The existing APs (hidden away in proprietary encasements) seem to be connected via telephone lines and the owners have strongly indicated they would prefer that no new wiring be installed.
It's possible that running cable through the building is a nightmare. The owners may have painful memories of how things went when the last APs were installed. Talk with them and find out what went badly. There may be a better way, or maybe not.
You may be forced to do wireless repeating. This is going to make a significant increase to the cost, but that may be the only option. First thing I'd do is start scouting around to see where good spots for APs are. The current ones may have simply been spaced evenly with no signal planning/testing whatsoever. Try the roof. You may not be able to run cable around IN the building, but have NO problem getting up onto the roof, and scatter APs around above people instead of in the hallways, thus avoiding the cable running problem. (you'd also be farther from the parking lot)
If the teacher doesn't have any evidence support the story
Teachers need to be able to to teach things that don't necessarily have solid evidence. I remember watching an animated film in gradeschool about plants and chlorophyl and they showed this character taking his carbon, water, and sun behind a curtain and producing usable energy. (starch? sugar? I don't recall what) Anyway, at the time that film was made, science knew of chlorophyl, they knew what went in and what came out but not the mechanism by which it worked. But they still taught us about it. I think it would be silly for them to have waited until they had a better understanding of it, since they already had good reason to believe it was accurate. It wasn't a belief based on hearsay, it was a belief based on reproducible circumstantial evidence.
Of course on the other hand, "Religion is the denial of observation so that belief may be preserved." Religion should never be confused with fact, and students should never be taught religion under the guise of fact. A teacher teaching a religious belief (such as creationism) to students that believe they are hearing facts should not be allowed. On the other hand, a teacher being critical of religion for the purpose of teaching their students the difference between fact and religion, I'm all for that. Some supporters of religion may view that as a double standard, but I do not. Both are working to keep students from being taught personal beliefs and opinions under the guise of fact. We send our kids to school to learn the facts, not to adopt the teachers' beliefs and opinions.
first one that really comes to my mind. so many great innovations came from there. but not specifically computers, more just plain technology (and more specifically, electronics)
and Ford, they're going to sell you a car, and you can purchase an upgrade on your fuel economy, cooler air from the air conditioning, and enable the side-curtain airbags and heated seats too, for an additional fee, all as software upgrades.
The issue here is the manufacturers are starting to realize just how much overhead they're spending making so many different models of products, and that it's cheaper to just manufacture one model, the best one, and then cripple it if you don't want to pay for the best.
You could damage it (don't want the run-flat bladdered tires? they'll just shank the bladders with an ice pick near the end of the assembly line) or by disabling it via software. It's only natural to expect buyers to look for ways to re-enable disabled features. And we've seen so many times how manufacturers like to think they still somehow can tell you how you are and aren't allowed to use the product you purchased from them. (they want to sell it to you, but not really sell, as in, it's your property to do with as you please) God I hate that.
I'm really quite surprised that by now we're not seeing manufacturers trying to license physical goods. So you buy a computer. But you didn't really buy it, you licensed the use and Dell still owns it and is just loaning it to you, and can legally tell you how you are and aren't allowed to use it. (or cancel your license for any reason at any time, and demand you return it)
But closer to back on topic, so what's the going wager on whether they'll play the ever-popular DMCA card (for circumventing a protection device) if these get hacked back to top specs? I'm betting near 100%.
Suppose the protest gets out of hand and people start pushing passengers off the terminal onto the tracks. Then a train comes and kill them. It's speculative to say that leaving SMS enabled caused their deaths. But it is also speculative to say that the lack of signal caused their deaths due to the inability to dial 911. But that's not the point.
I was just thinking about that - them disabling 911 surely exposes them to liability? Anyone else tampering with 911 services, even one prank call, can get you arrested. Taking down 911 for thousands of people, surely that's illegal?
If they wanted to do this and be legal about it, surely they would have needed to find a way to block all calls except 911, and I'm betting there's a significant challenge to that.
