They should be held responsible. That means the customers must be the ones demanding those features. Sometimes the manufacturers have to inform the customers about why security is important (ie if your SCADA or utility customers think security is an afterthought then bring up the worst case scenarios and scare them into getting a better product).
Too often time to market trumps security - especially in the consumer market where fads can vanish suddenly and your market for IoT refrigerators dries up overnight.
This isn't really "IoT". A home router is not IOT either. Yes it's a thing, and it's on the internet, but so is your computer and your phone. This new CPU sounds like a power hog focused on being fast, whereas I'm working on something that has to run on a non-rechargeable battery for twenty years. Intel is focusing on the consumer IoT fad I suspect.
What an IoT chip *should* have: low power and security. Meaning average only a handful of microamps, the fewer the better as it allows customers to add their own exrtras. And for security you want secure key storage (private keys never in ram) and support for crypto that allows PKIP (you need more than just AES). Too many devices seem oriented to wifi which is just an awful way to go; high power and bad security.
Don't worry, Wi-Fi alliance will add security. Not now of course, that would hurt the emerging market. But soon. Someday. Please stop paying attention to the competing standards!
Which kind? Classic Mussolini style, or Spanish Francoist, the Greek August regime, the racist variant of Nazi Germany, or some other variety? Or are you just using word whose meaning you are not sure of as an epithet to score some anonymous points?
There's little debate though, few exchanges of ideas, no real argument. It's mostly abuse. The few times someone does try to defend their ideas there is not much substance and they find it impossible to leave the politicals out. They especially find it difficult to leave the abusive politics out (everyone has to be labelled as "libtard" or something like that).
Maybe that's how kids are taught to hold debates these days. They watch modern political campaigns and think the proper way to debate is to call each other names and ridicule their ideas, then quickly change topic if asked a tough quesiton.
I'm all for seeing a good reasoned defense about why anthropomorphic climate change is false. But you won't find it here on Slashdot.
Political mainly. I remember in the 70s that my father when teaching a Sunday school class (mainline non-southern protestant) said that we may not know exactly how long a "day" is for the creation in Genesis, and that perhaps evolution was the method used for creation. Not the view of my mother though. But basically, evolution was not a major religious issue at the time. There almost certainly was no mainstream notion of 6000 years since creation (a number that surprisingly hasn't change as time advances). You weren't an evil person if you studied evolution. A few parents here or there might be upset at science classes teaching evolution, but for a small rural conservative town it wasn't that many. Religion just didn't conflict with science or vice versa.
Fast forward though and there's a huge so-called culture war going on. People believe there's a plot against religion, and Christians in particular. They will point out (falsely) that every belief system is encouraged at schools except for Christianity which is soon to be outlawed by Hillary. And it's all basically a political movement and not a religious one. I could see this growing over time, from the slow rise of moral majority leaders, mostly from oddball offshoots in the south where theological competence was not a requirement for leading a church, but being attractive to members of mainstream churches who were interested in more conservative politics. Add a few more years and politics and religion is intermixed greatly. And by politics I mean "us versus them", except now with religion being added it was becoming "good versus evil". And the politics spreads out - if the same people who believe in global warming are also those who support gay marriage then those two ideas get lumped together.
In some way it's still true. 60-70% of android is a bigger market than all of the iphone. What they missed is that there would be other competitors jumping into the market so soon.
Which they could have foreseen - both iphone and android started life outside of Apple and Google, the development of smarter things than java phones or feature phones was ongoing if you knew where to look.
Much of the argument against civil rights was based on some core John Birch Society principles. Mainly, the government should do nothing, especially the federal government. If the states want to be governed by assholes then that's their right. Also if you can't enforce the constitution then what it says is irrelevant. Mainly though, the John Birch Society opposed it because of communists. Social good is one step away from socialism, which is nigh equivalent to communism, and not even democracy should be allowed to go there. Of course once MLK Jr said he was opposed to the war in Vietnam they treated it as proof of communist sympathies.
The other issue, not necessarily from John Birch Society, is that wrongs commited in the past don't need to be corrected today. We declare someone as "equal" then some feel that should be the end of the matter. After centuries of oppression there is no need, some feel, to take any corrective action whatsoever. Sure it's a shame about how the slaves and their descendants were treated, but it's not my fault. Besides I've got to protect my wallet and kids first!
