Or the CBC is internally inconsistent and can't figure out if he used a floppy drive, thumb drive or both.

And that could possibly be only because Broc died. He had supported Tecumseh in his bid for 'nationhood', but got himself killed in a battle. His superiors were not as grateful to the native leader as the guy who was fighting alongside them was. However, what would one generals belief do in London? It's unclear.

The article is wrong. Grep the CBC article for 'thumb drive'. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2012/10/10/ns-delisle-spy-hearing.html

OCAD is a very well known and respected school in Ontario. The school itself is not a scam. Having a textbook custom created by a company (Prentice Hall) is very expensive. And the economies of scale that come with a very large run for dozens of schools are not present. Especially if the photographs need to be licensed at a flat rate.

Having attended University, I fail to see how someone is "forced" to buy a copy of the text. Borrowing a copy from the library, borrowing a copy from a friend, etc. are all ways to avoid being "forced" into buying a text.

Having made it through university without being "forced" to buy any texts for libral arts courses, I fail to see how the purchase of an art history text "forces" someone to actually buy the text.

That and it seems that the ebook edition has the pictures in it.

Stupid Canadian copyright law apparently (or inept publishers, there have been texts published with art pictures for a while right? Even in Canada?)

You can't just go into a museum and take a picture of something and have it be good enough for print. You need the proper lighting, etc, etc.

That and presumably the museum could refuse you access if you were going to take pictures for commercial purposes.

+1 to mechanical typewriter. Move the best to the computers when they become competent. Used market is not too expensive. Electric typewriters will work too if you can't find enough manual ones (and they are less expensive than computers).

+1 for my office (embedded development, hardware and software). In the software department half are engineers, the other half are comp-sci. The differences I've seen are as follows:

Engineers:
Pros:
- Have a very strong sense how the underlying behaviour of the hardware works
- Come up with good designs, want to have changes signed off upon (all the benefits of 'engineering practices')
- Understand the differences between the general and specific solution and which to pick and in what situation
Cons:
- Not so good with some of the theoretical computer science stuff (which very specific method of IPC should be used in this specific instance), since they did not study much of it
- I have seen (anecdotally, part of this relates to workplace culture/expectations) more things that Engineers have worked on be vulnerable to shell injections and/or other exploits, more likely to 'shell out' to use some 3rd party application than use its API

Computer Scientists:
Pros:
- Good understanding of algorithmic complexity and optimisation
- The quality of their work is very good
- Understand the differences between the general and specific solution and which to pick and in what situation
Cons:
- Not so good with some of the theoretical electronics stuff (as in how do you make a circuit a pull-up, what does tri-state mean, etc. how sharp of an edge does the signal need to be) since they did not study much of it
- I have seen (anecdotally, part of this relates to workplace culture/expectations) that not quite as many things have shell injections or are 'shelled out' for.

With this all being said, the manager is an Engineer, the project lead is an Engineer and 3/4 of the team leads are Engineers (in Soviet Russia you did Engineering or Math, not Computer Science).

NB: "Engineer" in this case refers to an Engineer in the legal sense, according to American/Canadian law where the term "Engineer" is protected. Basic requirements to call yourself an Engineer are having graduated from a an accredited Engineering program and have a membership with their Professional Engineering organisation.

Cisco, D-Link, Netgear, etc. do not make (much) industrial temp (-40 to +80C, very high EMI/static discharge tolerances, etc.) networking equipment.

Garrettcom was not the only company in the industry to be caught doing the same thing (see: http://it.slashdot.org/story/12/04/25/1456210/backdoor-in-ruggedos-systems-infrastructure-military-systems-vulnerable). Not the latter one has according to the company been patched out in the latest software release.

1) Why do you assume it was for games?
2) Why do you assume that everyone who uses a computer (or gets in car accidents) is a him?

+1 to this. I know a person who injured their aim in a car accident and this worked for them.

They fixed it. http://www.ruggedcom.com/productbulletin/ros-security-page/
A year to late yes, but it was fixed.

As far as the original vulnerability goes, that required someone to connect to the public internet a device an authentication protocol which would transmit the password in the clear (telnet, RSH). Plus, it was a L2 switch, not a router.

Maybe like many small hardware engineering companies it isn't like they don't care about security, maybe management is just bad at supporting it and QA testing it ...

Easy to think of answer is that if you are required to validate a One True Config as part of an RFP process, and that the firmware installed on all devices must be 'identical' and come with SSL out of the box, that you need to pre-program all devices with the same key.

Should you be able to change the key that mitigates the problem entirely.

Even if they do have all the same one (after all, all devices come with the same default password), it isn't an issue if you can change the key is it?

The sysadmin where I work once bought two Seagate drives, they had sequential serial numbers. They failed within 5 days of each other (killing the RAID-1 because the array had not finished rebuilding).