Had they cited a reputable scientific journal that referenced the DSM-IV, there would have been less chance of the reference being disregarded. The use of Wikipedia as an intermediate source, rather than citing the DSM-IV directly, is akin to bringing an untrustworthy witness to the witness stand--nothing said is likely to be believed, even if true. The Wikipedia reference could have been accurate, but it would have been the same as if the prosecutor quoted one of my kids, if that child were able to define the term and cite the DSM-IV.
Even if they found the information they wanted via Wikipedia, they should have gone back and verified it in the original source, and then cited the source. Prosecutorial laziness is the real reason why the citation was not acceptable.
Replace the current receiver components with a WiFi antenna. Then, point it at neighboring farms/homes and hope to find an unencrypted WiFi connection.
I hope they have a record your own warning sound option. Then, I can't wait to hear a mashup of the various sounds and saying people configure for their cars. Some I'd expect to hear:
Exactly. Think about the art on the sides of the big arcade consoles. Few (if any) of them used only game graphics. The graphics sold the experience. The games stood on their own. I, for one, loved many of them, including Atari's "Dungeon" (was that the name) wherein the dragons looked like wierd ducks. The Raiders of the Lost Ark game was great, too, even if the graphics were blocky. Prior to that, there was Pong, and prior to that we had some (imo) lame hand-held football games. Heck, Activision's Pitfall was wonderful. I'd play that today in all its pixelated glory if given the chance.
It wouldn't fly. I've read that he had his in-game accounts cancelled in 2009 for ToS violations (i.e., real-world money transactions for in-game artifacts). Sounds like a gold farmer who got pissed that the company cut him off.
I agree--it seems aimed at theft and recovery, but don't know how it would be patentable, since it is basically what Lo-Jack does, as well as exisiting technologies for bricking BlackBerry devices.
Hmmm...if that's a legitimate reason not to be charged with a crim (i.e., that the one who violated the law did not have criminal intent), then a lot of people have a novel way to challenge their speeding tickets: "I didn't realize I was going faster than the speed limit--I didn't have any criminal intent"!
I could market Security Slugs. You buy one and then let it crawl across your screen after it is locked, thereby messing up the smudge-crackers' attempts at determining the unlock code.
Of course, there are some pre-release obstacles to overcome. In initial tests, people really were creeped out by trying to talk on their phones after the slugs left their slime trails. Perhaps I need to send this one back to R&D...
The children who watched the Popeye cartoons also started smoking pipes and settling disagreements with fistfights. The body image of underweight girls also improved, and they found themselves the preferred objects of affection at Valentine's Day observances and during class parties.
Precisely. At the scale suggested, it will only be suitable for straight stretches. There will be no cornering. You'll basically have these giant busses going back and forth on straight routes, perhaps requiring more lines (on more streets) and more transfers.
Also, the road surface is depicted as flat. Would it even be possible with grade variations along the straightaway? How much rise or fall would be necessary to get the thing to lose too much contact with the street, or to hang and catch going over rises?
But painting my car pink won't get me a discount on my auto insurance. Having a security device will. I'd never pay to add one to a car, but since I only buy used cars, I just hold out for one with a security system.
There are many significant differences between classroom and online learning environments--too many to detail here. And, as has been noted, there are some unsavory institutions out there that are simply milking the online learning cow, without regard for their students (or, in the long term, their own reputations). I taught adult learners in a college environment for five years ('04-'09), mostly in classrooms, but with some online components. Also, I recently completed my own graduate degree in a program that was supposed to have an online option, but I ended up being forced into nothing but online classes for about the final 40% of all my coursework. Thus, I've experienced both traditional and online learning venues, and from both sides of the instructor's desk.
One of the primary things to realize about most online learning methods is that they tend to be based on androgogical methods (the teaching of adults) versus pedagogical methods (the teaching of children). Most of us are familiar with pedagogical methods--lectures and lots of note-taking, tests, etc. You see, the methods are not entirely invalid in adult learning environments, but it is just that the burden of learning changes. Most associate and baccalaureate programs still include many classes that are aimed at the traditional college student (e.g., 18-22 years of age), and often rely on those methods that were still common in high school, though the amount of work (and expected quality of outputs) should increase. When dealing with adult students, a greater emphasis is placed on leveraging the students' own life experiences, and pulling in real-world examples and experiences to help connect the students with the learning topics. Often, much more reading is required, but there likely are fewer tests, with a greater emphasis on the completion of written papers or other projects that allow the student to demonstrate mastery of a concept. To my knowledge, since most online instruction rose out of adult-education environments, and has since been adopted by schools targeting traditional students, it explains one significant difference. Don't expect online courses to be just like another classroom experience with long lectures, note-taking, and tests.
