Amazingly enough, health care is probably 5-10 years behind in IT.
It's not amazing, really: healthcare as an industry is often both very very conservative and rather frugal. The combination results in an atmosphere of sticking with what works because a) well, it works and b) the new item(s) will cost money and might not work (see a)). It's actually not a bad viewpoint much of the time because it discourages upgrading for the sake of upgrading (i.e. with no clear and necessary benefit).
Sure, you can put a password on changing those bootloader options, but just slap in a linux emergency boot CD, and suddenly you have root access to all files.
Certainly, unless the system is configured to boot only from the hard drive && the passwd option is enabled in the BIOS.
However - since we have established that physical access is involved - the interloper could probably use the oft-present jumper on the motherboard to clear the CMOS and get the system to boot from the CD. Of course at that point he could just take the hard drive with him, leaving a similar but bulk-degaussed replacement (to emulate a very very borked hard drive).
Anyway, I mention these points only to back your assertion that physical access can allow subversion and bypass of several commonly used security mechanisms.
The interviewee seemed to be doing his best to simplify the concepts involved, but it sounded as if he were focused on the problem of the initial authentication. For example, the User goes to a public place like a cafe that has a pay-as-you-go model, e.g. he pays a certain amount per minute; such places often require a credit card to initiate the session. (Some business centers in hotels work this way for Internet access.)
If the user sits down at WiFi-R-Us to check his mail, he will have to enter a credit card number. However, there might be a 'rogue' WAP in the area configured to look legitimate, e.g. Wi-Fi-Are-Us, complete with ripped HTML, etc. to make the authentication page look legitimate. (See 'Phishing 101'). The user then enters his information on what he thinks is the proper authentication server.
It's an interesting issue, and I was glad to see it getting some broad[er] exposure.
Excellent! I've been looking for a certain Bollywood movie. In it an East Indian guy saves a girl from a corrupt landholder and at the end they all dance. What was it called again?
Is that the one that had the conflict between the modern young people and the more traditional family elders? That was great.
Wikipedia is not "someone's opinion"; it is supposed to be neutral, and factual.
Yes, it is supposed to be neutral and factual, but the people doing the editing are not necessarily specialists; they don't even need to be particularly knowledgeable. "Anyone can edit", right? That's what it says here. Without a decent vetting process, it is a bunch of people contributing to articles regardless of their qualification to do so.
I'm not saying Wikipedia is a bad idea. It's an interesting collaborative exercise that results in an encyclopedia of dubious veracity; I do not find such an information source useful. YMMV.
I'm honestly curious: why would you link to wikipedia instead of to Intelsat itself?
This came up in a discussion last week: someone had linked to a wikipedia entry for Tripwire (the company) instead of linking to Tripwire.com. Wouldn't it make more sense to get information directly from the source (and form one's own opinion) instead of reading the material at Wikipedia (which is essentially someone else's opinion)?
The article wanders a bit: it starts by talking about the dramatic increase in particulate matter in the atmosphere, i.e. very small bits of carbon and ash given off as a result of combustion.
But then the article ends with this:
That means a temperature rise of 10 degrees Celsius by 2100 could be on the cards, giving the UK a climate like that of North Africa, and rendering many parts of the world uninhabitable.
That is unless we act urgently to curb our emissions of greenhouse gases.
That's a good point but it doesn't quite fit with the original premise.
I would also like to have seen a guesstimate of the percentage of particulati that came from volcanos and forest fires vice the hand of man, but I guess that would be a time-consuming and difficult process. (I imagine it would involve taking air samples from all over the world, and from various altitudes, and examining any solids to determine their origin.)
There are certainly hundreds of cases of prior art, and Tripwire is probably one of them. It computes and maintains a database of hashes for all the files on a file system to check for intrusions and corruption. The wiki entry says it first surfaced in 1992
This is [to me] the most irksome characteristic of wiki-people: even when there is an obviously better link , e.g. this page (which also provides the 1992 date), they insist on linking to a non-vetted, potentially spurious source like wikipedia.
There is also Tripwire.org for those people that get hives reading about commercial products.
