On Mon, 8 Oct 2018, Aaron C. de Bruyn wrote:
Google solved these problems with ~$120 smoke alarm and a decent cell phone app.
If they released a new version with weather alerts, I wouldn't think
twice about dropping $200 on it.
A company already made a combination smoke alarm/weather radio.
Hal
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 10:54 AM Sean Donelan wrote:
> There is no business case for Amazon, Apple or Google to include emergency
> alerts as part of their smart speakers.
I have a $50 weather alert radio.
Does it have have batteries? Are they charged? Are they almost dead?
When did I last hear
On October 8, 2018 at 16:37 s...@donelan.com (Sean Donelan) wrote:
> A nation-wide WEA and EAS system helps warn people in both cities and
> rural areas. But they still depend on carriers and broadcasters. If there
> are no backup batteries in cell towers, or backup transmitters for
> broa
On Mon, 8 Oct 2018, b...@theworld.com wrote:
I suppose since every life is precious one can measure the
effectiveness based on "land mass" but then one wonders if some sheep
out in a field in Idaho really care that the US was just invaded...put
better: You do what you can!
How quickly we forget
Just as a small point of contention, if you lose the bread basket and
the agricultural industries, you might as well have never received an
emergency alert in a city where the supplies and fresh food will run out
and people will be fighting and killing each other for a Snickers bar.
No good sa
On October 8, 2018 at 03:37 snasl...@medline.com (Naslund, Steve) wrote:
> A few cases come to mind. I also think there are lots of alerts
> that will not send people screaming into the streets. 9/11 did not
> really have that effect in most places and it took quite some time
> for word to
On Sat, 6 Oct 2018, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
Since there isn't infinite money to build a system that will reach *everybody*,
the only reasonable approach is to cobble together a set of overlapping systems
on existing technology that covers the most people while staying inside the
funding re
The risks of VPN aren't in the VPN itself, they are in the continuous
network connection architecture.
90%+ of VPN interconnects could be handled cleanly, safely, and reliably
using HTTPS, without having to get internal network administration
involved at all.
And the risks of key exposure with
On Mon, 08 Oct 2018 08:53:55 -0500, Daniel Taylor said:
> Especially when you have companies out there that consider VPN a
> reasonable way to handle secure data transfer cross-connects with
> vendors or clients.
At some point, you get to balance any inherent security problems with the
concept of
That would be one way, but a lot of the problem is unplanned cross-access.
It's (relatively) easy to isolate network permissions and access at a
single location, but once you have multi-site configurations it gets
more complex.
Especially when you have companies out there that consider VPN a
10 matches
Mail list logo
