Author(s) : Farooq Anjum, Petros Mouchtaris
Publisher : Wiley, Year : Mar 2007, ISBN 10 : 0471756881, ISBN 13 : 9780471756880, Language : English, Pages : 247

The objective of this book is to make the readers aware of the fundamentals of the area of security of wireless networks as well as the open problems. This will hopefully spur much more activity in this area in the upcoming years. This book provides a broad and comprehensive overview of the research that has been done to date on the security of wireless ad hoc networks and discusses the advantages and disadvantages of the various schemes that have been proposed in the literature.

This book will be of interest to a wide variety of people. A beginner in the field will benefit from a simple description of the various problems and solutions. Such a person will also gain by having a ready compendium of important results in this area thereby saving such a person from the problem of information overload. Thus, this book can be used as a textbook in the first class focusing on security in ad hoc networks.

This book addresses the problems and brings solutions to the security issues of ad-hoc networks. Topics included are threat attacks and vulnerabilities, basic cryptography mechanisms, authentication, secure routing, firewalls, security policy management, and future developments.

TABLE OF CONTENT:
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Chapter 2 - Basic Security Concepts
Chapter 3 - Key Management
Chapter 4 - Secure Routing
Chapter 5 - Intrusion Detection Systems
Chapter 6 - Policy Management
Chapter 7 - Secure Localization
Chapter 8 - Conclusions and Future Research

(A copy of the book)email: razvi@london.com

These articles pop up quite frequently, discussing how young people live in a 'post-privacy' world, or how our personal lives become increasingly public to our friends and acquaintances, but they rarely mention the ways in which these social networks can be used to reveal and exploit the dynamics of social power.

Sociology gets a bad rap in science as being 'wooly' or 'vague', but it's often not to do with the methods its uses, but with the way of gathering data.

When attempting to understand social networks, traditional studies may ask people to fill in questionnaires about their social contacts and then the researchers draw inferences about who are the most important players in the community.

Two developments have made this much more powerful. The first is social network analysis, or rather, the application of rigorous mathematical methods from graph theory and network theory to social network analysis.

This allows the quantification of the network in important an interesting ways - such as who is most connected, whether the network is tightly integrated or how fragile it is.

One of the most interesting findings from these studies is that the most connected people, or those with the most explicit status (such as being the boss) aren't always the most important people in a network.

For example, 'friend collectors' on Facebook and MySpace may seem to be the most socially connected, but they're not necessarily the most influential because many of the connections represent very superficial social connections. Similarly, someone who has only a few connections may be connected to people influential in other subgroups, and so might have a huge knock-on influence. Social network analysis can identify these people.

The second development that has made sociology much more powerful is that the 'wooliness' in gathering data is increasingly disappearing because services like Facebook and Twitter mean we are creating the data ourselves, in incredible detail.

One use of this data is to sell to advertising space to marketing companies. Targeted advertising is now common, by location, age, sex or whatever explicit data you enter into your profile.

A much more powerful approach is to target advertising so it appears on the profile of the most influential people on the network. Indeed, Google has just registered a patent that describes exactly this process.

One of the advantages is that it can take advantage of the explicit data, and can identify the key people in a group, and is fairly resistant to friend collectors because it doesn't just rely on totting up friends, it looks at the network as a whole.

So you could identity the most influential people in the 18-25 age bracket, or the most influential in a small town, or the most influential people that like a certain type of movie.

Online networks can then sell advertising space ranked by influence, like Google sells adwords based on popularity.

Better still, it gives a quantified way of sponsoring highly selected people. You could be the David Beckham of 18-35 year old salsa fans in your town, sponsored to put the latest Latin sounds on your playlist.

Like celebrities, each of us will have an individual worth to advertisers, a price on our profile, and we will be the commodity that technology companies sell to marketers.

These new online social networking tools allow the companies that operate them an insight into the social power structures that run through our lives, and the opportunity to influence them. [mindhacks.com]

Weg von starren Programmatiken, Fraktionszwängen, Hierarchien, Parteiapparaten. Nur noch frei und unabhängig nach Wissen und Gewissen und nach Bedarf entscheiden. So wie es das Grundgesetz es ja auch ursprünglich vorschreibt. Warum eigentlich nicht?

Sowas ähnliches schwebte uns damals auch vor. Wir hatten ja nichts.