The artificial numbers game is there for a purpose. When you knock a man down you should help him back up, rather than say "sorry about that" and leave them bruised in the mud while you walk away. The voting rights act was there for a purpose, to stop states with a clear and unambiguous history of violating rights from doing it again, and we should still have such oversight over the known bigot filled state governments today although the supreme court repealed this part recently.
It's my crazy uncle Larry who claimed he paddled around the world on an inner tube, and later had his perpetual motion machine classified and hidden by the goverernment. How he says he's figured out how to use cigarettes and bath salts to create cold fusion. Should I give him the benefit of the doubt?
And yet I see so many people instantly calling anything Hillary says is a lie, or the other grop that calls anything Trump says is a lie. It seems the popular way to know who is a liar is to see who has a different opinion from one's own.
Normally I have a real keyboard attached to mine. The only time it's not attached is if I take it to a meeting (where no development happens) or home (where definitely I am not working).
Capslock is control. It was where God put the control key on the first keyboard. The collective of fallen angels known as IBM moved this key in order to confuse mankind.
I did that for a very long time. Even with Emacs. One day another Emacs user was watching me typing and said: "Wait, how did you do that?" "What do you mean?" "That command, what was your keyboard shortcut for it." "Oh, Escape-twiddle." "No, you had a control command." "Yes, Escape-twiddle." "But what's the control for?" "It's the escape!" "OMG, you VMS people really have it bad, don't you?"
Get rid of the "Q" key. No one uses that. We shouldn't let a minority of words dictate the keyboard for everyone. We can do this without affecting kwality.
Apple and Microsoft both have shown a pattern of removing more and more features with each release. Even features that are likely never to be used or seen by the casual or untrained users. For example, Windows 8 removed the option to change window border size although it's there in the registry, and the default was the ugliest looking border ever; why change it when so few users could even find the setting for this? The power user is treated as persona non grata these days.
Slashdot Mirror
Or a slough.
This is just microsoft shouting into the wind, "We're still relevant... Let us monetize you..."
They should be held responsible. That means the customers must be the ones demanding those features. Sometimes the manufacturers have to inform the customers about why security is important (ie if your SCADA or utility customers think security is an afterthought then bring up the worst case scenarios and scare them into getting a better product).
Too often time to market trumps security - especially in the consumer market where fads can vanish suddenly and your market for IoT refrigerators dries up overnight.
This isn't really "IoT". A home router is not IOT either. Yes it's a thing, and it's on the internet, but so is your computer and your phone. This new CPU sounds like a power hog focused on being fast, whereas I'm working on something that has to run on a non-rechargeable battery for twenty years. Intel is focusing on the consumer IoT fad I suspect.
What an IoT chip *should* have: low power and security. Meaning average only a handful of microamps, the fewer the better as it allows customers to add their own exrtras. And for security you want secure key storage (private keys never in ram) and support for crypto that allows PKIP (you need more than just AES). Too many devices seem oriented to wifi which is just an awful way to go; high power and bad security.
How? Just blow into those really tiny slots on the side?
Don't worry, Wi-Fi alliance will add security. Not now of course, that would hurt the emerging market. But soon. Someday. Please stop paying attention to the competing standards!
Which kind? Classic Mussolini style, or Spanish Francoist, the Greek August regime, the racist variant of Nazi Germany, or some other variety? Or are you just using word whose meaning you are not sure of as an epithet to score some anonymous points?
There's little debate though, few exchanges of ideas, no real argument. It's mostly abuse. The few times someone does try to defend their ideas there is not much substance and they find it impossible to leave the politicals out. They especially find it difficult to leave the abusive politics out (everyone has to be labelled as "libtard" or something like that).
Maybe that's how kids are taught to hold debates these days. They watch modern political campaigns and think the proper way to debate is to call each other names and ridicule their ideas, then quickly change topic if asked a tough quesiton.
I'm all for seeing a good reasoned defense about why anthropomorphic climate change is false. But you won't find it here on Slashdot.
Political mainly. I remember in the 70s that my father when teaching a Sunday school class (mainline non-southern protestant) said that we may not know exactly how long a "day" is for the creation in Genesis, and that perhaps evolution was the method used for creation. Not the view of my mother though. But basically, evolution was not a major religious issue at the time. There almost certainly was no mainstream notion of 6000 years since creation (a number that surprisingly hasn't change as time advances). You weren't an evil person if you studied evolution. A few parents here or there might be upset at science classes teaching evolution, but for a small rural conservative town it wasn't that many. Religion just didn't conflict with science or vice versa.
