One way might be to make your website randomly generate a "fake" keyboard layout and display it as an image. You then touch-type in your real password by looking at the randomly generated layout image it gave you. The server would remap your password entry based on the random keyboard layout it generated for that one login.
Thus a hardware logger would only log the remapped version of your password, which would be essentially random keys.
A software keylogger would have to record the login image from the website and manually remap the logged keys based on that image.
For extra credit you could make the key remapping image appear as a captcha to further frustrate automated techniques.
It might be more user friendly to generate the keyboard layout as an image that has buttons you can click on with the mouse, but that'd be more vulnerable to shoulder-surfing and mouse-click recording than the previous scheme.
how exactly should we do this, hmmm? get rid of all the nuclear weapons on earth, destroy all knowledge relating to the atom, and shoot all nuclear waste into space? Better extinguish the sun while we're at it, and ignore that goal of fusion power since it is "nuclear" fusion. Why not just pick a less ambiguous goal like "end uphappiness."
Actually this one seems pretty unambiguous to me. Prevent terrorists from detonating a nuclear bomb on a city. It's pretty clear what the criteria for passing this challenge is. How to do it? Now that's why it's a called a *challenge*....Is it an engineering challenge? Not clear. But c'mon, don't be dense.
This is pretty naive. The space program and the ICBM programs were so tightly intertwined that making it to the Moon was as much about national prestige as it was cover for developing ICBMs that could hit their targets (and demonstrating to the Russians that we could). Openly publishing the space shuttle secrets might not be quite as completely and utterly irresponsible as publishing nuclear weapon designs, but damn it, it be close. The potential military applications are enormous.
Furthermore, minimum wage, by setting the earning level for the very lowest earning class of people who actually work within the system, places a hard line that cannot be crossed with regard to what such a worker can obtain within the system. You can't get below it, because you can't be paid less.
Oh hell yeah you can be paid less. Zero is less than every positive number I can think of, what about you?
Your entire rant is completely bogus. You are comparing a completely arbitrary legislated _minimum_ wage that is not set by the market to prices that are set by the market. You gloss over several important factors such as the _quality_ of the goods and services in question and the _quality_ of the work in question. You don't control for important factors such exactly _what_ a particular job's wage in 1965 would relate to the _same_ job's wage now. That would require some pretty intense statistical analysis that would of course likely refute your arguments, or at the very least make it impossible for you to strain from them a simplistic rhetorical flourish such as "we're going backwards." You don't even compare here _average_ (or median) salaries against _average_ prices, but minimum salaries against average prices.
Of course you use anecdotal evidence to make your case. Why not use larger, more rigorous measures, like the consumer price index?
We could have a little war over our favorite goods, if you want. I'll pick DRAM and demonstrate the the poor can buy twice as many gigabytes of memory for an hour's work as they could last year.
What about the quality of goods? Cars are more fuel efficient now. And safer. More reliable. Better features. Gas costs more because it is more expensive to produce (and import). Emissions controls, safety controls, liability, and union constraints have all contributed to the increase in the cost of cars and fuel. There is also simply more demand for cars across the board because more people can afford them, and many people own two or three. Houses are larger now. Education is more expensive but, like all those other goods you mentioned, it is also attained by more people, which translates into higher demand.
In addition to being highly dubious, I find your multiple references to "class" and "levels" of people betray a particular mentality which has already made conclusions that there are classes of people and that people's identities and worth are determined by their class.
After all, those goods you mentioned are by and large produced by "middle class" (i.e. the "good class") people, translating to a very steady upward trend in middle class incomes and actually this mythical "middle class" is shrinking from the top as more and more people move up into the "upper class". But then again, those "middle class" people are employed by the evil "megakkkorporations", so maybe it isn't good....
Do you see how arbitrarily absurd we can make this discussion if you want?
Knock yourself out, but dammit, don't spend *my* tax dollars on horseshit like this.
IANAC--IAAA (I am an atheist), but somehow I understand when Christians get more than a little ticked off when the government spends *their* tax dollars on artists who produce works that they feel are insulting to their religion.
You produce your rubbish on your own dime and I'll produce mine on my dime. Capish?
You realize that these were exactly the arguments made in favor of the Jim Crow laws regarding voting in the south after the Civil War, right? The laws that were written to ensure "voter competance" but were really designed just to exclude a whole class (and at that time, race) of people?
Voter disenfranchisement mean anything to you?