Then, another significant difference is the absence of the classroom environment. Even I, who spends much time in the virtual world each week, and has been online since 1992, found that I despised the online learning environment. The reason? No verbal banter--no back and forth. Yes, online classes have attempted to emulate class discussions through the use of threaded discussions and other messaging forums, but, in my opinion, they are a pale shadow of the original. In my own experience, the content of student postings was often defined in the syllabus or weekly assignment, severely limiting the exchange of ideas. Yes, everyone had to put together a coherent post about the topic (and the posts took the place of quizzes or tests), but the interactions were stale and often simply in line with what was expected. Only rarely did anyone (usually me) raise a contrary view. After the initial post(s) for the week, the rest of our participation was similarly prescribed. We had to make x initial posts by one day of the week, and y replies by the end of the week. Some classes (not all) required that you reply to each reply you received. If you were one who tended to post toward the end of each window, that typically meant you'd get little or no feedback.
That's entirely different from a classroom setting, where an instructor might pose a question and seek responses. Rarely would all students be expected to answer, and the most valuable (in my opinion both as an instructor and as a student) interactions were often when one student would chime in, "I don't buy that at all...", prompting often heated debates. Classroom instructors have long known they must seek to consider different learning styles when presenting materials--lecture and discussion for auditory learners, g
One problem I see is that requirements may not be the same from state to state (in the US), and there are few formal resources available for IT professionals to know exactly what requirements apply. This is especially true for IT pros in smaller, or privately held firms that don't fall under the authority of some of the big bills that have been enacted. None of the college programs in my area even has a course addressing these issues, except for specific courses dealing with things like HIPPA. This seems to be a big gap, and I know I'd love to find a course (or even a website) that deals with specific requirements both at the State and Federal levels.
They obviously are making enough money to afford the registration fees. I wonder if there would be a way to greylist/blacklist new domains, though that simply might mean that spammers would sit on the domain for a period of weeks or months before using them. Still, would there be a way to flag young domains so that they end up with higher scores in various spam filters?
It's like an elaborately decorated theater mask, used to convey emotions to people in the nosebleed seats at ancient ampatheaters. In this case, the decoration is meant to convey "we know a lot about cyber-security" to the American people, who have even a harder time knowing what's real versus what's security theater than did ancient observers listening to a line like "Et, tu, Brute?"
I have an eeePC, and because of the screen-rotation feature, found it an ideal little book reader. It is lighter than many books of the same size, it can be cradled comfortably in my off-hand (left, in my case), and the arrow keys end up in about the location where I'd naturally reach to turn a page. Beyond casual reading on a beach, that little laptop is great for caching offline web pages for bird and plant identification, and for a variety of other field references. Its only weakness is viewing the display in sunlight, so I, for one, welcome this innovation.
I'm a big fan of MBAM, but I've encountered more and more nasties lately that kill MBAM, even if the executable is renamed and the program is installed in an alternate location. The bad guys know it has been an effective tool, so they are working extra hard to beat it.
But by posting here, the author garners reviews and opinions from other users, and that information takes a lot more time to track down than simply pages noting that a specific tool can be run from a bootable device.
Besides, he also provides an opportunity for the rest of us to be entertained by folks like you, and the people like me who will take the bait.
I appreciate your comments, and I like your approach. I'm not able to pull everyone aside into meetings, but I try to preach the same gospel in my everyday interactions with people. Most users have been very responsive, and only a few are real problem causers.
I just got back from my meeting with the president. Thankfully, it went well. He's enough concerned about network slowdowns to have accepted the information well (in fact, he guessed the identity of the user, since he often receives the junk that he, too, forwards on). Oh, well. It's a minor victory for today. I let the president know that each hour I'm dealing with choked connections and junk in the mail queue is an hour I'm not able to add value to the company's ERP system (or other ongoing projects).
