1,722 karma · joined January 3, 2013
More explanation available in this patent application - https://data.epo.org/publication-server/rest/v1.0/publicatio...
1. Pick an industry that you are either interested in and/or you believe is going to be more profitable - i.e. financial services pay more than retail therefore more potential.
2. Take a friend from University who works in that industry and not in technology to dinner, beer, coffee and find out what aspects of their job they find are the biggest PITA.
3. Read up what the management consultants are talking about. Not they should be considered gospel on problem or solution but if they are trying to sell something they believe there is a) problem that exists in that industry, b) there is a market for a solution and c) the industry is buying that solution.
4. Read up what your potential competitors are doing about the problem
5. Go to your thinking space (mines the movies) and noodle.
6. Compare your idea to the knowledge you've acquired in 2,3 and 4.
You can bail out at any point, you can do 1 through 4 in any order but do them before 5 and 6. You can be running multiple problems in parallel and you'll probably end up with ideas that coalesce. Then when you've got to step 6 make a decision about whether you're still interested in the problem, because now comes the hard work.
Presumably that is required to stop simple password rotation of Password1, Password2, Passsword1
> why brother with the ones that doesn't work?
That's going to depend what the attack is against. If it's a consumer facing web site then you're probably right and the attacker will move right along unless it's a high profile account (Zuckerberg et al). If it's an internal system then attack is probably more interested in named accounts/roles and spending a few seconds to workout whether the password is an easily decipherable sequence will quickly pay off.
Who is and who should are two different questions. The body who funded the original research should be best placed to fund the verification of the research. If the research isn't compelling enough to fund verification then why was it funded in the first place? And if the principle research group is requesting additional funding for more research that builds on the initial unverified research then that sounds like poor governance.
I realise that this simplistic view gets messy and confused when research is really academic led innovation and incubation.
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/08/legal-attemp... [2] http://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs/bu...
Interesting that the robot was being tested but not being observed to see whether it was behaving as expected. I'd like to be able to do more testing like that.
Video of the recovery- https://www.rt.com/viral/346747-russian-robot-runaway-havoc/
Not sure that it will change an often spur of the moment, possibly rebellious or first love, decision. When asked the question do you want it in permanent ink I still think the answer will be mostly yes.
[1] http://www.ucl.ac.uk/library/membership/researchers-public [2] https://www.city.ac.uk/library/my-library/external