This post was written using iPod touch 16 gb model
and in parallel I was trouble shooting the file sharing issue in windows 2003 server, the damn stpd thing was not working
finally managed to by disabling " deny access to ..." under local security settings removed guest account from there
any how got to go.
It was fun to use ipod touch
The recent incident where a copyright protected white paper from our firm was made freely available on the web is an issue of concern. Our business model is based on providing customers with details of economics, finance, natural resources, and other critical information about specific global markets in the form of research reports. These reports are made using our vast network of data collection and our extensive number crunching abilities. Availability of the same for free not only undermines our work but also has a crippling impact on our business.
- All the current reports and documents we deliver to our customers are generated on fly in adobe acrobat pro 8.
-We don’t use password protection to avert copy, print or modification of documents
-No use of digital signatures
-Visible water marks are used at top and bottom of all the pages in a report.
Based on the analysis of our current system, the table below lists the options we have to protect the content using soft measures as well as their pros and cons:-
| S.No | Soft Measures | Cons | Pros |
| 1 | Presenting one page at a time | Frustration for customer Just a deterrent. | Easy to implement |
| 2 | Obscuring print or save functionality | Frustration for customer Just a deterrent. | Easy to implement |
| 3 | Limit on number of downloads in one session | No control after download, over head of monitoring session info. | Easy to implement |
| 4 | License agreement acceptance before download. | No control after download | Deterrent, might work with average user |
Table 1.1: Soft content protection measures
To read More Click "Read Full Post!" below
As most of our customers are subscribers and they pay for these reports the first three options are not advisable to the subscriber section, but can and must be implemented for the small section of guest users. The 4th option of adding a step of accepting Licensing agreement should be implemented globally.
These options are based on recent developments in technology which will involve use of some form of cryptographic measures. To implement these options further investment in Software solutions and associated Hardware will be needed. Table 1.2 below lists some of the options available.
| S.No. | Hard Measures | Cons | Pros |
| 1 | Copy Paste prevention | Document as whole can still be shared | Very easy to implement Current acrobat pro supports this |
| 2 | Secure container Method | - Require customer side client for access - Current license violation - Does not do license based management(Uses access base management) | Tie document to single machine Password based access control - Use Controls - Specific use actions: copy, paste, save, print, email - Extent of use: amount and duration - Current vs. subsequent use - Individual vs. group |
| 3 | DRM solution | - Uses client server authentication (access to network /internet is needed) - Hidden watermarking availability is not specified - Viability in light of current user license agreement. | - Inherits all functionality of TRM o Prevent copy, save print, number of prints - Specify security o Policies, Revocation o Expiration, Auditing o Watermarking(PDF) - Select recipients by: o Individual or Group |
Table 1.2: Hard content protection measures
A DRM solution will be a good option to implement; I am advocating this solution based on these observations:
- DRM system will give us more control over how and where the research/white papers provided by us are used / accessed.
- We can control number offline views. (No connectivity to our servers necessary).
- User will have the option to buy license if he receives document from other source
- Batch automation of PDF protection and DRM controls - no user input required
- Each download can be linked to specific user
- How many times documents can be viewed
- How long documents can be viewed. (Days, months...)
- Printing documents (including the number of times your documents can be printed)
- Use of Windows print screen and screen grabber applications - stop users taking screen shots of documents.
- Printing to file, email, PDF format (Acrobat distiller, etc.), common image printers, etc. are automatically prevented
- Watermarking will be integral part of the system to prevent print /scan problem
An added advantage will be that the customer will still have the freedom of use within the guidelines of the license agreement, and the system can be implemented in different stages.
We have the option of following two DRM solutions.
1. Adobe LiveCycle Enterprise Suite
2. Lizard Protector web content security
Both of these systems support PDF documents and the first option even supports windows word. Final selection will however depend on the pricing, scalability with our current system and degree of flexibility offered in implementation (partial feature implementation).
- Eschenfelder, K.R. (2007) Every Library’s Nightmare? Digital Rights Management and Licensed Scholarly Digital Resources. University of Wisconsin-Madison School of library and Information Studies.
- Adobe solutions for digital rights management, www.adobe.com.
- http://www.locklizard.com/digital_rights_management_products.htm
- http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/technologies/rightsmgmt/default.mspx
The One Laptop per Child association (OLPC) is an ICT4D non-profit organization, created by faculty members of the MIT Media Lab, set up to oversee The Children's Machine project and the construction of the XO-1 "$100 laptop". Both the project and the organization were announced at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in January 2005.
