Smart hosts first 5G-powered esports exhibition match in PH MOST READ Senators to proceed with review of VFA “We shouldn’t be contented with these two wins. We need to improve more in our coming games. We have big games against Ginebra and TNT this year, so we really have to prepare for them while we’re still in this year because we don’t know what lies ahead in 2017.”Sports Related Videospowered by AdSparcRead Next EDITORS’ PICK Tiger Woods signs deal to play with new golf ball Smart’s Siklab Saya: A multi-city approach to esports Chinese-manned vessel unsettles Bohol town As fate of VFA hangs, PH and US forces take to the skies for exercise Where did they go? Millions left Wuhan before quarantine Though he only had nine points, all of which came in the first half, the energetic forward focused on doing the dirty work in the final two frames, setting up his teammates and making crucial stops as the Aces pulled off a pulsating 81-79 victory over Meralco on Wednesday.“In the second half, my mindset was to focus on my defense and passing,” he said, as he also hauled down seven rebounds and five assists in the win.FEATURED STORIESSPORTSGinebra teammates show love for SlaughterSPORTSWe are youngSPORTSFreddie Roach: Manny Pacquiao is my Muhammad AliProviding those numbers isn’t as easy as Abueva makes it look, more so that the Aces are missing big men Sonny Thoss and Nonoy Baclao due to injuries, leaving the responsibility to Abueva, Vic Manuel, and other forwards to man the paint.But the Kapampangan dynamo isn’t one to offer excuses, focusing on what he can do rather than dwell on deficiencies. We are young PH among economies most vulnerable to virus Ginebra teammates show love for Slaughter It’s really hard because we’re just average in height, but our speed is there. If their big man goes to the post, we need double him. Our aggressiveness really comes out when it comes to our rotation.”True to the Aces’ “We Not Me” mantra, Abueva said that the whole team did their part to bring home the come-from-behind win as Alaska roared back from a nine-point hole with less than four minutes left in the game.“It’s not just me who worked, but it’s all of us. In my own little way, I helped my teammates improve and that’s why our rotation was better in the last seconds. We were down seven in the crucial stretch in the final two minutes but luckily our point guards made their shots.”RJ Jazul, JVee Casio, and Chris Banchero drained clutch treys to complete the comeback, with the final one putting them ahead with four seconds left on the clock.But Abueva believes that Alaska shouldn’t be content with the two-game streak that puts them at 2-2 with tough games ahead to wrap up this year.ADVERTISEMENT Calvin Abueva showed once again that he doesn’t need to score to help Alaska win.ADVERTISEMENT Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. Shanghai officials reveal novel coronavirus transmission modes Taiwan minister boards cruise ship turned away by Japan PLAY LIST 01:31Taiwan minister boards cruise ship turned away by Japan01:33WHO: ‘Global stocks of masks and respirators are now insufficient’01:01WHO: now 31,211 virus cases in China 102:02Vitamin C prevents but doesn’t cure diseases like coronavirus—medic03:07’HINDI PANG-SPORTS LANG!’03:03SILIP SA INTEL FUND View comments
National Communication Partnership 2009 Conference, 17 August 20092010 National Communication Partnership Conference, 15 August 20072010 National Communication Partnership Strategic Framework
In my experience over the years, calculating security value and providing consulting to others doing the same, I have noticed the same 4 questions tend to rear their ugly heads. Requests by senior managers, finance analyst, business value analysts, project and program managers all fall into one or more of these types of inquires. And when I say they are ugly, oh they are. In most cases the parties seeking information are in some phase of the decision cycle: Should I spend money on security? – This is a business decision based upon compelling drivers, usually loss of some kind, including non-compliance to regulatory requirements (which could send a C-level officer to spend an extended vacation at Club Fed) or risk of a catastrophic blunder sufficient to crater the organization. The business aspects must include how many coins are in the coffers, amount of loss (both realized and unrealized) on the table, and if money could be better spent elsewhere (opportunity costs) How much should I spend? – A value decision considering what the organization is willing to accept in losses, what can be spent on security, and the amount of loss which could be prevented. Optimally, there exists a point at any given time which management is willing to spend a certain amount on security, which prevents enough loss to bring the residual losses to an acceptable level. What should I spend it on? – An exercise in comparative analysis of available options which drives down overall costs, while increasing the losses prevented, and maintaining the optimal level of security and residual loss. On to the ugly questions (feel free to share your experiences): Ugly Question #1: How do I select the security product/program with the best value? This is typically asked by senior management or by a product/service manager seeking to identify the best solution among a pool of several competing initiatives. As an example, they might be looking to purchase an Intrusion Prevention System (IPS) and looking for the best of breed. Conversely they may be looking to establish or improve a security capability (example: data protection) and trying to determine the best product among multiple solutions (encryption, IPS, document tracking, data destruction policy, etc.) across multiple vendors. The challenge is to be able to compare which solution will best achieve the