I'd also assume at this point, even after-the-fact, someone could sue them for disruption of 911 even if it didn't result in loss of life. Pranking 911 rarely results in loss of life and is still an arrestable offense. It would be trivial to prove that the people in the subway that day had a reasonable expectation of 911 call availability.
I still say every security company has to hire at least one role player for their Red Teams. They come up with so completely whacked out ways to game the system and subvert anything the "game master" (security officer) can possibly come up with.
Look back at all the times we've seen in the news some absurd demonstration of how worthless some of this "enhanced security" is. Someone manages to get a chainsaw into their carry-on. Don't we all say "ok maybe NOW they'll listen!" So, what changes? nothing. This is Security Theatre. They're not actually interested in effectiveness
Although Apple has been known to buy things out, it's mainly small companies centering on very specific, underrated technology that they see as being able to leverage. Instead of whipping up their own copycat version and risk an established (even if very small) company suing and winning, they just buy them. Many technologies in Apple's hardware and software were purchased, to save on R&D as well as patent lawsuits.
It also gives them a head start on that idea - people watch Apple with a microscope, and when they start working on something, lots of trolls take notice a and start to look for ways to get their claws into a piece of it somehow, since Apple has a history of finding new markets. If they suddenly snatch up a little company that specializes in an unproven technology, the same thing happens, but Apple has a tremendous development head start, and has the necessary patents already in place.
Apple isn't big on buying larger companies. Too much dead weight to deal with. As you were saying, keep the patents and sell the rest. Why bother with the latter when you can buy a trim little company whose primary assets are the patents and the engineers that specialize in what you're interested in? So much easier that way to shed the remainder you don't need. Compare that with say, MS's recent purchase of Skype. They waited longer than they should have for sure, (microsoft's slow reaction time is a heavy burden on them in new arenas) but it's the same idea. But it still gives them a tremendous jumpstart both technologically and legally, without much drag.
bah. low UIDs just speak for how early you got in. It takes talent to get a short nick. At least that's useful. Saves so much time on logging in y'know. (or saves time so you can use a stronger password)
1. Compromise the pilot via blackmail, family hostages, etc
That's useful to steal documents or overlook something. Not so useful to fly airplanes into buildings. What makes these nuts dangerous is not only are they not afraid to die, they're committed to certain death. That takes it up a notch and completely bypasses numerous assumed limitations.
It's taken Microsoft 10 years to turn security from a weakness into a strength
The only thing "strong" about windows security is the botnets that grow to 100,000 computers strong
Until MS expunges the litany of windows-running botnets from my inbox I'm not buying that BS. If they can take down the botnets, I'll acknowledge they've taken security seriously from a consumer protection standpoint. They can trot around the ring all day long yelling "We're tough on security now!" and I'll sit back with an "I'll believe it when I see some results" attitude. Put up or shut up. Ya I know, fat chance, but that's my opinion on it.
a brilliant high speed fireball was seen crossing the horizon during the test, and littering the ocean with fine debris. DARPA has thus far refused to acknowledge any connection with today's test, and is still in the process of "processing telemetry data".
If your car got to the point that the lack of oil changes is causing the CEL to come on, you have bigger problems than $150 to read the code.
Funny you should mention that. '94 ford explorer. CEL has been my "time to change your oil" light for the last ~4 years. It comes on about a week before the date on my Jiffy Lube sticker, so accurate it's almost scary. And I recently spent about $60 to have a mechanic tear apart the top of the engine to find out why the computer said there was a sensor problem. He got so far into the problem and determined it as an emissions sensor that was flakey and wasn't worth trying to repair as it was affecting fuel economy by maybe.1 MPG. I have no idea why the two are related, but they are.
It sounds like a nice novel idea to have the cell kill itself if it gets infected. Sorry but life's already beat you to the punch. Cells have at least six different unique channels to apoptosis. (cellular self-destruction)
To my knowledge, all modern viruses have active mechanisms in them to disable some, most, or all of these mechanisms, because apoptosis is the body's one way of coping with an infected, malfunctioning, or cancerous cell. (apoptosis is also used in "programmed cell death" that helps certain maturation processes, for example it's why we aren't born with webbed toes, the webbing is required early in gestation but the webs remove themselves when no longer necessary) So this is nothing new, nothing novel, and the viruses have had a strong evolutionary involvement with the process. A virus that didn't disable at least some of the apoptosis mechanisms in a cell wouldn't get very far in a modern organism.
