Start by evaluating what you have and whom you wish to keep it away from. If you have classified data that a national security apparatus wants, do what a poster up-thread suggested and keep it offline (also, stay the hell away from me). If your data is less sensitive, then evaluate your security posture using a multi-tiered approach. Assume all routers can be compromised and treat them as the first line of defense. Evaluate where you data sits (cloud based versus local) and how it is transferred (encrypted versus non). Evaluate your own work flows in determining how the data is potentially vulnerable.

You can build your own fortress unto yourself if you want to, but at the end of the day even if you're sharing with other fortress entities you will still end up having to send data across untrusted lines. Some of those lines are run by people who don't have your privacy interests at heart. So knowledge and common sense are still your best defenses.

When I can have multiple monitors going, with legal research on one screen and MS Word on the other, and am able to type text quickly with a reasonable keyboard......then I'll believe the desktop / laptop is dying.

Until then tablets and smart phones are for surfing the web, putzing around on facebook, and doing minor work tasks. Productivity is still the domain of the PC.

Use to be that a person owed a dog no better treatment than they did a chair or silverware. The idea of animals as mere "chattel" has been slowly chipped away at over time. As people have come to view animals as having a higher status than a bookshelf, the law has slowly moved the same way. Animal abuse is generally a crime everywhere. Further the state can take away animals from people who mistreat them.......the same is not true for one who "mistreats" their wooden desk, no matter how public and violent the act may be.

The risk that these animal rights activist face is that of setting unfavorable precedent which, under the legal concept of stare decisis, could serve as a roadblock to courts future recognitions of animal "rights". There are also a myriad of peripheral issues that such a finding would raise. If a chimp is legally considered a person, what is their citizenship? Does the U.S. Constitution apply to them? Can they vote? The list goes on.

I stopped reading here.
Note to readers: The parent post above doesn't know shit about the civil debt collection process.

Help the Russians set up a program that allows them to create a GPS system that will compete with the U.S.

or

Help the Russians set up a program that allows them to create a GPS system that will compete with the U.S........and which could be actively shut down / hacked/ sabatoged within U.S. borders if an "incident" ever arose. And which Russian "allies" are likely to sign on to use this alternative? Why China, North Korea, Iran, and Syria of course.

If all the revelations about the NSA show anything, it's that everyone is busy spying on everyone. Therefore the U.S. should presume that these stations will be used, at least tangentially, for that purpose. Note that that is not necessarily a reason to decline the request. If properly managed, it could be used by the U.S. security apparatus to better monitor and determine Russia's own capabilities. It could also be a useful way to "leak" sensitive sounding FUD back to the motherland.

Perhaps it's not a matter of 75 percent being a "threat" but rather re-allocation by using less resources on the "safe" 25 percent. Again, the targeted use of profiles, statistics, etc.

For years members of the 501st Fighting Keyboard Brigade, Slashdot Division have been droning on and on about "security theater" and the TSA's "one size fits all" approach to airline security. Mighty cries were heard across the realm about the need to use intelligence and data to truly focus on those who pose a greater threat.

Congratulations, the TSA heard your pleas and is responding accordingly. And as the infamous Chinese curse says, "May you find what you are looking for."

.....of why IT nerds should refrain from talking about law. And the chuckles that wrote this "article" is no different.

To wit (this is but one example): ""Seriously? Were you listening when Professor Duane said that if a suspect protested his innocence in the way that he described, you would take that out-of-context quote and only tell the jury that he said 'I never liked the guy?'"

Yes. Go look at the "statement against party interest" exception to the heresay rule. Then go watch a criminal trial and you will see the police do *exactly* that.

The author here in too uneducated to make the refuations he is trying to make nor is he showing the drive necessary to gain knowledge that would answer his question for him.

And of course not long thereafter will come the financial incentives, cajoling, and outright threats necessary to ink a "deal" that the malware companies will not detect CIA and NSA wares.

I would certainly hope that McAfee et al would not be dumb enough to jump into bed with the devil, but sadly that may be more wishful thinking than anything.

This is just one user's opinion, but slow gradual declines seem to be the hallmark of Google projects. They work well when they're shiny and new, but over time the projects are neglected and deteriorate. Similar things have happened with Google Voice and Google Docs.

OP didn't say manipulated. It said "price fixed". Big difference there.

The bond market of which you speak (and the financial markets in general) can be gamed by conglomerates of individual entities. However the prime difference here is that these combinations affect the *secondary market* and are *not* related to the companies that float the bonds. That is, the company that floated the bond does not benefit directly from any support the security receives in the secondary market.

E-books on the other hand are different. The publishers attempted to directly price fix what was charged for their product at the point of primary sale. This of course resulted in additional profits directly into their pocket. It is a different scenario from securities.

Mod this up.
I too would like OP to explain how the oil industry sets about mandating price on the fungible commodity that they sell. I'm not saying the commodity market is rational, mind you. I'm just saying if a producer tried to strong arm these kinds of tactics, the market buyers would respond with a very loud and heartfelt FOAD.

"Print is dead." But we pay market rates anyway.

Long live the all holy business model.

"If you're not cheating, you're not trying."

The point of the article is that if you want to rise to CIO, you have to understand the company and how its buisness operates. This means having to transition from skills that are helpful in IT (detailed oriented micro thinking) to skills that are used in business (macro based "big picture" thinking). The article says not to use jargon because managers at the high echelons do not care about the nuts and bolts of how something gets done. They care about the end result and other non-technical drivers (cost, ROI, etc).

Understand, these are typically skills that do not make for a good IT worker. Someone good at IT is detail oriented and laser focused on specific tasks. It is difficult training one's brain to think in a different manner. And in the IT real, people are quick to discount those who don't think as they do. The sad part is those that "think differently" in this case happen to be those who sign the paychecks.