Aug 15, 2008

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gyIkr2i8d9-1xDGYac9OtUeFnUKg

MONTREAL — Social networking is spreading worldwide as Facebook and other sites adapt to local cultures and languages with use in Latin America, Europe and Asia Pacific all shooting upward.

By contrast, the growth of new users of social networking sites in North America is beginning to level off, says a report by U.S.-based comScore, an online data marketing firm.

"The real growth is obviously occurring internationally with respect to social networking in broader terms, but even more specifically with certain sites like Facebook and Hi5," senior analyst Andrew Lipsman said Friday.

"The sites that have made an emphasis on speaking to a specific market are the ones that are growing rapidly."

In Latin America, social networking on the Internet is up 33 per cent with 53.2 million unique visitors to social networking sites in June 2008 versus June 2007.

"They tend to be very highly engaged in Latin America in different forms of communications online," including text messaging and chatting, said Lipsman.

"I think social networking goes along with that."

Facebook.com took over the global lead among social networking sites in April, now more popular than MySpace, comScore said.

In Europe, social networking grew by 35 per cent to 165. 2 million unique visitors in June '08 versus the same period a year ago. In Asia, it grew by 23 per cent to about 200 million unique visits.

While comScore found that social networking is up 66 per cent in the Middle-East and Africa to 30.1 million unique visitors for the same time period, Lipsman said the growth is only from Israel and South Africa.

Lipsman said Facebook, which lets friends and families stay in touch, has users in many languages.

"In a lot of regions we are seeing where it had a minimal presence last year, it's quickly moving up the ranking in a lot of cases and taking the No. 1 spot."

Facebook had 132.1 million unique visitors worldwide in June '08 versus a year earlier, up 153 per cent. MySpace had 117.5 million, up three per cent for the same time period.

"Facebook is seeing strong growth just about everywhere."

Analyst Carmi Levy said worldwide users are making Facebook relevant in their own regions.

"Facebook doesn't provide the content, it simply provides the venue for people to connect with each other in whatever culturally acceptable way they deem fit," said Levy, senior vice-president of strategic consulting at Toronto's AR Communications Inc.

"There really is no American message incorporated within Facebook or MySpace or any of these other services."

Lipsman said about two-thirds of MySpace's traffic is still coming from the United States, making it less diversified than Facebook.

Hi5, an international social networking site with a local flavour, finished third behind Facebook and MySpace. Hi5 doubled its traffic in June '08 with 56.3 million unique visitors versus June '07.

Andrew Moore-Crispin, editor of HUB:The Computer Paper, said it's common for successful social networking sites to be translated into as many languages as possible.

Social networking sites become regionalized with their own cultural differences, Moore-Crispin said, adding he has friends overseas who approach Facebook more as entertainment than as a way to connect with people.

"Things that I find interesting, you are not going to find interesting and vice versa and across the pond, people's tastes are different as to what they want to do online," he said.

No that's not a politically incorrect cigarette reference, KOOL is the legendary CBS Phoenix Classic Hits station and Kent is the equally as legendary Top 40 air personality Tom Kent. KOOL-FM adds Kent and his nationally syndicated Tom Kent Show for the 7P-midnight shift as well as on weekends. This makes Kent's 100th affiliate since launching the show under the Tom Kent Radio Network banner back in March. WOMC Detroit, WMJX Miami and KLTH Portland are just a few of the big market stations airing some part of the TKN 24/7 lineup.

Texas is also an excellent entry-point to South America.

There is a network of professionals based in Portugal and Texas to support European Tech Start-Ups to enter the US Market: general incubators, health incubators, business angel networks, seed+VC investment.

For more information www.vimabiz.eu

1. Fannie and Freddie are not created equal (no one "in  the know" ever thought they were...). Apparently Freddie is under-capitalized and Fannie is still smelling the flowers on their way to being under-capitalized (from the NYT article):

Then, last week, advisers from Morgan Stanley hired by the Treasury Department to scrutinize the companies came to a troubling conclusion: Freddie Mac’s capital position was worse than initially imagined...

While Freddie Mac’s accounting woes make it easier for regulators to force the company into conservatorship, there was more resistance from Fannie Mae, according to people familiar with the discussions. Once the government took action against Freddie Mac, however, confidence in Fannie Mae would certainly waver. Given Fannie Mae’s declining financial condition, the company has few options but to concede to the government’s demands.

