What's worse than a forced reboot? A reboot that should have happened but was ignored, wiping out not only the last hours work, but your entire disk.
>99% of users would have absolutely no idea what choice to take. And no matter which they chose, they probably will wind up losing something. So why make it appear that it is the users fault if they lost data (by making the 'wrong' choice)?
Yeah, just suspend that thread that is in the USB stack. What could possibly go wrong? It's not like it could interefe with a filesystem o a USB device, right?
And remember, just because a certain piece of code DETECTED a problem does not mean that that piece of code CAUSED the problem. Thread 'A' craps all over storage, thread 'B' attempts to use storage and crashes, and you give the user to just let thread 'A' continue? Brilliant!
Nothing fishy. It is a hugely profitable product at $150, not at $9. TI has no doubt long ago paid all the sunk costs, etc for this product and can now, if they wanted, sell the product for very close to the marginal cost. So any competitor that comes in has to match that price (probably discounted even more because they don't have the TI brand), for a product that has a very limited market with no real upside at all. Or, said competitor could invest in some desirable product that has a future and competitors who really can't afford to drop the price much.
Just because some competitor has the ability to enter the market does not mean it is a wise business decision for them to do so.
Free market does not 'require' competition. Do you have any evidence that there exists a 'competitor' who wishes to make a clone of this calculator, but is being prevented from doing so? No, you do not. Just because only one player chooses to play in a given market does not mean that the market is not free.
Don't know about this app, but Progressive and State Farm do tell you what they monitor. State Farm (at least) also provides you with a 'dashboard' so you can see the data, along with how it will affect your rates.
Progressive monitors hard braking, miles driven per day, and how often you drive between midnight and 4AM.
State Farm monitors braking, acceleration, left and right turns, time of day vehicle is driven, and speed over 80MPH
Your own analogy illustrates the problem with that approach. Putting your purse in the trunk may stop an opportunistic theif from strolling by, seeing your purse, and taking it. It does absolutely nothing to protect against a determined theif who has a strong suspicion that there is something of value stored in the vehicle. But in the case of online data, people here are taking the position that the user must protect against determined foes. It would be like telling everyone that the proper thing to do is always put your purse in Ft Knox. Of course, nobody will actually do that because it is totally impractical.
The answer is that we need to let go of the idea that the ancient idea of passwords is sufficient. It obviously is not.
The very first paragraph of IBMs z/Architecture Principles of Operation:
The architecture of a system defines its attributes as seen by the programmer, that is, the conceptual structure and functional behavior of the machine, as distinct from the organization of the data flow, the logical design, the physical design, and the performance of any particular implementation. Several dissimilar machine implementations may conform to a single architecture. When the execution of a set of programs on different machine implementations produces the results that are defined by a single architecture, the implementations are considered to be compatible for those programs.
What enterprise class entry level server can you get 'fully loaded', including a supported proprietary operating system and proprietary development tools for $500 to $1000?
What an idoitic statement. First, if something has a 50% chance of happening then it is certainly not 'inevitable'. Second, divorce is not a random event, so comparing it to a coin toss is exceedingly stupid. Passwords aside, we already 'share accounts'. We have joint checking and savings accounts, a joint mortgage, joint ownership of the house, joint ownership of a timeshare, file joint tax returns, etc. What is so different about joint online accounts? Nothing.
Haha! Good one! If the speed limits are higher then the idiots will not be juking and jiving. Yeah, right. Can I have some of what you are having?
Fact is, not matter what the speed limit, idiots will think they are too low for their superior skills. They will also always think others are driving too slow, and will do just as much juking and jiving, except at a higher speed. And nothing can go wrong with that, right?
Also, raising the speed limit does not mean people will drive any faster. This has been shown in several studies. So if most people are not going to go faster just because the speed limit is raised that means the superior ones will still be dodging the same people.
You're not making sense. The question is not whether some speed limits could be higher, but whether or not low speed limits are dangerous. If a too-low speed limit makes people ignore it because they 'feel' that it should be higher, and that causes accidents, then obviously someone who 'felt' the limit was too low was wrong.
So your solution to the problem of people who drive aggressively, don't pay attention, etc (ie the real cause of accidents) is to let them drive FASTER? In what world does that make sense?
The low speed limit is not dangerous, the change in speed limit without warning is dangerous.
And learn some defensive driving. Here's a tip: if you are approaching a blind curve (as you claim) where you can't see what it around it, and someone is following you too closely, SLOW DOWN before you get to the 'have to slam on brakes' stage. If you can't see a 'dangerous' speed limit sign, you also might not see people, animals, disabled vehicles, etc that could also cause you to 'slam on the brakes'.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. It is 100% the fault of the person making an unsafe lane change if there is an accident, NOT the person who was driving too slow for your taste. You still have not given a single legitimate reason why low speed limits (by themselves), or slow drivers (by themselves) are dangerous.
