... such as when working remotely or in a place away from distraction. It allows me to prioritize tasks that I need to accomplish vs tasks someone else wants me to do for something they need to accomplish. Mostly though my work is autonomous in nature and doesn't require a whole lot of collaboration. I can see how the open office is essential for teams where work is accomplished in a real time collaborative effort. I hear rumours my employer will soon move to the open office model, would be interestin to see how productivity is affected, for me personally and for the organization as a whole.

The blind spot is not related to b pillar etc but a region of the retina that is not sensitive to light and therefore blind.

https://faculty.washington.edu...

I was going to post the same thing but as I was typing I realized they just assume that the drugs are coming in, "unimpeded" now that the have no track of them. But anyway this is FUD which will be used to influence public opinion (which the Brits seem to be generally vulnerable to).

How is this any more/less secure than an ActiveSync over SSL with your own keys though? I don't see the benefit of it. I always thought that as soon as the Android / iOS devices caught up with corporate users needs the Blackberry heydays would be over. It was only a matter of time.

I'm a business user. I'm also a consumer. Oh look.. Android kills both birds with one phone! BBRY.. FAIL.

I used a corporate issued BB with hard keys for years. While I agree the error rate is higher on the soft keys, I was most surprised how my thumbs no longer hurt. Also the advantage of being able to use the full screen outweighs the error rate problem. Also I don't buy into BB claims of security. This is complete nonsense as all lawful intercept occurs on the inside of the firewalls in BlackBerry's network. And these days with BB10 they use SSL routed over the public imternet instead of IPSec tunnels routed over dedicated circuits. MEH.

Yes you can. Its called a gun amnesty program and several countries have successfully implemented it. Considering the amount the US spends on policing and defence I'm sure the cost would be insignificant. Its the will of the people to give up their guns that is the roadblock. Its time for the USA to wake up and smell the coffee. You are far behind the rest of the world on this issue and your daily gun crazed madman shooting up your school kids is a direct result of your complacency.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki...

I'm convinced that all these hardline tactics by governments and corporations is only going to fuel a backlash which will be fought in the IETF Working Groups with the goal of end to end encryption and anonymization of all internet traffic. Oh I hope I live to see the day.

Do away with the silly auctions, all that they do is cause the cost to be passed down to the subscribers, which is by definition, a hidden tax. It is much more efficient for everybody and creates better competition amongst providers if the government retains ownership and nationalizes the entire spectrum, and along with it the mobile access network infrastructure, as a wholesaler only. Then, the providers compete with their various offerings, and coverage is efficiently managed with the maximum bandwidth available to any subscriber regardless of the network provider they subscribe to.

The same can be applied to Wireline access networks. This is all in-line with Australia's plans for the National Broadband Network which was a brilliant plan until it was railroaded by conservatives with corporate interests in mind.

The only problem I foresee with this is the cost involved in 'repatriating' the access networks from the incumbent telco's and also complications between retailer and the national wholesaler when it comes to troubleshooting access network issues. Hopefully the government can put this operation out to tender to a competent operator that is not affiliated with any of the retailers in any way.

"However, the major loss due to the "S" is the inability to offer any in-network value added services, that are offered by middle-boxes, such as caching, proxying, firewalling, parental control, etc." ... And that is bad? Oh right this is written from the carriers perspective. Personally I would prefer if the would stop DPI'ing all my traffic and doing 'value added' stuff. This is about resisting the dumb pipe scenario. I can think of a Canadian company (who Telefonica happen to be their largest customer) that would find their business model threatened by an all encrypted internet. IMO, the carrier should have no place looking at the traffic I generate on their network. If I have to encrypt to guarantee it, then let's do it.

*puke* Ericsson has to be one of the most incompetent, arrogant and politically motivated core network vendors I have to deal with on a daily basis. Their people don't know their own products. Their PLM is therefore overloaded and SLAs are frequently violated, and their executives are the first to march in and point the finger at the customer in an attempt at damage control. Their products are overrated too.. Mostly cobbled together open source solutions sold for top dollar with a bizzare O&M abstraction layer which makes it harder than just managing to open source as it was intended to be. Ericsson's customer is wrong approach and their refusal to compete with other vendors on quality and cost has them at the very bottom of the list from my personal experience at least.

I hear ya bro. Just a bunch of asshats with make work projects and ppl trying to get rich. Simple is always better.

I'm all for breaking up companies that abuse their power of controlling content delivery by favoring their own products (waves to Verizon/Comcast RE: Netflix) however in this case I dont see it. A quick Google search for "tablet" where there is competition between Android, Windows and iOS based devices shows no slanting of any kind in the search results. I'm not in Europe so I can't say that I would get the same results if located there, but I would be interested in exactly what kind of evidence there is to suggest that Google is acting in an anticompetitive manner?

Mod parent up. You just summed up globalization nicely BTW. Just because what we do as skilled professionals can be done from anywhere on the planet doesn't mean our rights as citizens of the countries where these products are sold should be eroded on the pretense of competing globally. I say, if you want to sell product x in this country, you must show the percentage of sales in this country to be proportionate to your workforce based in this country, else you will pay proportionate taxes to offset the social cost that comes with you making money out of our citizens but not contributing to our economy by employing them in return!