I can see this one from both sides. On the one hand, I work for a privately-owned mid-sized manufacturing firm that wants to retain its familial feel and allows for limited, periodic personal use of network resources. Some members of management here want me to install web monitoring software to keep tabs on their direct reports' usage habits, but I've resisted because there's no one here to take on the monitoring.
At the same time, I lose many hours each week troubleshooting issues caused by users who misuse their network access, whether intentionally or through ignorance. I have one user who regularly chokes our Internet connection (an aDSL connection) because he floods our mail server with forwarded crap, often sending multiple messages that are each 5Mb or larger to dozens of recipients. He reports directly to the president, who is a primary source of many of his forwarded messages. Even though one of the president's biggest pet peeves is when our Internet connection is slow, his own actions contribute to the problem.
Then there are the Facebook-aholics, who bring in more than their share of malware. I've had to clean the head of HR's PC from the Zwinky Toolbar, Smilely Central, and countless other trojans over the past few months. Infections returned mere days after deploying a new machine, demonstrating that the user was not abiding by our computer use and network security policies, and was ignoring all of the training I provided regarding the sourse of such infections.
Returning to the other side, being the only one here in the IT function means that everone knows who is doing the monitoring and reporting things to management. When you're trying to build a relationship with your customers (in this case, other staff) based on trust, it's much harder to do when employees view you as a snitch who they perceive to be out to get them in trouble. It's also ulcer-inducing stuff. I need to walk into the president's office in a few minutes and talk to him about his direct report, the one who keeps forwarding junk through our servers. Of course, in doing so, I'll also be (directly or indirectly) pointing the finger at the president, who is smart enough to realize his part in this (that he's the source of many of the messages) and that if I've seen one user's misuse, I've likely seen his as well.
I'm looking forward to the day when we can deploy Windows 7 here, so we can move away from the user-as-Admin model, but many of our core line-of-business application vendors don't yet support Windows 7, so I'll just keep on keeping on.
It's hard to teach fire prevention when you spend most of your time fighting fires. Something needs to give.
Slashdot Mirror
That's exactly what my first thoughts were. What safeguards will they have in place to prevent the illegitimate from ousting the legitimate?
Had they cited a reputable scientific journal that referenced the DSM-IV, there would have been less chance of the reference being disregarded. The use of Wikipedia as an intermediate source, rather than citing the DSM-IV directly, is akin to bringing an untrustworthy witness to the witness stand--nothing said is likely to be believed, even if true. The Wikipedia reference could have been accurate, but it would have been the same as if the prosecutor quoted one of my kids, if that child were able to define the term and cite the DSM-IV.
Even if they found the information they wanted via Wikipedia, they should have gone back and verified it in the original source, and then cited the source. Prosecutorial laziness is the real reason why the citation was not acceptable.
Replace the current receiver components with a WiFi antenna. Then, point it at neighboring farms/homes and hope to find an unencrypted WiFi connection.
Exactly. Think about the art on the sides of the big arcade consoles. Few (if any) of them used only game graphics. The graphics sold the experience. The games stood on their own. I, for one, loved many of them, including Atari's "Dungeon" (was that the name) wherein the dragons looked like wierd ducks. The Raiders of the Lost Ark game was great, too, even if the graphics were blocky. Prior to that, there was Pong, and prior to that we had some (imo) lame hand-held football games. Heck, Activision's Pitfall was wonderful. I'd play that today in all its pixelated glory if given the chance.
Reads more like a theft deterrent than copy protection.
It wouldn't fly. I've read that he had his in-game accounts cancelled in 2009 for ToS violations (i.e., real-world money transactions for in-game artifacts). Sounds like a gold farmer who got pissed that the company cut him off.
I agree--it seems aimed at theft and recovery, but don't know how it would be patentable, since it is basically what Lo-Jack does, as well as exisiting technologies for bricking BlackBerry devices.
Hmmm...if that's a legitimate reason not to be charged with a crim (i.e., that the one who violated the law did not have criminal intent), then a lot of people have a novel way to challenge their speeding tickets: "I didn't realize I was going faster than the speed limit--I didn't have any criminal intent"!
I could market Security Slugs. You buy one and then let it crawl across your screen after it is locked, thereby messing up the smudge-crackers' attempts at determining the unlock code.
