Nah, don't worry about offending me - I've got pretty thick skin. And I didn't think you post was meant to be rude in any way - it was pretty clear you were just interested in the topic.
I've learnt an invaluable trick when it comes to responding to posts on Slashdot; stop, wait a couple of minutes, then read the post again. Chances are what I thought it was saying isn't actually what it was saying.
Which is a long way of saying that I didn't take your comment personally. Oh, and thanks for having the courtesy to respond (though don't feel obliged to respond to this post, or we could go on forever : )
"What, they had all been overclocking their processors? They had all dropped their computer from buildings?"
Well, since the article didn't give a great deal of detail about the problem, maybe they had been abusing their machines like this : )
But seriously, I agree that the customer should be able to use your product as it was intended without having any problems. But if someone drove their Ford into a tree they wouldn't have any claim against Ford, would they? Question is, what were these people doing that caused their Palms to break their mobos?
Now, I accept that this could be a fault with the Palms. Or it could be a fault with the motherboards (I wonder why they've not gone after the motherboard manufacturers).
All I did was speculate that the problem could have been caused by something other than the Palm. This was based on my experience of people similarly mis-diagnosing problems (and often causing the fault themselves either through understandable software problems or through genuine stupidity [yes, it does exist and sometimes there's a limit on what you can do to overcome it]). And the fact that there's just two of them filing this suit makes me even more suspicious. OK, so it's a negative attitude, but it's only that way because of what I've seen previously.
Oops - I got it ass-backwards. But the point still stands that it takes more power to drive a speaker cone than it does to do stuff on your Palm.
Anyway, technically the coil becomes a magnet when it's got a current flowing through it, but I'm just splitting hairs now and blatantly trying to cover up my mistake.
I'm no longer in tech support, but when I was I experienced people attributing a fault to something that experience told me wasn't the culprit. Each time I checked (yes, I provided the best support I could regardless of my opinion of the user), my initial suspicion that it was actually user error turned out to be correct.
My original point was not that this is definitely down to the users. It was simply that at the moment experience tells me that the fault probably lies with the user, not the hardware.
And, for the record, my corporate users all seemed perfectly happy with my performance : )
Firstly, lightning packs a much much bigger kick than anything a Palm could muster. Way bigger than mains voltage too.
Cook the modem, and you'll have trouble sending any data to the mobo. I guess you might just about manage to do this, but only if the kit wasn't designed too well. I'd expect that Palm would be producing fairly high-quality kit.
Your point about suing doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I'm sure a lot of people would sue God if they could : ). But seriously, if a garage put new tires on my car, and that somehow caused my engine to explode (I know, stupid example, but I'm trying to do my job at the same time as post) then you can bet I'd be going after the garage for compensation. Assuming I could prove something so improbable....
A speaker is a fairly power-hungry device (compared to most computer components) - driving that magnet back and forth takes a bit of effort. Which is why any reasonable high-power speakers run off mains power, not internal batteries. That, and they're relatively easy to manufacture, and so may be of low enough quality to occasionally cause a dangerous power-spike, while otherwise being perfectly acceptable.
The Palm, OTOH, does run on batteries. You can charge it up from mains, but it's not a particularly high-power device. In addition, they're manufactured to much higher standards than speakers need to be.
In addition, I'd expect serial/USB ports to be designed/engineered to be far less likely to allow a power spike to fry anything on the motherboard (or at least anything beyond the port controller).
I'll admit that this is all based on stuff that I can remember off the top of my head, and a bit of sensible conjecture (this is Slashdot after all : )), but I'd be horrified to find out that something like this was possible without gross negligence. Essentially, I expect that the chances of a Palm repeating your speaker/mobo problems are incredibly slim, and if it does happen then someone has screwed up badly.
I never heard this exact problem when I was doing tech support, but I got dozens of similar problems; "Since you unlocked my account my email's disappeared!", "Office 97 has broken my printer!" etc. Until I hear further details, I'm going to assume that this is down to users screwing up somewhere and trying to get compensated for it.
I mean, really; "damages or destroys the motherboards on certain PC brands" - just a little too vague there for me to take it seriously. Especially with a company that's shifted as many units ("more than 13 million") as Palm.
