a control signal) and the big killer of them all, data. The last is really dirty, as it's the cheapest to carry.
There is another dirtzy one under cover here: Blackberry vs iPhone. I know people who have both and travel. Despite receiving the same messages, the Blackberry costs were $90, the iPhone costs were $400 in one month. That stinks of backdoor agreements.
The good news is that data charges are also the easiest one to avoid if you mainly travel to then static locations - I'm OK with not receiving email when I travel as it gives me some peace (if it's urgent they can call). I have a SIM for most of the countries I visit, and I stick that in a HTC which turns itself into a local access point (if I don't find local WiFi). As the Net doesn't care about location, all works as normal..
If you're not aware of roaming tariffs your company hasn't briefed you well. However, given that Blackberries seem to roam much cheaper it proves that such tariffs are a rip off..
I went to the UK, and for £1/day I had proper 3G connectivity - nicely shared out over a local access point:-).
Roaming is the last route by which telco's can rip off their customers (well, apart from SMS charges, but they have it least the advantage that it stops marketing people from abusing something you cannot block).
The simplest observation to make is that clouds have fuzzy edges. If your company has any data that is subject to legal consequences when disclosed (and that tends to be the case in about 95% of the information I seem to come across) than the use of cloud services with its lack of definition where information logically and legally resides is absolutely out of the question - it's simply too risky.
Not only do not have control over the vendor, you also have no control over what legislative environment you deal with (and on top of that, which games are played with that environment, the Patriot Act is but one example).
I saw this train wreck coming the moment "cloud services" became the latest management buzzword. The funniest (or most tragic) thing I saw in this context was a company peddling the argument that cloud services were the best way to handle corporate email.
I still cannot understand how it is possible that people go completely *stupid* when a new corporate buzzword appears. Is the level of executive skills really getting that low?
If you look over what happened over the last 5 years or so in security you'll see that nothing really new has happened. We get more sophisticated with defenses, stuff gets more expensive, but fundamentally it's deja vu all over again. 99% of what I come across suffers from a pure tactical focus - no long term thinking, no attempt at understanding the mindset of those seeking to cause harm or steal information, no strategy or root cause analysis of assaults.
The result is that defense has simply turned into an arms race. Immensely profitable for providers, no added value for the customer.
About 5 years ago we started to work on different approaches which normal risk assessment never touches. As a consequence of the insights gained we stamped out bank data theft for our clients without imposing new regimes or buying new equipment - all it took was a month worth of work. However, that requires people that can really think differently, whereas HR has moved towards cookie cutter tick box selections that seem to be aimed at filtering out exactly those people who can make a difference (the use of HR management seems to exacerbate this trend).
Security management has become predictable, and with predictability comes failure. The message is clear: start thinking differently - or lose the battle.
Personally I have always believed in making sure a backup could be installed from bare metal upwards. An information backup doesn't take into account settings, serial numbers and the desire to hang on to a specific version of Microsoft Office because the next had a neutered UI called the ribbon..
When I felt I needed to rebuild the box I'd restore the first backup and let Windows patching do its evil thing for an hour - also saves having to play disk jockey for hours (pet hate: installers that don't ask all the questions at the beginning so you have to babysit the whole &%*$ process).
However, I must admit I'm not sure the tool I used (Acronis True Image) would also preserve the MBR.
Nowadays I use a Mac - there, a bare metal backup is even usable as system boot disk..
Whoever is worried about this is forgetting something - most of the kids I know are already very good at finding out what they want to know. It is better to guide them than to stick your head in the sand until they make the kind of mistakes you could have prevented by guiding them.
I was involved in part of the last Access All Areas in London. I recall an 11 year old kid with a re-chipped NEC P3 analogue cell phone, joining in in conversations in the vicinity (which was actually rather funny), and a 12 year old girl who decided to use the systems there to email her friend - by telnetting to port 25 and doing the whole SMTP session by hand.
Ah, those evil memories. I had just bought a Samsonite case with a digital lock, and someone tried to open that for two days - in the end resorting to typing every number from 0000 to 9999 and still not managing it (despite me opening it various times during the day). The solution was as evil as it was funny: I had discovered you didn't need to use all 4 digits so the actual code I used was "9" - the rest was me faking key presses 8-).
