It's a service. Someone people need it. Some don't. If it's not for you, that's fine. Stop whining.
I love this brilliant insight "wants to draw you further into an all-Amazon world..." Well no shit Sherlock. Name one megacompany that doesn't want to draw you further into their world.
In the world we live in, imagine the lawsuits if there was a bomb. Yes, there wasn't.
If there had been one, no one would ever know about witty the wifi name.
If there had been a bomb, you best believe whoever set off the bomb would make sure everyone knew. One doesn't explode a bomb on a plane for anonymity.
Yes the signal was a problem and you might want to do something about it, but it's the extreme over-reaction that really demands some examination, because there's no reasonable justification my turn signal should lead to an evacuation of two city blocks.
Your example doesn't quite match, but you know what? I agree with you 100%.
In a perfect world.
In the world we live in, imagine the lawsuits if there was a bomb. Yes, there wasn't. Yes, they over-reacted. But living in the litigious society we are, companies have to take every little thing seriously because if they don't that would be the end of them. Common sense is always beaten out in a court of law.
It's a childish joke, and nobody has ever been arrested for impersonating a federal officer because of it. And before anyone says the obvious joke, no, they are not the FBI either
You're 100% correct. Now, the next time you're in a TSA interview make a few childish jokes about bombs and how you're carrying a package someone outside gave you.
First of all "Individuals can create personal wi-fi networks on devices such as mobile phones and name them what they want." Well, no shit.
Second, they need to start prosecuting these morons that cause flights to be diverted. Idiots starting fights & generally being morons need to start paying for these infractions else it's a badge of honor. "Remember that flight a few years ago that had to land in Colorado? Yeah, that was me. Woooo-hoooooo."
Obviously it's not unsupervised or without oversight as you point out, but apparently that messaging isn't getting through.
And it's "supervised" how? Oh right, by some buzzword "AI" program that looks for movement lasting too long, and that still requires a backlogged human to review it before calling the cops.
Yeah, I know it's stupid replying to an AC that obviously knows nothing about which he speaks, but here goes.
It's supervised because the Amazon rep THAT OPENS THE DOOR is watching on a camera. Got that? amazon opens the door, not the delivery person.
As for the cops wanting access to the camera for "some car that passed by 4 days ago", the camera is focused on the door. Not the street. That's the point.
The customer controls something using software provided by Amazon. The customers don't retain exclusive access to the lock because the software is probably proprietary (never trust proprietary software) and network-controlled (a tracker conveys signals to open/close the lock) which means Amazon can open/close the lock too. You should learn more
Ironic that I started this topic about people commenting on this without knowing anything about it. Perhaps you may want to read more about this or simply apply commons sense. It's not proprietary hardware or software. Kwikset or Yale makes the lock. At ANY time, the customer can block Amazon from opening the door and at ANY time the customer can completely prohibit Amazon from opening the lock.
If someone is breaking into your home you're better off making them have to do something that leaves clear evidence of a break-in such as a brick going through a window. The risks Amazon's system enables is indistinguishable from someone a client allowed in to do something the client wanted done
Bullshit. If I walk into my house and I notice my gun safe is cracked open, it makes no difference if the burglar picked the lock, kicked in the back door, or, as you think, trivially hacked this lock. I notice the burglary at the exact same time. You're once again forgetting there is a video taken and provided to the customer every time Amazon open the lock. You seem to think Amazon is going to open the door for people who plan on spending some large amount of time in your house. Who is going to be stupid enough to provide their name, address, place of employment, credit history, and so on to their employer and Amazon just so they can GO OFF CAMERA after they are seen walking into your home? No one. If someone wants to steal something, they aren't going to go through Amazon. They are going to throw a brick through a window or kick in a door.
If you think only the most sophisticated people or skills are required to pull that off, you have a lot to learn.
Nope. Again, they aren't going to use this to break in. And if they do, they didn't go through Amazon so the target audience would be anyone would installed this lock. People think that using this is a giant invitation for thieves. At first glance, sure it looks that way. But after a minute of reasoned thought, it's obvious it isn't.
Customer gets a really nice wifi & phone controlled lock. No, Amazon.com gets the control over the lock.
The $250 fee is for the customer to buy one of the smart locks. One of the benefits of the smart lock is you can give certain people control over the lock so they can open it with their phone. A spouse for example. In this scenario, Amazon is an entity that the customer is allowing to open the door. Amazon doesn't control the lock. The customer controls the lock.
If someone really wants to break into your house, they'll just use a fucking brick. Off camera as well."—which means customers don't need to give over this degree of control to Amazon.com.
