The problem is that IoT covers a range of product. That web article is a mixture of some truth which is used to create hysteria. It claims that there's a minimum amount of work necessary to create a viable product for the consumer. This is true, but everyone knows about this already. What is happening is that they're looking at the worst of the worst products and claiming that all of IoT is this way. I would never myself use any consumer grade IoT device (except for phones, and I barely tolerate them and do extra configuration to increase privacy). But professional level IoT devices to tend to pay attention to security. When security is a feature that the customer demands then it gets implemented (such as with smart meters where the customer is a utility), but when security isn't even asked about then no one bothers implementing it (home baby monitors bought at the local tech store by hipster parents).
There's probably some trusting of the hardware that gets in the way too. Hardware says they have secure key storage, so you design with the feature in mind. Later on it turns out the key storage isn't so secure. A full OS like Android should presumably not be dependent upon one chip vendor's features. And yet it happens anyway.
I work on IoT devices. Security is always a concern. Just because some stupid consumer oriented device does not care about security does not mean that the professionals aren't concerned.
$20 tickets? Wow, I thought I lived in a high cost of living area. 3D full price ticket, with luxury lounge chairs, $15.50. 3D Matinee with luxury lounge chairs, $9.75. Non-3D full price, $9.50. That's in the same block as Google, home of the gentry.
Even if you can afford the $50 it doesn't mean it's a good idea. Remember that the rich people didn't get that way by spending their money. I can certainly afford that $50 for a movie once a week and it would in no way hurt me financially, but I most certainly would never pay that amount. I could pay $50 for a cup of tea also but it's a stupid idea ("but it's just the cost of a nice dinner!").
That $50 could buy me a streaming movie, or it could by me an in-theater movie for 4 people, or it could buy me one in-theater ticket plus a dinner afterwords, or I could just subscribe to a larger streaming service that gives me lots of new movies during the month with money left over, or a handful of video games, or whatever. Wait 6 months and pay-per-view has that movie streaming for $3-4. They should be able to charge exactly the price of a cinema ticket and still have larger profit margins than actual cinema tickets.
By focusing on the fact that $50 is affordable it misses the entire point that this is amazingly overpriced. It's premium pricing with no premium.
Don't forget that Javascript is slowing it all down too. Content loads fast, but the web-as-an-application-framework is what's wrong with the web. This is essentially Java applets reinvented but with the wrong lessons learned.
If Javascript programmers wrote in assembly they'd probably end up with code that's even slower than Javascript. Thus their assembly-level performance might be very very slow.
It's a civil case, not criminal. So dissolving the company is pretty harsh over such a matter. And you can't do either anyway without a trial, and a trial in a civil case means lawsuit.
Perhaps the suit is not about earning someone a lot of dollars, but instead to punish a company into changing their behavior. The only way the FTC and other government TLAs have to control corporations who break the law is to sue them; this is a civil matter so they can't arrest anyone. Would you prefer that they sued AT&T for $100 million and then pocketed it all instead of giving out refunds?
Class action is also used for cases where individually there's no point to really suing to recover the small amount of money. For instance, when computer monitor makers started labelling screen size to include the plastic borders. People who joined the lawsuit got a pittance, a coupon for a few tens of dollars I think, but on the other hand the monitor makers also started telling the truth in their advertisements.
Was this a waste of time, or did it actually cause a change? AT&T case is similar, the product they advertised is not what was delivered. The difference is that AT&T has learned how to remove rights from their customers through arbitration agreements. Essentially any contract with AT&T can be broken by them with no recourse. Arbitration does not mean you get to resolve a dispute, it is not "small claims court, lite-version". Arbitration means that whoever has the most money will win.
I basically just wait two or three years and the tweak it manually. When I oversleep my alarm for an hour every morning, getting the number of seconds right isn't high on my priority list.
I agree somewhat. However we've sort of twisted ourselves into uncomfortable positions when protesters have to stay within a pre-designated free speech zone. Would we have had an American revolution if the British had told us to keep our protests to one side of the Haymarket and not distrupt the test of Bostonian politics? "Please stop, this is not an approved tea dumping site!"
Guy Fawkes was incompetent and screwed up the plot, and Anonymous is following in his footsteps. Besides, I thought Anonymous was all about restoring the catholic monarchy in England?
Slashdot Mirror
This is slashdot. There could easily be a worse summary.
The problem is that IoT covers a range of product. That web article is a mixture of some truth which is used to create hysteria. It claims that there's a minimum amount of work necessary to create a viable product for the consumer. This is true, but everyone knows about this already. What is happening is that they're looking at the worst of the worst products and claiming that all of IoT is this way. I would never myself use any consumer grade IoT device (except for phones, and I barely tolerate them and do extra configuration to increase privacy). But professional level IoT devices to tend to pay attention to security. When security is a feature that the customer demands then it gets implemented (such as with smart meters where the customer is a utility), but when security isn't even asked about then no one bothers implementing it (home baby monitors bought at the local tech store by hipster parents).
It's slashdot. We have a periodic timer that goes off to post "Dangers With IoT!" stories. This time it just happens to not be Timothy.
There's probably some trusting of the hardware that gets in the way too. Hardware says they have secure key storage, so you design with the feature in mind. Later on it turns out the key storage isn't so secure. A full OS like Android should presumably not be dependent upon one chip vendor's features. And yet it happens anyway.
I work on IoT devices. Security is always a concern. Just because some stupid consumer oriented device does not care about security does not mean that the professionals aren't concerned.
Those chips are for phones, most IoT devices don't use anything that large and high power. Although phones themselves are technically "IoT" devices.
$20 tickets? Wow, I thought I lived in a high cost of living area. 3D full price ticket, with luxury lounge chairs, $15.50. 3D Matinee with luxury lounge chairs, $9.75. Non-3D full price, $9.50. That's in the same block as Google, home of the gentry.
Even if you can afford the $50 it doesn't mean it's a good idea. Remember that the rich people didn't get that way by spending their money. I can certainly afford that $50 for a movie once a week and it would in no way hurt me financially, but I most certainly would never pay that amount. I could pay $50 for a cup of tea also but it's a stupid idea ("but it's just the cost of a nice dinner!").
That $50 could buy me a streaming movie, or it could by me an in-theater movie for 4 people, or it could buy me one in-theater ticket plus a dinner afterwords, or I could just subscribe to a larger streaming service that gives me lots of new movies during the month with money left over, or a handful of video games, or whatever. Wait 6 months and pay-per-view has that movie streaming for $3-4. They should be able to charge exactly the price of a cinema ticket and still have larger profit margins than actual cinema tickets.
By focusing on the fact that $50 is affordable it misses the entire point that this is amazingly overpriced. It's premium pricing with no premium.
Single point of failure is easier for the casual users.
Don't forget that Javascript is slowing it all down too. Content loads fast, but the web-as-an-application-framework is what's wrong with the web. This is essentially Java applets reinvented but with the wrong lessons learned.
If Javascript programmers wrote in assembly they'd probably end up with code that's even slower than Javascript. Thus their assembly-level performance might be very very slow.
I thought enterprise grade meant you had to pay 6 to 7 figures for maintenance.
You're anonymous, how am I supposed to mod this up?
It's a civil case, not criminal. So dissolving the company is pretty harsh over such a matter. And you can't do either anyway without a trial, and a trial in a civil case means lawsuit.
Perhaps the suit is not about earning someone a lot of dollars, but instead to punish a company into changing their behavior. The only way the FTC and other government TLAs have to control corporations who break the law is to sue them; this is a civil matter so they can't arrest anyone. Would you prefer that they sued AT&T for $100 million and then pocketed it all instead of giving out refunds?
Class action is also used for cases where individually there's no point to really suing to recover the small amount of money. For instance, when computer monitor makers started labelling screen size to include the plastic borders. People who joined the lawsuit got a pittance, a coupon for a few tens of dollars I think, but on the other hand the monitor makers also started telling the truth in their advertisements.
Was this a waste of time, or did it actually cause a change? AT&T case is similar, the product they advertised is not what was delivered. The difference is that AT&T has learned how to remove rights from their customers through arbitration agreements. Essentially any contract with AT&T can be broken by them with no recourse. Arbitration does not mean you get to resolve a dispute, it is not "small claims court, lite-version". Arbitration means that whoever has the most money will win.
Private rooms and buildings you can keep people out of. But anywhere that is public space should be a free speech zone.
I'm right now. No, now. Not then, it's now now. Ok, wait... I'm... NOW. Damn, it seems like I'm always then.
I basically just wait two or three years and the tweak it manually. When I oversleep my alarm for an hour every morning, getting the number of seconds right isn't high on my priority list.
Competing fascists?
I agree somewhat. However we've sort of twisted ourselves into uncomfortable positions when protesters have to stay within a pre-designated free speech zone. Would we have had an American revolution if the British had told us to keep our protests to one side of the Haymarket and not distrupt the test of Bostonian politics?
"Please stop, this is not an approved tea dumping site!"
The problems start when someone says "I'm bored, let's do something for the lulz!" That's what caused Trump to run for president.
Guy Fawkes was incompetent and screwed up the plot, and Anonymous is following in his footsteps. Besides, I thought Anonymous was all about restoring the catholic monarchy in England?
Anonymous is too cool and hip to actually go vote.
They were both arrogant aristocrats as well as knowledgeable about human behavior.