To say the business cards are "old school" - or whatever is sort of naive. Okay - so what's the alternative? None that I know of. Granted, people don't keep "Rolodexes" anymore (those are too old-school). Considering they use PIMs, Outlook, iPhones, whatever - they key is integrating the two.
What would seem to make a hell of a lot of sense to me, would be if there was some sort of a standard for putting those 2D barcodes on the back of a business card, so people could quickly load them into their phone or PC via camera scanner software.
Yea, maybe then business cards could be obsolete I guess, in that someone could flash their card, and one could just scan it with their phone. (As opposed to physically needing to give someone a card).
It is a well established fact that SMS is the most expensive method of communication in the world, byte-for-byte. Sorry, No, not just the world - the universe. (Satellite and space-bound stuff is cheaper than SMS!)
So I don't see how anyone using this with any regularity would quickly spending way more than anyone with a modest data plan.
First he said he thought responsibility was one place, then he said it was supposed to be another. What will he say tomorrow? The position lacks credibility. Is this even newsworthy?
I saw an article about Obama wanting to spend money. I can't believe there weren't a thousand posts vilifying him for some kind of "liberal tax-and-spend agenda".
Let's repost on Fox News' site and see what happens;-)
It's not mandatory. It's a security option, just like PayPal has added various SMS and soft-token *options* for account security. You're perfectly welcome to continue using the standard password-only method.
It's not perfect, and someone *could* steal and scan your phone. Hell, they don't even need to crack the phone - they can just run the app! But that's only *HALF* the puzzle. That's why it's called **TWO FACTOR** authentication.
Unless they have *BOTH FACTORS*, they can't get in. So if someone steals your phone, your safe. If someone keyboard-logs your password, your safe. They need to do *both* to get in.
Google Authenticator is "open". You can have more than one key stored within the application. Other applications can use it, with their own key, to permit authorization to them.
For example, I use a Google Authenticator PAM module to permit SSH access to my Linux machine.
Verisign has a similar program "VIP Access". The biggest difference of-course is that theirs is not free or open. (Hosts have to use their paid "service" to authenticate through them). So I'd obviously vote Google's method to be the "standard".
You don't need phone reception for the two-factor app to work, just like a hardware token. Paypal implements something like this too now, as they also allow SMS messages as an alternative.
If you don't like it, you still have the right not to use it.
Primitive in comparison, but the force behind all the cool new apps? I doubt it. iPhone was by far not the first to have GPS, camera or touch. I think Multi-Touch was their only "first".
Think about it seriously - palm ruled the PDA market for about a decade. Blackberry became an institution unto itself with their corporate email connectivity - Crackberries, etc. These guys squeezed down into and created the "smartphone" market by adding their "PDA" functionality into cell phones. Then of course Symbian and Windows Mobile got in there too.
Apple came out of nowhere, kinda. They started with a pretty boring, but well-made MP3 player, and evolved that into the iPhone.
So I guess if your argument is: "Well, but Apple was the first one to really get it all right" - I'd agree with you;-) - which is why, as my original reply stated - I am an iPhone developer, and not an Android developer.;-)
Second? No, it's actually third. (Blackberry and Google both beat it in sales). But even so - they have a lot of die-hard developers on-board with 'em. My point is, it's not because they're "free" or "open" or are easy to develop for, or are nice to their developers. If they really address the reason why, and remedy it - then maybe they'll attract those developers.
I am merely outlining what attracts me to the platform.
Slashdot Mirror
"...bravery and quick thinking have turned a potential Chernobyl into a mere Three Mile Island"
What would seem to make a hell of a lot of sense to me, would be if there was some sort of a standard for putting those 2D barcodes on the back of a business card, so people could quickly load them into their phone or PC via camera scanner software.
Yea, maybe then business cards could be obsolete I guess, in that someone could flash their card, and one could just scan it with their phone. (As opposed to physically needing to give someone a card).
http://boingboing.net/2008/05/12/sms-data-rate-is-4x.html
http://gthing.net/the-true-price-of-sms-messages
http://www.privilegedclub.com/42293-sms-the-most-expensive-data-transfer-2/
So I don't see how anyone using this with any regularity would quickly spending way more than anyone with a modest data plan.
First he said he thought responsibility was one place, then he said it was supposed to be another. What will he say tomorrow? The position lacks credibility. Is this even newsworthy?
Let's repost on Fox News' site and see what happens ;-)
No. SSL uses secure key exchange. It would be useless without it.
It's not mandatory. It's a security option, just like PayPal has added various SMS and soft-token *options* for account security. You're perfectly welcome to continue using the standard password-only method.
Also - it's not meant to protect at that level. Use SSL/HTTPS to avoid MITM attacks.
Google Authenticator codes are one-time codes. They change every 30 seconds.
Unless they have *BOTH FACTORS*, they can't get in. So if someone steals your phone, your safe. If someone keyboard-logs your password, your safe. They need to do *both* to get in.
The SMS part is only for activation. The app itself doesn't require a network connection.
For example, I use a Google Authenticator PAM module to permit SSH access to my Linux machine.
Verisign has a similar program "VIP Access". The biggest difference of-course is that theirs is not free or open. (Hosts have to use their paid "service" to authenticate through them). So I'd obviously vote Google's method to be the "standard".
Cell service is not required. It's a "soft-token" app - just like an RSA Key-fob token.
"Google Authenticator" available (free) for iOS in the AppStore, too.
There is a "Google Authenticator" application that you install on your phone. It has been out for several months. It requires no cell reception.
Again, cell reception not required for smartphone app to work.
Phone reception is not required for the soft-token app (Google Authenticator) to work on your smartphone
If you don't like it, you still have the right not to use it.
Has anyone actually verified that this is indeed the key?
Sony really wanted to leak it - why else would a marketing guy even have the key?
He doesn't actually work for Sony. I have some posts that say he is not. (a-la Colbert)
Can anyone clarify any of these thoughts?
Think about it seriously - palm ruled the PDA market for about a decade. Blackberry became an institution unto itself with their corporate email connectivity - Crackberries, etc. These guys squeezed down into and created the "smartphone" market by adding their "PDA" functionality into cell phones. Then of course Symbian and Windows Mobile got in there too.
Apple came out of nowhere, kinda. They started with a pretty boring, but well-made MP3 player, and evolved that into the iPhone.
So I guess if your argument is: "Well, but Apple was the first one to really get it all right" - I'd agree with you ;-) - which is why, as my original reply stated - I am an iPhone developer, and not an Android developer. ;-)
BIG-TIME Streisand Effect! This is like the third or fourth place I've seen this posted today!!
If it were as simple as that, Palm, Symbian and Blackberry would have iPhone and Android beat.
1. Android phones are typically cheaper.
2. Android data plans are typically a lot cheaper
3. There are many more manufacturers selling Android-based devices.
I am merely outlining what attracts me to the platform.