What? What does one have to do with the other?
All on camera. If he goes off camera, he's fired."—says you.
Yup. Says me. What do you think will happen? Are you naive enough to think there isn't some training and agreement between Amazon and UPS or other delivery carriers. Those delivery drivers will open the door, place the package, then close the door. That's it. You really think that nothing will happen to the driver that walks in past the camera and then strolls out the door twenty minutes later?
And who can say that the cameras won't conveniently be turned off or otherwise sabotaged so the robber can work in a way that is indistinguishable from being let in?
I'm sorry. I didn't realize that Ethan Hunt from the IMF was doing fucking smash and grabs now. Are you serious?
This is simply far too dangerous and completely unnecessary.
Unnecessary? Maybe, but for some people I'm sure it has a purpose. Dangerous? Not really after a modicum of thinking.
I'll bet that most people thinking this haven't even looked at how Amazon has set this up.
Camera records everything. Deliveryman doesn't have key & can't get in any time he wants. Customer gets a really nice wifi & phone controlled lock. If someone really wants to break into your house, they'll just use a fucking brick. Off camera as well.
The service is setup so Amazon unlocks the doors, the delivery person puts your package down just inside the door, and he closes the door. All on camera. If he goes off camera, he's fired. It's really that simple.
Amazon has done a pretty good job of thinking this through. I know I shouldn't be surprised when people comment about shit without reading about it first, but I still am.
Nope. Just the Touch Controllers. It's a known bug and thankfully someone posted the solution either on reddit or the oculus forums.
(Watching the introduction) "Press 'X' to continue" I'm pressing 'X' Still pressing 'X' (takes off headset) Yeah, that's the 'X' button. What the hell?
It was the "X" button. I know you may be thinking "But isn't there an 'X' button on the touch controllers." Sure, but it didn't work. Had to press the 'X" button on the XBox controller. It was stupid.
I disagree 100% VR is the future. There is no doubt. There are tons of imperfections in the game but as long as the game is fun, those don't matter. Robo Recall is a perfect example. It's not perfect, but it doesn't require the space of a room. Hell, I've been playing it sitting down lately. Still fun.
Games are just starting to scratch the surface of what they can do. First it was just the 3D effect. Then they started to actually change the weapons. Upgraded to a laser/flashlight? Well attach that item and show it in the game? Make the player turn it on with a button on the actual unit. Now games are getting into "real" video game territory. Put a button on the players wrist that pops up a map. Show the weapons on the player's body. Use a aerosol can to spray paint new colors.
Movement is gimped in these games. That's just how it is and how it will be for the foreseeable future. Can't get around that. Teleporting or moving forward with the joystick is a crutch. Although I have played a game where "chugging the arms" like you were running did the moving. That was interesting. But it's a small thing for now.
A game only needs to be fun, standing or sitting, for it to be a success.
that REQUIRED the use of the Xbox controller. IIRC, the controller was needed to push a single button in the beginning of the game and then the players could use the touch controllers. I had to connect the controller to push that button to get past the introduction scene. Even then, the game was unplayable with the touch controller.
So CCP, make a decent game that actually uses the touch controllers and you'll make money.
Some of us leaves tabs open for days in the background. I'm going to be extremely pissed if I find out one of those sites has been stealing additional resources (yes, they are actually stealing now since it's something you no longer have and they took without asking: CPU, battery, heat, less time, etc..).
But they are asking. No, it's not stealing.even if it's something you no longer have. Rather than go into Megahertz and such, let's just say my CPU can execute 100 clock cycles per second. Now, if my computer only uses 20 in that second, I haven't "lost" 80. Nor can I store them to use later. So, if I have a choice to give some site 30 cycles a second, then I'm not losing anything.
If you know some cite is doing that and you decide to leave that tab "open for days" well, that's your choice.
Expect the next iteration of this to launch DDoS attacks against other sites.
Again, as long as it's open, I don't see a problem.
How about I go around and hack into your wi-fi and use it while you're sleeping? It isn't costing you anything...
They're not hacking and it's only occurring when I'm at the site so your example is rediculous.
But if I wanted to play along, if some site said "If you agree to share some of your bandwidth, we'll let you watch this streaming sports event for free and without ads" I'd accept that in a heartbeat.
I get that you don't understand a lot of computers - including pretty much every laptop - will engage in a lot of power saving that goes out the window with a CPU spike.
Oh no. Not that. Anything but that. Why, it's best to just through it away after it.
I get that you don't understand that a lot of people don't want their OS to become unresponsive just because they're visiting a particular site.
