I've had to complete give up on bluetooth headphones because it's not possible to listen to music while walking down the street unless I ensure my phone is hovering no more than a few inches away from my headphones.
Farther away, and the frequent interruptions are unbelievably annoying.
It boggles my mind that with the constant stream of reports coming in about cars being hacked in one way or the other, not a single mention of the word 'security' appears anywhere.
Car companies have clearly demonstrated that they don't know shit about security, and don't seem to care either. If Qualcomm is going to put together some kind of reference network design for car companies to use, that makes them equally culpable should the car get stolen, or if anything else happens that turns out to be network related.
...or you could live in the real world and acknowledge that people don't buy cars to learn about them but to drive them.
Then they shouldn't be buying the damn car.
Too many people seem to think that driving is a right. It's not. It is a privilege that can and should be taken away if you demonstrate that you cannot be bothered to take due care while operating a a large and complex piece of machinery.
Switching OSes is not *just* about switching OSes. You also have to deal with all the applications that you were running on the previous OS. Some packages have equivalents. Most don't.
If you've already made a significant software investment on the old platform, switching can be very difficult depending on time, costs, or just plain inclination.
Sometimes you can use a stopgap solution such as running the previous OS in a VM, but it's rarely as easy as just switching.
Congratulations on missing my point completely. It doesn't matter that it hasn't been successful *since* the first attempt. What matters is that the *first* attempt succeeded, because it was a novel tactic.
So a hacking group that that hacked several accounts for one of the biggest tech names in the world, but they can't be bothered to hack the Google+ account.
While that may be true, usability is not what people are talking about in this thread.
There are countless examples of software that is usable, but their underlying code base is a steaming pile of kack. Given what happened with Internet Explorer, it's not at all unreasoanble to think that Visual Studio has a similar problem.
It's not Dells probably that TRP screwed up. If you're going to set up an automated trading system, you're still responsible if that system screws up. Period.
It's beyond frustrating that companies like these get a free pass when they make errors that cost millions or billions of dollars. Then again, this is the US, so who am I trying to kid?
Humans excel at a couple things that will never, and can never, be accounted for: endurance, and imagination.
It doesn't matter how much effort these army-covered rich people put towards defending their hoards. Someone will always figure out a novel way that no one had anticipated before.
Does Webex have a free personal account? I'm looking at their site, but when I click their "Free Meetings" link I get taken to a page that screams bait-and-switch, with zero information explaining the supposed free account.
Windows 10, from a purely technical perspective, is great. It's fast, clean, stable, and relatively secure. Heck, it's the first ever Microsoft OS I've seen that is able to upgrade the average computer without turning it into goat vomit. Prior to Windows 10, this was practically a guarantee.
From a policy perspective.... To quote Darth Vader, "I have altered our agreement. Pray I do not alter it further."
That is basically Microsoft's slogan for Windows 10. Unless you are willing to drop $500 for the Enterprise edition of Windows 10, Microsoft has dictated very clearly that you do NOT have control of your machine. They *will* pull telemetry at their pleasure. They *will* force updates onto your machine whether you want them or not. Hell, they even have the power to copy any data you have on your machine. They will not permit you to block them, at least not at the OS level. If you want to block their shenanigans, your only realistic option is to either buy Enterprise or put a hardware router between your computer and the internet, and do your blocking from there. Or just use it as is and hope Microsoft doesn't continue to alter their agreement further. (Fat chance)
And we all know that Microsoft is far from perfect when it comes to releasing stable updates that don't brick people's machines.
Whether you are fine with this, is up to you. As a sysadmin who is ultimately responsible for the productivity of the employees under my charge, this is completely unacceptable, and we're going to be sticking with Windows 7 as our desktop standard.
What pisses me off the most is that Microsoft's obnoxious behaviour is forcing me to set up a WSUS server, because I now need to vet every single update Microsoft release.
I stopped considering Samsung for phones after the incredibly poor experience I had with my Galaxy S3. Ever since, I've been hesitant about buying anything else Samsung makes because they've now demonstrated they're willing to throw any old crap onto the market in the hope it makes some money.