The goal of the foundation is to provide children around the world with new opportunities to explore, experiment, and express themselves. To that end, OLPC is designing a laptop, educational software, manufacturing base, and distribution system to provide children outside of the first-world with otherwise unavailable technological learning opportunities.
OLPC espouses five core principles:[6]
| “ | It's an education project, not a laptop project. | ” |
The new generator will make the laptop much easier to power than it would be with a hand crank, in part, because the users will be able to operate the generator in a variety of ways, including holding the device (the size of two hockey pucks) in one hand and pulling the string with the other, or clamping the generator to a desk, attaching the string to one foot, and using leg power. "We wanted something that could take advantage of other muscle groups in the human body that can put out a lot more energy than the muscles that you get when you're just turning a crank," says Colin Bulthaup, a co-founder of Squid Labs.
To reach the project's goal of one minute of power generation for every ten minutes of laptop use, the generator would need to produce 20 watts (the laptop will require less than two watts in a primary application as an electronic textbook replacement). "With a hand-crank system, if you're gung-ho about it, you can get about five watts out of it. But you get tired after about a minute or so," says Geo Homsy, a partner and designer at Squid Labs. With the new system, generating 20 watts is comfortable, and it's possible to generate 10 watts for "as long as you want," the developers say.
The new generator is also quiet -- one of the key design requirements. "If you imagine an entire school room full of kids using this thing, it needs to be as quiet as possible. Otherwise it will drive everyone insane," Homsy says. Typical generators work best at high revolutions per minute, requiring noisy gears to step up the speed. The developers have done away with gears by custom-designing a generator that runs most efficiently at lower RPMs, a move that also makes possible a smaller device.
The $100 laptop developers are also working with several firms on an ambitious, related project: developing a long-lasting battery system to be paired with the generator (or to charge off AC power). This battery system will include "custom chemistry, unique electronics, and complex charge and discharge monitoring algorithms to deliver 2,000 battery cycles -- four times more than normal PCs," Foster says. A long charging session in the morning, for instance, would allow kids to use the laptop throughout the day, with the batteries storing enough energy for eight hours of work -- with enough left over for the computer to serve as a wireless mesh network router for another 16 hours.
Medical imaging has made vast strides over the past decade. Technologies that were once limited to diagnostic applications are increasingly being used for minimally invasive surgeries, cancer ablations and colonoscopies. Image Guided Interventional techniques(IGI) have not only helped reduce patient recovery duration, but also helped to improve efficiency of treatment.
Modern imaging techniques started with the invention of 2-D X-ray scans. As the popularity of these scans increased, the demand for a more comprehensive coverage of the object also grew. This along with the advances in computing technologies eventually led to 4-slice Computed Tomography(CT) scanners. Today all major players, Philips Medical Systems, GE Medical Systems and Siemens Medical Systems offer multi-slice scanners that can be used in axial mode to quickly scan moving organs or in helical mode to cover the entire human anatomy. Recently Philips has introduced a new 256 slice scanner in its Brilliance iCT series while Toshiba has introduced a 320 slice scanner in its Aquilion series.
As imaging technologies improve and scanners get more intelligent and efficient, the market for diagnostic as well as interventional radiology will continue to grow.
(Note: Image coutesy of Toshiba)
concepts cars are futuristic cars which may or may not see production but some of them are really cool to look at and use very high end technologies. This years New york Auto show is showing 12 concept cars from different manufactures. Some are really futuristic and good looking. the one which really popped my eyes out is "Dodge Zeo" really great looks and equally great interiors. the look show below is really Awesome. ZEO stands for " Zero Emissions Operations, and this a all electric high performance car, 0 to 60 mph in 5.7 seconds and a top speed of 130 mph. The Zeo's all-electric range is 250 miles, this is much more then which is available from other car manufactures as of now.
automobilemag
Wallpapers from different views
Few other contenders at the Auto show are
Audi R8 V12 TDI you can design your own at least virtually here.
Jeep's Renegade is a hybrid made for off-road and on road action.
Well its kind of old news to the tech people that IE 8 beta is out, and even older that FF3 beta 3 is there
I was just playing around with both of them and did this SunSpider JavaScript Benchmark" test you check the details on there site how it works and all i just wanted to post the results of comparison
system specifications on which I tested was :
OS Name: Microsoft Windows XP Professional
OS Version: 5.1.2600 Service Pack 2 Build 2600
OS Manufacturer: Microsoft Corporation
OS Configuration: Standalone Workstation
OS Build Type: Multiprocessor Free
System Manufacturer: Dell Inc.