The CPU can spike without dropping the whole OS to a standstill. Exactly how stupid are you? Do you think that's exactly what's going to happen every time? People will be fine with something as long as it doesn't impact them. Snagging a few CPU cycles won't. Ads will. As with everything, this will get more efficient and better implemented.
Mostly, though, I get that you have no clue that ad blockers exist.
Don't run an ad blocker on the browser. I run pi-hole which does everything for me.
Anyway, many sites need income to survive. Ads are an option. If I'm given the choice to either see ads, some ads, watch some sites go away, put behind a paywall, or simply have that site take a few CPU cycles that I'm not using and only while I'm there, I'll go with the latter.
Are you really OK with the same people who are OK with pop-ups, pop-unders, uncloseable window cascades, fake AV warnings and more - are you OK with them deciding how much of your CPU is OK to appropriate?
100%. (Get it?)
Seriously, absolutely. Who cares? So I go on some site and they peg my CPU for two minutes. Doesn't cost me a dime because my CPU is working anyway. I'd trade that for 20 ads, 3 pop-ups, and a pop under.
I don't see the big deal about this as long as the site is up front about it. Who cares about a few CPU cycles compared to the onslaught of blinking ads and countless popups. Popups are the worst. So, if visiting TPB, or some other site, means an ad-free experience with a small spike in CPU use, I'm all for that.
That's why the customers are the product. That's what's being sold.
If you think the consumer's information is being sold then you have less of a clue than you first though
Dude, just stop. You're wrong and you know you're wrong. Companies giving away product aren't selling first order information. Duh. They're selling second order. Third order. Funny how everyone understands this except for you. But hey, don't change.
If you're not paying for the product, then you are the product.
Said by people without a basic understanding of economics or the realisation that there are ways of paying for things other than parting with cash.
Yes, there are other ways of paying for things other than parting with cash. All of those free products are selling your information, activity, location, actions, preferences, and so on (direct or indirect) to the companies paying them.
Duh. That's why the customers are the product. That's what's being sold.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a service. Someone people need it. Some don't. If it's not for you, that's fine. Stop whining.
I love this brilliant insight "wants to draw you further into an all-Amazon world..." Well no shit Sherlock. Name one megacompany that doesn't want to draw you further into their world.
It really is that simple.
Why do people do this?
to carry our astronauts to the space station.
In the world we live in, imagine the lawsuits if there was a bomb. Yes, there wasn't.
If there had been one, no one would ever know about witty the wifi name.
If there had been a bomb, you best believe whoever set off the bomb would make sure everyone knew. One doesn't explode a bomb on a plane for anonymity.
Yes the signal was a problem and you might want to do something about it, but it's the extreme over-reaction that really demands some examination, because there's no reasonable justification my turn signal should lead to an evacuation of two city blocks.
Your example doesn't quite match, but you know what? I agree with you 100%.
In a perfect world.
In the world we live in, imagine the lawsuits if there was a bomb. Yes, there wasn't. Yes, they over-reacted. But living in the litigious society we are, companies have to take every little thing seriously because if they don't that would be the end of them. Common sense is always beaten out in a court of law.
It's a childish joke, and nobody has ever been arrested for impersonating a federal officer because of it. And before anyone says the obvious joke, no, they are not the FBI either
You're 100% correct. Now, the next time you're in a TSA interview make a few childish jokes about bombs and how you're carrying a package someone outside gave you.
Time and place my man. Time and place.
why would you want to criminalize someone for naming an access point?
You're ignoring what happened and are asking that question as if I'm advocating prison for someone naming their access point "iPhone WAN."
First of all "Individuals can create personal wi-fi networks on devices such as mobile phones and name them what they want." Well, no shit.
Second, they need to start prosecuting these morons that cause flights to be diverted. Idiots starting fights & generally being morons need to start paying for these infractions else it's a badge of honor. "Remember that flight a few years ago that had to land in Colorado? Yeah, that was me. Woooo-hoooooo."
And it's "supervised" how? Oh right, by some buzzword "AI" program that looks for movement lasting too long, and that still requires a backlogged human to review it before calling the cops.
Yeah, I know it's stupid replying to an AC that obviously knows nothing about which he speaks, but here goes.
It's supervised because the Amazon rep THAT OPENS THE DOOR is watching on a camera. Got that? amazon opens the door, not the delivery person.
As for the cops wanting access to the camera for "some car that passed by 4 days ago", the camera is focused on the door. Not the street. That's the point.
with greasy solar atoms? That would have forced the the body cells to react, to protect themselves. That means growing skin.