This time around are you going to write some grandfather clause to make sure you don't have to take the test, too?
Actually if you bothered to follow the link, your very first statement is patently false. There are half a dozen (albeit typically small ones) that consume more energy per person than the US. Actually if you noticed, your very own numbers for the US fell between 2000 and 2003. In fact, the US is more energy efficient than Canada, according to your very own link!
The US consumes more than 15 times the energy per person consumed in India; and there is a huge scope for reduction.
Are you serious? Do you have any idea of the quality of life of someone who consumes energy on that scale in India? Are you suggested the US should live like that? I doubt you are suggesting that.
Perhaps you should compare to some wealthy European countries (e.g. France, Sweden, Denmark, Germany) whose energy consumption per capita is much smaller. But of course you'd have to control for the fact the US is more geographically spread out and economically stratified than such countries...Often the discriminating factor is urbanization and the availability of mass transit. If you were serious about the issue you'd be proposing mass transit systems in all the major cities in your next breath. Nope, your next breath is a swipe at the US government. Classic. What responsibility to municipal governments share? Hmm...ponder that...
Of course, while you ponder that, we'll control for such factors and find the real difference between the US and any "advanced" European country probably isn't more than 20%. And seeing as we are reducing our energy consumption per capita by becoming more efficient in how produce and procure all our goods (by any statistic you choose), and transport ourselves, we are on track to meet your favorite European target of energy consumption per capita in 10 to 20 years ANYWAY.
That'll be just in time for you to claim victory in saving us from ourselves.
It doesn't matter if Mr. Bush lives in a thatched shed and uses biogas to light up his dwelling. He is responsible for the energy consumption of the entire USA, not just his hut.
Wow, that's a whopper! I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a country where the president has the ultimate responsibility for my energy consumption because he (or she) will soon find the means to acquire the attendant power to tyrannize me over it.
That's funny, the DOE is reporting a decrease of 1.3% in the total US CO2 output in 2006, due mainly to industrial reduction. In fact, US industry produces less CO2 than it did in 1991, while total industrial input has risen steadily. Industry has become a whole lot more energy efficient than it was 20 years ago. This is mostly because energy consumption has become a primary cost factor in that sector. The sectors with the fastest growing CO2 output are Residential and Commercial, although the growth for 2006 in both of these categories was marginal. Both of these sectors have highly regulated energy prices in most states.
It seems like high energy prices are actually more effectual than Kyoto Protocols. Look how sharply they affected CO2 output in just one year. After all, are we going to be regulating residential consumption as tightly as Kyoto proposes to regulate industry? That's what the energy market is for, isn't it? To prompt a reduction in consumption in response to high prices?
Are you prepared for a government bureaucracy to instead try to limit how much CO2 you produce? Can you imagine what such powers a draconian state would require would require? I sure as hell don't want that.
Coal is becoming cleaner. Nuclear is coming back. Wind and Solar are DOA. Gasoline is on the way out.
We're gonna make it, just don't go all wobbly on us.
Well, when it comes to small footprint, it's hard to beat Virgil. A complete object-oriented and safe language that compiles down to machine code for microcontrollers with only a few bytes of RAM!
If you're going to be pedantic, do it right. "Anno Domini" can be translated varying ways. "Anno" is the dative case, which can several strange usages depending on the context in the sentence--just read Virgil to get a sense of just how versatile it could be. The common translation "In the year of our Lord" is hardly precise. Romans who would have used similar phrase (this exact phrase did not come into wide use until the ninth century) would not have understood it to mean the same as the prepositional phrase "in the year XXX"; after all, Latin does have the preposition "in" which means (unsurprisingly) "in", and if they meant "in the year XXX", they would say it. Given the wide leeway the dative case allows for, and the fact that after all, it is only two words, "relative to the year of (our) Lord" is just as good a translation as any, as the exact relationship would have been understood in context by native Latin speakers. With Latin's very different sentence structure and lack of punctuation, arguing about word order in Latin using modern English standards is buffoonery!
Has anyone thought of the obvious? Maybe it is because there are more and more students trying to enter engineering programs? And the rise in engineering salaries has to do with the economy's increasing demand for engineers? And the engineer faculty's salaries is also due to large demand for engineering PhDs?
So, maybe, just maybe the demand for engineering from industry is actually attracting more people to engineering? So maybe the market forces are at work!?
This article is an example of CCS: "Cute Chick Science". The article has about as much fluff as a popcorn kernel. I am not exactly sure to what they are referring here--FPGAs? There seem to be a number of statements that are overly categorical and seemingly not well informed such as "This middle layer would allow software to adapt to the hardware it's running on, something engineers have not been able to do in the past," and "to engineer software that can communicate between the two layers, [hardware and software]".
If there wasn't a pic of a cute professor involved, would anyone care?
Many companies use patents defensively (or counter offensively). The company will patent technology or process X, though they may decide that it is better done internally with process Y. Or they may simply make the strategic decision that the effort and resources expended in pursuing profit in the patent are better spent pursuing something else. Nevertheless, the patent still has value to them because it gives them more options.
1. It helps deter competitors from launching patent infringement lawsuits against them, because they have patents that can be used in a counter suit. 2. It prevents competitors from utilizing the technology that they developed. 3. It gives them business options that they would not otherwise have if they didn't have the rights to the patent.
I doubt that most patents that are classified as being "unused" or "sitting around" still aren't providing some kind of value to the company that pursued them in the first place. It tends to be the nature of business that companies will look for ways to leverage their assets maximally. Besides, if the patents were valuable, the company would already have pursued licensing the technology to another person/company who can develop it into something viable.
Your hatred is all out of proportion to reality. Can't you just leave her alone? For crying out loud, you'd think she peed in your cornflakes or socked you in the mouth....
"4) The perspex machine is super-Turing. I am continuing to develop it to give easier theoretical access to its super-Turing properties. Of course, a computer simulation of the perspex machine is Turing computable, but there are Turing computable subsets of all the properties (2). I know this, because I have demonstrated them in computer simulations."
He is claiming that the machine is more powerful than a Turing machine, yet admits it can be simulated on a Turing machine? Apparently he hasn't heard of the Church-Turing thesis.
And this gem:
"5) When I have made more progress with (4) I will be in a position to recommend that the perspex instruction is implemented in computer hardware. Initial calculations show that one silicon chip could have of the order of 10^9 perspex processors on it. I expect this theoretical work to take 1-2 years depending on how lucky I get and how much garbage administration I can avoid in that period."
10^9 perspex processors on a single chip? Considering that process technology is just now reaching a billion (American: 10^9) transistors on a chip, is he claiming that one can implement the perspex chip with a single transistor?
This is _beyond_ moronic.
If it's implemented in silicon, using transistors, it is *not* more powerful than a Turing machine. Even if it has *infinite* storage and *infinite* processing power, it is not more powerful than a Turing machine.
Perhaps you could ask the hundreds of millions of people caught behind the Iron Curtain. You know--Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Romania. You remember that, right? When the Soviets claimed all of Eastern Europe as their own, their empire, after WWII? When they installed puppet communist governments, nationalized everything, starved millions, tortured, killed, imprisoned, and disappeareed thousands? Is that why they built the Berlin wall? To keep all those filthy Westerners from flowing into the opulent east?
You just restated your assertion without any new supporting evidence. You have approximately zero chance of being killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq. Thus we should stop caring and do nothing about it. Uh?
Cheap, easy, neat solution. Perfect even. If this is how you wash your hands of all the nasty things that happen in life and box up all of your uncertainties into an acorn to be tossed aside lightly, along with the corpses of hundreds, if not thousands of people, be my guest.
Of course applying your logic uniformly would lead to very distorted world. After all, death by any kind of accident is statistically insignificant. Take mining for example. Only a few hundred people die in the US each year from mining accidents. Should we stop preventitive safety measures, or refrain from enacting any new ones, just because the number of deaths is "insignificant"--even if preventable?
This is how insane and stupid your logic is. Be thankful you live in such utter peace and tranquility that supports your delusions well enough that it will never matter in your life.
Statistically insignificant. Hmm. When 3,000 people dead on one day at the hands of just 19 people is statistically insignificant....then 2,800 dead over three years in a "war zone" is...what? A hellhole?
What level of mass death is statistically significant to merit a response?
100,000 dead in a nuclear attack? That's only 2.5 years of car accidents in the US.
Oh well, just another statistic, right?
This kind of morbid bean counting gets rewarded on slashdot? Come on!
The cheapest way to do this would probably be to embed a mesh into the sheet rock. The manufacturer of the sheet rock could do this in their factory; you'd just select the "faraday sheet rock" model when remodelling. No extra labor costs, which, after all, is the biggest part of construction.