Exactly how is a low speed limit 'dangerous'? It is not. It is the idiots who chose to ignore it or otherwise engage in risky behavior (following too closely, unsafe lane changes, etc) who are dangerous.
And just how often does that situation arise (outside of movies). By far, most 'getting run over by a semi' incidents do not occur when the car in front actually had the option to speed up. They happen because traffic suddenly slows or stops. So that leaves really only a few possibilities: the truck is out of control (runaway truck), the driver is asleep or incapcitated, or the driver is intentionally trying to hit you. None of those situations are likely to be solved by increasing your speed a few MPH.
Do you know what profit is? It has nothing to do with 'controlling the experience' or 'generating so much revenue.' Profit is income minus expenses. While everyone likes focusing on the revenue number, they conveniently ignore the expenses, which happen to be exactly the same as the revenue. Why? Because all the revenue the NFL makes is distributed to the teams, which are NOT non profits and DO pay taxes.
You have indeed 'changed everyones CC#'. EVERYONE. For ALL CARDS. Every single stored CC number is now useless. Every recurring payment will fail. What an absolutely great opportunity for phishing. Every week or so you can expect to receive a 'there is a problem with your account, please log on and re-enter your CC information, this is for your security' letter. Wonderful.
Joe's Hot Dog shopped got hacked and a few thousand CC numbers were compromised. Let's invalidate every stored CC number in the whole world! No economic harm from that, no indeed.
OK, so company 'A' gets hacked and all of their saved credit card information is breached. No problem (according to you), just change the salt! Presto magico, nobody can use the information that was stolen. Which means that EVERY stored credit card number (now 'hash') is invalid, everywhere. Not just compromised cards, every single one. Every recurring payment is invalid. Every pending payment is invalid. Great idea.
No sane developer does this, because it is worthless. The SSN IS the identifier of the user. Without the SSN, you have no idea who the user is. Use the hash instead of the SSN? Now the hash is exactly as sensitive as the SSN was in the first place. You have added unnecessary complications and have provided zero improvement in security.
Huh? Surely for an IRS transaction the SSN is the identifier of the person. What are you going to compare the hash with? How would you know who the person is to compare the hash with if all you have is the hash? So instead, the hash becomes the identifier, and thus becomes exactly as sensitive as the SSN was in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
What's worse than a forced reboot? A reboot that should have happened but was ignored, wiping out not only the last hours work, but your entire disk.
>99% of users would have absolutely no idea what choice to take. And no matter which they chose, they probably will wind up losing something. So why make it appear that it is the users fault if they lost data (by making the 'wrong' choice)?
Yeah, just suspend that thread that is in the USB stack. What could possibly go wrong? It's not like it could interefe with a filesystem o a USB device, right?
And remember, just because a certain piece of code DETECTED a problem does not mean that that piece of code CAUSED the problem. Thread 'A' craps all over storage, thread 'B' attempts to use storage and crashes, and you give the user to just let thread 'A' continue? Brilliant!
Nothing fishy. It is a hugely profitable product at $150, not at $9. TI has no doubt long ago paid all the sunk costs, etc for this product and can now, if they wanted, sell the product for very close to the marginal cost. So any competitor that comes in has to match that price (probably discounted even more because they don't have the TI brand), for a product that has a very limited market with no real upside at all. Or, said competitor could invest in some desirable product that has a future and competitors who really can't afford to drop the price much.
Just because some competitor has the ability to enter the market does not mean it is a wise business decision for them to do so.
Free market does not 'require' competition. Do you have any evidence that there exists a 'competitor' who wishes to make a clone of this calculator, but is being prevented from doing so? No, you do not. Just because only one player chooses to play in a given market does not mean that the market is not free.
OK, plow into someone on the way home tonight. Your insurance company will pay their bills. That'll show em.
Seriously, what kind of idiotic thinking is that?
Don't know about this app, but Progressive and State Farm do tell you what they monitor. State Farm (at least) also provides you with a 'dashboard' so you can see the data, along with how it will affect your rates.
Progressive monitors hard braking, miles driven per day, and how often you drive between midnight and 4AM.
State Farm monitors braking, acceleration, left and right turns, time of day vehicle is driven, and speed over 80MPH
Your own analogy illustrates the problem with that approach. Putting your purse in the trunk may stop an opportunistic theif from strolling by, seeing your purse, and taking it. It does absolutely nothing to protect against a determined theif who has a strong suspicion that there is something of value stored in the vehicle. But in the case of online data, people here are taking the position that the user must protect against determined foes. It would be like telling everyone that the proper thing to do is always put your purse in Ft Knox. Of course, nobody will actually do that because it is totally impractical.
The answer is that we need to let go of the idea that the ancient idea of passwords is sufficient. It obviously is not.
The very first paragraph of IBMs z/Architecture Principles of Operation:
The architecture of a system defines its attributes as seen by the programmer, that is, the conceptual structure and functional behavior of the machine, as distinct from the organization of the data flow, the logical design, the physical design, and the performance of any particular implementation. Several dissimilar machine implementations may conform to a single architecture. When the execution of a set of programs on different machine implementations produces the results that are defined by a single architecture, the implementations are considered to be compatible for those programs.