Patents on ideas are wrong, whether in software or in business. You should patent some concrete machinery, not a way of doing things.
I'm not sure why we should listen to patent advice from someone who copied the name of a teen actress as a/. nick. (Not a flame - just an observation.)
When the idea of patents originally came about there really wasn't much else to patent [besides machinery and other tangible objects]. However, industry has moved on in recent years, and software has become more important. The EP has recognized this and wants to address the issue; revision won't do any good if everyone walks in with carved-in-stone preconceived notions, hence the from-scratch approach.
Acquire an LCD monitor that will accept a 75mm or 100mm wall adapter (like this).
Acquire 1" wide aluminum stock (available at Lowes or other DIY places).
Create brackets that look like a large, squared-off letter J: the horizontal piece is meant to be the width of your mid-tower case; the short vertical piece goes toward the back of the case; and the longer vertical piece goes toward the front:
|
|
|__| (The picture is backwards/inverted 'cause the ASCII art was easier that way. Use your imagination.)
Drill holes in the long vertical part of the brackets to match the holes on the back of the LCD monitor.
Use appropriately-sized machine screws to mount the monitor on the brackets.
Hang the LCD on the side of the mid-tower.
No "profit" - sorry.
Your success will depend in part on the weight of the LCD (so 20" might not work - 15" should be okay).
The other is actually at a state-owned rest stop on I-65, 20 or so miles north-west (as the crow flies) of Huntsville. It's at the welcome-center when crossing the Alabama/Tennessee border.
Because nothing says 'Deep South' like NASA technology...
But then how are we supposed to leverage our synergies going forward to create a win-win situation? You are generating negative ROI in this incumbent conversation, and have become a cromulent addition to the team. You will be capsized^W rightsized immediately.
I am quite familiar with Mr. Webster, thank you. Before you pat yourself on the back too much, you should know that the definitions you included are not really applicable to the situation in question:
12 a : not showing or communicating warmth, enthusiasm, or tender feeling : SEVERE b : WEARISOME, UNINTERESTING c : lacking embellishment : PLAIN
Warmth [and] tender feeling are rather out of place in this context, although Bill may have experienced somewhat diminished enthusiasm at that point. Wearisome and uninteresting essentially mean boring. Gates had a boring smile? Did he have a plain or otherwise unembellished smile? Possibly, but that is not congruent with the situation.
It sounds as if Gates were slightly embarrassed but not angry: I submit that a better choice [on the part of the author] would be wan or sheepish, or possibly faint. (I doubt Bill was grinning widely after two software problems, so a "faint smile" would make sense.)
I made the original comment because I expect people who write for a living (i.e. the author) to do a better job of communicating. No big deal. Cheers!
Gates, who was sitting next to O'Brien on a set staged to look like NBC's Late Night set, smiled dryly and continued with his discussion.
"Smiled dryly"?? I can see making a dry remark, but... Or is this meant to indicate that Mr. Gates was not drooling and/or foaming at the mouth? I'm not bashing Bill, btw - just assessing the article author's acumen. (Sorry to be a pain in the assonance.)
As an aside, when I read the headline I though Bill had done a faceplant on the stage or had been caught lip-synching or something. It turns out he was just a little embarrassed because his whizzy new products crashed twice in front of thousands of people.
I have to admit that I do this all the time, especially in airports-- and it is getting harder and harder to find places to recharge.
That's strange: the only place where I can consistently find a free* outlet is in the airport. I have on occasion carried a small outlet strip in my bag just in case all the outlets are taken, but this has not been an issue. (Someone using a laptop probably wouldn't mind unplugging for a few seconds while you plugged in the strip (so you could share the outlet), unless he was a complete turlingdrome.)
I also fly on newer Airbus aircraft whenever possible. The 300 series have DC power outlets in the armrests of all the seats (yes, even in coach/steerage). If I know I'm going to be on such a flight for an hour or more, I won't bother looking for an AC outlet in the terminal. I picked up one of these for use on the road. (The auto-DC-to-airline-DC adapter is the C-chaped item at the bottom of the picture.) Airline DC outlets are standardized (I forget the name of the connector) so any vendor's adapter should work.
