If something works as intended and it's open that is different from selling someone a product which clearly is broke, worry about patching it later and in the mean time people end up losing data through poor coding.
Maybe we should spend more time ensure things are safer rather than just worrying about getting it out now. I think it's equally unfair to say that the company isn't responsible for anything in a EULA as it is to say everything is the programmer's fault.
In a lot of cases with poor code it's not the programmer's fault. He wasn't given time, no one tested or gave a reasonable spec. It's the publisher as a whole that's at fault and yes I do think if you are charging money for your software then you should be doing your best to ensure it's the best product it is. Especially if the code ends up in a robot where it could lead to physical harm rather than just a blue screen.
My microwave is programmable but that doesn't mean I can install code on it.
Also the premise doesn't state that the robot is meant to be programmable but that the hacker broke in and modified through unintended methods which means something wasn't secure.
If the owner of the home picked a poor password it's his fault. If the robot's code had a gapping hole in it then it's the company's fault.
If the brakes met safety standards and weren't defective then there is no problem with them as long as they operate as expected.
Using cheaper brakes isn't really the same as writing poor code and not testing it because you want the product out now and think it's acceptable to patch it later.
why should a software company hold no responsibility for anything their software does or lacks? I don't think you can blame a programmer for a problem with their software if the problem originates outside of their code but I do think companies should be held responsible for pumping out shit software.
There are no security holes within the car involved in drunk driving. However if the programmer did do something that made it easier for people to break into something then maybe the company should be held liable. Just as Ford would be held liable if they put shitty brakes in their car to cut costs.
We had an employee who got sacked for using his network privileges to steal information from people. He then proceeded to try to hack our network and then use an EC2 instance to just and DOS attack us. I'm sure it's cheaper than a VPS solution from 5+ years ago but there has always been options for fucking with people. Using an EC2 instance is just another option. It could go away and they'd find something else.
I'm just glad we can get something like EC2 these days for those of us that want to do something legit.
I can code for many hours in the day but could I do my work for the whole day? I don't think so. The break from work as I go home, exercise, eat dinner and then move onto my own projects makes a difference. The fact the extra coding time is on my own projects makes it seem more fun and probably makes it easier to do. The fact my employers are hopeless means I'd probably slit my wrists before doing their stuff for 12+ hours.
I used to do it and built up thousands of extra £'s a year was nice but your life not revolving around work is nicer.
I've replace my TV with DVDs and the internet. Iplayer, 4OD and other legit services have helped me more than triple my cap. In fact for January I hit my cap two days ago.
A whole shit load of those people don't have computers and may never own one. It would be ridiculous to expect any company to appeal to every single person more so when most don't have access to your product.
The update includes previous updates including security updates. Since these updates have been out for sometime it is known whether they do their job or not.
That link features scaremongering. The app store does indeed feature file transfer software some of which allows you to input your own servers so you can upload and share whatever you want.
The app store is mean for more causal users so it only makes sense that they require standardised guis and stop apps from requiring people from downloading additional software.
Regarding hosting costs $8.25 per month isn't that much if you're software is raking in cash and I doubt everyone has to pay that. Why would you put a free app on the app store and lose money?
Even if that is the case just do it the traditional way. There is no requirement to use the app store.
If the developer want you to pay for their software what in the hell is wrong with that? Everything can't be free and if it's such a bad way to do business then developers won't support it and it'll die off.
It's not different from Steam or even a package manager. So long as it's not the only source of software then it doesn't really matter if they censor stuff or not. It's their app store and they can do what they want. If developers don't like it then don't use it and it may die off or not.
It's not that much different form a package manager and a lot (if not all) of the software is available through traditional means. To be honest if it means all those clueless users that install anything will go there first and get something that's safer then it's probably a good thing so long as it doesn't become the only source for software.
I bought my macbook in September and it had 10.6 on it already and it's not been a problem so I have no problem with installing the update.
It's not that bad. It think it's a good idea. I mean after all Linux as the package manager and this is somewhat like that.
The only thing I don't like so far is a lot of the software looks iphone app-like especially in the games area. I know they will have real apps and all that but my concern is that iphone developers will flock to this and flood it with rubbish and make it harder to find he good stuff.
The store itself feels like a really basic version of iTunes. It does the job and doesn't get it the way but it feels like it's missing something. I just don't know what it is yet.
This part of the problem with the fact software companies aren't held responsible for any fuck up they make. There is no incentive at all to test properly or even code properly.
It's not as if companies like Microsoft and Apple are poor and can't afford the best. They just don't want it and there is no benefit in doing it right the first time. They can push out something broken and no one really cares so they can patch it when they feel like it.
Software companies get away with a lot more than producers of physical products. I think that needs to change.
Slashdot Mirror
If something works as intended and it's open that is different from selling someone a product which clearly is broke, worry about patching it later and in the mean time people end up losing data through poor coding.
Maybe we should spend more time ensure things are safer rather than just worrying about getting it out now. I think it's equally unfair to say that the company isn't responsible for anything in a EULA as it is to say everything is the programmer's fault.