Still probably going to be rather expensive, it being a whole "chicken and egg" type of situation.
It's probably cheaper on the whole to use good wireless security and regularly test for employees opening unsecured wireless networks using some workstations with wifi cards running shell scripts looking for unsecured networks....
Slashdot Mirror
One way might be to make your website randomly generate a "fake" keyboard layout and display it as an image. You then touch-type in your real password by looking at the randomly generated layout image it gave you. The server would remap your password entry based on the random keyboard layout it generated for that one login.
Thus a hardware logger would only log the remapped version of your password, which would be essentially random keys.
A software keylogger would have to record the login image from the website and manually remap the logged keys based on that image.
For extra credit you could make the key remapping image appear as a captcha to further frustrate automated techniques.
It might be more user friendly to generate the keyboard layout as an image that has buttons you can click on with the mouse, but that'd be more vulnerable to shoulder-surfing and mouse-click recording than the previous scheme.
The Black Box is a complete watercooled data center in a shipping container.
Actually, it would be the third coming. Haven't you ever read the book of Mormon? /sarc
Yeah the funniest part about that story was when those non-existent WMDs killed a whole bunch of non-existent people.
Armed only with reality, I have karma to burn.
Actually this one seems pretty unambiguous to me. Prevent terrorists from detonating a nuclear bomb on a city. It's pretty clear what the criteria for passing this challenge is. How to do it? Now that's why it's a called a *challenge*....Is it an engineering challenge? Not clear. But c'mon, don't be dense.
This is pretty naive. The space program and the ICBM programs were so tightly intertwined that making it to the Moon was as much about national prestige as it was cover for developing ICBMs that could hit their targets (and demonstrating to the Russians that we could). Openly publishing the space shuttle secrets might not be quite as completely and utterly irresponsible as publishing nuclear weapon designs, but damn it, it be close. The potential military applications are enormous.
Oh hell yeah you can be paid less. Zero is less than every positive number I can think of, what about you?
Your entire rant is completely bogus. You are comparing a completely arbitrary legislated _minimum_ wage that is not set by the market to prices that are set by the market. You gloss over several important factors such as the _quality_ of the goods and services in question and the _quality_ of the work in question. You don't control for important factors such exactly _what_ a particular job's wage in 1965 would relate to the _same_ job's wage now. That would require some pretty intense statistical analysis that would of course likely refute your arguments, or at the very least make it impossible for you to strain from them a simplistic rhetorical flourish such as "we're going backwards." You don't even compare here _average_ (or median) salaries against _average_ prices, but minimum salaries against average prices.
Of course you use anecdotal evidence to make your case. Why not use larger, more rigorous measures, like the consumer price index?
We could have a little war over our favorite goods, if you want. I'll pick DRAM and demonstrate the the poor can buy twice as many gigabytes of memory for an hour's work as they could last year.
What about the quality of goods? Cars are more fuel efficient now. And safer. More reliable. Better features. Gas costs more because it is more expensive to produce (and import). Emissions controls, safety controls, liability, and union constraints have all contributed to the increase in the cost of cars and fuel. There is also simply more demand for cars across the board because more people can afford them, and many people own two or three. Houses are larger now. Education is more expensive but, like all those other goods you mentioned, it is also attained by more people, which translates into higher demand.
In addition to being highly dubious, I find your multiple references to "class" and "levels" of people betray a particular mentality which has already made conclusions that there are classes of people and that people's identities and worth are determined by their class.
After all, those goods you mentioned are by and large produced by "middle class" (i.e. the "good class") people, translating to a very steady upward trend in middle class incomes and actually this mythical "middle class" is shrinking from the top as more and more people move up into the "upper class". But then again, those "middle class" people are employed by the evil "megakkkorporations", so maybe it isn't good....
Do you see how arbitrarily absurd we can make this discussion if you want?
Knock yourself out, but dammit, don't spend *my* tax dollars on horseshit like this.
IANAC--IAAA (I am an atheist), but somehow I understand when Christians get more than a little ticked off when the government spends *their* tax dollars on artists who produce works that they feel are insulting to their religion.
You produce your rubbish on your own dime and I'll produce mine on my dime. Capish?
Let me guess, Ron Paul is the Only Man Who Can Save America.
Happy New Year 2002!
You realize that these were exactly the arguments made in favor of the Jim Crow laws regarding voting in the south after the Civil War, right? The laws that were written to ensure "voter competance" but were really designed just to exclude a whole class (and at that time, race) of people?
