Internet of Things (IoT) Security Issues

In the past, I discussed how the Internet of Things (IoT) could eventually cause a wealth of problems on the Internet, including security breaches, in a number of my books and articles. Some of my strongest warnings came in Build Your Own PC on a Budget and Security for Web Developers, but I included warnings in other places as well. Unfortunately, the worst case scenario has occurred according to the ComputerWorld article, Armies of hacked IoT devices launch unprecedented DDoS attacks. Yes, your DVR or smart television might have turned into a zombie at this point and now works for someone else committing crimes. All it takes is a little negligence on your part and your device will take a walk on the dark side.

The article is worthwhile reading because the statistics sound like something out of a bad science fiction novel. If anything, my warnings were too tame and I should have used my imagination a bit more in exploring just how bad things could get. Yet, I’ve received e-mail from readers who found the warnings I did provide barely believable. It didn’t seem possible that something as simple as the router installed to provide broadband support for your digital telephone could possibly cause any sort of problem. After all, your old telephone system never went on the attack. The thing is, any device that connects to the Internet today probably has enough intelligence to do harm, especially the IoT devices that everyone assumes just work.

IoT devices are actually some of the best targets for hackers. The users who have them barely know how they work, have no clue that they should change the password, and wouldn’t care even if they could figure it out. After all, the goal is to see Sunday afternoon football, not to configure security for a device. Vendors share in the blame because anyone with even a modicum of common sense would know that users have no desire whatsoever to change device passwords. IoT devices should go out with a unique password printed in a place that the user can easily find on the device, should it ever become necessary to access the device (and it might not ever become necessary). If hackers faced a unique default password for every device, the IoT devices would likely remain relatively secure unless hackers could somehow figure a pattern out in the password assignments. Ensuring the unique password is printed on the device means the user won’t lose it.

It’s not as if changing IoT device passwords is easy anyway, so hackers have every reason to believe that the default password is still in place for the majority of these devices. A recent device purchase pointed out to me that some IoT devices view even password changes as unwelcome user fiddling—it took nearly 20 minutes of reading to discover how to change the password using an arcane set of remote control clicks. Until this situation changes, you must expect that hackers will continue to use IoT devices to perform various kinds of attacks and that device owners will continue to remain oblivious about their cherished device’s life of crime. Let me know your thoughts on IoT security at


Continuing to Use Your Old Parallel Port Printer

A problem with building a newer system is that you may not always have the older ports needed to support older devices. In some cases, it pays to replace the device because you want to gain the added functionality that a newer device can provide. However, if you have a major investment in a device, such as a printer, that doesn’t necessarily provide additional support, then you need to find another solution. I cover all the major port types in Build Your Own PC on a Budget. However, in today’s post you discover a way around the whole issue of supporting an older, yet usable, parallel printer when all you have is USB ports on your new system.

One way around the problem is to connect the printer to an older PC that does have a parallel port. You can then share the printer through a network connection. Of course, this solution assumes that you have an older PC that you want to devote to print server duties and a network to use. However, it’s a solution that many organizations have used over the years with great success.

Another solution is to obtain a special connector cable, such as the Sabrent USB to Parallel printer cable shown in the following picture.

A USB to DB25F parallel port connector with 6 foot cable.
USB to Parallel Port Connector

It’s important to note that the parallel end of the cable is a DB25F. You need to ensure the parallel end of the cable is of the right type for the connection you want to make. The package contains just the cable with the appropriate ends. It also contains a tiny piece of paper with some contact information, but there isn’t any special software required.

Make the connection between the USB port and the printer with the system off. Power the system and the printer up and log in as normal. In most cases, the system will automatically detect the printer and install appropriate drivers for you (or ask you to supply the needed drivers). However, you may need to install the drivers manually on some platforms. The chance of successfully making the connection work do diminish when installing the drivers manually because it usually means that the printer and the system aren’t communicating properly.

The only complaint I had about this solution is that the female parallel connector has screws instead of nuts, which means that you can’t secure the male printer cable to the female USB cable. Yes, the connectors work just fine, but they aren’t screwed together, which means that they could become loose at some point and you’ll lose contact with the printer (probably at the worst possible moment). Even so, the solution does work well.