Of course, there are some pre-release obstacles to overcome. In initial tests, people really were creeped out by trying to talk on their phones after the slugs left their slime trails. Perhaps I need to send this one back to R&D...
The children who watched the Popeye cartoons also started smoking pipes and settling disagreements with fistfights. The body image of underweight girls also improved, and they found themselves the preferred objects of affection at Valentine's Day observances and during class parties.
Precisely. At the scale suggested, it will only be suitable for straight stretches. There will be no cornering. You'll basically have these giant busses going back and forth on straight routes, perhaps requiring more lines (on more streets) and more transfers.
Also, the road surface is depicted as flat. Would it even be possible with grade variations along the straightaway? How much rise or fall would be necessary to get the thing to lose too much contact with the street, or to hang and catch going over rises?
But painting my car pink won't get me a discount on my auto insurance. Having a security device will. I'd never pay to add one to a car, but since I only buy used cars, I just hold out for one with a security system.
There are many significant differences between classroom and online learning environments--too many to detail here. And, as has been noted, there are some unsavory institutions out there that are simply milking the online learning cow, without regard for their students (or, in the long term, their own reputations). I taught adult learners in a college environment for five years ('04-'09), mostly in classrooms, but with some online components. Also, I recently completed my own graduate degree in a program that was supposed to have an online option, but I ended up being forced into nothing but online classes for about the final 40% of all my coursework. Thus, I've experienced both traditional and online learning venues, and from both sides of the instructor's desk.
One of the primary things to realize about most online learning methods is that they tend to be based on androgogical methods (the teaching of adults) versus pedagogical methods (the teaching of children). Most of us are familiar with pedagogical methods--lectures and lots of note-taking, tests, etc. You see, the methods are not entirely invalid in adult learning environments, but it is just that the burden of learning changes. Most associate and baccalaureate programs still include many classes that are aimed at the traditional college student (e.g., 18-22 years of age), and often rely on those methods that were still common in high school, though the amount of work (and expected quality of outputs) should increase. When dealing with adult students, a greater emphasis is placed on leveraging the students' own life experiences, and pulling in real-world examples and experiences to help connect the students with the learning topics. Often, much more reading is required, but there likely are fewer tests, with a greater emphasis on the completion of written papers or other projects that allow the student to demonstrate mastery of a concept. To my knowledge, since most online instruction rose out of adult-education environments, and has since been adopted by schools targeting traditional students, it explains one significant difference. Don't expect online courses to be just like another classroom experience with long lectures, note-taking, and tests.
Then, another significant difference is the absence of the classroom environment. Even I, who spends much time in the virtual world each week, and has been online since 1992, found that I despised the online learning environment. The reason? No verbal banter--no back and forth. Yes, online classes have attempted to emulate class discussions through the use of threaded discussions and other messaging forums, but, in my opinion, they are a pale shadow of the original. In my own experience, the content of student postings was often defined in the syllabus or weekly assignment, severely limiting the exchange of ideas. Yes, everyone had to put together a coherent post about the topic (and the posts took the place of quizzes or tests), but the interactions were stale and often simply in line with what was expected. Only rarely did anyone (usually me) raise a contrary view. After the initial post(s) for the week, the rest of our participation was similarly prescribed. We had to make x initial posts by one day of the week, and y replies by the end of the week. Some classes (not all) required that you reply to each reply you received. If you were one who tended to post toward the end of each window, that typically meant you'd get little or no feedback.
That's entirely different from a classroom setting, where an instructor might pose a question and seek responses. Rarely would all students be expected to answer, and the most valuable (in my opinion both as an instructor and as a student) interactions were often when one student would chime in, "I don't buy that at all...", prompting often heated debates. Classroom instructors have long known they must seek to consider different learning styles when presenting materials--lecture and discussion for auditory learners, g
Now Sea to Summit needs to change their corporate slogan to "iF*cked".
One problem I see is that requirements may not be the same from state to state (in the US), and there are few formal resources available for IT professionals to know exactly what requirements apply. This is especially true for IT pros in smaller, or privately held firms that don't fall under the authority of some of the big bills that have been enacted. None of the college programs in my area even has a course addressing these issues, except for specific courses dealing with things like HIPPA. This seems to be a big gap, and I know I'd love to find a course (or even a website) that deals with specific requirements both at the State and Federal levels.