The customer controls something using software provided by Amazon. The customers don't retain exclusive access to the lock because the software is probably proprietary (never trust proprietary software) and network-controlled (a tracker conveys signals to open/close the lock) which means Amazon can open/close the lock too. You should learn more
Ironic that I started this topic about people commenting on this without knowing anything about it. Perhaps you may want to read more about this or simply apply commons sense. It's not proprietary hardware or software. Kwikset or Yale makes the lock. At ANY time, the customer can block Amazon from opening the door and at ANY time the customer can completely prohibit Amazon from opening the lock.
If someone is breaking into your home you're better off making them have to do something that leaves clear evidence of a break-in such as a brick going through a window. The risks Amazon's system enables is indistinguishable from someone a client allowed in to do something the client wanted done
Bullshit. If I walk into my house and I notice my gun safe is cracked open, it makes no difference if the burglar picked the lock, kicked in the back door, or, as you think, trivially hacked this lock. I notice the burglary at the exact same time. You're once again forgetting there is a video taken and provided to the customer every time Amazon open the lock. You seem to think Amazon is going to open the door for people who plan on spending some large amount of time in your house. Who is going to be stupid enough to provide their name, address, place of employment, credit history, and so on to their employer and Amazon just so they can GO OFF CAMERA after they are seen walking into your home? No one. If someone wants to steal something, they aren't going to go through Amazon. They are going to throw a brick through a window or kick in a door.
If you think only the most sophisticated people or skills are required to pull that off, you have a lot to learn.
Nope. Again, they aren't going to use this to break in. And if they do, they didn't go through Amazon so the target audience would be anyone would installed this lock. People think that using this is a giant invitation for thieves. At first glance, sure it looks that way. But after a minute of reasoned thought, it's obvious it isn't.
Customer gets a really nice wifi & phone controlled lock. No, Amazon.com gets the control over the lock.
The $250 fee is for the customer to buy one of the smart locks. One of the benefits of the smart lock is you can give certain people control over the lock so they can open it with their phone. A spouse for example. In this scenario, Amazon is an entity that the customer is allowing to open the door. Amazon doesn't control the lock. The customer controls the lock.
If someone really wants to break into your house, they'll just use a fucking brick. Off camera as well."—which means customers don't need to give over this degree of control to Amazon.com.
What? What does one have to do with the other?
All on camera. If he goes off camera, he's fired."—says you.
Yup. Says me. What do you think will happen? Are you naive enough to think there isn't some training and agreement between Amazon and UPS or other delivery carriers. Those delivery drivers will open the door, place the package, then close the door. That's it. You really think that nothing will happen to the driver that walks in past the camera and then strolls out the door twenty minutes later?
And who can say that the cameras won't conveniently be turned off or otherwise sabotaged so the robber can work in a way that is indistinguishable from being let in?
I'm sorry. I didn't realize that Ethan Hunt from the IMF was doing fucking smash and grabs now. Are you serious?
This is simply far too dangerous and completely unnecessary.
Unnecessary? Maybe, but for some people I'm sure it has a purpose.
Dangerous? Not really after a modicum of thinking.
I'll bet that most people thinking this haven't even looked at how Amazon has set this up.
Camera records everything.
Deliveryman doesn't have key & can't get in any time he wants.
Customer gets a really nice wifi & phone controlled lock.
If someone really wants to break into your house, they'll just use a fucking brick. Off camera as well.
The service is setup so Amazon unlocks the doors, the delivery person puts your package down just inside the door, and he closes the door. All on camera. If he goes off camera, he's fired. It's really that simple.
Amazon has done a pretty good job of thinking this through. I know I shouldn't be surprised when people comment about shit without reading about it first, but I still am.
Nope. Just the Touch Controllers. It's a known bug and thankfully someone posted the solution either on reddit or the oculus forums.
(Watching the introduction) "Press 'X' to continue"
I'm pressing 'X'
Still pressing 'X'
(takes off headset) Yeah, that's the 'X' button. What the hell?
It was the "X" button. I know you may be thinking "But isn't there an 'X' button on the touch controllers." Sure, but it didn't work. Had to press the 'X" button on the XBox controller. It was stupid.
I disagree 100% VR is the future. There is no doubt. There are tons of imperfections in the game but as long as the game is fun, those don't matter. Robo Recall is a perfect example. It's not perfect, but it doesn't require the space of a room. Hell, I've been playing it sitting down lately. Still fun.
