Have you contacted any media organisations about selling the rights to film and publish this?

It might be a good way to get further funding for this work.

Nobody is going to discard OpenSSL due to this - the majority of people are patching systems and reminding people that security is important (a side benefit of this incident)

The next step will be when someone puts up the money for a proper code review of the OpenSSL codebase and fixes up any other issues that may exist.

It's reasonable to say that there are more people and organisations able to resolve this issue than if it were a closed source proprietary solution.

I just got back from looking at a Galaxy Note 3 (thinking form upgrading from by S2).

Now I'm not sure - will probably just go buy a Nexus.

I can't think of a single valid reason for this level of functionality to be available in a device that's sold commercially. I've never heard of any enterprise management tools that can use such functions, and their undisclosed existance is a real worry.

The biggest laugh about this is that Samsung Australia is currently trying to get the Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1, Galaxy Note 2 and S3 onto the Australian Government Endorsed Product List (http://www.asd.gov.au/infosec/epl/index.php ) - I don't like their chances now.

I'd suggest having an auction (with a sensible starting price) to name the tower, so that when it's on maps, and people talk about it they get the name for a set period (e.g. 10 years).

Also, this is a 'big' deal, so a communications plan to get the work out (and add value to the naming rights) would help push its value.

Having something about the 'Google Emergency Communications Tower' or some such stuff in the press would get eyeballs.

I can remember in school the problem getting accessed (more students than microscopes) and with these schools could give them to students.

Not only are they useful in class, but potentially they might get students interested in looking a the wider world!

It would also potentially drive someone to mass market them - laser cut them in school and fix in the lense (or worst case outsource the manufacturing to China)

BUT you still need to advise parents and students as to what you are doing; and

Ensure that you have policies and controls that ensure that everyone knows what you are doing, and how it will not be used for other purposes (e.g. sniffing credit card details from student purchases, etc.);

Without that the job is only half done.

Some people don't know how to let go (or think about where they will get another risc pc to replace the one they are using).

In it there was an article touting a radio receiver that you fixed to the running board of your car. The article stated that while it was not practial to use while the vehicle was in motion, it explained that it was expected that laws would be passed prohibiting 'radioing' (sic) while driving as it was a distraction and would promote unsafe driving.

If you look at the range of devices currently built into most cars and look back over time it's safe to say that many people have adapted to the increasing number of information sources available to the driver and can capably prioritise their actions.

The morons that insist on texting while driving are probably just the same ones who previously shaved or put on their makeup while behind the wheel. The real problem is not the technology, but the idiots using it.

These people will still do dumb things irrespective of the law - why punish those that are using the technology safely?

You have a team from Ericsson (as in SONY Ericsson). It's not like any business worth its salt would seek advice regarding security from Sony.

You also have authors from AT&T - who have probably been passing customer data on since the days of Teletypes and morse code.

Section 7 (Privacy Concerns) is blank - you have to ask why (too hard, or not a concern).

The opening sequence has a missile operator discussing the quality of the sensemilia his girlfriend was growing with the other. And the bonus easter egg for those of you that do is the sign in the corridor :-)

Burning in a drive is basically when you connect it up, and run a program to exercise the drive for a set period to make it fail. The idea is that it's better that a drive dies during the burn in process than when in use and theres actual data stored on it. Its a great idea when you want to keep your services availability figures up but won't make the drives themselves any more reliable.

It will however skew the numbers so that drives die much quicker, and will probably have people saying it's now not fair because the drives were pushed to fail.

So when you press the [F5] key (good old refresh) the damn thing does a Suspend instead. And then there are all the other weird features it enables that are of no use.

I'm still trying to work out what to fscking do with it - basically it's unusable. About all I can think of is dropping it into a blender and feeding the debris to the fool who thought a non-standard keyboard is a good idea.