If Samsung is going to pull a cliche Darth Vader move (I've altered our agreement....) on existing customers, then it sounds like it's time to write off Samsung complete.
Apparently Samsung has learned nothing of the mess Sony has gotten themselves into (and are continuing to suffer for, to this day).
I don't know if it's me, or the area I live in (large amounts of RF interference), but I have a hell of a time making bluetooth headsets work properly. I can be just walking along and the connection stutters or drops out completely for several seconds.
I have tried a handful of different bluetooth devices, and they all suffer from the same problems. My only option is to keep my phone as close to my head as possible, whether that's in my hand with my arm bent slightly upward, in a breast pocket, or in an especially small backpack that hangs high up on my back.
I've wondered if buying more expensive headphones ($100+) would yield better interference management, but that's a bit too much money for me to just gamble with willy nilly.
You're correct, I didn't watch the video. I thought the concept was fraught with peril and logistical nightmares, just from the single frame alone.
Having watched the video just now... it's even worse and more ill conceived than I thought. You would have to construct aboveground bus stations at every stop. Basically the concept has all the costs, construction and logistical nightmares of a subway or monorail system, with none of the benefits, and it opens itself to other dangers like potential collisions from random vehicles 'n whatnot.
Also please notice that the video is a *simulation* which addresses not one of the concerns I mentioned in my post. For example, shows nothing about how to deal with traffic entering and leaving the thoroughfare. It makes the delightful assumption that the cars in the lanes will just happily sit in those lanes while the bus drives past. If you've driven, well, *anywhere*, you will know that traffic is not even remotely as civil and unchaotic as that.
And I see no reason why I need to come up with anything to counter this joke of a system. I'm not the one trying to convince a city/country to invest an incredible amount of money on an idiotic concept. And we already have other options available. They're called a conventional transit system that includes busses, subways, and perhaps monorails. The only reason they arn't "working", is because basic infrastructure isn't glamourous and eye-popping, so people don't want to invest in it despite the obvious need slapping them in the face.
I am marvelling at how, despite the fact that Apple is basically shitting the bed with their product lineup, they are still treated as the benchmark by which all other computer products are measured by.
I guess this is what happens when an entire industry focuses on the race to the bottom, rather than focusing on quality products.
Because it's not that easy, if you just spent a couple minutes to actually picture it in your head and think it through. These are busses, which means they need to stay on the right-most lanes of the road because that's where people get on and off. Assuming the bus is 2 lanes wide as pictured, you would need a road that had a minimum of 3 lanes each way, at all times. Furthermore, that means the leftmost lane would be the only available lane for tall vehicles.
Ok fine, but how does traffic actually *enter* the road? Typically through entrances on the *right* side, because that's the overwhelmingly cheapest and simplest way to do it. So any tall vehicle is still going to exist in the right-most lanes for at least a short period of time, assuming traffic isn't so bad that they simply can't move to the left-most lane.
The list just goes on and on and on.
If you ever ask any question in the form of "Well, why don't they just...", you should ask yourself the same question first, and try to answer it.
Unless there is a blanket ban on 2+ meter vehicles on any road that uses these busses, this is a non-starter. All you need is one single truck to screw it all up.
This is a hell of a lot of money to spend, and infrastructure to build, just to maintain status quo. The solution would have to *guarantee* that it is not just better, but *significantly* better, than the status quo, to be even worth considering, let along funnelling the billions of yuan this would cost to build.
What really gets me the most, is the fact that they do not support free upgrades from Vista. Only from Windows 7 and up. If their upgrade problem had included Vista, people would have cheered them on. With It is becoming more and more common for software to have Windows 7 as a minimum requirement, this would have helped out a small number of people who basically have machines that would still be usable if not for the boat anchor of an OS.
But no, they're forcing people with perfectly usable machines to upgrade, and rubbing salt in the wound of people who are stuck with an entire generation of PCs that are still servicable but are basically just waiting to be tossed into the landfill because no one in their right mind is going to pay Microsoft's absurd upgrade pricing. (Unless they install linux or pirate windows).