Fannie Mae is resisting? 

2. Taxpayers are about to own a whole lot of crap. Of course I already noted the large amount of non-prime mortgages sitting on the G.S.E.'s books (and the poor credit metrics)... But, apparently, the marking to market of these securities isn't hurting their capital position. Oh, holdon, stop celebrating--it's because they don't mark the portfolio. Here ya go (from the NYT article):

Freddie Mac’s portfolio contains many securities backed by subprime loans, made to the riskiest borrowers, and alt-A loans, one step up on the risk ladder, the company has not written down the value of many of those loans to reflect current market prices.

Executives have said that they intend to hold the loans to maturity, meaning they will be worth more, and they need not write down their value. But other financial institutions have written down similar securities, to comply with “mark-to-market” accounting rules. Freddie Mac holds roughly twice as many of those securities as Fannie Mae.

(emphasis mine).

3. It also seems that complaints from foreigners are causing the Treasury to take these steps:

The proposal to place both companies, which own or back $5.3 trillion in mortgages, into a government-run conservatorship also grew out of deep concern among foreign investors that the companies’ debt might not be repaid. Falling home prices, which are expected to lead to more defaults among the mortgages held or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie, contributed to the urgency, regulators said.

Investors who own the companies’ common and preferred stock will suffer. Holders of debt, including many foreign central banks, are expected to receive government backing. Top executives of both companies will be pushed out, according to those briefed on the plan.

(emphasis mine).

Now, let me make a point here: The decision to back only debt and not preferreds and common stock is completely arbitrary.

Let's fly off on a tangent and ask ourselves what would happen if government backing of the debt occurred as a singular event--nothing else happened. Well, then, the guarantee that everyone thought was in place would be in place. The market, credit conditions, and the housing market would most likely wipe out equity anyway. So, then, why does the government need to do this explicitly? Just take over day-to-day operations... They are regulated entities, it's not a stretch to strike a deal where the regulator ousts management and takes over!

Making this guarantee explicit, by the way, will also make holders a hefty profit as spreads will undoubtedly rally for agency debt--a nice gift to foreign holders of this debt at the expense of the shareholders current financial holdings, it seems.

4. I would look for a very, very serious revisiting of a lot of transactions. This would clearly be very controversial, but if I were advising regulators and the government, I would start taking a strict view of the G.S.E.'s charters, and unwinding whatever I could. No way the G.S.E.'s should have ever owned subprime loans or bonds. I also have a feeling that there are clauses that allow for some kind of "regulatory put" on many transactions if  deemed outside the G.S.E.'s authority or charter. Will the government go through these? Maybe. Truth be told, they need to de-lever these behemoths and raise capital cushions somehow. 

5. Look for a big Merrill-like trade. Who could be the buyer? I wonder...

Did you catch Bill Gross on CNBC just now? They asked if he had been approached by the Treasury about any government-led solution, presumably asking if PIMCO would participate. Gross said he couldn't comment, which means the answer is yes.

Okay... now about an hour until the details are confirmed. We'll see what happens.

Samurai Girl

House

Cold Case

BEV 901 Keys friedayz Sept 5, 2008

BEV 901 Keys as of Sept 5, 2008 13:15 EST
KEY0= 79A98BCDA62B74EAF0C8854653311449
Key1= 0138B1F337FD46D68DF85377F9EE88BC

Multicanal 2301/2201 Hispasat 30ºW 11535 V 24500 5/6 28-05-2008
KEY01=ee 26 16 8a 46 A7 94 03

Polsat HOTBIRD-17-07-2008- nagravision2 Provider : 7001/7101
KEY 01:F3 2e D1 75 3e Ab F0 76 E0 33 97 87 14 C7 A6 97

TV Globo HOTBIRD 07/06/2008 11585 /v/ 27500 ID:C102 NAGRAVISION2
key 00 :B1C2529D80ECB76016A80D5040C8084E

Multi-Choice TV Barbados (Cable TV) Ident: 1D 01 26-04-2008
KEY 01: 7b 8e bc 1c 9e e5 84 d8

Dish Network ident: 0101 -19/07/2008
KEY 00 : BF 54 E0 9C 41 02 F3 3E B9 2C 5A 99 F9 5D 02 27

