Comment Re:i work at a convention hall (Score 1) 251
Aruba. Their simplest controller already has the feature to take down networks, altough i'm not sure if it can do so automatically.
It's a nice thing to have the option of hiding it in certain situations on a desktop or laptop screen, but to have it as your only option is questionable.
It *is* an option. They hide by default, but can be turned on permanently.
It's a surprise because mac users are usually happy when someone else decides what's best for them.
The problem is that just about any non-Mac-user thinks he is that "someone".
an artificial necessity to have a worthless resource using program running in the background
Most people use Windows anyway.
and an internet connection even for single player games.
Steam features an offline mode. You only need to have been online once per game to be allowed to play it offline, i believe.
Overall, I'd say that Dreamcast's failure was more so a combination of people opting to wait for Sony's console (given the track record between the two in the previous generation), as well as the fact that Dreamcast games could be pirated merely by downloading the image and burning it with a regular CD burner.
Not to mention, lack of support from some important players in the field, notably EA.
Which is why Mac OS X is going to be turned into iOS - pretty soon, you'll only be allowed to install signed binaries on Mac OS X. It will resolve the issue of people installing software from "untrusted sources," meaning anyone not paying Apple large sums of money.
How come everybody thinks this is where OSX is heading, while Microsoft runs a 100% closed source desktop OS with rumours of signed code required in the next version, just about invented the appstore-model for an appliance in the form of the Xbox Live Arcade (for the 1st gen Xbox, before it became the Marketplace)? Yet, nobody seems to worry about Microsoft owning >80% of the desktop market while doing exactly the same things Apple did, only years earlier.
One of the advantages of a wired network is that the data only leaves the premises at well defined locations that you control.
Well defined locations you control, or well defined locations you *think* you control? It is very well possible to do port security at the access layer of your network, but how many networks have that? There's always some outlet somewhere for a printer that nobody uses... Somebody sneaks his way into the building, hooks up an accesspoint to that port, sits in his van outside, and can hack away at your network. Really, wired is not always as safe as people think.
In fact, i remember a customer with a voip network, and had a sip intercom at the front door... I got sniggered at when i suggested that anybody could screw off the intercom, and had free access to the network. Went into my report anyway.
And before you can say "encryption will protect me", think about how easy it would be to build a transmitter running on the same frequencies as the wireless network and sit that just outside the company and pointed inwards - instant denial of service attack with zero traceability.
Zero traceability? Get an Aruba wireless network controller with sufficient accesspoints, put a map of your building in the controller, and it will tell you where rogue transmitters are, including those outside of the building (if you left enough white space around the building map when uploading). Cisco has similar solutions, and i'm sure there are many more.
Genetics explains why you look like your father, and if you don't, why you should.