In a lot of cases with poor code it's not the programmer's fault. He wasn't given time, no one tested or gave a reasonable spec. It's the publisher as a whole that's at fault and yes I do think if you are charging money for your software then you should be doing your best to ensure it's the best product it is. Especially if the code ends up in a robot where it could lead to physical harm rather than just a blue screen.
My microwave is programmable but that doesn't mean I can install code on it.
Also the premise doesn't state that the robot is meant to be programmable but that the hacker broke in and modified through unintended methods which means something wasn't secure.
If the owner of the home picked a poor password it's his fault. If the robot's code had a gapping hole in it then it's the company's fault.
If the brakes met safety standards and weren't defective then there is no problem with them as long as they operate as expected.
Using cheaper brakes isn't really the same as writing poor code and not testing it because you want the product out now and think it's acceptable to patch it later.
why should a software company hold no responsibility for anything their software does or lacks? I don't think you can blame a programmer for a problem with their software if the problem originates outside of their code but I do think companies should be held responsible for pumping out shit software.
There are no security holes within the car involved in drunk driving. However if the programmer did do something that made it easier for people to break into something then maybe the company should be held liable. Just as Ford would be held liable if they put shitty brakes in their car to cut costs.
We had an employee who got sacked for using his network privileges to steal information from people. He then proceeded to try to hack our network and then use an EC2 instance to just and DOS attack us. I'm sure it's cheaper than a VPS solution from 5+ years ago but there has always been options for fucking with people. Using an EC2 instance is just another option. It could go away and they'd find something else.
I'm just glad we can get something like EC2 these days for those of us that want to do something legit.
I can code for many hours in the day but could I do my work for the whole day? I don't think so. The break from work as I go home, exercise, eat dinner and then move onto my own projects makes a difference. The fact the extra coding time is on my own projects makes it seem more fun and probably makes it easier to do. The fact my employers are hopeless means I'd probably slit my wrists before doing their stuff for 12+ hours.
I used to do it and built up thousands of extra £'s a year was nice but your life not revolving around work is nicer.
I think the Capcom's game reminds me much more of Sonic the hedgehog than their game.
OS X is *nix and comes with many of the tools and apps I get on Ubuntu.
All day during work it seemed to be down. I can get in now and it'll be interesting to sift through their material.
If all the servers are in the US then fair enough but if they have servers in the EU then US rules do not apply to those servers.
bluetooth doesn't matter. My tiny old sony ericsson phone has bluetooth. You can get USB bluetooth dongles that barely stick out from your laptop.
I would assume though it needs more space for heat to dissipate from the blu-ray drive and if the power supply is within the unit.
To be fair the old Gameboy did have a power light that would dim as the batteries wore out so you could get an idea of when it's going to die.
That or one of the newer revisions of the gameboy advance though I think that had a lithium-ion battery. I'm too lazy to get up and go look though.
I've replace my TV with DVDs and the internet. Iplayer, 4OD and other legit services have helped me more than triple my cap. In fact for January I hit my cap two days ago.
A whole shit load of those people don't have computers and may never own one. It would be ridiculous to expect any company to appeal to every single person more so when most don't have access to your product.
That has to be the most retarded thing I've read in some time.
I'm using connectbot too and it's excellent and the G1 keyboard is good enough to do the job.
The update includes previous updates including security updates. Since these updates have been out for sometime it is known whether they do their job or not.
That link features scaremongering. The app store does indeed feature file transfer software some of which allows you to input your own servers so you can upload and share whatever you want.
The app store is mean for more causal users so it only makes sense that they require standardised guis and stop apps from requiring people from downloading additional software.
Regarding hosting costs $8.25 per month isn't that much if you're software is raking in cash and I doubt everyone has to pay that. Why would you put a free app on the app store and lose money?
Even if that is the case just do it the traditional way. There is no requirement to use the app store.
If the developer want you to pay for their software what in the hell is wrong with that? Everything can't be free and if it's such a bad way to do business then developers won't support it and it'll die off.
It's not different from Steam or even a package manager. So long as it's not the only source of software then it doesn't really matter if they censor stuff or not. It's their app store and they can do what they want. If developers don't like it then don't use it and it may die off or not.
It's not that much different form a package manager and a lot (if not all) of the software is available through traditional means. To be honest if it means all those clueless users that install anything will go there first and get something that's safer then it's probably a good thing so long as it doesn't become the only source for software.
I bought my macbook in September and it had 10.6 on it already and it's not been a problem so I have no problem with installing the update.
It's not that bad. It think it's a good idea. I mean after all Linux as the package manager and this is somewhat like that.
The only thing I don't like so far is a lot of the software looks iphone app-like especially in the games area. I know they will have real apps and all that but my concern is that iphone developers will flock to this and flood it with rubbish and make it harder to find he good stuff.
The store itself feels like a really basic version of iTunes. It does the job and doesn't get it the way but it feels like it's missing something. I just don't know what it is yet.
This part of the problem with the fact software companies aren't held responsible for any fuck up they make. There is no incentive at all to test properly or even code properly.
It's not as if companies like Microsoft and Apple are poor and can't afford the best. They just don't want it and there is no benefit in doing it right the first time. They can push out something broken and no one really cares so they can patch it when they feel like it.
Software companies get away with a lot more than producers of physical products. I think that needs to change.