Voter disenfranchisement mean anything to you?
This time around are you going to write some grandfather clause to make sure you don't have to take the test, too?
Are you serious? Do you have any idea of the quality of life of someone who consumes energy on that scale in India? Are you suggested the US should live like that? I doubt you are suggesting that.
Perhaps you should compare to some wealthy European countries (e.g. France, Sweden, Denmark, Germany) whose energy consumption per capita is much smaller. But of course you'd have to control for the fact the US is more geographically spread out and economically stratified than such countries...Often the discriminating factor is urbanization and the availability of mass transit. If you were serious about the issue you'd be proposing mass transit systems in all the major cities in your next breath. Nope, your next breath is a swipe at the US government. Classic. What responsibility to municipal governments share? Hmm...ponder that...
Of course, while you ponder that, we'll control for such factors and find the real difference between the US and any "advanced" European country probably isn't more than 20%. And seeing as we are reducing our energy consumption per capita by becoming more efficient in how produce and procure all our goods (by any statistic you choose), and transport ourselves, we are on track to meet your favorite European target of energy consumption per capita in 10 to 20 years ANYWAY.
That'll be just in time for you to claim victory in saving us from ourselves.
Wow, that's a whopper! I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a country where the president has the ultimate responsibility for my energy consumption because he (or she) will soon find the means to acquire the attendant power to tyrannize me over it.
That's funny, the DOE is reporting a decrease of 1.3% in the total US CO2 output in 2006, due mainly to industrial reduction. In fact, US industry produces less CO2 than it did in 1991, while total industrial input has risen steadily. Industry has become a whole lot more energy efficient than it was 20 years ago. This is mostly because energy consumption has become a primary cost factor in that sector. The sectors with the fastest growing CO2 output are Residential and Commercial, although the growth for 2006 in both of these categories was marginal. Both of these sectors have highly regulated energy prices in most states.
It seems like high energy prices are actually more effectual than Kyoto Protocols. Look how sharply they affected CO2 output in just one year. After all, are we going to be regulating residential consumption as tightly as Kyoto proposes to regulate industry? That's what the energy market is for, isn't it? To prompt a reduction in consumption in response to high prices?
Are you prepared for a government bureaucracy to instead try to limit how much CO2 you produce? Can you imagine what such powers a draconian state would require would require? I sure as hell don't want that.
Coal is becoming cleaner. Nuclear is coming back. Wind and Solar are DOA. Gasoline is on the way out.
We're gonna make it, just don't go all wobbly on us.
Well, when it comes to small footprint, it's hard to beat Virgil. A complete object-oriented and safe language that compiles down to machine code for microcontrollers with only a few bytes of RAM!
Wow, perhaps they should be selling Java as a safe, all-digital male enhancement pill....
If you're going to be pedantic, do it right. "Anno Domini" can be translated varying ways. "Anno" is the dative case, which can several strange usages depending on the context in the sentence--just read Virgil to get a sense of just how versatile it could be. The common translation "In the year of our Lord" is hardly precise. Romans who would have used similar phrase (this exact phrase did not come into wide use until the ninth century) would not have understood it to mean the same as the prepositional phrase "in the year XXX"; after all, Latin does have the preposition "in" which means (unsurprisingly) "in", and if they meant "in the year XXX", they would say it. Given the wide leeway the dative case allows for, and the fact that after all, it is only two words, "relative to the year of (our) Lord" is just as good a translation as any, as the exact relationship would have been understood in context by native Latin speakers. With Latin's very different sentence structure and lack of punctuation, arguing about word order in Latin using modern English standards is buffoonery!
Has anyone thought of the obvious? Maybe it is because there are more and more students trying to enter engineering programs? And the rise in engineering salaries has to do with the economy's increasing demand for engineers? And the engineer faculty's salaries is also due to large demand for engineering PhDs?
So, maybe, just maybe the demand for engineering from industry is actually attracting more people to engineering? So maybe the market forces are at work!?
Naw, couldn't be!
This article is an example of CCS: "Cute Chick Science". The article has about as much fluff as a popcorn kernel. I am not exactly sure to what they are referring here--FPGAs? There seem to be a number of statements that are overly categorical and seemingly not well informed such as "This middle layer would allow software to adapt to the hardware it's running on, something engineers have not been able to do in the past," and "to engineer software that can communicate between the two layers, [hardware and software]".
