Why can I pair my airpods with all my iOS & macOS devices but can’t do the same with my magic keyboard?Also on:
Another voice www.lawfareblog.com
What’s Involved in Vetting a Security Protocol: Why Ray Ozzie’s Proposal for Exceptional Access Does Not Pass Muster
The US government wants to start charging for the best free satellite data on earth
My tax $ paid for some of this with the data being shared. If the US government starts charging for data, do we taxpayers get a refund？Or unlimited access to at least legacy data？Also on:
Medium Kills Off Custom Domains
Go with what works for you, but I don’t know who would trust this platform anymore. Eventually constant pivoting takes a toll.Also on:
Bust out your JNCOs because Zima is back (again), baby
Never died in Japan btwAlso on:
Tom Wolfe, pioneering “New Journalist” and novelist, RIP
EFF has comprehensively killed the bullshit podcasting patent
Many of us will, therefore, only pay a monthly fee towards one or two publications that we find really valuable; and, for most of us, that’s probably a national broadsheet “paper of record” rather than a thin local edition. But the national papers of record can’t realistically cover all local news of relevance across an entire country. Also, I’ve focused on American papers here, but this is a massive problem in Canada as well, and around the world.
(Via Pixel Envy)
I’m no fan of the subscription model but I found the idea that GDPR might drive change interesting:
Perhaps new legislation and the reclamation of our privacy online will spur the creation of small, privacy-focused advertiser networks again, akin to the Deck Network or something like the Outline’s ad strategy. Perhaps we need more networks of bloggers, too, allowing readers to subscribe to several related websites at the same time, without creating barriers to readership with paywalls. Maybe there’s a third and fourth source of money beyond readers and advertisers — I’m not sure. But non-giant entities, whether web-only or in print, need a funding solution for the future that isn’t solely reliant upon massive traffic, Facebook referrals, or subscriptions.
- Read the question! Some students give solutions to problems other than that which is posed. Make sure you read the question carefully. A good habit to get into is first to translate everything given in the question into mathematical form and define any variables you need right at the outset. Also drawing a diagram helps a lot in visualizing the situation, especially helping to elucidate any relevant symmetries.
- Remember to explain your reasoning when doing a mathematical solution. Sometimes it is very difficult to understand what students are trying to do from the maths alone, which makes it difficult to give partial credit if they are trying to the right thing but just make, e.g., a sign error.
- Finish your solution appropriately by stating the answer clearly (and, where relevant, in correct units). Do not let your solution fizzle out – make sure the marker knows you have reached the end and that you have done what was requested. In other words, finish with a flourish!
(Via In The Dark)
For InfoSec we can extrapolate three similar tips for engaging with clients, either our internal ones or with external:
- Read the RFP/RFI! Listen to the customer! Write down, in your own simple words, your understanding of the client’s request. Communicate it back to them to make sure the understanding is as complete as possible.
- When delivering the response/proposal/etc. make sure you “connect the dots” between the client’s request and your solution. Make sure you account for and document assumptions. Explain why the proposal is the way it is.
- Finish your response appropriately by stating the answer clearly. Do not let your solution fizzle out – make sure the marker knows you have reached the end and that you have done what was requested. In other words, finish with a flourish!
Item 1 reminds me of a recent almost bad event at work. A potential client reached out about a RFP. They were looking for a security solution with a specific scope and desired outcome. We had a meeting with the client about their goals and objectives. They were clear and precise.
Skip ahead less than one week and suddenly a few leaders in my organization decided to make our RFP response something completely different. My vocal dissents were vetoed. The proposal proceeded with this alternate option. It was as if the client came to our restaurant to eat dinner and we decided to sell them recipe books instead.
Worse, there was nothing in this new approach that was truly new – every piece was obviously recycled generic sales material.
The client was not amused. When we met again the client shut down all extraneous-to-their-request discussions and materials. Since some of the team had not abandoned answering the RFP directly, we were able to pivot and still make a strong proposal.
Another recent proposal I worked on illustrates doing all three items well. The client clearly stated their goals in conversation but their RFP was mostly untethered to the goals, almost as if two different teams drafted each independently. Subsequent client conversations gave us what we needed to form a more complete understanding of the business needs.
The proposal was large compared to the RFP, but the space was needed to completely connect the dots between the client’s broad & disconnected needs and how we would deliver them for the desired business outcome. The response included all of the Who-What-Where-When-Why-How structures to clearly communicate our solution.
There is no shortage of experts in this field. By and large we all think we are one, so we rush to solution without always listening and understanding. Taking a page out of Richard Feynman’s approach to solving physics problems can help address such failings.Also on: