It would put them closer to par with their hardware development process. They've been designing hardware with major flaws for years and never acknowledging a thing. If a customer complains loud enough, they get a free replacement with no explanation - but no recalls, no attempts at anything better. Especially see every Macbook Pro for the last 10 years.
They should have been transparent about it from the get go, but I do not think they were acting in a nefarious way or with poor intentions.
Not even with the glaringly obvious reason that they wouldn't be transparent? The fact that they can let consumers assume it's because their phone is "old" or "behind the times" without having to lie to them directly. They had a huge profit motive in not stopping or slowing customers from buying new phones.
Well maybe you should read the thread you're replying on and realize we're not wiping anything here:
Why should that result in mediocrity?
Because when you release your fine product on Monday, by Tuesday evening the market is flooded with legal Chinese knockoffs at price which makes it unprofitable for you to have done the research and development in the first plac
Even still, it was almost certainly Google's developers that wrote the bad code - Roku provides help to big vendors, but they generally don't do the heavy lifting.
I never actually had issues with Youtube (Roku 3), though I never stay in the app for more than 2-3 videos before going to another app like Netflix. And even for those two videos, I prefer my phone UI for search and then just use the cast button to start playing directly. So I didn't have enough time to lose any real responsiveness.
All of that has nothing to do with throttling or blocking illegal content. That's a completely separate legal framework for notifying people of potential infringement. And there's a whole policy built in for false positives.
Or, as the article points out the DMCA requires them to terminate your account
No, the law requires ISPs to have a termination policy - which can actually be very generous. And that policy is required to allow time for counter-notices, because the data is presumed innocent until proven guilty. And that's why this is different from blocking and throttling, because the ONLY legal framework for protecting against copyright infringement under the law is the DMCA system.
They've gotten away with it, but no - that's not how our legal system works. Anyone can use a disguised filename for privacy or any other reason they want to - and there's nothing illegal about that.
Imagine if "pretty obviously illegal" was the basis for law enforcement.
even if Net Neutrality still applied they'd be allowed to block or throttle bittorrent
They are not a court. They cannot rule on whether data is legal or illegal. There are legal uses to Bittorrent - it's a great way to download Linux ISOs for one.
Therefore, it's impossible to provide Internet including IPv4 to everyone.
You're right. That was what I said. Just because it's not possible for everyone to have it doesn't make it not true. We're long past due to be on IPv6, but don't let ISPs call carrier-grade NAT the same as Internet service. If there's no bidirectional route to you, you are not fully connected to the Internet.
Wouldn't have to be. They would just have to look at the customers in aggregate. If nobody had a claim for 20 years, then there's no tangible benefit. Though flood insurance would have to look at a much longer period of time depending on where you live.
After so many failures, I just return false negatives for even correct inputs. So it at least takes a bigger army. A botnet that only gets ~10 guesses per IP per hour is going to take a long time.
Hiding SSIDs isn't without merit. Not for security, but let's say you're a hotel with a guest network. Hiding the staff network would decrease support calls, because everyday users won't see and won't try to connect to the wrong one.
Wouldn't sending the unhashed password on to the database server be an unnecessary security risk? You query for salt+hash and compare in-software with what was sent so that only one place has to see the plaintext password.
The only reason it didn't plummet further is because of how long these transactions will take to process. Everyone's waiting to see where it all settles.
To keep the same visual quality, the rip should end up about twice the size after re-encoding as an equivalent 1080p title. Four times the resolution, but the codec (HEVC/H.265) uses half the bits. Disc capacity is up to doubled too.
Once re-encoded, my rips end up at about 12-15GB for standard Blu-Ray and the quality difference is nearly imperceptible to the original.
Then again, if I was a customer of the third party vendor I'd want to put more pressure on them to stay current and keep my product working.
And I, as a consumer, have not bought into the software subscription model. I want software to "just work" 5 years after I bought it. It was the one thing you could count on from Windows until recently. The copy of Adobe Creative Suite I bought 10 years ago works on nothing after Windows 7 without extreme UI bugs.
This is no different from a realtor who chooses not to show houses to black people - definitely illegal.
Yes it is different. This is an automated platform for advertising. Can Facebook's server look at that ad and determine that it's a "job" ad or a "housing" ad? How do you expect Facebook to know?
support the new features in the new iPhones and iPads that come out every year.
Most of the time those aren't even phone features, but software features restricted to specific models. Remember when Siri first came out? What phone can't record audio with a microphone and send it to a remote server?
Slashdot Mirror
It would put them closer to par with their hardware development process. They've been designing hardware with major flaws for years and never acknowledging a thing. If a customer complains loud enough, they get a free replacement with no explanation - but no recalls, no attempts at anything better. Especially see every Macbook Pro for the last 10 years.
They should have been transparent about it from the get go, but I do not think they were acting in a nefarious way or with poor intentions.
