| ||||||||||||
RefBan
Thursday, August 30, 2012
How Secure Are You Online: The Checklist
August 30th, 2012Top StoryHow Secure Are You Online: The ChecklistBy Thorin Klosowski
Not all computer security is about tin foil hats and anonymous browsing. Everyone who uses a computer has a horse in the security race. For the purpose of this post, we're breaking down online security into four essential parts: passwords, browsers, at-home Wi-Fi and networking, and browsing on public Wi-Fi. Within those categories we'll give you a checklist of everything you should do, from the bare minimum to the tin-foil-hat best. Think you've done your due diligence with your security? Jump to any of the four sections below to see how you stack up (and boost your security where you may be lacking):
Password Security Checklist
The Bare Minimum of Password SecurityJust because you don't use a lot of online services doesn't mean you can neglect basic password security. Sure, you don't need to take any complicated measures, but everyone should at least do a couple things.
That's the minimum you should do if you want to play it safe and secure with your passwords. But you can do better than that. Let's step up your game. Level Up: You're a Password ProIf you're the type to conduct a lot of work online, then you need more complicated security measures. With that in mind, you should do the steps mentioned above, and a few other things.
If you're doing all of the above, your passwords are about as safe as they can get. Nice work, and stay vigilant! Browser Security Checklist
The Bare Minimum of Browser SecurityPassword security is just part of the battle. You also want to make sure your browser is secure. This is what everyone should be doing:
The basics of browser security are great for most people, but if you want to keep advertisers and The Man off your back, you need to take a few more measures. Level Up: Keep Everyone from Tracking YouWe know that pretty much everyone is tracking your every move on the web. The data collected from your browsing is used for ads, targeted coupons, and plenty more. Let's put a stop to that.
The above extensions and measures can ensure you have a private and secure browsing experience. But if you really want to keep your browsing away from prying eyes, you have to go anonymous. Next Level: Go AnonymousCompletely anonymous browsing isn't for everyone, nor is it for every situation. However, it can come in handy when you're torrenting, when you don't want to give away your location, and if you just plain don't like somebody watching over your shoulder. Here's what you'll need.
Home Network Security Checklist
The Bare Minimum of Network SecurityIf you don't use your computer for much more than browsing the web, creating a couple documents, and storing family photos, then you don't need to do much to keep everything safe.
These are just the basics. If your computer is your livelihood, you need to do a few more things to keep your data secure. Level Up: You're a Network Security ProWhether you work from home, or you're simply on a work computer all day long, keeping your data secure and safe is important. On top of everything above, you also want to add a few more security measures.
The above is more than enough for most people on their home network, but what about when you need to leave the house? Public Wi-Fi Security Checklist
Bare Minimum of Public Wi-Fi SecurityLet's say you occasionally check email on public Wi-Fi when your internet is down or you're on vacation. You're always tempting fate when you don't completely lock down your computer, but here's the minimum amount of effort you should always do.
Doing these three things will keep most of your data secure when you're just popping in to quickly check your email. If you're using free Wi-Fi in a dorm or apartment building, you need a stronger solution. Level Up: You're a Public Wi-Fi ProIf you're on public Wi-Fi a lot, it's best to really lock down and encrypt your data. In addition to the steps above (particularly turning off file sharing and HTTPS), you can lock out anyone pretty easily.