A side benefit of this solution is that it’s possible to use a longer cable. Depending on who you talk with, the maximum cable length for a parallel printer is between 15 feet for the older Centronics standard and 25 feet for the newer IEEE 1284 standard. Using this solution makes it possible to work with a longer cable. The length tested for this post was 31 feet and I haven’t noticed any glitches, misprints, miscommunication, or loss of speed. Let me know your thoughts about continuing to use older peripherals with newer computers at


Automation and the Future of Human Employment

It wasn’t long ago that I wrote Robotics and Your Job to consider the role that robots will play in human society in the near future. Of course, robots are already doing mundane chores and those list of chores will increase as robot capabilities increase. The question of what sorts of work humans will do in the future has crossed my mind quite a lot as I’ve written Build Your Own PC on a Budget, Python for Data Science for Dummies, and Machine Learning for Dummies. In fact, both Luca and I have discussed the topic at depth. It isn’t just robotics, but the whole issue of automation that is important. Robots actually fill an incredibly small niche in the much larger topic of automation. Although articles like The end of humans working in service industry? seem to say that robots are the main issue, automation comes in all sorts of guises. When writing A Fuller Understanding of the Internet of Things I came to the conclusion that the services provided by technologies such as Smart TVs actually take jobs away from someone. In this case, a Smart TV rids us of the need to visit a video store, such as Blockbuster (assuming you were even around to remember these stores). Imagine all the jobs that were lost when Blockbuster closed its doors.

My vision for the future is that people will be able to work in occupations with lower risks, higher rewards, and greater interest. Unfortunately, not everyone wants a job like that. Some people really do want to go to work, clock in, place a tiny cog in a somewhat large wheel all day, clock out, and go home. They want something mindless that doesn’t require much effort, so losing service and assembly line type jobs to automation is a problem for them. In Robots are coming for your job the author states outright that most Americans think their job will still exist in 50 years, but the reality is that any job that currently pays under $20.00 an hour is likely to become a victim of automation. Many people insist that they’re irreplaceable, but the fact is that automation can easily take their job and employers are looking forward to the change because automation doesn’t require healthcare, pensions, vacation days, sick days, or salaries. Most importantly, automation does as its told. In the story The rise of greedy robots, the author lays out the basis for an increase in automation that maximizes business profit at the expense of workers. Articles such as On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs tell why people are still working a 40 hour work week when it truly isn’t necessary to do so. In short, if you really do insist on performing a task that is essentially pointless, the government and industry is perfectly willing to let you do so until a time when technology is so entrenched that it’s no longer possible to do anything about it (no, I’m not making this up). Even some relatively essential jobs, such as security, have a short life expectancy with the way things are changing (see How much security can you turn over to AI? and The eerie math that could predict terrorist attacks for details).

The question of how automation will affect human employment in the future remains. Theoretically, people could work a 15 hour work week even now, but then we’d have to give up some of our consumerism—the purchase of gadgets we really don’t need. In the previous paragraph, I talked about jobs that are safer, more interesting, and more fulfilling. There are also those pointless jobs that the government will doubtless prop up at some point to keep people from rioting. However, there is another occupation that will likely become a major source of employment, but only for the nit-picky, detail person. In The thin line between good and bad automation the author explores the problem of scripts calling scripts. Even though algorithms will eventually create and maintain other algorithms, which in turn means that automation will eventually build itself, someone will still have to monitor the outcomes of all that automation. In addition, the search for better algorithms continues (as described in The Master Algorithm: How the Quest for the Ultimate Learning Machine Will Remake Our World and More data or better models?). Of course, these occupations still require someone with a great education and a strong desire to do something significant as part of their occupation.

The point of all this speculation is that it isn’t possible to know precisely how the world will change due to the effects of automation, but it will most definitely change. Even though automation currently has limits, scientists are currently working on methods to extend automation even further so that the world science fiction authors have written about for years will finally come into being (perhaps not quite in the way they had envisioned, however). Your current occupation may not exist 10 years from now, much less 50 years from now. The smart thing to do is to assume your job is going to be gone and that you really do need a Plan B in place—a Plan B that may call for an increase in flexibility, training, and desire to do something interesting, rather than the same mundane task you’ve plodded along doing for the last ten years. Let me know your thoughts on the effects of automation at


Mac Gatekeeper Error

A number of my books, such as C++ All-In-One for Dummies, 3rd EditionBeginning Programming with Python For Dummies, Python for Data Science for Dummies, and Machine Learning for Dummies ask readers to download an IDE or other code and install it on their Mac systems. The problem is that the Mac system won’t always cooperate. For example, you might see an error dialog like the one shown for Code::Blocks:

The Gatekeeper error tells you that it won't allow you to install software from unknown publishers.
Your Mac won’t let you install software.