Not even with the glaringly obvious reason that they wouldn't be transparent? The fact that they can let consumers assume it's because their phone is "old" or "behind the times" without having to lie to them directly. They had a huge profit motive in not stopping or slowing customers from buying new phones.
Well maybe you should read the thread you're replying on and realize we're not wiping anything here:
Why should that result in mediocrity?
Because when you release your fine product on Monday, by Tuesday evening the market is flooded with legal Chinese knockoffs at price which makes it unprofitable for you to have done the research and development in the first plac
Even still, it was almost certainly Google's developers that wrote the bad code - Roku provides help to big vendors, but they generally don't do the heavy lifting.
I never actually had issues with Youtube (Roku 3), though I never stay in the app for more than 2-3 videos before going to another app like Netflix. And even for those two videos, I prefer my phone UI for search and then just use the cast button to start playing directly. So I didn't have enough time to lose any real responsiveness.
When's the last time you used it? It's gotten a lot better in the last 6-10 months.
All of that has nothing to do with throttling or blocking illegal content. That's a completely separate legal framework for notifying people of potential infringement. And there's a whole policy built in for false positives.
Or, as the article points out the DMCA requires them to terminate your account
No, the law requires ISPs to have a termination policy - which can actually be very generous. And that policy is required to allow time for counter-notices, because the data is presumed innocent until proven guilty. And that's why this is different from blocking and throttling, because the ONLY legal framework for protecting against copyright infringement under the law is the DMCA system.
They've gotten away with it, but no - that's not how our legal system works. Anyone can use a disguised filename for privacy or any other reason they want to - and there's nothing illegal about that.
Imagine if "pretty obviously illegal" was the basis for law enforcement.
even if Net Neutrality still applied they'd be allowed to block or throttle bittorrent
They are not a court. They cannot rule on whether data is legal or illegal. There are legal uses to Bittorrent - it's a great way to download Linux ISOs for one.
An AI can help find material for a human to review. That's the end of an AI's usefulness at this point.
Depends on your reputation, the quality and price of your product, the quality and price of the clones etc..
Counterpoint: Wal-Mart exists.
Therefore, it's impossible to provide Internet including IPv4 to everyone.
You're right. That was what I said. Just because it's not possible for everyone to have it doesn't make it not true. We're long past due to be on IPv6, but don't let ISPs call carrier-grade NAT the same as Internet service. If there's no bidirectional route to you, you are not fully connected to the Internet.
Wouldn't have to be. They would just have to look at the customers in aggregate. If nobody had a claim for 20 years, then there's no tangible benefit. Though flood insurance would have to look at a much longer period of time depending on where you live.
I don't know - ask the CEO of LifeLock.
Carrier-grade or not, that is not Internet. That is a content consumption service.
After so many failures, I just return false negatives for even correct inputs. So it at least takes a bigger army. A botnet that only gets ~10 guesses per IP per hour is going to take a long time.
Hiding SSIDs isn't without merit. Not for security, but let's say you're a hotel with a guest network. Hiding the staff network would decrease support calls, because everyday users won't see and won't try to connect to the wrong one.
Wouldn't sending the unhashed password on to the database server be an unnecessary security risk? You query for salt+hash and compare in-software with what was sent so that only one place has to see the plaintext password.
The only reason it didn't plummet further is because of how long these transactions will take to process. Everyone's waiting to see where it all settles.
Is that test suit custom-tailored?
To keep the same visual quality, the rip should end up about twice the size after re-encoding as an equivalent 1080p title. Four times the resolution, but the codec (HEVC/H.265) uses half the bits. Disc capacity is up to doubled too.
Once re-encoded, my rips end up at about 12-15GB for standard Blu-Ray and the quality difference is nearly imperceptible to the original.
Then again, if I was a customer of the third party vendor I'd want to put more pressure on them to stay current and keep my product working.
And I, as a consumer, have not bought into the software subscription model. I want software to "just work" 5 years after I bought it. It was the one thing you could count on from Windows until recently. The copy of Adobe Creative Suite I bought 10 years ago works on nothing after Windows 7 without extreme UI bugs.
The reboots caused by updates are at least as frequent as BSODs in Windows 95.
Twice a day updates now? Just kidding - I got hard freezes just as often as BSODs.
This is no different from a realtor who chooses not to show houses to black people - definitely illegal.
Yes it is different. This is an automated platform for advertising. Can Facebook's server look at that ad and determine that it's a "job" ad or a "housing" ad? How do you expect Facebook to know?
Is that really easier than Ubuntu LTS? I use either Ubuntu LTS or CentOS for servers. And 5 years of updates is pretty good without any upgrading.
support the new features in the new iPhones and iPads that come out every year.
Most of the time those aren't even phone features, but software features restricted to specific models. Remember when Siri first came out? What phone can't record audio with a microphone and send it to a remote server?