That's all you really need to do when you're on public Wi-Fi to keep your browsing encrypted and safe. However, you can take it another step and go completely anonymous. Next Level: Grab Your Tin Foil Hat, We're Going UntraceablePerhaps you really don't want anyone tracking what you're doing on a public Wi-Fi network or worse, public computer. This sounds nefarious, but it's handy for things like checking your bank account on a public computer. The simplest way to go completely anonymous is with a custom build of Linux called Tails installed on a USB or CD. We've walked you through the setup process before and it's very easy. With Tails you get a custom operating system with built-in anonymous browsing, encryption for email and chat, file encryption, and a ton of software. You can load Tails up on your own computer, or a public one. With Tails, you not only browse without leaving a trace, you also secure everything you do. Security is important to everyone from the tech illiterate to the tech savvy. The precautions you decide to make are your own choice, but always keep in mind that you security online is just as important (if not more) than the security in your own home.  |
|
Gold Vs. Plus: How Sony Is Making a Mockery Of Xbox Live
August 30th, 2012Top StoryGold Vs. Plus: How Sony Is Making a Mockery Of Xbox LiveBy Stephen Totilo
But it is becoming increasingly hard to argue that the Xbox 360's online subscription service is superior to the PlayStation 3's. This is what competition does, and, today, the long-running $60-a-year Xbox Live Gold just doesn't seem to offer as much value as the newer, upstart, the $50 PlayStation Plus. Let's break this down. Xbox Live Gold costs about $5 a month for individual plan. The paid plan gives Xbox 360 gamers an extra suite of features atop basic gamer-to-gamer text-messaging, cross-game-chat and access to an online marketplace, all of which are free as part of Gold members also get the following features: Xbox Live Gold Features
Those are the major perks and features available in the U.S. There are several more entertainment services available in other regions. (Wikipedia has a good chart for this; Microsoft offers their own less-detailed chart.) Some of the services here, including HBO Go and Netflix require their own paid memberships with those services. And some, such as YouTube and Twitter, are free on just about any device other than an Xbox 360. Originally, Xbox Live Gold's main advertised feature was access to multiplayer gaming. With the launch of the PlayStation 3, Sony countered that by refusing to charge for online gaming. Sony's PlayStation Network was, initially, free to anyone who bought the console. There was no paid service, no PSN Gold. The PS3 couldn't do cross-game chat. That was the biggest knock. But it also didn't charge gamers. To this day, Xbox 360 owners pay for things on their console that PlayStation owners don't. Let's strike through all of the services on Gold that PlayStation 3 owners get at no extra charge from Sony. Xbox Live Gold minus Free PSN Features
There's one cheat there. Sony owners don't actually get Internet Explorer, but they can browse the web for free. It also does offer free-to-play games in its free PlayStation Home avatar hangout/whatever-it-is as well as with games such as Free Realms and DC Universe Online. Several of Gold's features aren't available on PlayStation. There's no Halo Waypoint access, no ESPN, no HBO Go. But Netflix is there, Hulu Plus is there, still requiring outside subscriptions but no added payment to Sony. This is how it's been for a while, but, last year in 2010, Sony introduced PlayStation Plus and started giving its customers the chance to pay for more services. Players got discounts in the PSN store, beta access, but nothing amazing. Then, this past June, Sony added one more key perk, the perk that makes a mockery out of Xbox Live Gold: free games. Here's what PlayStation 3 owners get for Plus: PlayStation Plus Features
Note the length of that list. It's short. Microsoft's Gold list is longer. But Sony's has a bullet point that it's hard for Xbox Live to top, the Instant Game Collection. That's a bundle of games that a Plus subscriber can download and that remain accessible for as long as the subscriber's account lasts. In the few months the service has been live, Sony has removed some games from the offer and added new ones. The removed games are still available to legacy subscribers; they're just not available for free to new ones. For this to be a good deal, the games better be good, right? Here's what you'd have in your Instant Game Collection through early September, if you were a Plus subscriber since the free game offers started in June (games no longer offered to new subscribers have an asterisk): Free Games Available Through PlayStation Plus