This behaviour is so breathtakingly obnoxious that it just confirms to me that despite all the gesticulations and claims that Microsoft has "mended their ways", they've clearly not mended them at all. (Insert comparisons to abusive spouses, here) Being malicious douchebags has been firmly ingrained into Microsoft's DNA, as it's been since it's founding with Bill Gates.
If you have to root your phone and apply a completely different version of OS just to stay updated, then the manufacturer has failed.
The average user should not be required to go to such an extreme just to extend the life of their phone and get security fixes.
I had to do this with my Galaxy S3 just to make it useable. Between the crapware they saddled it with, and their inability to provide regular updates to THEIR FLAGSHIP PHONE, solidified in my mind that I will never buy another Samsung Android device again, and I will do serious research before I ever buy ANY Samsung product again. In fact, I've basically written off almost the entire Android market because nobody else is any better.
In the Windows CE days, I learned the hard way that Dell cannot be trusted to provide updates, even when they tell you up front that they will provide them. I no longer buy anything based on a manufacturers promises that they feature I want will be delivered "soon".
Hell, even Google drops support for their older products frustratingly quickly, although it looks like they've finally pulled their head out of their butt with their most recent hardware. I believe Android 6 runs on hardware as old as 3 years ago.
Apple may be a bunch of control-freak wankers who charge a mint for their products, but it cannot be said that they don't support their devices. The iphone 4s is almost 5 years old now, and it's still receiving OS updates. I'm irritated by the half-assed way they've been managing their hardware lineup lately, especially their desktop computers, but In a world where even the most expensive tech is now considered disposable, knowing that a company is willing to support their hardware goes a very long way. Only the truly wealthy can drop one or two grand on the latest and greatest and still consider it "disposable".
Slashdot Mirror
I've had to complete give up on bluetooth headphones because it's not possible to listen to music while walking down the street unless I ensure my phone is hovering no more than a few inches away from my headphones.
Farther away, and the frequent interruptions are unbelievably annoying.
It boggles my mind that with the constant stream of reports coming in about cars being hacked in one way or the other, not a single mention of the word 'security' appears anywhere.
Car companies have clearly demonstrated that they don't know shit about security, and don't seem to care either. If Qualcomm is going to put together some kind of reference network design for car companies to use, that makes them equally culpable should the car get stolen, or if anything else happens that turns out to be network related.
...or you could live in the real world and acknowledge that people don't buy cars to learn about them but to drive them.
Then they shouldn't be buying the damn car.
Too many people seem to think that driving is a right. It's not. It is a privilege that can and should be taken away if you demonstrate that you cannot be bothered to take due care while operating a a large and complex piece of machinery.
The thing is, the parent has a fair point.
Switching OSes is not *just* about switching OSes. You also have to deal with all the applications that you were running on the previous OS. Some packages have equivalents. Most don't.
If you've already made a significant software investment on the old platform, switching can be very difficult depending on time, costs, or just plain inclination.
Sometimes you can use a stopgap solution such as running the previous OS in a VM, but it's rarely as easy as just switching.
(And yes, I'm ignoring piracy as a viable option)
Oh no, what have you done?
I like systemd just fine, but I'm still gonna call it system====D from now on cause that's just too damn funny.
I'm sure you're right. I just thought it was an amusing notion that someone's system is so despised that even hackers refused to hack it. :)
Congratulations on missing my point completely. It doesn't matter that it hasn't been successful *since* the first attempt. What matters is that the *first* attempt succeeded, because it was a novel tactic.
So a hacking group that that hacked several accounts for one of the biggest tech names in the world, but they can't be bothered to hack the Google+ account.
Ouch. :)
While that may be true, usability is not what people are talking about in this thread.
There are countless examples of software that is usable, but their underlying code base is a steaming pile of kack. Given what happened with Internet Explorer, it's not at all unreasoanble to think that Visual Studio has a similar problem.
It's not Dells probably that TRP screwed up. If you're going to set up an automated trading system, you're still responsible if that system screws up. Period.
It's beyond frustrating that companies like these get a free pass when they make errors that cost millions or billions of dollars. Then again, this is the US, so who am I trying to kid?
Parent won't be wrong.