Unfortunately for living organisms, if a cell starts going on a divide-craze due to other issues, and has been altered by a virus that disables the cell's apoptosis, the cancerous cell doesn't die and grows, and there you have cancer. Because of this, viruses are strongly suspected as being a necessary instigator of cancerous growths.
the thing is that looking into the way that it works: it's hard to see any straightforward way for most of these viruses to evolve a resistance.
It targets dsRNA which is very central to their life cycle.
Read up on Penicillin for comparison. It was considered a "wonder drug" for the time because it had the same idea, attack a critical mechanism used only by bacteria:
antibiotics work by inhibiting the formation of peptidoglycan cross-links in the bacterial cell wall.
Then penicillin went into massive-scale use all over the world. It took a number of years, but now we have a whole bunch of resistant bacteria. The reason it's hard to find an effective poison on roaches is because of how short their life cycle is, combined with the use of sexual reproduction. (an unusual combination in life) Now look at bacteria and viruses, that clone themselves. They have a life cycle not measured in months or weeks, but in minutes. It totally changes the game.
It really wouldn't matter if so many genes were randomly tweaked every generation that 90% of the "offspring" were unviable. It could still spread effectively. So mutation is the card they play, heavily. And this makes them very good at rapid adaptation to drugs. They'll find a way to block the drug. Or make the drug ineffective. Or metabolize the drug. Or find a totally different approach to the problem the drug creates. All through random trial-and-error. If I give you six dice and tell you I win as long as you don't roll six 1's, if you roll enough, eventually you'll win. And you only need to win once. Then that technique, being the only survivor, is free to multiply without limit. And you get to roll the dice a million times. It's easy math.
The current method to prevent this adaption is giving "cocktails" of several different kinds of drugs, that have different ways of killing viruses/bacteria. The idea being that a single bacteria in the presence of say, three different drugs, will have to randomly mutate a resistance to all three, on the same roll of the dice. The odds of this are a great deal lower, and help offset the short life cycle advantage. But lets face it, eventually it will happen, and when it does, if we don't find a way to eradicate it immediately, we're screwed, because now we have a bug in the wild that we have no way to kill.
So, there is no "magic potion" that does kill and will kill all bacteria or virius. And there never will be. Best we can do is try to stay a step (or two, if we're very lucky) ahead of them. Or at least not fall too far behind. (like we did for awhile with AIDS)
Why should we stop selling auto repair shops $3,000 diagnostic tools that read encrypted information from the data port we generously install in the car? We get to sell $50 boxes for 3 grand apiece to all the repair shops that want to work on our products, the customers are dependent on the repair shops that can then charge owners $150 to plug the tool into their car for 10 seconds to say it's time to change the oil. Everyone wins!
The customers? what? no, they're the source of all that money, they don't matter.
What it means is everything eventually gets stolen. But what's not chained down properly gets stolen first, regardless of its value.
So if there's a $2000 sack sitting next to the $200 sack, and the $2000 sack gets stolen immediately (and perhaps the $200 sack remains there for quite some time, or even never gets taken) you must assume the former has much poorer security. It's foolish to try to blame the disparity on the value of the contents. (if they had the same security, they'd both disappear at about the same time)
Why would someone write software that is targeted at 10% of the user base when they can target 90?
My favorite analogy to that is to say that if you set a sack of $2,000 and a sack of $200 in cash beside each other on the street, that only the $2,000 sack will get stolen, even if the $200 sack isn't chained down and the $2,000 sack is.
Thieves will take everything that's not nailed down. Risk and effort matter more than payout when selecting targets. Most thieves prefer low risk easy marks over large payouts.
"Thankfully because she followed our instructions, she ended up in our cell instead of a morgue," Pare said. "Again, this is a serious offense... Iâ(TM)m shocked and appalled that somebody would wear this type of device to an airport."
I think they have it backwards...