The problem is one of permissions. The default permissions set for newer Mac systems restrict you to getting your apps from the Mac App Store or from vendors who have signed their files. Fortunately, you can overcome this problem either temporarily or permanently, depending on how you want to use your Mac. The Fix the “App can’t be opened because it is from an unidentified developer” Error in Mac OS X blog post provides you with illustrated, step-by-step directions to perform the task using either method. Let me know if you encounter any other problems getting your Mac to install the software required to use my books at


Robotics and Your Job

Now that word has gotten around that I’ve been working with both data science projects (Python for Data Science for Dummies) and machine learning projects (Machine Learning for Dummies), people have begun asking me hard questions, such as whether a Terminator style robot is possible (it isn’t, Ex Machina and The Terminator notwithstanding) or whether they’ll be without work sometime soon (the topic of this post). (As an aside, deus ex machina is a literary plot device that has been around for a long time before the movie came out.)

Whether your job is secure depends on the kind of job you have, whether robotics will actually save money, what you believe as a person, and how your boss interprets all the hype currently out there. For example, if your claim to fame is flipping burgers, then you’d better be ready to get another job soon. McDonald’s is currently opening a store that uses robots in Phoenix and plans to have 25,000 more moved to robotics by the end of 2016. Some jobs are simply going to go away, no doubt about it.

However, robots aren’t always the answer to the question. Many experts see three scenarios: humans working for robots (as in a doctor collaborating with a robot to perform surgery more accurately and with greater efficiency), humans servicing robots (those McDonald’s jobs may be going away, but someone will have to maintain the robots), and robots working for humans (such as that Roomba that’s currently keeping your house clean). The point is that robots will actually create new jobs, but that means humans will need new skills. Instead of boring jobs that pay little, someone with the proper training can have an interesting job that pays moderately well.

An interesting backlash against automation has occurred in several areas. So, what you believe as a person does matter when it comes to the question of jobs. The story that tells the tale most succinctly appears in ComputerWorld, Taxpayer demand for human help soars, despite IRS automation. Sometimes people want a human to help them. This backlash could actually thwart strategies like the one McDonald’s plans to implement. If McDonald’s finds that the robots cost too much to run or that people are going to the competition to obtain food from other humans, it might need to reevaluate what appears to be a winning strategy. However, the backlash would need to involve a significant part of the population of people who buy food at McDonald’s to induce the company to make the change.

There is also the boss’ perspective to consider. A boss is only a boss as long as there is someone or something to manage. Even though your boss will begrudgingly give up your job to automation, you can be sure that giving up a job personally isn’t on the list of things to do. Some members of the press have resorted to viewing the future as a time when robots do everything and humans don’t work, but really, this viewpoint is a fantasy. However, it’s not a fantasy that companies such as Hitachi are experimenting with robot managers. Some employees actually prefer the consistent interaction of a robot boss. It’s unlikely that managers will take this invasion of their domain sitting down and do something to make using robots untenable.

It really is too soon to tell where robots will go for one simple reason. The algorithms used to make robots functional are still works in progress. In addition, society must decide the place that robots will take. The interaction between business and the people that businesses serve will play a distinct role in how things play out. However, all this said, your job will likely be different in the future due to the influences of robots. For the most part, I feel that life will be better for everyone after the adjustment, but that the adjustment will be quite hard. Let me know your thoughts on robots at


Old Laws, User Privacy, and Vendors Caught in the Middle

I’ve talked a number of times about researchers creating security busting software just because they can. The software often gets out into the wild where people who wouldn’t normally have a clue as to how to overcome security features can now use it to break the latest security in some product or application. Now the government is trying to force Apple (and probably other vendors) to write such software in pursuit of information hidden by encryption based on the mandates of a 227 year old law written at a time when no one had any idea that modern digital devices would even exist. The decree issued by the judge in charge of the case seems quite reasonable until you consider the fact that once Apple writes the software, it could end up in the wild, where hackers will almost certainly find ways to use it to overcome the security of legitimate users—making it impossible to ensure private information, such as credit card data, really does remain private.

