Airships, particularly rigid airships (Zeppelins), are massive and it's the mass that becomes a problem. The airship is inflated to a state of neutral buoyancy so it floats and can hang in the sky (cool!) but the mass has to be dealt with when you want to start, stop, or change direction. I believe that the Hindenburg required a ground crew of ~200 to control the airship during landing and mooring. It's also a problem in flying in the vicinity of strong storms.
You also have to maintain the neutral buoyancy as you burn fuel. Zeppelins could use diesel but the preference was for 'blau gas' which had a density close to air, and didn't cause the airship to lighten as it was burned. Maintaining buoyancy also complicates using an airship as a freighter; an offsetting load is needed when making a delivery, otherwise you end up venting your lifting gas.
All that said, if I had the money I'd totally blow it building a Zeppelin-style (and size) airship.
>I believe that the Hindenburg required a ground crew of ~200 to control the airship during landing and mooring. It's also a problem in flying in the vicinity of strong storms.
The ground handling problems have been solved. You either use directional thrust like Zeppelin NT, or you make the airship a lifting body that's slightly heavier than air, landing it on a runway like an airplane like Airlander 10. Both work.
If they could get the fare down to the equivalent of a business class airline ticket, I'd do it. Even if food + beverages were extra-cost.
> I believe that the Hindenburg required a ground crew of ~200 to control the airship during landing and mooring.
A solution might be to never land. Have a helipad on top of the airship, and have passengers arrive/depart via helicopter (as well as resupply via containers slung under a helicopter).
FB's security people likely track and have copies of account/password dumps from site breeches.
Sort of like Troy Hunt does with haveibeenpwned.com but for their own internal security measures.
Also, business used to have have counter checks available for customers (if they took checks). Basically a standard blank form, sort of like what banks have for withdrawals but were less formal. Sometimes mentioned in 70's TV shows/movies like Columbo.
Given that recent reporting has shown that ads and tracking are the biggest culprits in page load times, AMP appears to be solving an ad/tracking problem more than a web page problem.
He does work in corp sec trying to stop spearphishers who target food processors. I think the point is to educate other IT staff while trying convince MS to provide more security controls for OLE.
Glad to see doc on the ShowOLEPackageObj reg key which I was unaware. EMET also helpful.
The author is obviously smart and dedicated - and I’d probably be forced to terminate him.
He is an non-supervisory employee, who has not been given administrative access to these computers. He created and deployed a program to other computers without permission that actively thwarted attempts to be shutdown, and modified it get around a GPO that was more than likely pushed out because of what he was doing. This is malware - for a good purpose but still an undesirable application being run without permission.
If the company has decided that computers need to be locked when away from keyboard there will be a policy and procedure for reporting and dealing infractions. This won’t be it. While in this case the program might have been mostly harmless, one never knows when a programming error might spin things out of control. It’s clever, funny to some, but if it accidentally resulted in downtime the stuff the flows downhill would come fast and be unpleasant in some organizations. Plus, annoying your teammates isn’t the best idea long term. I know this may seem harsh, but from my experience organizations with the most need for this security would be the least likely to approve of this method.
My coment is not at all talking about what the OP was doing. I think that he went beyond what he ought to have. I am specifically referring to the mentality of "employees should trust their coworkers and can therefore leave their computers unlocked".
I didn't say they have to keep their computer unlocked, some of them did lock, but I did not enforce a locking policy because I don't think it was necessary in the context. And if I did have to enforce screen locking in other places, it would be out of question to use any passive aggressive behavior or public shaming towards a teammate, if you need trust from your employees, you treat them well. My first reflex would be to look at technology, because locking the computer is a stupid and consistent task and technology is for stupid consistent things.
I think people are too focused on working for military and paranoïa, we need a range of behaviors, from the paranoid to the welcoming, that guy watching your screen could start an interesting discussion about your project, and give you the contact to the right person to help you. You don't want that in a military context, you highly desire it when you're building a vegan pet food marketplace for hipsters.
Not everyone needs to develop like in Aerospace, not everyone needs to develop like in video games, not everyone needs de behave like a NSA agent, and not everyone needs to behave like a farmer's market salesman, we need a range of behaviors.
And whatever the policy, you never, ever, let co-workers be dicks to each others, no "pranks", no public shaming, no sending a prank email from each other's computer. If security is really an big issue, then not locking a computer is a strike, it goes between the boss, the offender and HR, not a matter of joke.
At the bottom of the Store page is a link to the Commercial Store for commercial licenses. No initial launch discounts there. There's also an Education Store.