Humans excel at a couple things that will never, and can never, be accounted for: endurance, and imagination.
It doesn't matter how much effort these army-covered rich people put towards defending their hoards. Someone will always figure out a novel way that no one had anticipated before.
9/11 demonstrated that quite clearly.
Does Webex have a free personal account? I'm looking at their site, but when I click their "Free Meetings" link I get taken to a page that screams bait-and-switch, with zero information explaining the supposed free account.
On 100+ separate machines?
Windows 10, from a purely technical perspective, is great. It's fast, clean, stable, and relatively secure. Heck, it's the first ever Microsoft OS I've seen that is able to upgrade the average computer without turning it into goat vomit. Prior to Windows 10, this was practically a guarantee.
From a policy perspective.... To quote Darth Vader, "I have altered our agreement. Pray I do not alter it further."
That is basically Microsoft's slogan for Windows 10. Unless you are willing to drop $500 for the Enterprise edition of Windows 10, Microsoft has dictated very clearly that you do NOT have control of your machine. They *will* pull telemetry at their pleasure. They *will* force updates onto your machine whether you want them or not. Hell, they even have the power to copy any data you have on your machine. They will not permit you to block them, at least not at the OS level. If you want to block their shenanigans, your only realistic option is to either buy Enterprise or put a hardware router between your computer and the internet, and do your blocking from there. Or just use it as is and hope Microsoft doesn't continue to alter their agreement further. (Fat chance)
And we all know that Microsoft is far from perfect when it comes to releasing stable updates that don't brick people's machines.
Whether you are fine with this, is up to you. As a sysadmin who is ultimately responsible for the productivity of the employees under my charge, this is completely unacceptable, and we're going to be sticking with Windows 7 as our desktop standard.
What pisses me off the most is that Microsoft's obnoxious behaviour is forcing me to set up a WSUS server, because I now need to vet every single update Microsoft release.
I stopped considering Samsung for phones after the incredibly poor experience I had with my Galaxy S3. Ever since, I've been hesitant about buying anything else Samsung makes because they've now demonstrated they're willing to throw any old crap onto the market in the hope it makes some money.
If Samsung is going to pull a cliche Darth Vader move (I've altered our agreement....) on existing customers, then it sounds like it's time to write off Samsung complete.
Apparently Samsung has learned nothing of the mess Sony has gotten themselves into (and are continuing to suffer for, to this day).
I don't know if it's me, or the area I live in (large amounts of RF interference), but I have a hell of a time making bluetooth headsets work properly. I can be just walking along and the connection stutters or drops out completely for several seconds.
I have tried a handful of different bluetooth devices, and they all suffer from the same problems. My only option is to keep my phone as close to my head as possible, whether that's in my hand with my arm bent slightly upward, in a breast pocket, or in an especially small backpack that hangs high up on my back.
I've wondered if buying more expensive headphones ($100+) would yield better interference management, but that's a bit too much money for me to just gamble with willy nilly.
Anyone have any ideas/comments/suggestions?
So basically, this... :)
http://9gag.com/gag/aqZR9XQ/ap...
You're correct, I didn't watch the video. I thought the concept was fraught with peril and logistical nightmares, just from the single frame alone.
Having watched the video just now... it's even worse and more ill conceived than I thought. You would have to construct aboveground bus stations at every stop. Basically the concept has all the costs, construction and logistical nightmares of a subway or monorail system, with none of the benefits, and it opens itself to other dangers like potential collisions from random vehicles 'n whatnot.
Also please notice that the video is a *simulation* which addresses not one of the concerns I mentioned in my post. For example, shows nothing about how to deal with traffic entering and leaving the thoroughfare. It makes the delightful assumption that the cars in the lanes will just happily sit in those lanes while the bus drives past. If you've driven, well, *anywhere*, you will know that traffic is not even remotely as civil and unchaotic as that.
And I see no reason why I need to come up with anything to counter this joke of a system. I'm not the one trying to convince a city/country to invest an incredible amount of money on an idiotic concept. And we already have other options available. They're called a conventional transit system that includes busses, subways, and perhaps monorails. The only reason they arn't "working", is because basic infrastructure isn't glamourous and eye-popping, so people don't want to invest in it despite the obvious need slapping them in the face.