* "free" as in "no people". In this context, I suppose "free as in beer" would also apply.
Fitness/jogging guru Jim Fixx dying of a heart attack while he was jogging: this is a pretty clear example of the opposite of what would commonly be expected under the circumstances. A similar [hypothetical] example would be Esther Williams (an expert swimmer) drowning in a bathtub.
Here's to hoping that in 2005 cell phone makers will go back to producing good cell phones, and not try to include a camera and an atari emulator on every model!
I travel quite a bit to customer sites, and many of them - particularly organizations with very valuable intellectual property (e.g. trade secrets) - explicitly prohibit cameras of any kind. It is my hope that the major mobile phone vendors recognize the need for nicely-featured phones without cameras for use by consultants and other people working in these facilities.
wasting one hour travelling to the air/spaceport, three [h]ours in check-in and security lanes, half an hour on the other end to get your luggage back, and yet one hour travelling off the port
The ground travel is an unavoidable item of overhead (unless you live at the [space,air]port). The security lines for international flights (including customs) are also unavoidable. Travel light and you won't have to worry about the baggage claim; check-in is usually faster when you are not checking luggage.
Anyway, I think you are missing the bigger picture: if I could fly from Europe to the US in twenty minutes - instead of 7+ hours - I would happily do so riding in the overhead bin. Drawbacks include getting delayed on the runway and the difficulty in receiving beverage service in the bin, but overall the time savings would be worthwhile. YMMV.
Slashdot Mirror
if I'm not mistaken, isnt CSC really DynCorp (the DOD Contractor)? Somewhat interesting to see them on the list with all the other companies.
CSC acquired DynCorp a couple years ago. They (CSC) do a lot of DoD work but are heavily involved in healthcare, too (among other things).
Amazingly enough, health care is probably 5-10 years behind in IT.
It's not amazing, really: healthcare as an industry is often both very very conservative and rather frugal. The combination results in an atmosphere of sticking with what works because a) well, it works and b) the new item(s) will cost money and might not work (see a)). It's actually not a bad viewpoint much of the time because it discourages upgrading for the sake of upgrading (i.e. with no clear and necessary benefit).
Microsoft, IBM, Intel, Oracle, Accenture, Cisco, Hewlett-Packard and Computer Sciences have formed the Interoperability Consortium
This part of the summary (lifted from the article, apparently) mentions "Computer Sciences"; the company is actually Computer Sciences Corporation.
As an aside, the printer-friendly (i.e. less cluttered) version of the CNet link is here.
Sure, you can put a password on changing those bootloader options, but just slap in a linux emergency boot CD, and suddenly you have root access to all files.
Certainly, unless the system is configured to boot only from the hard drive && the passwd option is enabled in the BIOS.
However - since we have established that physical access is involved - the interloper could probably use the oft-present jumper on the motherboard to clear the CMOS and get the system to boot from the CD. Of course at that point he could just take the hard drive with him, leaving a similar but bulk-degaussed replacement (to emulate a very very borked hard drive).
Anyway, I mention these points only to back your assertion that physical access can allow subversion and bypass of several commonly used security mechanisms.
The interviewee seemed to be doing his best to simplify the concepts involved, but it sounded as if he were focused on the problem of the initial authentication. For example, the User goes to a public place like a cafe that has a pay-as-you-go model, e.g. he pays a certain amount per minute; such places often require a credit card to initiate the session. (Some business centers in hotels work this way for Internet access.)
If the user sits down at WiFi-R-Us to check his mail, he will have to enter a credit card number. However, there might be a 'rogue' WAP in the area configured to look legitimate, e.g. Wi-Fi-Are-Us, complete with ripped HTML, etc. to make the authentication page look legitimate. (See 'Phishing 101'). The user then enters his information on what he thinks is the proper authentication server.
It's an interesting issue, and I was glad to see it getting some broad[er] exposure.
Excellent! I've been looking for a certain Bollywood movie. In it an East Indian guy saves a girl from a corrupt landholder and at the end they all dance. What was it called again?
Is that the one that had the conflict between the modern young people and the more traditional family elders? That was great.