Teach the kids, please. Otherwise we'll stop making things safer, which is never a good idea..
What a load of BS. Someone with Asperger's can perfectly tell right from wrong. They may not be able to pick up *social* clues, but there is nothing wrong with their sense of right and wrong other than that it sometimes is a bit more rigid than socially acceptable.
Trying this sort of BS is not going to help with his defense, but may harm others who are trying to lead a normal life.
Trust is not something you gain by marketing or fancy words - it is defined by what you do consistently. Trust takes a long time to be built, but can be lost in an instant.
The interesting trend reversal for Microsoft becomes more and more obvious with every activity. It used to be that share prices shot up when Microsoft indicated an interest in a company, now it is exactly the reverse.
Nokia shares seemed to have suffered after the decision to load their new phones with Microsoft software, a deal generally seen as one between two losers. There was really no upshot for Nokia there, and investors didn't seem to think so either (remarkable).
The moment Microsoft announced its intention to buy Skype I noticed a VERY sharp increase in people seeking an alternative (of which there is presently none, leaving a hole in the market that will remain until software patents make more sense). Again, product confidence nose dives once Microsoft gets involved.
Eww. Is this a perpetual mobile food solution for Mars? Count me out - I want my food to be at least a some plant and fauna cycles away from the waste products..
:-) I'm not American, but I lived long enough in the UK to see where unions can cause harm instead of benefit - maybe not to their members but to society.
As an example, they called a strike when London Underground tried to sack someone who was found drinking alcohol on the job - in my opinion not quite the right pretext to halt a whole transport system and cause a lot of financial damage to people who are not even involved..
Don't get me wrong, I see what good unions have brought, but to paint them as all white is IMHO wrong. When they go wrong and go for abuse of power they can cause enormous damage.
.. because you leave the door wide open for someone else to create a page using pictures of you to thoroughly trash your reputation. This is the problem with this insane idea: suddenly it is possible for complete strangers to screw up your life proper. A bit like politicians, but without you having any voting rights..
I have looked at both. As a matter of fact, I have looked at a good 50 new "solutions" involving cards and mobiles, and all of them focus on symptoms, not causes. That's why none of those solutions will actually take off - sooner or later will they run into the same flaws and will be exposed.
Yes - that's when it's still a force for good. The problem is when it becomes an ego match - strikes can kill a company too as it can destroy the liquidity needed to improve conditions..
No price here, sorry. I can agree with your point that Palin may not be as bad as portrayed (let's face it, few people are), but you don't even need to consider *Palin* to see that what has happened here is willful obstruction.
Information that is SUPPOSED to be in the public domain is released
(a) filtered (who supervises that process?) (b) converted (what evidence is destroyed here?) (c) in almost the least accessible place in the US (wasting money GETTING it there).
This is not cute or funny - this should be illegal. I don't care if it's Palin or anyone else, this is obstruction. Here is a simple test: could any normal US citizen afford it to exercise their right of checking up on their government? If the answer is "no" (as in this case), the release method should be declared illegal because it conflicts with the fundamental principles of checks & balances that a democracy is SUPPOSED to have.
Getting bad press is part of the ticket - willful obstruction of democratic processes is not.
Following that argument would allow Washington to deposit AK's next round of state funding in large bags of single cents in the middle of a swamp - just because they were assholes. I think not..
The problem is that NFC (the RFID idea) and PCI are in conflict - PCI asks for more security, while NFC rips a large hole in it.
The whole RFID card idea is based on the concept that you can only read the card from nearby. Any beginner with radio technology knows that transmission depends on the amount of power you use, the quality of the aerial and the quality of the receiver. Guess what - you can pick up a single NFC enabled card from about 30 meters, and in a crown 10..20 meters is enough to pick them out one by one. The "protection" is randomly ask for PINs, but as they are not tied to cards you can just fail a transaction that needs a PIN.
The interesting thing is that the industry actually seems to know all this, and brought out those stupid things regardless - why else would a credit card company VOLUNTARILY limit its ability to get you into debt by setting a low transaction limit?
As for your conclusion - I concur. Given the reputation that Paypal has regarding customer care I think they ought to focus on that first before growing.
However - there IS actually a way to enter shops for Paypal. But it's not via the "traditional" card route..