What enterprise class entry level server can you get 'fully loaded', including a supported proprietary operating system and proprietary development tools for $500 to $1000?
What an idoitic statement. First, if something has a 50% chance of happening then it is certainly not 'inevitable'. Second, divorce is not a random event, so comparing it to a coin toss is exceedingly stupid. Passwords aside, we already 'share accounts'. We have joint checking and savings accounts, a joint mortgage, joint ownership of the house, joint ownership of a timeshare, file joint tax returns, etc. What is so different about joint online accounts? Nothing.
Haha! Good one! If the speed limits are higher then the idiots will not be juking and jiving. Yeah, right. Can I have some of what you are having?
Fact is, not matter what the speed limit, idiots will think they are too low for their superior skills. They will also always think others are driving too slow, and will do just as much juking and jiving, except at a higher speed. And nothing can go wrong with that, right?
Also, raising the speed limit does not mean people will drive any faster. This has been shown in several studies. So if most people are not going to go faster just because the speed limit is raised that means the superior ones will still be dodging the same people.
You're not making sense. The question is not whether some speed limits could be higher, but whether or not low speed limits are dangerous. If a too-low speed limit makes people ignore it because they 'feel' that it should be higher, and that causes accidents, then obviously someone who 'felt' the limit was too low was wrong.
So your solution to the problem of people who drive aggressively, don't pay attention, etc (ie the real cause of accidents) is to let them drive FASTER? In what world does that make sense?
The low speed limit is not dangerous, the change in speed limit without warning is dangerous.
And learn some defensive driving. Here's a tip: if you are approaching a blind curve (as you claim) where you can't see what it around it, and someone is following you too closely, SLOW DOWN before you get to the 'have to slam on brakes' stage. If you can't see a 'dangerous' speed limit sign, you also might not see people, animals, disabled vehicles, etc that could also cause you to 'slam on the brakes'.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. It is 100% the fault of the person making an unsafe lane change if there is an accident, NOT the person who was driving too slow for your taste. You still have not given a single legitimate reason why low speed limits (by themselves), or slow drivers (by themselves) are dangerous.
Exactly how is a low speed limit 'dangerous'? It is not. It is the idiots who chose to ignore it or otherwise engage in risky behavior (following too closely, unsafe lane changes, etc) who are dangerous.
And just how often does that situation arise (outside of movies). By far, most 'getting run over by a semi' incidents do not occur when the car in front actually had the option to speed up. They happen because traffic suddenly slows or stops. So that leaves really only a few possibilities: the truck is out of control (runaway truck), the driver is asleep or incapcitated, or the driver is intentionally trying to hit you. None of those situations are likely to be solved by increasing your speed a few MPH.
Do you know what profit is? It has nothing to do with 'controlling the experience' or 'generating so much revenue.' Profit is income minus expenses. While everyone likes focusing on the revenue number, they conveniently ignore the expenses, which happen to be exactly the same as the revenue. Why? Because all the revenue the NFL makes is distributed to the teams, which are NOT non profits and DO pay taxes.
Uh, they already have all the power over your connection. What are you talking about?
It isn't a 'public' hotspot, it is a hotspot for Comcast customers. And you are getting something - the ability to use those same Comcast hotspots.
You have indeed 'changed everyones CC#'. EVERYONE. For ALL CARDS. Every single stored CC number is now useless. Every recurring payment will fail. What an absolutely great opportunity for phishing. Every week or so you can expect to receive a 'there is a problem with your account, please log on and re-enter your CC information, this is for your security' letter. Wonderful.
Joe's Hot Dog shopped got hacked and a few thousand CC numbers were compromised. Let's invalidate every stored CC number in the whole world! No economic harm from that, no indeed.
OK, so company 'A' gets hacked and all of their saved credit card information is breached. No problem (according to you), just change the salt! Presto magico, nobody can use the information that was stolen. Which means that EVERY stored credit card number (now 'hash') is invalid, everywhere. Not just compromised cards, every single one. Every recurring payment is invalid. Every pending payment is invalid. Great idea.
No sane developer does this, because it is worthless. The SSN IS the identifier of the user. Without the SSN, you have no idea who the user is. Use the hash instead of the SSN? Now the hash is exactly as sensitive as the SSN was in the first place. You have added unnecessary complications and have provided zero improvement in security.
Exactly. Look at it this way: your credit card number already IS a hash of your and your banks identities. That doesn't magically make it secure.
Huh? Surely for an IRS transaction the SSN is the identifier of the person. What are you going to compare the hash with? How would you know who the person is to compare the hash with if all you have is the hash? So instead, the hash becomes the identifier, and thus becomes exactly as sensitive as the SSN was in the first place.
The retailer NEVER calls the customers bank. They call their OWN bank, who will contact the card issuer using already known information.