If there wasn't a pic of a cute professor involved, would anyone care?
Many companies use patents defensively (or counter offensively). The company will patent technology or process X, though they may decide that it is better done internally with process Y. Or they may simply make the strategic decision that the effort and resources expended in pursuing profit in the patent are better spent pursuing something else. Nevertheless, the patent still has value to them because it gives them more options.
1. It helps deter competitors from launching patent infringement lawsuits against them, because they have patents that can be used in a counter suit.
2. It prevents competitors from utilizing the technology that they developed.
3. It gives them business options that they would not otherwise have if they didn't have the rights to the patent.
I doubt that most patents that are classified as being "unused" or "sitting around" still aren't providing some kind of value to the company that pursued them in the first place. It tends to be the nature of business that companies will look for ways to leverage their assets maximally. Besides, if the patents were valuable, the company would already have pursued licensing the technology to another person/company who can develop it into something viable.
Your hatred is all out of proportion to reality. Can't you just leave her alone? For crying out loud, you'd think she peed in your cornflakes or socked you in the mouth....
This guy is a crock:
"4) The perspex machine is super-Turing. I am continuing to develop it to
give easier theoretical access to its super-Turing properties. Of course, a
computer simulation of the perspex machine is Turing computable, but there
are Turing computable subsets of all the properties (2). I know this,
because I have demonstrated them in computer simulations."
He is claiming that the machine is more powerful than a Turing machine, yet admits it can be simulated on a Turing machine?
Apparently he hasn't heard of the Church-Turing thesis.
And this gem:
"5) When I have made more progress with (4) I will be in a position to
recommend that the perspex instruction is implemented in computer hardware.
Initial calculations show that one silicon chip could have of the order of
10^9 perspex processors on it. I expect this theoretical work to take 1-2
years depending on how lucky I get and how much garbage administration I can
avoid in that period."
10^9 perspex processors on a single chip? Considering that process technology is just now reaching a billion (American: 10^9) transistors on a chip, is he claiming that one can implement the perspex chip with a single transistor?
This is _beyond_ moronic.
If it's implemented in silicon, using transistors, it is *not* more powerful than a Turing machine. Even if it has *infinite* storage and *infinite* processing power, it is not more powerful than a Turing machine.
This is a hoax.
Perhaps you could ask the hundreds of millions of people caught behind the Iron Curtain. You know--Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Romania. You remember that, right? When the Soviets claimed all of Eastern Europe as their own, their empire, after WWII? When they installed puppet communist governments, nationalized everything, starved millions, tortured, killed, imprisoned, and disappeareed thousands? Is that why they built the Berlin wall? To keep all those filthy Westerners from flowing into the opulent east?
You just restated your assertion without any new supporting evidence. You have approximately zero chance of being killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq. Thus we should stop caring and do nothing about it. Uh?
Cheap, easy, neat solution. Perfect even. If this is how you wash your hands of all the nasty things that happen in life and box up all of your uncertainties into an acorn to be tossed aside lightly, along with the corpses of hundreds, if not thousands of people, be my guest.
Of course applying your logic uniformly would lead to very distorted world. After all, death by any kind of accident is statistically insignificant. Take mining for example. Only a few hundred people die in the US each year from mining accidents. Should we stop preventitive safety measures, or refrain from enacting any new ones, just because the number of deaths is "insignificant"--even if preventable?
This is how insane and stupid your logic is. Be thankful you live in such utter peace and tranquility that supports your delusions well enough that it will never matter in your life.
Not everyone has that luxury.
Statistically insignificant. Hmm. When 3,000 people dead on one day at the hands of just 19 people is statistically insignificant....then 2,800 dead over three years in a "war zone" is...what? A hellhole?
What level of mass death is statistically significant to merit a response?
100,000 dead in a nuclear attack? That's only 2.5 years of car accidents in the US.
Oh well, just another statistic, right?
This kind of morbid bean counting gets rewarded on slashdot? Come on!
The cheapest way to do this would probably be to embed a mesh into the sheet rock. The manufacturer of the sheet rock could do this in their factory; you'd just select the "faraday sheet rock" model when remodelling. No extra labor costs, which, after all, is the biggest part of construction.
Still probably going to be rather expensive, it being a whole "chicken and egg" type of situation.
It's probably cheaper on the whole to use good wireless security and regularly test for employees opening unsecured wireless networks using some workstations with wifi cards running shell scripts looking for unsecured networks....