Thank you - I follow the same approach. My son is now 12, and he and his fellow schoolmates seem to now educate themselves about staying safe on the Net (it's a sort of competition between them), so all I have to do is give them extra data and it gets spread amongst his friends too (who are all quite bright, so direction is far better than creating barriers they will bypass anyway).
Naturally, I occasionally check what he does, but I do that openly and with the specific aim at making him see what can be better and he's fine with that - he trusts me to educate rather than lecture.
I'm of the opinion that you cannot stop a child living in the real world - in my opinion, that is setting especially the *child* up for failure..
Who else.... gets to see this feed.. gets to know my entry and leaving times.. gets to enable and disable my alarm?
I like the idea, but there is no chance in hell I'll ever allow anyone else to place a camera inside my home or be 100% in control over its defenses. Notifications, fine, outside cameras, maybe, but no internal feed is ever going to leave my place unless a member of the family permits it.
Oh, and no alarm system of mine is ever going to be solely dependent on a single Internet provider - I have seen that mistake too often..
The original "union" idea was indeed what this guy proposes, and good luck to him (personally, I suspect he isn't going to be working for Apple that much longer - he's publicly suggesting that all is not well at Apple which is not going to go down well with the PR guys unless they are smart enough to work *with* him instead).
The problems with unions is that they turn into a political tool as soon as they have some size, and become toys in the hands of political manipulators. At that point the primary goal is no longer to improve (or at least normalise) employee life, it becomes all about power itself.
I've seen all of this happen in the early 70s, and whereas technology may have changed, people have not..
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, the above is me - must have ticked "anon" out of habit :-)
AFAIK, there are carrier agreements in place that set those tariffs in a "if I don't hurt you that you don't hurt me" style fashion. Your argument doesn't hold up if you compare how the roaming tariffs differ between operators. The main chunk you pay is to your local operator who charges you a premium for having the nerve to step over a border.. Telcos *love* travelers because it offers lots of opportunity to charge for all the stuff they can no longer do when you're "at home", like receiving calls (over which you have no control), SMS (which is already a fantastically overpriced service and which actually does NOT costs more to carry as it's a control signal) and the big killer of them all, data. The last is really dirty, as it's the cheapest to carry.
There is another dirtzy one under cover here: Blackberry vs iPhone. I know people who have both and travel. Despite receiving the same messages, the Blackberry costs were $90, the iPhone costs were $400 in one month. That stinks of backdoor agreements.
The good news is that data charges are also the easiest one to avoid if you mainly travel to then static locations - I'm OK with not receiving email when I travel as it gives me some peace (if it's urgent they can call). I have a SIM for most of the countries I visit, and I stick that in a HTC which turns itself into a local access point (if I don't find local WiFi). As the Net doesn't care about location, all works as normal..
If you're not aware of roaming tariffs your company hasn't briefed you well. However, given that Blackberries seem to roam much cheaper it proves that such tariffs are a rip off..
I went to the UK, and for £1/day I had proper 3G connectivity - nicely shared out over a local access point :-).
Roaming is the last route by which telco's can rip off their customers (well, apart from SMS charges, but they have it least the advantage that it stops marketing people from abusing something you cannot block).
The simplest observation to make is that clouds have fuzzy edges. If your company has any data that is subject to legal consequences when disclosed (and that tends to be the case in about 95% of the information I seem to come across) than the use of cloud services with its lack of definition where information logically and legally resides is absolutely out of the question - it's simply too risky.
Not only do not have control over the vendor, you also have no control over what legislative environment you deal with (and on top of that, which games are played with that environment, the Patriot Act is but one example).
Oh, and Safe Harbor isn't...
I saw this train wreck coming the moment "cloud services" became the latest management buzzword. The funniest (or most tragic) thing I saw in this context was a company peddling the argument that cloud services were the best way to handle corporate email.
I still cannot understand how it is possible that people go completely *stupid* when a new corporate buzzword appears. Is the level of executive skills really getting that low?
[disclosure: I do this for a living]
If you look over what happened over the last 5 years or so in security you'll see that nothing really new has happened. We get more sophisticated with defenses, stuff gets more expensive, but fundamentally it's deja vu all over again. 99% of what I come across suffers from a pure tactical focus - no long term thinking, no attempt at understanding the mindset of those seeking to cause harm or steal information, no strategy or root cause analysis of assaults.