The iPhone comes with some interesting security features that make it a relatively secure device. For example, tampering with certain device hardware will brick the device, which is the sort of security feature more devices should have. Modifying the security hardware should cause the device to lock down in order to protect the data it contains. The encryption that Apple offers with the iPhone is also first rate. No one but the user has the key used to unlock the encryption, which means that only the user can create a security problem by handing the key out to others.

The government is trying to change this scenario to make it easier to learn about anything it can about the data on Syed Rizwan Farook’s iPhone (one of the two San Bernardino shooters). On the surface, it seems like a good idea, if for no other reason than to potentially prevent other shootings. However, the manner in which the government has pursued the information opens the door to all sorts of abuse and then there is the matter of that software getting out into the wild. The issue here is that the law hasn’t kept up with technology, which is a recurrent problem. The government doesn’t have a law to cover the need to break encryption in a reasonable way, so it resorts to a 227 year old law that was never intended to address this need. The fact that the government is using the same law to try to force Apple to breach iPhone security in at least twelve other cases means that the argument that this is a one-off requirement doesn’t hold any water. Once Apple cooperates even once, it sets a precedent that will allow the government to force additional cooperation, even when such cooperation decidedly damages the privacy of innocent parties.

Tim Cook has rightly refused to cooperate with the government. There really is too much at stake in this case and even the government should be able to figure it out. What needs to happen is that our government needs to catch up with technology and write laws that everyone can live with to deal with the need to preserve the privacy engendered by encryption, yet make it possible for the government to obtain information needed to solve a case.

The question here is more complicated than simply managing information properly. It’s also one of keeping good technology (such as that found in Security for Web Developers) working properly and ensuring that government entities don’t abuse their positions. What is your take on the San Bernardino shooting and the information needed to pursue it? How do you feel about keeping your private data truly private? Let me know at


Is Security Research Always Useful?

Anyone involved in the computer industry likely spends some amount of time reading about the latest security issues in books such as Security for Web Developers. Administrators and developers probably spend more time than many people, but no one can possibly read all the security research available today. There are so many researchers looking for so many bugs in so many places and in so many different ways that even if someone had the time and inclination to read every security article produced, it would be impossible. You’d need to be the speediest reader on the planet (and then some) to even think about scratching the surface. So, you must contemplate the usefulness of all that research—whether it’s actually useful or simply a method for some people to get their name on a piece of paper.

Some of the attacks require physical access to the system. In some cases, you must actually take the system apart to access components in order to perform the security trick. Unless you or your organization is in the habit of allowing perfect strangers physical access to your systems, which might include taking them apart, you must wonder whether the security issue is even worth worrying about. You need to ask why someone would take the time to document a security issue that’s nearly impossible to see, much less perform in a real world environment. More importantly, the moment you see that a security issue requires physical access to the device, you can probably stop reading.

You also find attacks that require special equipment to perform. The article, How encryption keys could be stolen by your lunch, discusses one such attack. In fact, the article contains a picture of the special equipment that you must build to perpetrate the attack. It places said equipment into a piece of pita bread, which adds a fanciful twist to something that is already quite odd and pretty much unworkable given that you must be within 50 cm (19.6 in) from the device you want to attack (assuming that the RF transmission conditions are perfect). Except for the interesting attack vector (using a piece of pita bread), you really have to question why anyone would ever perpetrate this attack given that social engineering and a wealth of other attacks require no special equipment, are highly successful, and work from a much longer distance.

Another example of incredibly weird security research is found in the article, When the good guys are wielding the lasers. I have to admit it’s interesting in a James Bond sort of way, but we’re talking about lasers mounted on drones. This attack at least has the advantage of distance (1 km or 0.6 mi). However, you have to wonder just how the laser was able to get a line of sight with the attack object, a printer in this case. If a device is critical enough that someone separates it from the Internet, it’s also quite likely that the device won’t be sitting in front of a window where someone can use a laser to access it.

A few research pieces become more reasonable by discussing outlandish sorts of hacks that could potentially happen after an initial break-in. The hack discussed in Design flaw in Intel chips opens door to rootkits is one of these sorts of hacks. You can’t perpetrate the hack until after breaking into the system some other way, but the break-in has serious consequences once it occurs. Even so, most hackers won’t take the time because they already have everything needed—the hack is overkill.

The articles that help most provide a shot of reality into the decidedly conspiracy-oriented world of security. For example, Evil conspiracy? Nope, everyday cyber insecurity, discusses a series of events that everyone initially thought pointed to a major cyber attack. It turns out that the events occurred at the same time by coincidence. The article author thoughtfully points out some of the reasons that the conspiracy theories seemed a bit out of place at the outset anyway.