Now we have phishkiddies
I prefer "Phish-sticks". No, wait...
I prefer to listen to Cheap Trick.
by Jhan (542783) Alter Relationship on Tuesday January 18, @02:30PM (#11398795)
I'm agreeableistic. Propositively disintegretitilyist.
JHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNN!!
Wikipedia is not "someone's opinion"; it is supposed to be neutral, and factual.
Yes, it is supposed to be neutral and factual, but the people doing the editing are not necessarily specialists; they don't even need to be particularly knowledgeable. "Anyone can edit", right? That's what it says here. Without a decent vetting process, it is a bunch of people contributing to articles regardless of their qualification to do so.
I'm not saying Wikipedia is a bad idea. It's an interesting collaborative exercise that results in an encyclopedia of dubious veracity; I do not find such an information source useful. YMMV.
I'm honestly curious: why would you link to wikipedia instead of to Intelsat itself?
This came up in a discussion last week: someone had linked to a wikipedia entry for Tripwire (the company) instead of linking to Tripwire.com. Wouldn't it make more sense to get information directly from the source (and form one's own opinion) instead of reading the material at Wikipedia (which is essentially someone else's opinion)?
Clicky
El Reg mentions the LA Times article as a "must-read feature".
The article wanders a bit: it starts by talking about the dramatic increase in particulate matter in the atmosphere, i.e. very small bits of carbon and ash given off as a result of combustion.
But then the article ends with this:
That means a temperature rise of 10 degrees Celsius by 2100 could be on the cards, giving the UK a climate like that of North Africa, and rendering many parts of the world uninhabitable.
That is unless we act urgently to curb our emissions of greenhouse gases.
That's a good point but it doesn't quite fit with the original premise.
I would also like to have seen a guesstimate of the percentage of particulati that came from volcanos and forest fires vice the hand of man, but I guess that would be a time-consuming and difficult process. (I imagine it would involve taking air samples from all over the world, and from various altitudes, and examining any solids to determine their origin.)
Easy, just have marketing gussy it up as a "feature", not a bug.
You get a gold star simply for using the phrase "gussy up" in a sentence.
PS Now you're on the trolley!
There are certainly hundreds of cases of prior art, and Tripwire is probably one of them. It computes and maintains a database of hashes for all the files on a file system to check for intrusions and corruption. The wiki entry says it first surfaced in 1992
This is [to me] the most irksome characteristic of wiki-people: even when there is an obviously better link , e.g. this page (which also provides the 1992 date), they insist on linking to a non-vetted, potentially spurious source like wikipedia.
There is also Tripwire.org for those people that get hives reading about commercial products.
Patents on ideas are wrong, whether in software or in business. You should patent some concrete machinery, not a way of doing things.
I'm not sure why we should listen to patent advice from someone who copied the name of a teen actress as a
When the idea of patents originally came about there really wasn't much else to patent [besides machinery and other tangible objects]. However, industry has moved on in recent years, and software has become more important. The EP has recognized this and wants to address the issue; revision won't do any good if everyone walks in with carved-in-stone preconceived notions, hence the from-scratch approach.
Acquire an LCD monitor that will accept a 75mm or 100mm wall adapter (like this).
Acquire 1" wide aluminum stock (available at Lowes or other DIY places).
Create brackets that look like a large, squared-off letter J: the horizontal piece is meant to be the width of your mid-tower case; the short vertical piece goes toward the back of the case; and the longer vertical piece goes toward the front:
|
|
|__| (The picture is backwards/inverted 'cause the ASCII art was easier that way. Use your imagination.)
Drill holes in the long vertical part of the brackets to match the holes on the back of the LCD monitor.
Use appropriately-sized machine screws to mount the monitor on the brackets.
Hang the LCD on the side of the mid-tower.
No "profit" - sorry.
Your success will depend in part on the weight of the LCD (so 20" might not work - 15" should be okay).
The other is actually at a state-owned rest stop on I-65, 20 or so miles north-west (as the crow flies) of Huntsville. It's at the welcome-center when crossing the Alabama/Tennessee border.
Because nothing says 'Deep South' like NASA technology...
:-)
For God's sake, please stop the business-speak!
