Monthly Archives: May 2012

Food, Security

How Tough is Your Phone?

Leave a comment

I completely destroyed two Apple iPhones within six months before I switched to Nokia. There has been no looking back.

My Nokia phones have taken far worse abuse than the Apple products ever did and yet there has been literally no signs of damage. It’s really an unbelievable experience.

When I pull out my N9 people ask me if it is brand new despite the fact that it has been through months of use and abuse all over the world. The following video gives a good demonstration of what I am showing them. It is a very dramatic difference in product quality. Try this with your iPhone:

Even the Motorola Defy, which is marketed as a tough phone, is easily destroyed. I just replaced the screen on one the other day. The upside to the Motorola is that parts are cheap and easily available. I would still prefer that over waiting in line at a retail location with a bunch of sad-faced Apple owners. There’s nothing worse than trying to find a specific retail location when you are on the road and then fighting to get a spot in line. No wonder kids think the 1980s are cool again. If they use iPhones they are literally in a proprietary retail experience of thirty years ago.

So if you want a sophisticated phone that is rugged, the Nokia Lumia 900 or N9 seems to be the clear (pun not intended) winner in the market right now. It’s not only beautiful, but its physical integrity and data availability are superior to the competition.

This isn’t taken well by analysts, of course, who try to come up with reasons why the data is flawed. Consider this example from SlashGear:

…since the Lumia 900 hasn’t been a commercial blockbuster, there are not as many customers to review it, meaning it’s much easier for that phone to get a 5-star average than something as incredibly well-selling as the iPhone 4S.

So when you eat a commercial blockbuster McDonalds McRib (pig tripe, heart, and scalded stomach) sandwich just remember how incredibly well-selling it is versus a top-chef Gary Danko dinner you could have been having instead. The 5-stars that Gary Danko received were much easier to get because far fewer people eat his food than the McRib, right?

Security

Risk Management Research: Body over Mind?

Leave a comment

A new study supports the theory that we should let our bodies dictate decisions involving risk

The researchers say that evidence is mounting to indicate that our bodies can sometimes govern how we think and feel, rather than the other way round. It also reveals that those people who are more in tune with their bodies are more likely to be led by their ‘gut feelings’.

Makes sense to me. I like being able to let my body decide on its own when to run or when to sweat based on well-established criteria instead of always having to use brain power for every micro-decision. Anyone who has seen a horror film knows what I am talking about. Directors use all kinds of methods to get the body to react instead of the brain.

Just to confuse this point a little, a scene in Jurassic Park comes to mind. Ripples in the liquid in a cup indicate danger (as opposed to a guitar string being played). Is that the brain interpreting the ripples as danger or is it the brain interpreting the ripples as vibration…and then the body decides vibration is danger? But I digress. Back to the new study:

The researchers measured participants’ physical responses to each offer by recording how much they sweated through the fingertips and how much their heart rate changed.

I did a quick search on related research and found a 1959 study that sounds oddly similar. It was called “Colorimetric Measurement of Anxiety: A clinical and experimental procedure” and says fingertip sweat is linked to “gut feelings”. So we’ve had this research for over fifty years and now? I also noted the 1959 study points out that fingertip sweat is not the same indicator as body sweat.

..prehension provoked palmar finger tip sweating without affecting a change in general bodily sweating

Sailing, Security

Hawaii Disappearing: USGS Beach Study of Availability

Leave a comment

People have been warning me for years that rising sea levels will erode the coastline. It’s hard to fathom (pun not intended) what that really means. Fortunately a new scientific method is being developed by the American government to quantify the situation. A report called “National Assessment of Shoreline Change: Historical Shoreline Change in the Hawaiian Islands” shows a fairly significant (14 mile) loss of beach.

Because the U.S. population continues to shift toward the coast where valuable coastal property is vulnerable to erosion, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is conducting a national assessment of coastal change.

[…]

A principal purpose of the USGS shoreline change research is to develop a common methodology so that shoreline change analyses for the continental U.S., portions of Hawaii, and Alaska can be updated periodically in a consistent and systematic manner. The primary objectives of this study were to (1) develop and implement improved methods of assessing and monitoring shoreline movement, and (2) improve current understanding of the processes controlling shoreline movement.

Ok, so they’re improving our understanding…and then they give a huge caveat:

Rates of shoreline change presented herein may differ from other published rates, and differences do not necessarily indicate that the other rates are inaccurate. Some discrepancies are to be expected, considering the many possible ways of determining shoreline positions and rates of change, and the inherent uncertainty in calculating these rates. Rates of shoreline change presented in this report represent shoreline movement under past conditions and are not intended for use in predicting future shoreline positions or future rates of shoreline change

Security

PCI DSS Requirement 10.7 Changelog

Leave a comment

Four years ago I wrote about changes between versions of the PCI DSS with an example of subtlety from Requirement 10.7. This came up again today, so here’s an updated table:

Requirement 10.7:

DSS 1.0 DSS 1.1 DSS 1.2 DSS 2.0
An audit history usually covers a period of at least one year, with a minimum of 3 months available online. Retain audit trail history for at least one year, with a minimum of three months online availability. Retain audit trail history for at least one year, with a minimum of three months immediately available for analysis (for example, online, archived, or restorable from back-up). Retain audit trail history for at least one year, with a minimum of three months immediately available for analysis (for example, online, archived, or restorable from back-up).