Games are just starting to scratch the surface of what they can do. First it was just the 3D effect. Then they started to actually change the weapons. Upgraded to a laser/flashlight? Well attach that item and show it in the game? Make the player turn it on with a button on the actual unit. Now games are getting into "real" video game territory. Put a button on the players wrist that pops up a map. Show the weapons on the player's body. Use a aerosol can to spray paint new colors.
Movement is gimped in these games. That's just how it is and how it will be for the foreseeable future. Can't get around that. Teleporting or moving forward with the joystick is a crutch. Although I have played a game where "chugging the arms" like you were running did the moving. That was interesting. But it's a small thing for now.
A game only needs to be fun, standing or sitting, for it to be a success.
that REQUIRED the use of the Xbox controller. IIRC, the controller was needed to push a single button in the beginning of the game and then the players could use the touch controllers. I had to connect the controller to push that button to get past the introduction scene. Even then, the game was unplayable with the touch controller.
So CCP, make a decent game that actually uses the touch controllers and you'll make money.
Some of us leaves tabs open for days in the background. I'm going to be extremely pissed if I find out one of those sites has been stealing additional resources (yes, they are actually stealing now since it's something you no longer have and they took without asking: CPU, battery, heat, less time, etc..).
But they are asking. No, it's not stealing.even if it's something you no longer have. Rather than go into Megahertz and such, let's just say my CPU can execute 100 clock cycles per second. Now, if my computer only uses 20 in that second, I haven't "lost" 80. Nor can I store them to use later. So, if I have a choice to give some site 30 cycles a second, then I'm not losing anything.
If you know some cite is doing that and you decide to leave that tab "open for days" well, that's your choice.
Expect the next iteration of this to launch DDoS attacks against other sites.
Again, as long as it's open, I don't see a problem.
How about I go around and hack into your wi-fi and use it while you're sleeping? It isn't costing you anything...
They're not hacking and it's only occurring when I'm at the site so your example is rediculous.
But if I wanted to play along, if some site said "If you agree to share some of your bandwidth, we'll let you watch this streaming sports event for free and without ads" I'd accept that in a heartbeat.
As long as it's optional and used how they say it will be, i'm perfectly fine with it.
I get that you don't understand a lot of computers - including pretty much every laptop - will engage in a lot of power saving that goes out the window with a CPU spike.
Oh no. Not that. Anything but that. Why, it's best to just through it away after it.
I get that you don't understand that a lot of people don't want their OS to become unresponsive just because they're visiting a particular site.
The CPU can spike without dropping the whole OS to a standstill. Exactly how stupid are you? Do you think that's exactly what's going to happen every time? People will be fine with something as long as it doesn't impact them. Snagging a few CPU cycles won't. Ads will. As with everything, this will get more efficient and better implemented.
Mostly, though, I get that you have no clue that ad blockers exist.
Don't run an ad blocker on the browser. I run pi-hole which does everything for me.
Anyway, many sites need income to survive. Ads are an option. If I'm given the choice to either see ads, some ads, watch some sites go away, put behind a paywall, or simply have that site take a few CPU cycles that I'm not using and only while I'm there, I'll go with the latter.
Mostly, I get that you're an ass. Mostly.
Nah, total condescending ass. Yeah, that's it.
Are you really OK with the same people who are OK with pop-ups, pop-unders, uncloseable window cascades, fake AV warnings and more - are you OK with them deciding how much of your CPU is OK to appropriate?
100%. (Get it?)
Seriously, absolutely. Who cares? So I go on some site and they peg my CPU for two minutes. Doesn't cost me a dime because my CPU is working anyway. I'd trade that for 20 ads, 3 pop-ups, and a pop under.
I don't see the big deal about this as long as the site is up front about it. Who cares about a few CPU cycles compared to the onslaught of blinking ads and countless popups. Popups are the worst.
So, if visiting TPB, or some other site, means an ad-free experience with a small spike in CPU use, I'm all for that.
That's why the customers are the product. That's what's being sold.
If you think the consumer's information is being sold then you have less of a clue than you first though
Dude, just stop. You're wrong and you know you're wrong.
Companies giving away product aren't selling first order information. Duh. They're selling second order. Third order.
Funny how everyone understands this except for you.
But hey, don't change.
If you're not paying for the product, then you are the product.
Said by people without a basic understanding of economics or the realisation that there are ways of paying for things other than parting with cash.
Yes, there are other ways of paying for things other than parting with cash.
All of those free products are selling your information, activity, location, actions, preferences, and so on (direct or indirect) to the companies paying them.
Duh.
That's why the customers are the product. That's what's being sold.