You say "Please be kind to your fellow/.ers", but bear in mind that the editors review any such links before the original story is posted. If they were to post links that directly circumvented the NYT login procedure (i.e. the NYT valuable user profiling / SPAM system) then the NYT would have grounds for complaining (i.e. lawsuit) that their profits were being hurt. However, if users post the links in the discussion then they can try and claim that it's not their fault - see that note in the small print that says "Comments are owned by the Poster."
So even if you post a story with a login-free link included, the editors will clean it up to cover their backs. Frankly, I can't blame them; since almost everyone knows how to dodge the info-collector it's not worth risking a fairly well justified law-suit.
Hah, great! Reminds me of the time Stand.org implicated a member of the UK government under our own RIP bill.
I've got a couple of questions about the article though. Firstly, it says:
"Mr. Mecham warned in that memorandum that on the days before the software was disabled, there were hundreds of attempts at intrusion into the judiciary's network from places like China and Iran."
Anyone got any idea how many such attempts a network like this typically gets? I'm guessing it'd be a similar number regardless of the filters, but there's plenty of people here who've got more experience than me.
Secondly, how do these monitors work? I ask, because I'm amazed that disabling content monitors would constitute a security risk of the sort they're talking about. Surely they just log what each user is downloading, rather than actively blocking content or attempts to connect to the network. They're not even filters, just logs!
Um, OK, off the top of my head; "Upright". Less giggling-at-the-back-of-the-class value. I guess a thesaurus might help with some more. Isn't it funny how such words have rude connotations? I mean, for a start I hardly ever hear the word "girth" used outside of pr0n.
I already have to explain to family and friends why a Pentium 75 is worse than a Pentium 4 far more regularly than I'd like to. I can just picture the pathetic puppy-dog looks on their faces when I tell them that their 5-year-old box won't take their new PCI 3 piece of kit ("See this number 3 here..."). And then they try to guilt trip me into taking it back and asking for a refund too....
Call it "New PCI" or "Super-Duper PCI" or "Extra Whizzy PCI (not compatible with any computers made before 2001)". Please!
And don't even get me started on the trouble I've had explaining why people's "innovative" cheap storage solutions are flawed (Zip disks don't work in regular floppy drives, you can't overwrite normal music CDs now matter how good your burner is etc.).
For those in the U.K. - this series is already running on Channel 4 (I think, but you may want to check this) on Sunday nights (around 8-9pm) - 2 programmes down, but another 2 to go.
Remember how long it took them to get an anti-trust investigation through against Microsoft. Oh, wait, sorry; I forgot that they're still arguing about it.
The combined might of these companies is even greater than that of the Redmond steamroller, and they're only in the preliminary stages. It's going to take years before this gets settled (even if it does go to court).
IMVVVVVHO this is denying the abilities of the human mind to do several things at once. Here I am typoing thos message whilst simultateously picking my nose and wondering what is for breakfast. Easy
Yeah, you're doing a great job there. Top quality work - "typoing" has got to be the most appropriate typo I've ever seen : )
Ahhh, you're just saying that cos you're old-skool, Stormie (not that I'm bitter that your UID# is only 1/2 as long as mine or anything).
But I have a fine counter to your argument; I'm currently posting to Slashdot from work, i.e. it's still preferential hanging out here than it is actually joining in with the "capitalist world" : )
How do the majority tabloid media find out about stuff like this? Well, either they hear about it from someone else (and thus Chinese Whispers ensues), or they go looking for info and run into technical stuff that's over their heads.
What they need is a source that dumbs things down enough to be broadcast on your local Fox afilliate while still keeping it accurate. Soundbite-friendly, not very technical, clear about the details. Most people don't know what you're talking about if you say "IIS vulnerability", but if you say "The Code Red Virus will hack the internet" then most people can get a handle on that.
It's not just about hype - it's lack of understanding. Anchors aren't good at telling people something when they don't understand it themselves, so it needs to be explained to them.
I, unfortunately, already have hardly any free time to start up a site providing a service like this, but I'd be willing to contribute to someone else's - anyone up for it?