optimal level of security. This is a function of security cost, losses prevented (effectiveness), and acceptance of residual loss. To simply go for the cheapest, most effective, or fastest to adopt is most often than not, the wrong long term answer. (..and security is a long term proposition) Ugly Question #2: What is the value of this security product/program? This is asked by management and project managers when a solution is in the proposal stage, by the sustaining operation folks once it has been implemented into the environment, and by management during times when the organization is looking for opportunities to cut costs. As value is a dynamic concept, it can radically change based upon business, legal, and social aspects as well as the normal fluctuations in the threat landscape. First step here is to identify what types of value was intended to be provided and the appropriate metric to measure those aspects. As an example, management may be seeking to protect the organization’s image and liability from the loss of Personal Identifiable Information (PII) through the implementation of a hard drive encryption program for company laptops. The metrics may be as simple as determining the saturation of the program and if encryption is sufficient to protect from liability in the geographies they do business in. In this manner you can estimate the amount of coverage for which liability and image concerns are abated. You might think, wait, that is not a dollar figure! Where is the value? Well, in this case, management may be looking for the establishment of a capability. Either we are protected from this threat or we are not protected. The same stratagem could be compliance with HIPPA or other regulations. To attempt to quantify a dollar figure in this example would be overkill and may detract from what is intended. Realistically, a dollar savings cannot reasonably be calculated now matter what kind of magic hat you possess. I have seen some attempts, by people with the best intent, to do this very calculation. But not knowing if or when or to what extent a loss may occur, nor to be able to truly measure the potential losses due to the large number of unknown variables which have an astronomical range of potential damage, these assessments are pure folly (but really fun to poke holes in). Half the battle in measuring the value of security is to know what limitations exist regarding the granularity of what can realistically be measured and validated. Ugly Question #3: How do I compare the value between security and non-security initiatives? This one bites. Really. It is almost impossible to do, anyone can challenge the results, and if you get this wrong everybody hates you. This comes up when senior management must decide where to spend hard earned budgetary dollars. It becomes an “us versus them” battle between security and some other group. Each party wants the money to spend and the infighting can get downright dirty. So what is a manager to do? Just tap your friendly neighborhood security analyst to calculate the value (just as long as it is not me), then compare against the value of the non-security program. Easy, right? I wish. Security programs rarely have the benefit of real dollar justification attached. Unless you are in the security products/service industry, security does not generate revenue, it is just overhead. More on that in a different blog. Non-security programs have the edge here. A marketing program may generate XX dollars, an operations efficiency program may save YY downtime or be able to cut ZZ heads from the budget. These strong arguments bark loudly to management. Security value will retort with a whimper, maybe a risk reduction of xx% or at best a loss prevented of yy dollars. Did I mention even calculating such values takes more time, with more assumptions, and can’t, in most cases, ever be validated as compared to the non-security programs? Pure ugliness. Alas it is not impossible. I have seen the fight won (ie. management given accurate and comparable data to make the best decision), but be beware, the deck is stacked against security. Ugly Question #4: How much should my organization spend on security? This is the big-daddy of questions, posed by senior management or if the organization is large enough, by a divisional head. Although I plan on discussing this in greater detail in another blog and whitepaper, the path to take is to identify the optimal level of security. Every organization is different with ever changing business needs and drivers. What one company desires from its security program and is willing to spend will differ from its neighbor. The willingness to accept different levels of loss also vary greatly. But there are common perspectives which are shared to a great degree by all organizations. As an example, in most instances we don’t want to spend more on security than we get in return (typically in the loss prevented). If we look at an organization individually and imagine an increasing line of spending, for each point on that line we have an amount of residual loss which will be experienced (in theory, trending down to some degree as the security spending goes up) and therefore an amount of loss prevented for each point as well. At a strategic level, these three lines give us what is needed to answer this ugly question. How much should be spent? Optimally, an organization should spend the amount of money on security which prevents enough loss to bring the residual losses to an acceptable level. What I have found, is the target exists somewhere between the low point of a diminishing rate of return and the high crossover point where the spending exceeds the loss prevented. Only management can decide exactly where the sweet-spot exists for any given moment. Now your turn. What ugly question has been thrown in your direction?