Pretty good list, no? Well, some people don't like it: specifically, U.S. Plus subscribers have started complaining that Europe gets an even better batch, which includes Dead Space 2 and will soon include Red Dead Redemption . The grass is indeed always greener somewhere else. Xbox Live is much more widely-discussed than PlayStation Network. Microsoft has been noisier about their online service. They've been more aggressive, standardizing online console multiplayer gaming, striking first with Netflix streaming and just boasting more about their pay service. The company reports that it has 40 million Xbox Live subscribers, though it won't say how many are paying Gold members (one Microsoft estimate from two years ago put it at about half that count). Competition, however, causes the other party to do amazing things and that appears to be what's happening with PlayStation Plus, a service which—surprise—Sony doesn't share subscriber stats for either. It's a safe bet that Sony has fewer Plus people than Microsoft has Golds. It's also a safe bet that Sony reacts awfully well to competition, as they've been showing throughout the summer. Our colleagues at Gizmodo recently argued that Xbox Live Gold should be free. (Microsoft might counter that their services cost money to maintain; we might counter that that's why they're running ads on Xbox Live.) Let's pile on a new argument: Gold should be as impressive as PlayStation Plus. For consumers, it sure looks like Sony is offering the better deal. CORRECTION: This story originally didn't list the discounts on games and DLC that Xbox Live Gold members are also offered. I've added them. That matches the discounts feature offered in PlayStation Plus.  |
|
![Konami Reveals New <em>Metal Gear Solid</em> Game [Update: Now With First Images]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uTLahHjF7eLeg-yazKhSWR4QgzcImoppkJsAOmb-l0LIyUxa_5JDDMOhJJvAdIu05Ss1IZFWbxzd9O_-D_SnVgV-0FnlJWZGuwkh4ofOA1fzBaV-Zc3CC4wcjNtlF9=s0-d "Konami Reveals New <em>Metal Gear Solid</em> Game [Update: Now With First Images]")
How Self-Sustaining Space Habitats Could Save Humanity from Extinction
August 30th, 2012Top StoryHow Self-Sustaining Space Habitats Could Save Humanity from ExtinctionBy George Dvorsky
Yesterday, we explained why we should reboot the Biosphere 2 projects of the 1990s. There are a lot of scientific and technological benefits from learning to create self-sustaining habitats — but the biggest reason is because we need to know how to live in space, before we have noplace else to live. There's little question that this is an important area of inquiry. We clearly want to venture out into space, but if we're going to do so, we'll eventually have to lose our dependence on Mother Earth. Colonists won't always be able to rely on a steady stream of supplies from Earth, which means they're eventually going to have to figure it on their own.
And the threats are real. The possibility of an asteroid impact, nuclear war, a nanotechnological disaster, or severe environmental degradation make the need for off-planet habitation extremely urgent. And given our ambitious future prospects, including the potential for ongoing population growth, we may very well have no choice but to leave the cradle. We're obviously not going to get there overnight — but here's how we could do it. Baby steps As already noted, the first thing we need to do is develop a fully functional biosphere for long-term human occupation. We still haven't figured out how to do this yet, so it should be at the top of our priority list. We especially need to figure out ways to keep CO2 levels in check, maintain a steady internal temperature, avoid water acidification, and find a way to keep our sanity in check given the close confines. Once this has been done, we can start to think about going into space. The initial structure or set of building materials could be brought up from Earth (either by rocket or space elevator), or we could make it difficult for the astro-biospherians, by making them pull together all their materials from local sources such as asteroids (call it the 'teach a man to fish approach').
That said, there are potential solutions to these issues. Back in 1974, physicist Gerard O'Neill outlined a freestanding orbital habitat consisting of large cylinders that would spin along an axis at a rate of one rotation per minute. This would result in a simulation of gravity along its inner surfaces. Initially, these self-sufficient space stations should be kept simple — pilot projects to prove that humans can live off-planet and independent of Earth — an important precedent for any subsequent missions to space, or for colonization efforts to other terrestrial bodies. And indeed, as time passes, these projects will have to assess the viability of more complex and long-term missions. As Ben Austen has warned, we could run into problems such as inbreeding. His solution, however, is to stock our habitats with DNA to expand upon the existing gene pool. More radically, colonists could take advantage of cybernetics, advanced genetic engineering practices, and life extension technologies to overcome these issues as they arise. What's not known, however, is how long a human offshoot could live in Earth's orbit alone. It's conceivable that a self-sustaining base could function for generations, but that doesn't seem like a reasonable long-term solution for the future of human civilization — particularly if the home planet is inaccessible for whatever reason. But this is why we should also focus our efforts on building closed-loop systems on the Moon, Mars, and beyond. Extraterrestrial but planetary biospheres Back in 2000, NASA completed a $200 million study called the "Roadmap to Settlement" in which they described the potential for a moon-based colony in which habitats could be constructed several feet beneath the lunar surface (or covered within an existing crater) to protect colonists from high-energy cosmic radiation. They also outlined the construction of an onsite nuclear power plant, solar panel arrays, and a number of methods for extracting carbon, silicon, aluminium and other materials from the surface.