I'm shocked and appalled that wearing such a device to an airport has a chance of winding you up in the morgue!
By making that decision, you probably gave your daughter a much better start in life than she would have had otherwise. She may not recognize that just yet, but she probably will, given time.
Re:This site works best with...
on
OK Go Goes HTML5
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
We're sorry, but this content was designed with the browser Google Chrome in mind. As a result, it may not work properly in your current browser. We recommend using Google Chrome
"We recommend"? No. We DEMAND. If you mean it, say it. Or provide a "try it anyway" button.
Slashdot Mirror
It's possible that running cable through the building is a nightmare. The owners may have painful memories of how things went when the last APs were installed. Talk with them and find out what went badly. There may be a better way, or maybe not.
You may be forced to do wireless repeating. This is going to make a significant increase to the cost, but that may be the only option. First thing I'd do is start scouting around to see where good spots for APs are. The current ones may have simply been spaced evenly with no signal planning/testing whatsoever. Try the roof. You may not be able to run cable around IN the building, but have NO problem getting up onto the roof, and scatter APs around above people instead of in the hallways, thus avoiding the cable running problem. (you'd also be farther from the parking lot)
Teachers need to be able to to teach things that don't necessarily have solid evidence. I remember watching an animated film in gradeschool about plants and chlorophyl and they showed this character taking his carbon, water, and sun behind a curtain and producing usable energy. (starch? sugar? I don't recall what) Anyway, at the time that film was made, science knew of chlorophyl, they knew what went in and what came out but not the mechanism by which it worked. But they still taught us about it. I think it would be silly for them to have waited until they had a better understanding of it, since they already had good reason to believe it was accurate. It wasn't a belief based on hearsay, it was a belief based on reproducible circumstantial evidence.
Of course on the other hand, "Religion is the denial of observation so that belief may be preserved." Religion should never be confused with fact, and students should never be taught religion under the guise of fact. A teacher teaching a religious belief (such as creationism) to students that believe they are hearing facts should not be allowed. On the other hand, a teacher being critical of religion for the purpose of teaching their students the difference between fact and religion, I'm all for that. Some supporters of religion may view that as a double standard, but I do not. Both are working to keep students from being taught personal beliefs and opinions under the guise of fact. We send our kids to school to learn the facts, not to adopt the teachers' beliefs and opinions.
first one that really comes to my mind. so many great innovations came from there. but not specifically computers, more just plain technology (and more specifically, electronics)
and Ford, they're going to sell you a car, and you can purchase an upgrade on your fuel economy, cooler air from the air conditioning, and enable the side-curtain airbags and heated seats too, for an additional fee, all as software upgrades.
The issue here is the manufacturers are starting to realize just how much overhead they're spending making so many different models of products, and that it's cheaper to just manufacture one model, the best one, and then cripple it if you don't want to pay for the best.
You could damage it (don't want the run-flat bladdered tires? they'll just shank the bladders with an ice pick near the end of the assembly line) or by disabling it via software. It's only natural to expect buyers to look for ways to re-enable disabled features. And we've seen so many times how manufacturers like to think they still somehow can tell you how you are and aren't allowed to use the product you purchased from them. (they want to sell it to you, but not really sell, as in, it's your property to do with as you please) God I hate that.
I'm really quite surprised that by now we're not seeing manufacturers trying to license physical goods. So you buy a computer. But you didn't really buy it, you licensed the use and Dell still owns it and is just loaning it to you, and can legally tell you how you are and aren't allowed to use it. (or cancel your license for any reason at any time, and demand you return it)
But closer to back on topic, so what's the going wager on whether they'll play the ever-popular DMCA card (for circumventing a protection device) if these get hacked back to top specs? I'm betting near 100%.
I was just thinking about that - them disabling 911 surely exposes them to liability? Anyone else tampering with 911 services, even one prank call, can get you arrested. Taking down 911 for thousands of people, surely that's illegal?
If they wanted to do this and be legal about it, surely they would have needed to find a way to block all calls except 911, and I'm betting there's a significant challenge to that.
