virtual private network (VPN)
The retail store wants to take advantage of new technologies, such as a virtual private network (VPN), for the salespeople to connect remotely or cloud computing to store data off-site securely and to be able to process financial transactions securely over the Web. The owner does not know what hardware or software is needed to take advantage of the latest capabilities that technology has to offer.
Part 1
Remote Network Implementation Plan (4–5 pages)
The project deliverables for this week are as follows:
• Include a remote network access goals and objectives statement.
• Include a revised network diagram that depicts a plan to incorporate VPN technology, cloud computing, and Internet protocol security (IPsec) into the current network.
• Describe the security implications of using these technologies and how risk will be mitigated from a network hardware and software perspective.
• Provide an analysis as to how this part of the project fulfills the mission and 1 or more goals of the case study organization.
All sources should be cited both in-text and in References using APA format.
Part 2:
An argument in problem solving is used to permit the problem solver the opportunity to offer a set of reasons or evidence in support of his or her solution and related conclusions from the inquiry and research process. The argument is not an opinion and is not the conclusion restated, but rather a demonstration of the intellectual inquiry that you have made during the problem-solving process. Naturally, for the argument to gain credibility, it must be reinforced with scholarly references because the support of the conclusion comes from the quality of evidence that has been gathered.
There are some different forms of arguments that could be made, as follows:
• Categorical Arguments: An assertion that there is 1 of 4 relationships between X and Y. You could show these 4 forms as follows:
o All Xs are Ys.
Example: All mice are mammals.
o No Xs are Ys.
Example: No mice are mammals.
o Some Xs are Ys.
Example: Some mice are mammals.
o Some Xs are not Ys.
Example: Some mice are not mammals.
• Predictive Arguments: A case is made for anticipating or predicting events based on the characteristics of a category (X or Y) or based on the relationship between X and Y. Some sample arguments are below (the combination of X and Y is not represented).
o All Xs have this characteristic, behave this way, or are in this state. Therefore, I predict __ about X.
Example: All mice eat cheese. Therefore, the cheese on the table will be eaten by the mouse on the table.
o All Ys have this characteristic, behave this way, or are in this state. Therefore, I predict __ about Y.
Example: All cheese will be eaten by mice. Therefore, the cheese on the table will be eaten by the mouse on the table.
o Some Xs have this characteristic, behave this way, or are in this state. Therefore, I predict __ about X.
Example: Some gray mice eat cheese. Therefore, the cheese on the table may be eaten by the gray mouse on the table.
o Some Ys have this characteristic, behave this way, or are in this state. Therefore, I predict __ about Y.
Example: Some yellow cheeses are desired by mice. Therefore, the yellow cheese on the table may eaten by the mouse on the table.
o No Xs have this characteristic, behave this way, or are in this state. Therefore, I predict __ about X.
Example: No mice have been found to have 2 tails in this region. Therefore, the mouse in this region will have 1 tail.
o No Ys have this characteristic, behave this way, or are in this state. Therefore, I predict __ about Y.
Example: No ballots were left uncounted. Therefore, the voting system should be fair and equitable.
• Change Arguments: A case can be made that something is different in the characteristics (or state) of X and/or Y between 2 or more observations made at different times. A change argument is simply a comparison of before and after and any differences that are noted from the first observation to the subsequent observations. When making a case for observed change, then you would typically use a different form of argument (categorical or predictive) to explain why that change occurred.
o Example:
At observation 1, all Xs had this characteristic (or were in this state).
At observation 2, all Xs do not have this characteristic (or were not in this state).
Therefore, X no longer possesses this characteristic (or is no longer in this state).
Imagine that you now have to present your solution to your retail store client. You need to make a formal presentation to a group of stakeholders, and you need to be prepared to answer their questions. Create a PowerPoint presentation in which you provide the following:
• In the notes pages of each slide and based on the context of the information on that slide, provide a narrative of 2–3 paragraphs of your rationale for the solution to the problem that is described in the IP.
• On each slide, identify the type(s) of argument(s) that you are making for the problem presented in the unit IP and the evidence that you have to support the argument(s)
• All sources that are used to support your argument and solution should be cited both in-text (on slide or in notes page) and on a References slide using APA format.
• Name the documents "yourname_IT640_IP5.doc" and "yourname_IT640_IP5.ppt," respectively.
Transient memory is the memory for a boost that goes on for a brief time (Carlson, 2001). In reasonable terms visual transient memory is frequently utilized for a relative reason when one can't thoroughly search in two spots immediately however wish to look at least two prospects. Tuholski and partners allude to momentary memory similar to the attendant handling and stockpiling of data (Tuholski, Engle, and Baylis, 2001).
They additionally feature the way that mental capacity can frequently be antagonistically impacted by working memory limit. It means quite a bit to be sure about the typical limit of momentary memory as, without a legitimate comprehension of the flawless cerebrum's working it is challenging to evaluate whether an individual has a shortage in capacity (Parkin, 1996).
This survey frames George Miller's verifiable perspective on transient memory limit and how it tends to be impacted, prior to bringing the examination state-of-the-art and outlining a determination of approaches to estimating momentary memory limit. The verifiable perspective on momentary memory limit
Length of outright judgment
The range of outright judgment is characterized as the breaking point to the precision with which one can distinguish the greatness of a unidimensional boost variable (Miller, 1956), with this cutoff or length generally being around 7 + 2. Mill operator refers to Hayes memory length try as proof for his restricting range. In this members needed to review data read resoundingly to them and results obviously showed that there was a typical maximum restriction of 9 when double things were utilized.
This was regardless of the consistent data speculation, which has proposed that the range ought to be long if each introduced thing contained little data (Miller, 1956). The end from Hayes and Pollack's tests (see figure 1) was that how much data sent expansions in a straight design alongside how much data per unit input (Miller, 1956). Figure 1. Estimations of memory for data wellsprings of various sorts and bit remainders, contrasted with anticipated results for steady data. Results from Hayes (left) and Pollack (right) refered to by (Miller, 1956)
Pieces and lumps
Mill operator alludes to a 'digit' of data as need might have arisen 'to settle on a choice between two similarly probable other options'. In this manner a basic either or choice requires the slightest bit of data; with more expected for additional complicated choices, along a twofold pathway (Miller, 1956). Decimal digits are worth 3.3 pieces each, implying that a 7-digit telephone number (what is handily recollected) would include 23 pieces of data. Anyway an evident inconsistency to this is the way that, assuming an English word is worth around 10 pieces and just 23 pieces could be recollected then just 2-3 words could be recalled at any one time, clearly mistaken. The restricting range can all the more likely be figured out concerning the absorption of pieces into lumps.