It also helps to know the true sources of potential security issues. For example, the articles, In the security world, the good guys aren’t always good and 5 reasons why newer hires are the company’s biggest data security risk, point out the sources you really do need to consider when creating a security plan. These are the sorts of articles that should attract your attention because they describe a security issue that you really should think about. Likewise, reading articles such as, Software developers aren’t implementing encryption correctly and 4 fatal problems with PKI help you understand why your security measures may not always work as well as anticipated.

The point is that you encounter a lot of information out there that doesn’t help you make your system any more secure. It may be interesting if you have the time to read it, but the tactics truly aren’t practical and no hacker is going to use them. Critical thinking skills are your best asset when building your security knowledge. Let me know about your take on security research at


A Fuller Understanding of the Internet of Things

You can find the Internet of Things (IoT) discussed just about everywhere today because the Internet has become pervasive. IoT is part of most business applications today as discussed in Security for Web Developers and part of any PC you build as discussed in Build Your Own PC on a Budget. It appears as part of smart TVs and Blue-ray players. In fact, you find IoT employed in a lot of places you might not have thought possible even a year ago. The point is that IoT is here to stay and we need to consider some of the ramifications of it on every day life.

One of the issues that hasn’t surprised me too much is the issue of security. Both my smart TV and smart Blue-ray player require me to enter a password to access the Internet through my wireless router (mostly because the router is configured to require one). So these devices do employ security to some extent. However, they remain logged on at all times, so the router is also configured to disconnect devices after a certain time. Each time I turn the devices on, I must reenter the password. It’s a level of security, but not necessarily the best security. Some devices, such as Apple Watch, lack any form of security. (In the case of Apple Watch, the device authenticates through an iPhone, so it still has some level of security, but not security that is part of the device itself.) Some industry pundits are saying that these devices will eventually kill the password, which means that some other form of primary authentication is needed.

The problem is increased by the proliferation of headless devices (products that lack any sort of display, such as a door lock, security system, or robots). In these cases, you can’t enter a password. No one is really sure how to secure these devices, but a solution really is needed and soon. Unless we find a solution, the issues surrounding intentional hacking will increase. A recent InfoWorld article, Welcome to the smart home … of horror!, emphasizes some of the sorts of things that could happen due to a lack of security.

Security and configuration problems aren’t just limited to outsiders gaining access to your home, office, business, or other location due to holes in IoT security. It also turns out that smart devices aren’t particularly smart, so sometimes you lose access to your network and its connected devices due to a combination of security and configuration issues when a failure occurs. In the ComputerWorld article, The Internet of Things: Your worst nightmare, you can hear about one person’s attempt to recover from a simple router failure. It turns out that simply replacing the router wasn’t enough—everything connected to the router needed reconfiguration and sometimes the task was less than easy to perform.

The world is in a age of transformation. The ride will be bumpy and the problems severe. When you consider the immensity of the things that are changing, the future looks incredibly different from anything that has gone on in the past. Not only is there IoT to consider, but the whole issue of robots and other technologies that are coming to fore. As these new technologies become part of everyday life, we have to ensure we can use them safely and that ability of someone to hurt us through them is curtailed. Let me know your thoughts about IoT security and configuration at


Wi-Fi Access Point Privacy Issues

One of the issues with using any wireless technology is that any expectation of privacy is akin to screaming at the top of your voice in a mall and expecting no one to hear you. You can’t hear radio signals with your ears, but wireless transmits them in all directions and all it takes is an antenna to receive them. The radio signal doesn’t discriminate between the intended recipient and someone lurking in the background. Few people seem to understand this concept because they can’t actually hear the radio signal or see just how far it transmits.

Unless the communication is properly secured, assuming that you can safely send sensitive data using wireless technology is also a delusion. In fact, the lack of physical security makes wireless connectivity a risky choice anyway. Anyone can create a man-in-the-middle attack to place themselves between you and the access point you think you’re using. In addition, just hearing your supposedly secret conversation can give the hacker access to the data. Network Computing recently ran an article, The 9 Worst WiFi Security Mistakes, that outlines some of the serious consequences of not using Wi-Fi and other wireless connectivity with security in mind.