I'd also assume at this point, even after-the-fact, someone could sue them for disruption of 911 even if it didn't result in loss of life. Pranking 911 rarely results in loss of life and is still an arrestable offense. It would be trivial to prove that the people in the subway that day had a reasonable expectation of 911 call availability.
Unless you count case law. In which case there's a crapton of it.
You'd think they'd be more like trademark than property, in that respect?
I don't really see how a domain name can be property any moreso than a mailing address?
2.4 seconds before the pony exploded in giant fireball
Look back at all the times we've seen in the news some absurd demonstration of how worthless some of this "enhanced security" is. Someone manages to get a chainsaw into their carry-on. Don't we all say "ok maybe NOW they'll listen!" So, what changes? nothing. This is Security Theatre. They're not actually interested in effectiveness
Although Apple has been known to buy things out, it's mainly small companies centering on very specific, underrated technology that they see as being able to leverage. Instead of whipping up their own copycat version and risk an established (even if very small) company suing and winning, they just buy them. Many technologies in Apple's hardware and software were purchased, to save on R&D as well as patent lawsuits.
It also gives them a head start on that idea - people watch Apple with a microscope, and when they start working on something, lots of trolls take notice a and start to look for ways to get their claws into a piece of it somehow, since Apple has a history of finding new markets. If they suddenly snatch up a little company that specializes in an unproven technology, the same thing happens, but Apple has a tremendous development head start, and has the necessary patents already in place.
Apple isn't big on buying larger companies. Too much dead weight to deal with. As you were saying, keep the patents and sell the rest. Why bother with the latter when you can buy a trim little company whose primary assets are the patents and the engineers that specialize in what you're interested in? So much easier that way to shed the remainder you don't need. Compare that with say, MS's recent purchase of Skype. They waited longer than they should have for sure, (microsoft's slow reaction time is a heavy burden on them in new arenas) but it's the same idea. But it still gives them a tremendous jumpstart both technologically and legally, without much drag.
bah. low UIDs just speak for how early you got in. It takes talent to get a short nick. At least that's useful. Saves so much time on logging in y'know. (or saves time so you can use a stronger password)
That's useful to steal documents or overlook something. Not so useful to fly airplanes into buildings. What makes these nuts dangerous is not only are they not afraid to die, they're committed to certain death. That takes it up a notch and completely bypasses numerous assumed limitations.
The only thing "strong" about windows security is the botnets that grow to 100,000 computers strong
Until MS expunges the litany of windows-running botnets from my inbox I'm not buying that BS. If they can take down the botnets, I'll acknowledge they've taken security seriously from a consumer protection standpoint. They can trot around the ring all day long yelling "We're tough on security now!" and I'll sit back with an "I'll believe it when I see some results" attitude. Put up or shut up. Ya I know, fat chance, but that's my opinion on it.
Didn't we just discuss that they were given an ultimatum to have a successful test this time around or get their contract cancelled?
a brilliant high speed fireball was seen crossing the horizon during the test, and littering the ocean with fine debris. DARPA has thus far refused to acknowledge any connection with today's test, and is still in the process of "processing telemetry data".
Funny you should mention that. '94 ford explorer. CEL has been my "time to change your oil" light for the last ~4 years. It comes on about a week before the date on my Jiffy Lube sticker, so accurate it's almost scary. And I recently spent about $60 to have a mechanic tear apart the top of the engine to find out why the computer said there was a sensor problem. He got so far into the problem and determined it as an emissions sensor that was flakey and wasn't worth trying to repair as it was affecting fuel economy by maybe .1 MPG. I have no idea why the two are related, but they are.
So ya, it happens.
It sounds like a nice novel idea to have the cell kill itself if it gets infected. Sorry but life's already beat you to the punch. Cells have at least six different unique channels to apoptosis. (cellular self-destruction)
To my knowledge, all modern viruses have active mechanisms in them to disable some, most, or all of these mechanisms, because apoptosis is the body's one way of coping with an infected, malfunctioning, or cancerous cell. (apoptosis is also used in "programmed cell death" that helps certain maturation processes, for example it's why we aren't born with webbed toes, the webbing is required early in gestation but the webs remove themselves when no longer necessary) So this is nothing new, nothing novel, and the viruses have had a strong evolutionary involvement with the process. A virus that didn't disable at least some of the apoptosis mechanisms in a cell wouldn't get very far in a modern organism.