System Model: Latitude D520
System type: X86-based PC
Processor(s): 2 Processor(s) Installed.
[01]: x86 Family 6 Model 15 Stepping 2 GenuineIntel ~980 Mhz
[02]: x86 Family 6 Model 15 Stepping 2 GenuineIntel ~980 Mhz
Total Physical Memory: 1,014 MB
Available Physical Memory: 515 MB
Virtual Memory: Max Size: 2,048 MB
Virtual Memory: Available: 2,007 MB
Both browsers performed pretty well and are in close competition with one another
FF3 being fast in 20 test case but IE8 is faster in may important cases like Morph function and unpack
Test results are detailed below
=============================================================================
** TOTAL **: 1.02x as fast 12806.2ms +/- 0.5% 12518.8ms +/- 1.1%
============================================================================= TEST COMPARISON FROM IE8 Beta %age +/- TO Firefox3 beta %age +/- Difference in speed bits-in-byte: *1.10x as slow* 344 0.00% 377.8ms 0.80% significant math: *1.13x as slow* 1222.2 0.70% 1379.8ms 1.20% significant cordic: *1.17x as slow* 500 0.00% 583.0ms 1.60% significant tagcloud: *1.17x as slow* 440.8 1.90% 513.8ms 10.30% significant nbody: *1.21x as slow* 512.4 1.70% 622.4ms 1.50% significant bitops: *1.27x as slow* 1612.8 0.50% 2042.8ms 2.70% significant 3bit-bits-in-byte: *1.29x as slow* 268.8 3.20% 346.8ms 1.50% significant cube: *1.35x as slow* 440.6 3.70% 596.0ms 3.00% significant 3d: *1.44x as slow* 1346.6 1.20% 1932.6ms 1.40% significant partial-sums: *1.44x as slow* 359.6 0.20% 516.4ms 1.30% significant bitwise-and: *1.52x as slow* 625 0.00% 949.4ms 5.50% significant regexp: *1.55x as slow* 553.4 2.00% 859.6ms 18.60% significant dna: *1.55x as slow* 553.4 2.00% 859.6ms 18.60% significant unpack-code: *1.74x as slow* 459.4 2.40% 798.6ms 3.60% significant morph: *2.51x as slow* 356.2 2.40% 895.0ms 0.90% significant nsieve-bits: 1.02x as fast 375 0.00% 368.8ms 0.90% significant fasta: 1.05x as fast 487.6 1.80% 463.4ms 4.20% significant format-tofte: 1.09x as fast 556 1.80% 508.0ms 5.00% significant aes: 1.10x as fast 406.4 3.40% 368.8ms 2.40% significant crypto: 1.14x as fast 965.6 1.60% 848.4ms 2.10% significant access: 1.15x as fast 2071.4 1.10% 1803.4ms 1.00% significant validate-input: 1.15x as fast 446.8 2.40% 388.6ms 3.00% significant sha1: 1.16x as fast 281 0.00% 243.2ms 1.20% significant md5: 1.18x as fast 278.2 3.10% 236.4ms 3.90% significant raytrace: 1.25x as fast 549.8 1.50% 441.6ms 4.40% significant fannkuch: 1.26x as fast 846.6 1.00% 672.6ms 1.20% significant spectral-norm: 1.29x as fast 362.6 2.40% 280.4ms 3.40% significant string: 1.33x as fast 3581.4 0.70% 2691.8ms 3.60% significant date: 1.35x as fast 1074.8 1.50% 795.0ms 4.60% significant format-xparb: 1.81x as fast 518.8 1.80% 287.0ms 8.00% significant binary-trees: 1.97x as fast 431 2.50% 218.8ms 7.40% significant controlflow: 2.29x as fast 378 2.20% 165.4ms 1.00% significant recursive: 2.29x as fast 378 2.20% 165.4ms 1.00% significant base64: 3.31x as fast 1746.8 0.50% 527.4ms 8.60% significant nsieve: ?? 281.4 4.80% 289.6ms 5.00% not conclusive: might be *1.03x as slow*
This information was derived from the test run at the http://webkit.org/perf/sunspider-0.9/sunspider-results.html site
I have always wanted to have a graphic tablet it gives you the freedom of movement(little tricky to use). But it has far more functional used than a Traditional mouse. Now being a techno geek i checked out the specs of may tablets. what specifications to look for. so i thought of sharing here.
The Quality of a Graphic tablet is measured on many Things most important Being