I am marvelling at how, despite the fact that Apple is basically shitting the bed with their product lineup, they are still treated as the benchmark by which all other computer products are measured by.
I guess this is what happens when an entire industry focuses on the race to the bottom, rather than focusing on quality products.
Because it's not that easy, if you just spent a couple minutes to actually picture it in your head and think it through. These are busses, which means they need to stay on the right-most lanes of the road because that's where people get on and off. Assuming the bus is 2 lanes wide as pictured, you would need a road that had a minimum of 3 lanes each way, at all times. Furthermore, that means the leftmost lane would be the only available lane for tall vehicles.
Ok fine, but how does traffic actually *enter* the road? Typically through entrances on the *right* side, because that's the overwhelmingly cheapest and simplest way to do it. So any tall vehicle is still going to exist in the right-most lanes for at least a short period of time, assuming traffic isn't so bad that they simply can't move to the left-most lane.
The list just goes on and on and on.
If you ever ask any question in the form of "Well, why don't they just...", you should ask yourself the same question first, and try to answer it.
"I'm gonna need you to take your opinions, and shove 'em waaaaay up inside your butthole."
Unless there is a blanket ban on 2+ meter vehicles on any road that uses these busses, this is a non-starter. All you need is one single truck to screw it all up.
This is a hell of a lot of money to spend, and infrastructure to build, just to maintain status quo. The solution would have to *guarantee* that it is not just better, but *significantly* better, than the status quo, to be even worth considering, let along funnelling the billions of yuan this would cost to build.
So... China doesn't have trucks? Or any sort of motorized conveyance that is 2+ meters high?
There are so many things wrong with the logistics of this design I don't know where to begin.
What really gets me the most, is the fact that they do not support free upgrades from Vista. Only from Windows 7 and up. If their upgrade problem had included Vista, people would have cheered them on. With It is becoming more and more common for software to have Windows 7 as a minimum requirement, this would have helped out a small number of people who basically have machines that would still be usable if not for the boat anchor of an OS.
But no, they're forcing people with perfectly usable machines to upgrade, and rubbing salt in the wound of people who are stuck with an entire generation of PCs that are still servicable but are basically just waiting to be tossed into the landfill because no one in their right mind is going to pay Microsoft's absurd upgrade pricing. (Unless they install linux or pirate windows).
This behaviour is so breathtakingly obnoxious that it just confirms to me that despite all the gesticulations and claims that Microsoft has "mended their ways", they've clearly not mended them at all. (Insert comparisons to abusive spouses, here) Being malicious douchebags has been firmly ingrained into Microsoft's DNA, as it's been since it's founding with Bill Gates.
If you have to root your phone and apply a completely different version of OS just to stay updated, then the manufacturer has failed.
The average user should not be required to go to such an extreme just to extend the life of their phone and get security fixes.
I had to do this with my Galaxy S3 just to make it useable. Between the crapware they saddled it with, and their inability to provide regular updates to THEIR FLAGSHIP PHONE, solidified in my mind that I will never buy another Samsung Android device again, and I will do serious research before I ever buy ANY Samsung product again. In fact, I've basically written off almost the entire Android market because nobody else is any better.
In the Windows CE days, I learned the hard way that Dell cannot be trusted to provide updates, even when they tell you up front that they will provide them. I no longer buy anything based on a manufacturers promises that they feature I want will be delivered "soon".
Hell, even Google drops support for their older products frustratingly quickly, although it looks like they've finally pulled their head out of their butt with their most recent hardware. I believe Android 6 runs on hardware as old as 3 years ago.
Apple may be a bunch of control-freak wankers who charge a mint for their products, but it cannot be said that they don't support their devices. The iphone 4s is almost 5 years old now, and it's still receiving OS updates. I'm irritated by the half-assed way they've been managing their hardware lineup lately, especially their desktop computers, but In a world where even the most expensive tech is now considered disposable, knowing that a company is willing to support their hardware goes a very long way. Only the truly wealthy can drop one or two grand on the latest and greatest and still consider it "disposable".