Fast forward though and there's a huge so-called culture war going on. People believe there's a plot against religion, and Christians in particular. They will point out (falsely) that every belief system is encouraged at schools except for Christianity which is soon to be outlawed by Hillary. And it's all basically a political movement and not a religious one. I could see this growing over time, from the slow rise of moral majority leaders, mostly from oddball offshoots in the south where theological competence was not a requirement for leading a church, but being attractive to members of mainstream churches who were interested in more conservative politics. Add a few more years and politics and religion is intermixed greatly. And by politics I mean "us versus them", except now with religion being added it was becoming "good versus evil". And the politics spreads out - if the same people who believe in global warming are also those who support gay marriage then those two ideas get lumped together.
At least it keeps them off the streets. Which saves energy.
Queue the cues.
In some way it's still true. 60-70% of android is a bigger market than all of the iphone. What they missed is that there would be other competitors jumping into the market so soon.
Which they could have foreseen - both iphone and android started life outside of Apple and Google, the development of smarter things than java phones or feature phones was ongoing if you knew where to look.
Much of the argument against civil rights was based on some core John Birch Society principles. Mainly, the government should do nothing, especially the federal government. If the states want to be governed by assholes then that's their right. Also if you can't enforce the constitution then what it says is irrelevant. Mainly though, the John Birch Society opposed it because of communists. Social good is one step away from socialism, which is nigh equivalent to communism, and not even democracy should be allowed to go there. Of course once MLK Jr said he was opposed to the war in Vietnam they treated it as proof of communist sympathies.
The other issue, not necessarily from John Birch Society, is that wrongs commited in the past don't need to be corrected today. We declare someone as "equal" then some feel that should be the end of the matter. After centuries of oppression there is no need, some feel, to take any corrective action whatsoever. Sure it's a shame about how the slaves and their descendants were treated, but it's not my fault. Besides I've got to protect my wallet and kids first!
The artificial numbers game is there for a purpose. When you knock a man down you should help him back up, rather than say "sorry about that" and leave them bruised in the mud while you walk away. The voting rights act was there for a purpose, to stop states with a clear and unambiguous history of violating rights from doing it again, and we should still have such oversight over the known bigot filled state governments today although the supreme court repealed this part recently.
It's my crazy uncle Larry who claimed he paddled around the world on an inner tube, and later had his perpetual motion machine classified and hidden by the goverernment. How he says he's figured out how to use cigarettes and bath salts to create cold fusion. Should I give him the benefit of the doubt?
And yet I see so many people instantly calling anything Hillary says is a lie, or the other grop that calls anything Trump says is a lie. It seems the popular way to know who is a liar is to see who has a different opinion from one's own.
Strong brand of Kool-Aid there. It's like you almost believe Trump when he goes into his most-persecuted-person-on-earth routine.
Normally I have a real keyboard attached to mine. The only time it's not attached is if I take it to a meeting (where no development happens) or home (where definitely I am not working).
Capslock is control. It was where God put the control key on the first keyboard. The collective of fallen angels known as IBM moved this key in order to confuse mankind.
I did that for a very long time. Even with Emacs. One day another Emacs user was watching me typing and said:
"Wait, how did you do that?"
"What do you mean?"
"That command, what was your keyboard shortcut for it."
"Oh, Escape-twiddle."
"No, you had a control command."
"Yes, Escape-twiddle."
"But what's the control for?"
"It's the escape!"
"OMG, you VMS people really have it bad, don't you?"
And yet they KEPT the moronic Windows key...
Get rid of the "Q" key. No one uses that. We shouldn't let a minority of words dictate the keyboard for everyone. We can do this without affecting kwality.
I prefer keys that weren't captured in the first place.
Obligatory Dilbert: http://dilbert.com/strip/1995-...
Apple and Microsoft both have shown a pattern of removing more and more features with each release. Even features that are likely never to be used or seen by the casual or untrained users. For example, Windows 8 removed the option to change window border size although it's there in the registry, and the default was the ugliest looking border ever; why change it when so few users could even find the setting for this? The power user is treated as persona non grata these days.
I disagree. A beautiful death would be acceptable also.