HP ProBook 4520s Battery www.all-laptopbattery.com

  • It didn't help that one or two of them considered themselves indispensable. Processes continued to be ignored until one week one of the developers figured (wrongly) that I wouldn't notice if he bypassed a security mechanism on the database server, and one of the indispensables behaved outrageously to another member of staff.The former was on the receiving end of a comprehensive b*ll*cking, followed by an explanation of why the rules existed, which to his credit he accepted with grace and from that point was as good as gold.The latter was told that the next attempt would land him in HR under the banner of gross misconduct; when he went crying to management that I had been nasty to him they backed me to the hilt.In most cases then, having the mechanisms to do things right is enough. But when those mechanisms have full management backing and you are seen to act (fairly) on infractions, it soon fixes the minority who think, “that doesn't apply to me”.

    Staff engagement is a good thing. Staff who feel that the company cares and gives them stuff or pays attention to their comments and suggestions are generally more inclined to work diligently.Remember, though, that the staff engagement team is generally part of the HR team. You know, the team that makes people redundant, or dismisses them for gross misconduct, or puts them through disciplinary or competency proceedings.The operational efficiency and security of company systems are the first priority of the IT department because they are directly related to profitability.So you are not there to give people what they want; the best they can expect is that their opinions will be sought and given due consideration in the construction of standards and systems.So listen to what people want. Understand what they need. Help them be as efficient as possible within the constraints you have to impose. But remember that the word “no” is often much under-used. I am going to have a bit of a Jerry Springer moment now. You know, where he wraps up with a moral statement that didn't come up in the show but follows on from what did.

    The purpose of governance is to ensure that your organisation can use its systems for company benefit without detriment to security or adverse effect on the risk of doing business.But in fact the procurement of the tools you use for governance – which may well be something that the corporate affairs, legal or financial division are looking to buy – can just as easily be justified as an IT purchase.After all they are good for managing systems, reporting on usage, enabling you to focus development effort where it is required and kill off unpopular systems, planning capacity and defining hardware and operating system platforms ... I could go on.So if you are an IT manager who wants to buy tools to do this stuff, talk to the departments that are paid to care about governance and show them that what you want is a direct relative of what they want.There is a decent chance they will not only agree with you, but will stump up some cash from their budget too. Claims by a security researcher that he hacked an aircraft in flight have been questioned widely across the hacking community and the airline industry.According to a FBI affidavit, security researcher Chris Roberts claimed to have taken control of an airplane using an ordinary laptop connected to the aircraft’s In Flight Entertainment (IFE) system. From there he claims to have caused one engine to change power setting briefly.

    Roberts claims to have hacked into the IFE systems of Airbus and Boeing aircraft some 15 or 20 times between 2011 and 2014, the affidavit states. Roberts said he “overwrote code on the airplane's Thrust Management Computer,” causing the aircraft to yaw.Fear of flying is common enough, and the thought that some attacker could take control of the aircraft from economy class adds a new horror to flying. But according to experts in the field the chances of such a hack are vanishingly small.IFE systems on commercial airplanes are isolated from flight and navigation systems, Doug Alder, spokesman for Boeing Commercial, told El Reg. While these systems receive position data and have communication links, the design isolates them from the other systems on airplanes performing critical and essential functions.Alder points out that there are multiple safeguards built into Boeing aircraft systems and pilots are at liberty to cancel any commands that don’t feel right. Under the circumstances Boeing - and also, it seems, top law enforcement officials - aren’t too worried about the threat.

    Then again that’s the response you’d expect to get from the industry. But there are plenty of independent people around who study aircraft hacking intensively and even they are highly skeptical about Roberts’ claims.At last year’s DEFCON hackers' meeting Dr Phil Polstra, professor of digital forensics at Bloomberg University (and a qualified commercial pilot and flight instructor), delivered a lecture on the feasibility of inflight aircraft hacking. It turns out it’s a lot more difficult than you might think.Aircraft IT systems are built around non-TCP/IP protocols contained within the ARINC (Aeronautical Radio, Incorporated) standards body, with different number conventions for different aircraft, or AFDX on Airbus equipment (AFDX was originated by Airbus, although it's a standard that other manufacturers are adopting).One of the key differences with this protocol is that it allows unidirectional data and will lock out a non-standard sending signal.With regards to Roberts’ claims, Dr Polstra said that they were interesting and that he looked forward to discussing them with the researcher at a future DEFCON conference “assuming he is not in jail.” However the method of hacking seems unlikely.

    IFE systems do receive some information from the engine-indicating and crew-alerting system (EICAS), chiefly the aircraft’s location and speed for those little progress maps, but this data comes through a unidirectional Network Extension Device (NED).The EICAS gets its data from a hydromechanical controller which has an electronic interface, known as an EEC, and Roberts appears to be claiming that he overrode the EEC on one engine to produce the change of course.In order for this to actually happen he would need to be on a plane where the levels are not directly connected to the EEC, successfully compromise the EICAS, get the EEC to accept input from the EICAS (recall this is really a monitoring system), send a bogus mode change to climb, and somehow prevent the throttle quadrant from immediately sending a correct command, he told the Reg.On top of this long list of conditions there are two basic facts that would make his actually flipping a plane on its side unlikely. First, jet engines do have a spool up time so this wouldn’t happen immediately. Second, the second a pilot touches the levers new signals will be sent to the EEC. When you put this all together it seems unlikely that Chris was able to ‘take over’ this plane as he claimed.

    Another problem with Roberts’ story is that he claims to have accomplished all of this using a network connector in the black boxes under passenger seats that run the IFE systems. The affidavit states he was able to loosen the cover of the black box and install a non-standard connector to gain access.Given the heightened awareness among most aircraft passengers nowadays this seems unlikely. As we’ve seen with the unsuccessful shoe bomber Richard Reid and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab - a man forever to be known as the pants bomber - passengers are very wary of odd behaviour and aren’t afraid to jump in.Nevertheless, in-flight hacking is definitely the fear-de-jour, particularly in light of the US Government Accounting Office’s (GAO) report into the matter and FBI warnings. It remains to be seen if Roberts has discovered a genuine hole, or if the authorities are just making sure their backsides are covered. Review There’s a commuter who gets off the train where I live who has a tablet down his trousers. Call it the middle-class version of builder’s crack or the male equivalent of the inappropriate G-string, it peeks out over the top of his chinos.

    Protruding from the top of that tablet is a long, red wire leading up to a pair of earphones clamped to this man’s head. Not for this chap the more compact form factor of the smartphone-based music player or an iPod. This man's personal music player is a tablet.Whatever it is, we’ve crossed a Rubicon, as he climbs on his bike and pedals energetically off, tablet now serving as a mudguard.We’ve read about tablet sales slowing because everybody’s bought their first, as well as how prices are falling thanks to Android. What you have here is a manifestation of both: a class of computer that's clearly so cheap this man can abuse it by sitting on it, probably sweating into it, and even cycle with it, running the risk it pops out onto the road.Into this unforgiving scene comes Surface 3, Microsoft’s latest installment in touchable tablets. The reason for Surface has never been 100 per cent clear. A mere proof of concept, honest PC partners, no threat to your businesses; Microsoft’s staggeringly delayed response to the iPad; now, the best of a tablet that works as a laptop – so Microsoft says.

1 comment
  • yaoxuemei yaoxuemei
    yaoxuemei yaoxuemei yaoxuemei20171124http://www.coachoutletonlineoutlet.us.com
    http://www.uggbootsclearances.us.org...  more
    November 23