Wi-Fi endangers both security and privacy in a big way (even though the former issue seems to receive the most coverage). A recent article, Wi-Fi access point scans can betray a person’s location, points out that using Wi-Fi really is quite risky from a privacy perspective. Location data can help hackers guess user activities in some cases. The risk isn’t hypothetical or in the laboratory—it’s a real risk that exists right now. The fact that people don’t seem to want to pay attention to it makes the situation worse because hackers and others of ill intent could employ the techniques discussed in the article for a variety of purposes (none of them good). Even though the article focuses on consumer tracking, it isn’t hard to imagine using it for business purposes as well.

Wireless access actually amplifies security issues that are a problem for consumers and businesses alike anyway. A recent article, Don’t count on websites to hide your account info, discusses web site security issues. When you combine a lack of web site security, with wireless privacy and security issues, it becomes nearly impossible to ensure that the connection will remain secure enough to perform any task of a sensitive nature. When the network and endpoint are both suspect, you need to devise a robust app development and usage strategy (as described in Security for Web Developers). That is, unless you really do want everyone to hear you screaming from the rooftop.

Many high-end routers provide you with advanced configuration features (something I discuss to some extent in Build Your Own PC on a Budget). For example, you can choose to use only WPA2 security. According to a number of sources, such as PCWorld, WPA2 is the best solution to wireless security right now. Of course, you still need to use good passwords and employ other router features such as port filtering, IP packet filtering, URL keyword filtering, and MAC address filtering. Make sure you set up a guest account with a real password and change that password after your guest is done using your router. Limit guest access to only those areas a guest actually needs.

Wireless connectivity is a fact of life today—you can’t really get around it because wireless connectivity offers too many benefits to ignore. However, it’s important to remember that wireless lacks the physical security of a wired network connection, which means that you need to be extremely careful when using it or face the consequences. Let me know your thoughts about wireless connectivity security and privacy concerns at


A Future Including Virtual Reality

Seeing is believing—at least, that’s how it’s supposed to be. However, seeing may not mean believing anything in the future. During the building of the PC for Build Your Own PC on a Budget, I investigated various new technologies, including virtual reality, where what you see may not exist at all. Of course, gamers are eagerly anticipating the Oculus Rift, which promises to transform gaming with a monitor into an experience where you really feel as if you’re there. This kind of technology isn’t quite available yet, but will be soon. Even when the hardware is ready and the drivers work as promised, truly immersive games will take time to create. Look for this experience to evolve over time to the point where the Holodeck featured in Star Trek actually does become a reality.

To attract attention and become viable, however, technology must answer specific needs today. It was with great interest that I read Marines test augmented reality battlefield. Unlike the Oculus Rift, this technology actually does exist today and it demonstrates some of the early uses of virtual reality that you can expect to see. In this case, the background is real—it’s an actual golf course. The virtual reality system adds the hardware of war to the scene, including tanks, mortars, and features, such as smoke. What the marine sees is a realistic battlefield that doesn’t exist anywhere but the viewer’s glasses. This is the sort of practical use of virtual reality that will continue to drive development until we get a holodeck sometime in the future.

Virtual reality for gamers and the armed services is nice, but it’s also becoming a reality for everyone else. Samsung and Facebook are introducing a virtual reality solution for movie goers. That’s right, you’ll be able to strap some glasses to your head and get transported to a comfy living room with a big screen TV where you can watch the latest movies offered by Netflix. The Gear VR device promises to change the way that people see movies forever. This particular device actually works with your smartphone, so you need a compatible smartphone to use it. In addition to movies, Gear VR also promises to let you play virtual reality game and become involved in other immersive environments. All you really need is the right app.

An immersive experience, where you eventually won’t be able to tell real from created, is what virtual reality promises. Using virtual reality, you could travel to other parts of the world, explore the ocean depths, or even saunter through the solar system as if you’re really there, but still be in your own home. Virtual reality will eventually transform all sorts of environments, including the classroom. Imagine children going to school, interacting with other students, learning from the best instructors, and never leaving their home. A student could get a top notch education for a fraction of the cost that students pay today.

Coupling virtual reality with other technologies, such as robotics, could also allow people to perform a great many unsafe tasks in perfect safety. A human could guide a robot through a virtual reality connection to perform real world tasks that would be unsafe for a human to perform alone. Think about the use of the technology in fighting fires or responding to terrible events that currently put first responders at risk. Virtual reality will eventually change the way we view the world around us and I hope that the experience is as positive as vendors are promising today. Let me know your thoughts about virtual reality at