But then how are we supposed to leverage our synergies going forward to create a win-win situation? You are generating negative ROI in this incumbent conversation, and have become a cromulent addition to the team. You will be capsized^W rightsized immediately.
I am quite familiar with Mr. Webster, thank you. Before you pat yourself on the back too much, you should know that the definitions you included are not really applicable to the situation in question:
12 a : not showing or communicating warmth, enthusiasm, or tender feeling : SEVERE b : WEARISOME, UNINTERESTING c : lacking embellishment : PLAIN
Warmth [and] tender feeling are rather out of place in this context, although Bill may have experienced somewhat diminished enthusiasm at that point. Wearisome and uninteresting essentially mean boring. Gates had a boring smile? Did he have a plain or otherwise unembellished smile? Possibly, but that is not congruent with the situation.
It sounds as if Gates were slightly embarrassed but not angry: I submit that a better choice [on the part of the author] would be wan or sheepish, or possibly faint. (I doubt Bill was grinning widely after two software problems, so a "faint smile" would make sense.)
I made the original comment because I expect people who write for a living (i.e. the author) to do a better job of communicating. No big deal. Cheers!
Gates, who was sitting next to O'Brien on a set staged to look like NBC's Late Night set, smiled dryly and continued with his discussion.
"Smiled dryly"?? I can see making a dry remark, but... Or is this meant to indicate that Mr. Gates was not drooling and/or foaming at the mouth? I'm not bashing Bill, btw - just assessing the article author's acumen. (Sorry to be a pain in the assonance.)
As an aside, when I read the headline I though Bill had done a faceplant on the stage or had been caught lip-synching or something. It turns out he was just a little embarrassed because his whizzy new products crashed twice in front of thousands of people.
I have to admit that I do this all the time, especially in airports-- and it is getting harder and harder to find places to recharge.
That's strange: the only place where I can consistently find a free* outlet is in the airport. I have on occasion carried a small outlet strip in my bag just in case all the outlets are taken, but this has not been an issue. (Someone using a laptop probably wouldn't mind unplugging for a few seconds while you plugged in the strip (so you could share the outlet), unless he was a complete turlingdrome.)
I also fly on newer Airbus aircraft whenever possible. The 300 series have DC power outlets in the armrests of all the seats (yes, even in coach/steerage). If I know I'm going to be on such a flight for an hour or more, I won't bother looking for an AC outlet in the terminal. I picked up one of these for use on the road. (The auto-DC-to-airline-DC adapter is the C-chaped item at the bottom of the picture.) Airline DC outlets are standardized (I forget the name of the connector) so any vendor's adapter should work.
* "free" as in "no people". In this context, I suppose "free as in beer" would also apply.
Fitness/jogging guru Jim Fixx dying of a heart attack while he was jogging: this is a pretty clear example of the opposite of what would commonly be expected under the circumstances. A similar [hypothetical] example would be Esther Williams (an expert swimmer) drowning in a bathtub.
Here's to hoping that in 2005 cell phone makers will go back to producing good cell phones, and not try to include a camera and an atari emulator on every model!
I travel quite a bit to customer sites, and many of them - particularly organizations with very valuable intellectual property (e.g. trade secrets) - explicitly prohibit cameras of any kind. It is my hope that the major mobile phone vendors recognize the need for nicely-featured phones without cameras for use by consultants and other people working in these facilities.
wasting one hour travelling to the air/spaceport, three [h]ours in check-in and security lanes, half an hour on the other end to get your luggage back, and yet one hour travelling off the port
The ground travel is an unavoidable item of overhead (unless you live at the [space,air]port). The security lines for international flights (including customs) are also unavoidable. Travel light and you won't have to worry about the baggage claim; check-in is usually faster when you are not checking luggage.
Anyway, I think you are missing the bigger picture: if I could fly from Europe to the US in twenty minutes - instead of 7+ hours - I would happily do so riding in the overhead bin. Drawbacks include getting delayed on the runway and the difficulty in receiving beverage service in the bin, but overall the time savings would be worthwhile. YMMV.
Let's not turn this into buoys vs. gulls.