Unfortunately for living organisms, if a cell starts going on a divide-craze due to other issues, and has been altered by a virus that disables the cell's apoptosis, the cancerous cell doesn't die and grows, and there you have cancer. Because of this, viruses are strongly suspected as being a necessary instigator of cancerous growths.
Read up on Penicillin for comparison. It was considered a "wonder drug" for the time because it had the same idea, attack a critical mechanism used only by bacteria:
Then penicillin went into massive-scale use all over the world. It took a number of years, but now we have a whole bunch of resistant bacteria. The reason it's hard to find an effective poison on roaches is because of how short their life cycle is, combined with the use of sexual reproduction. (an unusual combination in life) Now look at bacteria and viruses, that clone themselves. They have a life cycle not measured in months or weeks, but in minutes. It totally changes the game.
It really wouldn't matter if so many genes were randomly tweaked every generation that 90% of the "offspring" were unviable. It could still spread effectively. So mutation is the card they play, heavily. And this makes them very good at rapid adaptation to drugs. They'll find a way to block the drug. Or make the drug ineffective. Or metabolize the drug. Or find a totally different approach to the problem the drug creates. All through random trial-and-error. If I give you six dice and tell you I win as long as you don't roll six 1's, if you roll enough, eventually you'll win. And you only need to win once. Then that technique, being the only survivor, is free to multiply without limit. And you get to roll the dice a million times. It's easy math.
The current method to prevent this adaption is giving "cocktails" of several different kinds of drugs, that have different ways of killing viruses/bacteria. The idea being that a single bacteria in the presence of say, three different drugs, will have to randomly mutate a resistance to all three, on the same roll of the dice. The odds of this are a great deal lower, and help offset the short life cycle advantage. But lets face it, eventually it will happen, and when it does, if we don't find a way to eradicate it immediately, we're screwed, because now we have a bug in the wild that we have no way to kill.
So, there is no "magic potion" that does kill and will kill all bacteria or virius. And there never will be. Best we can do is try to stay a step (or two, if we're very lucky) ahead of them. Or at least not fall too far behind. (like we did for awhile with AIDS)
Why should we stop selling auto repair shops $3,000 diagnostic tools that read encrypted information from the data port we generously install in the car? We get to sell $50 boxes for 3 grand apiece to all the repair shops that want to work on our products, the customers are dependent on the repair shops that can then charge owners $150 to plug the tool into their car for 10 seconds to say it's time to change the oil. Everyone wins!
The customers? what? no, they're the source of all that money, they don't matter.
What it means is everything eventually gets stolen. But what's not chained down properly gets stolen first, regardless of its value.
So if there's a $2000 sack sitting next to the $200 sack, and the $2000 sack gets stolen immediately (and perhaps the $200 sack remains there for quite some time, or even never gets taken) you must assume the former has much poorer security. It's foolish to try to blame the disparity on the value of the contents. (if they had the same security, they'd both disappear at about the same time)
My favorite analogy to that is to say that if you set a sack of $2,000 and a sack of $200 in cash beside each other on the street, that only the $2,000 sack will get stolen, even if the $200 sack isn't chained down and the $2,000 sack is.
Thieves will take everything that's not nailed down. Risk and effort matter more than payout when selecting targets. Most thieves prefer low risk easy marks over large payouts.
I think they have it backwards...
I'm shocked and appalled that wearing such a device to an airport has a chance of winding you up in the morgue!
First thing that crossed through my mind when I read this, duuh, that's an L4 or L5 isn't it?
Probably the only reason it took them this long to "discover" it was its small size. After all, they knew exactly where to look.
By making that decision, you probably gave your daughter a much better start in life than she would have had otherwise. She may not recognize that just yet, but she probably will, given time.
"We recommend"? No. We DEMAND . If you mean it, say it. Or provide a "try it anyway" button.