Been reading a lot of predictions about what’s ahead for retail and retail technology for 2018.Some state the obvious. Others — wisely — sniff out long-gestating trends that will force C-level consideration and IT investment in the year ahead.Let’s discuss one of the latter.This year we’ll begin to see the new store… And I’m not talking about Amazon Go.Let’s be clear: this is not — I repeat, not — another screed about the demise of brick and mortar. This year’s ballyhoo about “Retail Armageddon” over-states and misstates the reality of a rapidly evolving industry.And evolving — at an ever-accelerating speed — it is. In today’s Darwinian retail world, the brick-and-mortar asset is poised either for extinction or soon to blossom into a new, thriving species.In 2018 stores will increasingly be exposed as either short-armed, lumbering, and starving in a new climate, or — depending upon the brand — more upright and stronger than ever before.Who’s going to win? I’d argue it’s those who grok the following:The shopper’s purchase-selection inspiration is now happening — a majority of the time — outside the store. This insight was first shared with me months ago by Jonathan Luster, Lowe’s creative and wise innovator — and now I see increased proof of Jonathan’s January 2017 hypothesis.Yes, non-store inspiration springs from oft-visited commerce websites. But wise retailers are also looking at non-commerce sites — where recipes are found and boards are made and an Everest of visual images points to trends without words.How can you tie your brand to non-commerce influencers? And how will you connect non-commerce content to your stores.Tomorrow’s shoppers expect the physical to resemble the digitalPast research from Cisco’s Internet Business Solutions Group made clear that, the higher the digital use, the higher the expectations for the store. The benchmark for acceptable is now Facebook. Amazon. Netflix. And Google.In speed and ease of transaction. In availability of product. In transparency of pricing. In access to information.If you wish to welcome digital natives to your brick and mortar assets — in today’s world of FANG — your store needs to become…“a living, breathing web-site.” The store is now a node on a network of influence, commerce, payment, and fulfillmentThe fact that the decision journey begins online is not news. What’s important today is that she can choose what’s best for her (Easiest? Fastest? Cheapest?) at every stage of the purchasing process. Browse via the smartphone while waiting to pick up the kids? Pay via the Amazon Prime account? Pick up in store? Your choice, my dear.Of course this requires retailers to implement new store capabilities.But not just the unified commerce holy trinity of extended aisle, click ‘n collect, and ship from store.On today’s list must also be easy, no-wait payment. And increasingly, cross-journey influence management. That’s defined as right content to the right screen (among the ten of daily life) at the right time — linking home and mobile to what is increasingly not a store-based point not of decision, but of one of affirmation and confirmation.The store will be both bigger and closerThis is a great concept from Joshua Xiang, Suning’s brilliant lead for research and innovation.Bigger stores will be the destination where shoppers fully immerse themselves in an aspirational brand promise. It’s the