Dish Network ident: 0106 -10/07/2008
KEY00: C9 DC DB 84 5A B8 2C DF 7F 32 8D E5 21 5C 45

Bell ExpressVu IDENT : (0901) 18-07-2008
KEY 00:45 73 E6 0F C0 23 13 12 12 74 1D 99 FF 34 CC 3E

Digi tv nagravision2 Provide 21 11 /20 11 26/06/2008
key01: 8E 31 EF BD D2 D8 76 A5 94 7A BB 07 B6 E8 13 F5

Premiere astra nagravision2 Provider 0503
KEY 00 :F0 C5 07 59 E5 52 A5 5D 06 AF 09 65 B8 A9 E4 68

Euskaltel cable tv NAGRAVISION2 PROVIDER :4701/ 4601 19/07-2008
Key01: 6D 5F F9 8D E7 AB B6 60 59 73 22 E0 7C 9F AB 57

ORF ASTRA 19.2 NAGRAVISION2 PROVIDER :3101 12692/H/22000
KEY 00 F7E76826766586AD90C079E87435437

DREAM Ident: 4E 01 / 4F 01 @ 146E Agila 2 19-07-2008
Key00:10 82 52 5C 3B 9A 5E B6

Teleclub suisse cable nagravision1 ident 3B01 13-07-2008
key 01 : 20 BA 75 42 0B 45 96 CD

Spain Cable TV Ident:4B 11 18/07/2008
KEY 00:A9 37 9B BE F2 EA 7A 0C 6D 3B 3C 7E 75 06 32 1E

Telefônica TV Digital Brasil & Amazonas (61.0°W)
Key00: 5A A0 0F CA CA 3B 55 CA 8E 35 31 0C 8D 06 BF 2A

UnityMedia @ german cable ident 1102 (ident 1002) 28/06/2008
KEY 01: FA D9 E9 98 27 B3 D6 6B 62 4F A3 82 E5 26 15 E1

Globecast PROVIDER : C101 01/07/2008
KEY 01 : 11 47 0A 91 AC 42 9A 16 93 1F EF A3 43 03 14 26

Digital Cable Group (Swiss Cable) Ident: 39 01 05/07/2008
Key 01: 25 F4 8B CF D8 93 FB 5F

Presidential candidate John McCain's acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention drew more television viewers than his rival Barack Obama attracted at the Democratic party's event last week, according to preliminary ratings from Nielsen Media Research.

Riding the Palin wave and the end of the NFL season-opener might have a little something to do with it. 

But McCain's speech was aired by 8 networks. Obama had two more, Black Entertainment Television and TV One, neither of which aired McCain's. Guess they thought that with Obama pulling 95% of the black vote, why bother? 

Rock Star!

Oh, and don't look now, but a Gallup poll from Tuesday - Thursday has Obama's lead down to 4 points. The full effect of the RNC won't be known until Monday when post-convention polling will be released. And we haven't even started the debates yet, where there is NO teleprompter. hahahahaha!

Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?

Psych

I may not have given her the "five hot tips" for job hunting she wanted (of course, if they were so hot, why would I give them away, or why would she?), but it was fun to try and riff for a few minutes on netcentric insights.

Here is what I said:

I can give you a few insights from my background studying social networks.

Most people assume that they will get the most support from those closest to them: family and long time friends. This is true for one kind of social capital: the strong ties that make us feel safe and foster healthy self-confidence. However, weak ties, old school mates, friends of friends, former co-workers and the like, are valuable for a differ reason: they are far more likely to be have information different from yours due to the fact that your strong ties tend to be linked to each other, whereas each of your weak ties is unlikely to be linked to your other weak ties. Research has shown that job seekers, especially younger ones, attain employment through the information gleaned from weak ties.

At the same time, networks are two way streets. People can sense and will avoid a “network jerk.” Even though some companies, like Amway, try to marketize pre-existing relations, most of us prefer that community and friendship ties and not just a façade to get to something valuable. I tell my students, in short, that you have to be a real person and grow your networks and relationships for the sake of the relationships.