The result is that defense has simply turned into an arms race. Immensely profitable for providers, no added value for the customer.
About 5 years ago we started to work on different approaches which normal risk assessment never touches. As a consequence of the insights gained we stamped out bank data theft for our clients without imposing new regimes or buying new equipment - all it took was a month worth of work. However, that requires people that can really think differently, whereas HR has moved towards cookie cutter tick box selections that seem to be aimed at filtering out exactly those people who can make a difference (the use of HR management seems to exacerbate this trend).
Security management has become predictable, and with predictability comes failure. The message is clear: start thinking differently - or lose the battle.
Either someone hacks this thing and resets it, or it will not sell at all.
IMHO not the brightest idea to have..
Personally I have always believed in making sure a backup could be installed from bare metal upwards. An information backup doesn't take into account settings, serial numbers and the desire to hang on to a specific version of Microsoft Office because the next had a neutered UI called the ribbon..
When I felt I needed to rebuild the box I'd restore the first backup and let Windows patching do its evil thing for an hour - also saves having to play disk jockey for hours (pet hate: installers that don't ask all the questions at the beginning so you have to babysit the whole &%*$ process).
However, I must admit I'm not sure the tool I used (Acronis True Image) would also preserve the MBR.
Nowadays I use a Mac - there, a bare metal backup is even usable as system boot disk..
Whoever is worried about this is forgetting something - most of the kids I know are already very good at finding out what they want to know. It is better to guide them than to stick your head in the sand until they make the kind of mistakes you could have prevented by guiding them.
I was involved in part of the last Access All Areas in London. I recall an 11 year old kid with a re-chipped NEC P3 analogue cell phone, joining in in conversations in the vicinity (which was actually rather funny), and a 12 year old girl who decided to use the systems there to email her friend - by telnetting to port 25 and doing the whole SMTP session by hand.
Ah, those evil memories. I had just bought a Samsonite case with a digital lock, and someone tried to open that for two days - in the end resorting to typing every number from 0000 to 9999 and still not managing it (despite me opening it various times during the day). The solution was as evil as it was funny: I had discovered you didn't need to use all 4 digits so the actual code I used was "9" - the rest was me faking key presses 8-).
Teach the kids, please. Otherwise we'll stop making things safer, which is never a good idea..
What a load of BS. Someone with Asperger's can perfectly tell right from wrong. They may not be able to pick up *social* clues, but there is nothing wrong with their sense of right and wrong other than that it sometimes is a bit more rigid than socially acceptable.
Trying this sort of BS is not going to help with his defense, but may harm others who are trying to lead a normal life.
Don't do the crime if you cannot do the time.
No need - shower soap now comes from dispensers.. .. mounted a foot off the floor. :-)
Trust is not something you gain by marketing or fancy words - it is defined by what you do consistently. Trust takes a long time to be built, but can be lost in an instant.
The interesting trend reversal for Microsoft becomes more and more obvious with every activity. It used to be that share prices shot up when Microsoft indicated an interest in a company, now it is exactly the reverse.
Nokia shares seemed to have suffered after the decision to load their new phones with Microsoft software, a deal generally seen as one between two losers. There was really no upshot for Nokia there, and investors didn't seem to think so either (remarkable).
The moment Microsoft announced its intention to buy Skype I noticed a VERY sharp increase in people seeking an alternative (of which there is presently none, leaving a hole in the market that will remain until software patents make more sense). Again, product confidence nose dives once Microsoft gets involved.
Microsoft: turning gold into lead?
Well, it's *about* refuse.. :-)
Eww. Is this a perpetual mobile food solution for Mars? Count me out - I want my food to be at least a some plant and fauna cycles away from the waste products..
..their service will be the lowest cost bidder, which is all you need to win a bid. Expect glowing reviews :-(.
:-) I'm not American, but I lived long enough in the UK to see where unions can cause harm instead of benefit - maybe not to their members but to society.
As an example, they called a strike when London Underground tried to sack someone who was found drinking alcohol on the job - in my opinion not quite the right pretext to halt a whole transport system and cause a lot of financial damage to people who are not even involved..