brand writ large; retailers will operate a few of these per major market.If it’s fashion, it’s a store as a runway, with accessories and advice and social-personal shopping. If it’s consumer electronics, it’s a store with maker fairs and on-site concerts and try-and-buy classes. If it’s grocery, it’s artisanal foods and cooking classes. In all cases, it’s about unique activities, product and usage expertise, and community — enthusiasts coming together to explore the best.Closer stores are all about location — because proximity to shoppers will make or break the P&L of unified commerce. Thus, “closer” stores will be needed in the midst of primary residential areas. Close enough to deliver the last mile efficiently, even within 15 minute windows. Large enough to be in stock on key SKU’s — and small enough to afford the rent — especially in expensive urban areas.Four thoughts. To where the retail store is evolving…faster than ever before.Tell me what you think. Join me on LinkedIn and Twitter.#IamIntel
About the authorPaul VegasShare the loveHave your say Warren O’Hora happy with progress at Brightonby Paul Vegas12 days agoSend to a friendShare the loveWarren O’Hora is happy with his progress at Brighton.O’Hora swapped first-team football with Bohemians in the Irish top flight for a place in the Albion academy when he signed. The Seagulls’ strong Irish connection help them land their man in January last year after he was also offered places at Norwich City and Shrewsbury Town. He told The Argus: “I was asked to come on trial to Brighton and I was really interested.“I came over, had a look at the facilities, trained and loved it.“From there, I was offered a contract and I couldn’t say no.“It was something I always wanted to do “I moved over when I was just turned 18.“With the Irish boys like Az (Connolly), Dessie Hutchinson and Jay Molumby here, it was a no-brainer really.“I had people to help me settle in and the club is a great club.”
Duke freshman big man Jahlil Okafor, who is averaging 17.8 points per game and 9.4 rebounds per game, is widely considered to be the best player in college basketball. It looks like the school is putting together a marketing campaign to make sure he’s rewarded for it. Friday afternoon, just hours ahead of the team’s big rivalry showdown with North Carolina, Duke has released a “JAHS 15” hype video to promote him for Player of the Year. Both the graphics and the music in the clip reference the movie JAWS.Will it work? We’ll find out soon enough. Okafor is one of just a few viable candidates for the award.
GLENDALE, AZ – JANUARY 11: Head coach Nick Saban of the Alabama Crimson Tide celebrates after defeating the Clemson Tigers in the 2016 College Football Playoff National Championship Game at University of Phoenix Stadium on January 11, 2016 in Glendale, Arizona. The Crimson Tide defeated the Tigers with a score of 45 to 40. (Photo by Christian Petersen/Getty Images)Believe it or not, Alabama head coach Nick Saban has a humorous side. It doesn’t come out often, but it’s there.Friday, Saban, in wishing ESPN College GameDay host Lee Corso a happy 80th birthday, decided to wear the school mascot head. Big Al never looked so good – or so terrifying.Earlier this year, we saw Big Al pop up at Saban’s daughter’s wedding too. Perhaps the Alabama head coach just has an extra mascot head in the trunk of his car or something.