LinkedIn or other SNS can simplify or accelerate existing social processes. Just as people in real networks rely on signals to determine how much they like a new contact, signals like their credential, who they know, how they present themselves, so too in virtual networks powered by web 2.0 software. In virtual networks, employers or HR mangers will develop ways to “read” the candidate through their profile. In fact, the speed and ease of linking in SNS can have a perverse effect for job seekers. If I am an employer looking for employees, I want to avoid a deluge of inappropriate applicants. If it is too easy to find or link to me in a virtual network like facebook, then I will limit accessibility. If I saw a recent grad with 200-300 contacts in LinkedIn, I would be skeptical that these were real and relevant contacts and not just the result of excessive “friending.”

Here are some more resources you may find useful:

http://nevereatalone.typepad.com/

Getting a Job (by author of original weak ties work): http://books.google.com/books?id=2xgEIBTTdVUC

Recent work that includes gender in questions of networks and careers: http://knowledge.insead.edu/contents/Ibarra.cfm

Fast forward 10 years. Viacom decides to make a move to try and "fit-in" with the trend of some of their other networks, not to mention others like USA. Sure, they still play some of the greats like Andy, Lucy, The Hillbillies, Beaver... and swome newer classics like Sandford & Son and The Jeffersons. But for the most part, now it's a different station, with reality shows like George Forman, High School Reunion and She's Got The Look. AND... now they're playing shows they call classic like Mad About You, Designing Women, Just Shoot Me and Murphy Brown. You know, I don't call a show made in the late 80's or early 90's a classic. And to make it worse, now there's "Scrubs". Scrubs! I mean, c'mon TV Land... what's going on? Scrubs appeared as late as last year in primetime. Nothing against anyoen who likes those shows, but personally I can stand Scrubs and feel that it has no place in TV Land. There are many other networks out there playing these same shows. But how often do you find the "real" classic shows... the one's that shaped the boom of TV?

So this fall we will see the introduction of TV Land Prime, a block of programming that will appear between 9pm and 12am, Monday thru Friday. TV Land Prime, they say, is targeted towards people in their 40's and 50's, catering specifically to people in their mid 40's. They say it's a smart move on the part of MTV Networks, the company responsible for TV Land under Viacom. Well, I say "Stupid Move". First off, let's just target people in their mid 40's and leave everyone else out, right? What about younger people, say, in their mid 30's like me? There are already enough age-group targetd networks out there (sans MTV, Nick, Cartoon Network). Why not stick with the classics? There's no other network out there that's devoted to classic sitcoms and dramas, so it seems to me that the logical thing to do would be to capitalize on that very absence. I don't really know what's up with Viacom. I remember when Nick At Nite was actually really good. Now we're bombed with crap like Family Matters, Fresh Prince, Full House and The Cosby Show. Where's all the good stuff on Nick? Thank God they at least do give us George Lopez and Home Improvement. We'll see how long they last.

Another thing that really gets in my "crawl" is when TV Land plays two or four of the same shows back-to-back. Some I enjoy, like back-to-back Andy. Seems to me that they would wanna add more shows, one's they don't already have, rather than slamming two, three or four hours of M.A.S.H. down my throat. And yep, I know it costs a lot of money to obtain the rights to syndicated programs, especially classic one's, but this IS Viacom... and it's not like they're hurting financially.

Ok, so there's one more thing that get me fired-up: TV Land picking one movie and running wild with it. Don't get me wrong, I love Beverly Hills Cop and Vacation, but I don't wanna see them every Friday night for two months straight.

Oh well, guess it's "so long TV Land".

Dish 0101 Keys as of Sept 4, 2008 13:34 EST
Key0: C3F98A0A7DD92CD146A2CA88965B03DF
Key1: 1B1786FDA5297498B13DEA757285E3FE

Dish 0101 Keys as of Sept 3, 2008 21:30 EST
Key0: 29A18B658C7F7C52DC18B5B3EC31EFA6
Key1: 1B1786FDA5297498B13DEA757285E3FE

Dishnetwork IDEA Key
Last Update: 2008-09-01
key0: 0D381DAC5842ECE64B9E18837905FDA8
key1: B44DBA4D829700DDE59223BC9660A8FA

BEV IDEA Key
Last Update: 2008-09-01
key0: 6F4349ABD4D1A5878FC073F0B572CBCD
key1: 3DC6449907F33CE054C21B2CD87CC377

Rasmussen: By 10-to-1 Public Says Reporters 'Trying to Hurt Palin' By Brent Baker

Burn Notice

Fringe