All we need is to plow some of our considerable energies into genetically engineering a giant monster Tux (with a whole army of little lieutenant Tux's passing on his commands), who can then co-ordinate our jihad against MS.
Or, y'know, alternatively we could continue to fight on all fronts exactly as we've been doing already (and people do actually seem to be making money after all). Anyway, who the hell wants to spend their spare time working for a giant multinational Linux Corp? Not me.
BTW, I think I should point out that Jay's doesn't always hit the mark quite right. Take a look at his premature eulogy for Slashdot. Take what he says with a pinch of salt, folks.
Wait; I get it now! What they really need is some sort of system that they can roll out to all the users to get them using their services. Something that'll run on every major platform. But what? Yes, Java!
So does anyone else get the feeling that this is going to slowly lock out all non-Windows users (yeah, we'll update you Mac users, um, later. Linux? What's that?)? And if it does so, then would this be another case for the DoJ?
The other two posters above have been very helpful, but I think there's one thing that will still need to be done. Sit your friends down, reiterate the fact that they've just sent out private data, and tell them to remember this next time they get a suspicious email attachment.
Yup, I've only got a couple of these so far, but I figured the proper thing to do was educate people. And how better to drive the message home than public humiliation - I've mailed them back to give them my advice on the file they sent (as requested), told them how I got it (in simple terms), and informed them that I'd be making fun of them on my web site. Ahhh, it feels good to help : )
Slashdot Mirror
I've learnt an invaluable trick when it comes to responding to posts on Slashdot; stop, wait a couple of minutes, then read the post again. Chances are what I thought it was saying isn't actually what it was saying.
Which is a long way of saying that I didn't take your comment personally. Oh, and thanks for having the courtesy to respond (though don't feel obliged to respond to this post, or we could go on forever : )
Now who's being off topic?
But seriously, I agree that the customer should be able to use your product as it was intended without having any problems. But if someone drove their Ford into a tree they wouldn't have any claim against Ford, would they? Question is, what were these people doing that caused their Palms to break their mobos?
Now, I accept that this could be a fault with the Palms. Or it could be a fault with the motherboards (I wonder why they've not gone after the motherboard manufacturers).
All I did was speculate that the problem could have been caused by something other than the Palm. This was based on my experience of people similarly mis-diagnosing problems (and often causing the fault themselves either through understandable software problems or through genuine stupidity [yes, it does exist and sometimes there's a limit on what you can do to overcome it]). And the fact that there's just two of them filing this suit makes me even more suspicious. OK, so it's a negative attitude, but it's only that way because of what I've seen previously.
Anyway, technically the coil becomes a magnet when it's got a current flowing through it, but I'm just splitting hairs now and blatantly trying to cover up my mistake.
Ahh, everyone point at the dumbass [me].
I'm no longer in tech support, but when I was I experienced people attributing a fault to something that experience told me wasn't the culprit. Each time I checked (yes, I provided the best support I could regardless of my opinion of the user), my initial suspicion that it was actually user error turned out to be correct.
My original point was not that this is definitely down to the users. It was simply that at the moment experience tells me that the fault probably lies with the user, not the hardware.
And, for the record, my corporate users all seemed perfectly happy with my performance : )
- Firstly, lightning packs a much much bigger kick than anything a Palm could muster. Way bigger than mains voltage too.
- Cook the modem, and you'll have trouble sending any data to the mobo. I guess you might just about manage to do this, but only if the kit wasn't designed too well. I'd expect that Palm would be producing fairly high-quality kit.
- Your point about suing doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I'm sure a lot of people would sue God if they could : ). But seriously, if a garage put new tires on my car, and that somehow caused my engine to explode (I know, stupid example, but I'm trying to do my job at the same time as post) then you can bet I'd be going after the garage for compensation. Assuming I could prove something so improbable....
Not trying to flame, just trying to help.The Palm, OTOH, does run on batteries. You can charge it up from mains, but it's not a particularly high-power device. In addition, they're manufactured to much higher standards than speakers need to be.
In addition, I'd expect serial/USB ports to be designed/engineered to be far less likely to allow a power spike to fry anything on the motherboard (or at least anything beyond the port controller).