OSU Sophomore Guard Ameryst Alston (14) during a game against UConn on Nov. 16. OSU lost 100-56. Credit: Ian Bailey | Lantern ReporterOhio State women’s basketball coach Kevin McGuff’s attitude of challenging his team with elite opponents, allowing his players to learn and grow from the experience, cannot be questioned.For the third time in seven games, the Buckeyes battled a top-three-ranked adversary and participant in last season’s Final Four. McGuff’s team fell to No. 2 South Carolina 88-80 in the season opener and lost to No. 1 Connecticut 100-56 three days later.The latest game, against No. 3 Notre Dame, allowed OSU a third and final opportunity to take down one of the elite teams before conference play begins.But the Buckeyes could not hang on down the stretch as Notre Dame (7-0) pulled ahead late and handed No. 10 Ohio State (4-3) its closest loss of the season, beating the Scarlet and Gray 75-72 Wednesday evening in the Big Ten-ACC Challenge.OSU sophomore guard Kelsey Mitchell, who led the Buckeyes in scoring with 27 points on 9-of-19 shooting, missed a deep 3-pointer as time ran out which would have sent the game into overtime. The fierce competitor played the entire game, all 40 minutes, not once subbing out.“We wanted to get her off a ball screen, she came off one, we were going to maybe set another and she got a good look at it. But it didn’t go down,” McGuff said of the final play.Mitchell’s backcourt scoring partner, senior guard Ameryst Alston, struggled to find a groove in a sloppy first half by both teams, but improved in the second half as 11 of her 13 points came after halftime. She fouled out late, but not before her layup tied the game at 72 with 37 seconds remaining.Turnovers from both teams were responsible for the ugly first half. Of OSU’s 20 turnovers, 12 came in the first 20 minutes of the game. Notre Dame committed 18 turnovers, nine occurring in the first half.The Buckeyes scored 24 points off turnovers compared to the Fighting Irish’s 19, a discrepancy due to the fact that OSU coughed the ball over more.. McGuff noted turnovers, along with rebounding, as the biggest struggle for the Buckeyes.Notre Dame, missing starting sophomore forward Brianna Turner and junior forward Taya Reimer due to injuries, relied on volume shooting and offensive rebounding to dispose of the Buckeyes.“They’re still a great team. They were really well prepared tonight. They played hard, they executed really well on offense,” McGuff said about Notre Dame.Redshirt senior guard Madison Cable paced the Fighting Irish with 25 points and, despite standing just 5-foot-10, she corralled 11 rebounds. Her teammate, junior guard Lindsay Allen added 20 points, six rebounds and five assists.Entering Wednesday’s game, the Notre Dame connected on 45.2 percent of their 3-point attempts. However, the Fighting Irish attempted a whopping 24 threes, twice as many as OSU, but made just seven.The home team made up for the poor shooting night by cleaning up the offensive glass, grabbing 19 offensive rebounds.Defensive rebounding remains an issue for OSU.“I thought that was the difference in the game,” McGuff said about losing the rebounding battle. “They got too many second-chance points.”Only junior forward Shayla Cooper accounted for more than four rebounds, as she grabbed 15 of her team’s 34 rebounds. By the end of the first half, Cooper already posted a double-double with 12 points and 12 rebounds. She ended up with 18 points.“She was a warrior on the glass and we needed it because they’re a great rebounding team,” McGuff said. “But overall, I thought this is probably her best game.”Through seven games, opponents average 15 offensive rebounds per game against OSU, a staggeringly large number. The Buckeyes have grabbed 15 rebounds just twice all season and only once has the team outrebounded its opposition.“Yeah, we do, we do,” McGuff said when asked about needing to find someone else other than Cooper to help inside. “We need to find a little more around the basket than just her.”
After the decommitment of Tyjon Lindsey earlier this week, and the announcement of former wide receiver Torrance Gibson’s transfer to Cincinnati, the Ohio State football team has landed another recruit to play wideout. This time, the commitment comes from Ohio native and four-star receiver Jaylen Harris.Harris, hailing from Cleveland Heights, is the sixth-ranked wide receiver in the state of Ohio, according to 247Sports.com. He joins the likes of Josh Myers, Brendon White, Amir Riep and Marcus Williamson as top Ohio players to make the decision to play in Columbus.OSU scooped up Harris over the likes of Michigan State and Penn State. The big-bodied wide receiver brings a height advantage in nearly every matchup, standing at 6-foot-5, according to 247Sports.com.Harris is just the second wide receiver commit from the 2017 class for OSU, and the 19th verbal commitment the Buckeyes have received for this year’s class. He joins Trevon Grimes as incoming freshman receivers who could receive a role in Urban Meyer’s team next season.The C O M M I T M E N T#HolyHungryHumblehttps://t.co/jtLthKf3b5— Jaylen Harris (@JHarris5_) January 13, 2017