They obviously are making enough money to afford the registration fees. I wonder if there would be a way to greylist/blacklist new domains, though that simply might mean that spammers would sit on the domain for a period of weeks or months before using them. Still, would there be a way to flag young domains so that they end up with higher scores in various spam filters?
It's like an elaborately decorated theater mask, used to convey emotions to people in the nosebleed seats at ancient ampatheaters. In this case, the decoration is meant to convey "we know a lot about cyber-security" to the American people, who have even a harder time knowing what's real versus what's security theater than did ancient observers listening to a line like "Et, tu, Brute?"
Like relaxing on a beach while reading a book?
I have an eeePC, and because of the screen-rotation feature, found it an ideal little book reader. It is lighter than many books of the same size, it can be cradled comfortably in my off-hand (left, in my case), and the arrow keys end up in about the location where I'd naturally reach to turn a page. Beyond casual reading on a beach, that little laptop is great for caching offline web pages for bird and plant identification, and for a variety of other field references. Its only weakness is viewing the display in sunlight, so I, for one, welcome this innovation.
I'm a big fan of MBAM, but I've encountered more and more nasties lately that kill MBAM, even if the executable is renamed and the program is installed in an alternate location. The bad guys know it has been an effective tool, so they are working extra hard to beat it.
But by posting here, the author garners reviews and opinions from other users, and that information takes a lot more time to track down than simply pages noting that a specific tool can be run from a bootable device.
Besides, he also provides an opportunity for the rest of us to be entertained by folks like you, and the people like me who will take the bait.
I appreciate your comments, and I like your approach. I'm not able to pull everyone aside into meetings, but I try to preach the same gospel in my everyday interactions with people. Most users have been very responsive, and only a few are real problem causers.
I just got back from my meeting with the president. Thankfully, it went well. He's enough concerned about network slowdowns to have accepted the information well (in fact, he guessed the identity of the user, since he often receives the junk that he, too, forwards on). Oh, well. It's a minor victory for today. I let the president know that each hour I'm dealing with choked connections and junk in the mail queue is an hour I'm not able to add value to the company's ERP system (or other ongoing projects).
I can see this one from both sides. On the one hand, I work for a privately-owned mid-sized manufacturing firm that wants to retain its familial feel and allows for limited, periodic personal use of network resources. Some members of management here want me to install web monitoring software to keep tabs on their direct reports' usage habits, but I've resisted because there's no one here to take on the monitoring.
At the same time, I lose many hours each week troubleshooting issues caused by users who misuse their network access, whether intentionally or through ignorance. I have one user who regularly chokes our Internet connection (an aDSL connection) because he floods our mail server with forwarded crap, often sending multiple messages that are each 5Mb or larger to dozens of recipients. He reports directly to the president, who is a primary source of many of his forwarded messages. Even though one of the president's biggest pet peeves is when our Internet connection is slow, his own actions contribute to the problem.
Then there are the Facebook-aholics, who bring in more than their share of malware. I've had to clean the head of HR's PC from the Zwinky Toolbar, Smilely Central, and countless other trojans over the past few months. Infections returned mere days after deploying a new machine, demonstrating that the user was not abiding by our computer use and network security policies, and was ignoring all of the training I provided regarding the sourse of such infections.
Returning to the other side, being the only one here in the IT function means that everone knows who is doing the monitoring and reporting things to management. When you're trying to build a relationship with your customers (in this case, other staff) based on trust, it's much harder to do when employees view you as a snitch who they perceive to be out to get them in trouble. It's also ulcer-inducing stuff. I need to walk into the president's office in a few minutes and talk to him about his direct report, the one who keeps forwarding junk through our servers. Of course, in doing so, I'll also be (directly or indirectly) pointing the finger at the president, who is smart enough to realize his part in this (that he's the source of many of the messages) and that if I've seen one user's misuse, I've likely seen his as well.
I'm looking forward to the day when we can deploy Windows 7 here, so we can move away from the user-as-Admin model, but many of our core line-of-business application vendors don't yet support Windows 7, so I'll just keep on keeping on.
It's hard to teach fire prevention when you spend most of your time fighting fires. Something needs to give.
And now, we can add $10m more for the costs associated with a long, protracted trial, and all the associated appeals.
It's not really a new vulnerability--it's been around for almost a decade.