Assuming that the radiation problem could be addressed, it might also be possible to set up solar-powered farming enclosures. If we could start farming at the lunar North Pole, experts estimate that a 0.5 hectare space farm could feed upwards of 100 people. At the same time, however, there will be some considerable challenges. The Moon features a long lunar night, which could limit solar power and require a colony to withstand temperature extremes. The Moon is also low in light elements, namely carbon, nitrogen, and hydrogen. Low gravity (at ⅙ of Earth's) could prove to be a long-term problem. The Moon is also completely devoid of an atmosphere, and it has virtually no potential as a future terraforming project. At best, the Moon could serve as a good proof-of-concept station for future projects, or for a short-term stay in the event of a catastrophe on Earth. As NASA's roadmap suggests, a colony on the Moon could help us prepare for a mission to Mars. It would probably be wise to set up, test, and train a self-sustaining colony a little closer to home before we take that massive leap to Mars. And indeed, Mars holds considerably more potential than the Moon. It features a solar day of 24 hours and 39 minutes, and a surface area 28.4% less than Earth's. The Red Planet also has an axial tilt of 25 degrees (compared to the Earth's 29%) resulting in similar seasonal shifts (though they're twice as long given that Mars's year is 1.88 Earth years). And most importantly, Mars has an existing atmosphere, significant mineral diversity (such as ore and nickel-iron), and water. Actually, it has a lot of water. Recent analysis shows that Mars could have as much water underground as Earth.
Looker deeper into this scenario, the colonists would eventually have to weigh the pros and cons of their efforts. It might make more sense for them to return to Earth in hopes of salvaging things there — terraforming a broken Earth could prove considerably easier than terraforming Mars. Ultimately, it would depend on the condition of Earth, which could meet a grim fate in any number of ways, including a runaway greenhouse gas effect that could turn it into a Venus-like planet (which could make it much worse than Mars), nanotechnological ecophagy (a grey goo scenario in which self-replicating nanobots have converted virtually everything into useless mush), or an asteroid impact (which would only be a temporary problem). That said, Mars may not be the only terrestrial body in our solar system worth colonizing. Saturn and Jupiter feature a number of moons that could also be considered, though their proximity from the Sun could pose some problems. Finally, there's also the possibility that colonists will want to venture into deep space and find entirely new planets to inhabit — including Earth-like planets that are ready for immediate occupancy. Self-sustainability would have to be a key feature of the expedition, as the colonists would not be able to depend on the Earth for any resources. And as for knowing where to go, it would be akin to the Pacific Islander colonization campaigns of the past; just pick a direction and hope for the best. Timelines
But assuming that we could focus our efforts, it's not unreasonable to assume that we could develop our first self-sufficient biosphere right here on Earth by the end of the 2020s — if not a lot sooner. It's been nearly 20 years since the last Biosphere 2 project, and there's a good chance that today's science and technology can solve many of the problems we experienced during those missions. Once that has (finally) been done, it's entirely possible that self-reliant orbital habitats could be constructed during the 2030s. By that point, our technologies will be advanced enough that any unsolved problem could be addressed by A.I. or sophisticated modeling techniques. At the same time, advanced 3D printers and molecular assemblers (aka "fabs") will make life appreciably easier for colonists working in space. After this stage, the technologies required for setting up closed-loop colonies on the Moon, Mars, or elsewhere would largely be in place. So, assuming no social upheavals or other unpredictable events, we could be capable of living permanently and independently off-planet any time after 2030 or so, and certainly no later than the 2050s. There is another, albeit more radical, way for us to ensure our ongoing existence in the event of civilizational catastrophe. Assuming that uploads will someday be possible, it would be wise to "backup" human civilization off-planet. This idea was initially proposed by author Vernor Vinge, who suggested that we bury a supercomputer on the moon (or elsewhere) that could house an entire civilization. Alternately, this uploaded civilization could be sent on a mission into deep space in hopes of reviving a new society elsewhere. But given the highly speculative nature of this possibility — and knowing that a disaster can strike at any time — we should continue to work on viable solutions for purely biological humans. All this said, these timelines and predictions assume, of course, that we actually care about building self-sustaining habitats. As history has repeatedly shown, our ability to do something doesn't necessarily mean that we will. But given what's at stake, it's a prospect that needs to be taken a bit more seriously. Images via here, here, here, here, here.  |
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)