Alex Williams, a second-year in computer science engineering, prepares to scrimmage Robert Morris University during a Feb. 13 League of Legends practice. Credit: Sheridan Hendrix | Senior Lantern ReporterOhio State is most recognized for its championship-caliber football program, but it could begin to be recognized for a new brand of collegiate athletics –– esports. In January, Big Ten Network announced the launch of its official “League of Legends” season in partnership with Riot Games, the creator of the online game. League of Legends clubs from 12 schools in the Big Ten Conference will participate in the inaugural season, including a team from OSU.Kentaro Ogawa, a fifth-year in food business management, started playing “League” of Legends after the game was first released in 2009, when he was in high school. But after going to OSU and playing “League” for different student organizations, Ogawa said he wanted to create a collegiate team inspired by professional gamers. “Everyone was starting to copy the professional players, because you would see it over social media, where they would have gaming houses and paid coaches and managers,” Ogawa said. “It’s very exciting to see that.”Ogawa hosted tryouts in 2015 to build his own five-player team, as well as recruiting other members to hold roles of a coach, manager and analyst. Last season, OSU was ranked as one of the top eight teams in North America.Although the Big Ten does not sponsor esports, nor are they officially sanctioned by the NCAA, the conference started to dip its toes into the world of “League of Legends” in 2016 after hosting an invitational at PAX East in Boston, one of the largest gaming events in North America. It was that exhibition match between OSU and Michigan State, which OSU won, that evolved into a season-long competition, said Peter Ferguson, the team’s coach.“We knew that (Big Ten Network) was interested in doing something, but by no means did I think it would happen this quickly,” said Ferguson, who graduated from OSU in 2016.Teams compete in either the Big Ten East or West divisions, and play in a best-of-three round robin. After the round-robin matches, the top four teams from each division will compete in a single-elimination playoff bracket, ultimately ending in a faceoff between the East and West division champions. OSU’s team is currently 2-1 this season, beating Michigan State and Indiana but falling to Maryland.Each week, one match will be aired live online on Watch.lolesports.com and also on BTN2go. OSU’s first broadcasted match will air on Feb. 27 against Michigan.OSU’s “League” team practices three times a week, scrimmaging against teams from other divisions, as well as against semi-professional and professional teams. Unlike most collegiate teams, however, OSU “League” players do not often practice together or in person. Players usually compete in tournament matches from their apartment or dorm rooms.“Because it’s all online, it doesn’t matter where the teams are,” Ogawa said. “Generally, all players would just stay in their own dorms or apartments and get on something like Skype to keep in touch and communicate with each other while they played.”In an effort to build team synergy, Ogawa said the team is now trying to meet in person every other week for practice at the Fawcett Center, something made possible through a new relationship with the Department of Athletics. Jim Null, associate director of IT for athletics, said he had just started learning what esports were when the Big Ten announced the tournament season. Null then reached out to Ogawa to see how he could help out. “My role (in the department of athletics) is in technology, so I thought, ‘This sounds like a good fit, something fun and interesting and new,’” Null said.Because collegiate esports is still relatively unknown to many, Null and Ogawa said they are trying to figure out what exactly OSU’s role could be in the future. For now, Null said he thinks a lot of that comes through informing people about the team. “I think it’s learning what it is and educating people on what it is,” he said. “I mean the fanbase is pretty darn passionate, the players are passionate and it’s making a mark worldwide in esports.”A viewing party will be hosted at the Huntington Club in Ohio Stadium for students to watch the OSU-Michigan live stream. Null said he hopes that this new tournament will interest students who aren’t necessarily interested in traditional sports.“I don’t think all of our students are going to football games,” Null said. “For some students, it’s just not their thing and (this could be) a way to reach out to those students. There might a connection there.”For Ogawa, he said whatever the future of collegiate esports may hold, he hopes to see what people view as a sport expand.“I don’t know how much longer “League of Legends” will stay relevant, but I know esports will stay relevant,” Ogawa said. “Maybe it will switch over to another game or title, but I think just because there’s a demographic that hasn’t been touched yet in esports, it’ll stay for a while. We’re working to change the social stigma of video gamers, because right now it has a bad reputation. But, if it’s seen as something that is comparable to traditional sport in a way, the demographic will expand.”