Don't get me wrong, I see what good unions have brought, but to paint them as all white is IMHO wrong. When they go wrong and go for abuse of power they can cause enormous damage.
.. because you leave the door wide open for someone else to create a page using pictures of you to thoroughly trash your reputation. This is the problem with this insane idea: suddenly it is possible for complete strangers to screw up your life proper. A bit like politicians, but without you having any voting rights..
I have looked at both. As a matter of fact, I have looked at a good 50 new "solutions" involving cards and mobiles, and all of them focus on symptoms, not causes. That's why none of those solutions will actually take off - sooner or later will they run into the same flaws and will be exposed.
Yes - that's when it's still a force for good. The problem is when it becomes an ego match - strikes can kill a company too as it can destroy the liquidity needed to improve conditions..
No price here, sorry. I can agree with your point that Palin may not be as bad as portrayed (let's face it, few people are), but you don't even need to consider *Palin* to see that what has happened here is willful obstruction.
Information that is SUPPOSED to be in the public domain is released
(a) filtered (who supervises that process?)
(b) converted (what evidence is destroyed here?)
(c) in almost the least accessible place in the US (wasting money GETTING it there).
This is not cute or funny - this should be illegal. I don't care if it's Palin or anyone else, this is obstruction. Here is a simple test: could any normal US citizen afford it to exercise their right of checking up on their government? If the answer is "no" (as in this case), the release method should be declared illegal because it conflicts with the fundamental principles of checks & balances that a democracy is SUPPOSED to have.
Getting bad press is part of the ticket - willful obstruction of democratic processes is not.
Following that argument would allow Washington to deposit AK's next round of state funding in large bags of single cents in the middle of a swamp - just because they were assholes. I think not..
The problem is that NFC (the RFID idea) and PCI are in conflict - PCI asks for more security, while NFC rips a large hole in it.
The whole RFID card idea is based on the concept that you can only read the card from nearby. Any beginner with radio technology knows that transmission depends on the amount of power you use, the quality of the aerial and the quality of the receiver. Guess what - you can pick up a single NFC enabled card from about 30 meters, and in a crown 10..20 meters is enough to pick them out one by one. The "protection" is randomly ask for PINs, but as they are not tied to cards you can just fail a transaction that needs a PIN.
The interesting thing is that the industry actually seems to know all this, and brought out those stupid things regardless - why else would a credit card company VOLUNTARILY limit its ability to get you into debt by setting a low transaction limit?
As for your conclusion - I concur. Given the reputation that Paypal has regarding customer care I think they ought to focus on that first before growing.
However - there IS actually a way to enter shops for Paypal. But it's not via the "traditional" card route..
Thank you - I follow the same approach. My son is now 12, and he and his fellow schoolmates seem to now educate themselves about staying safe on the Net (it's a sort of competition between them), so all I have to do is give them extra data and it gets spread amongst his friends too (who are all quite bright, so direction is far better than creating barriers they will bypass anyway).
Naturally, I occasionally check what he does, but I do that openly and with the specific aim at making him see what can be better and he's fine with that - he trusts me to educate rather than lecture.
I'm of the opinion that you cannot stop a child living in the real world - in my opinion, that is setting especially the *child* up for failure..
Who else .. .. gets to see this feed .. gets to know my entry and leaving times .. gets to enable and disable my alarm?
I like the idea, but there is no chance in hell I'll ever allow anyone else to place a camera inside my home or be 100% in control over its defenses. Notifications, fine, outside cameras, maybe, but no internal feed is ever going to leave my place unless a member of the family permits it.
Oh, and no alarm system of mine is ever going to be solely dependent on a single Internet provider - I have seen that mistake too often..
The original "union" idea was indeed what this guy proposes, and good luck to him (personally, I suspect he isn't going to be working for Apple that much longer - he's publicly suggesting that all is not well at Apple which is not going to go down well with the PR guys unless they are smart enough to work *with* him instead).
The problems with unions is that they turn into a political tool as soon as they have some size, and become toys in the hands of political manipulators. At that point the primary goal is no longer to improve (or at least normalise) employee life, it becomes all about power itself.
I've seen all of this happen in the early 70s, and whereas technology may have changed, people have not..