I'll admit that this is all based on stuff that I can remember off the top of my head, and a bit of sensible conjecture (this is Slashdot after all : )), but I'd be horrified to find out that something like this was possible without gross negligence. Essentially, I expect that the chances of a Palm repeating your speaker/mobo problems are incredibly slim, and if it does happen then someone has screwed up badly.
I mean, really; "damages or destroys the motherboards on certain PC brands" - just a little too vague there for me to take it seriously. Especially with a company that's shifted as many units ("more than 13 million") as Palm.
Oops - apologies to all. That'll teach me to check my URLs properly. Sorry about that one.
So even if you post a story with a login-free link included, the editors will clean it up to cover their backs. Frankly, I can't blame them; since almost everyone knows how to dodge the info-collector it's not worth risking a fairly well justified law-suit.
Login schmogin; try replacing the "www" in the URL with "archive" and you'll go straight to the page, no messing. This always works just fine for me.
I've got a couple of questions about the article though. Firstly, it says:
Anyone got any idea how many such attempts a network like this typically gets? I'm guessing it'd be a similar number regardless of the filters, but there's plenty of people here who've got more experience than me.Secondly, how do these monitors work? I ask, because I'm amazed that disabling content monitors would constitute a security risk of the sort they're talking about. Surely they just log what each user is downloading, rather than actively blocking content or attempts to connect to the network. They're not even filters, just logs!
-1, Offtopic
Call it "New PCI" or "Super-Duper PCI" or "Extra Whizzy PCI (not compatible with any computers made before 2001)". Please!
And don't even get me started on the trouble I've had explaining why people's "innovative" cheap storage solutions are flawed (Zip disks don't work in regular floppy drives, you can't overwrite normal music CDs now matter how good your burner is etc.).
For those in the U.K. - this series is already running on Channel 4 (I think, but you may want to check this) on Sunday nights (around 8-9pm) - 2 programmes down, but another 2 to go.
The combined might of these companies is even greater than that of the Redmond steamroller, and they're only in the preliminary stages. It's going to take years before this gets settled (even if it does go to court).
So let's not get our hopes up just yet.
Apologies for my lobotomy.
It says my Karma's 64! I like it.
Ahhh, you're just saying that cos you're old-skool, Stormie (not that I'm bitter that your UID# is only 1/2 as long as mine or anything).
But I have a fine counter to your argument; I'm currently posting to Slashdot from work, i.e. it's still preferential hanging out here than it is actually joining in with the "capitalist world" : )
What they need is a source that dumbs things down enough to be broadcast on your local Fox afilliate while still keeping it accurate. Soundbite-friendly, not very technical, clear about the details. Most people don't know what you're talking about if you say "IIS vulnerability", but if you say "The Code Red Virus will hack the internet" then most people can get a handle on that.
It's not just about hype - it's lack of understanding. Anchors aren't good at telling people something when they don't understand it themselves, so it needs to be explained to them.
I, unfortunately, already have hardly any free time to start up a site providing a service like this, but I'd be willing to contribute to someone else's - anyone up for it?
Or, y'know, alternatively we could continue to fight on all fronts exactly as we've been doing already (and people do actually seem to be making money after all). Anyway, who the hell wants to spend their spare time working for a giant multinational Linux Corp? Not me.
BTW, I think I should point out that Jay's doesn't always hit the mark quite right. Take a look at his premature eulogy for Slashdot. Take what he says with a pinch of salt, folks.
Oh, wait a sec.....
So does anyone else get the feeling that this is going to slowly lock out all non-Windows users (yeah, we'll update you Mac users, um, later. Linux? What's that?)? And if it does so, then would this be another case for the DoJ?
The other two posters above have been very helpful, but I think there's one thing that will still need to be done. Sit your friends down, reiterate the fact that they've just sent out private data, and tell them to remember this next time they get a suspicious email attachment.
Yup, I've only got a couple of these so far, but I figured the proper thing to do was educate people. And how better to drive the message home than public humiliation - I've mailed them back to give them my advice on the file they sent (as requested), told them how I got it (in simple terms), and informed them that I'd be making fun of them on my web site. Ahhh, it feels good to help : )