Of course, even if the service provider is certified, it's up to the customer to ensure that their own implementation is compliant - the service provider certification is just one checkmark in the requirements.
What's with the down-votes? Is hiding an encrypted payload in an image file anything but steganography? it's certainly not a novel way to write a virus since the Windows virus writers have been hiding their code with encryption for quite some time.
All a gigabit cellular network would do is give you the ability to hit your data limit in less than a minute. I would prefer to take time to savor the precious data I've paid through the nose for and my provider has so thoughtfully allocated to me.
Well. I guess that's one way to take a shit on technology before it even materializes.
And I thought I was a pessimist.
Oh, and by the way, anytime people want to start actually enforcing these things called anti-monopoly laws so you might have a fucking choice in the matter...
As long as the current duopolies keep feeding legislators with money, there's not going to be any real anti-trust enforcement.
You don't really need two separate filers, you just need a two headed filer to prevent any single point of failure
Til you lose the site...
I'm pretty sure that it goes without saying that single-site redundancy means that if you lose the site, you lose everything. Though if you have a segmented datacenter, Netapp will let you separate the heads by up to 500 meters. Likewise, you can separate the disk trays so you can lose an entire datacenter segment without losing data.
If you want replication across sites, Netapp will be more than happy to help you out with a variety of synchronous and asynchronous replication options. For a price, of course.
You should have your VM images on some storage system like a NetApp
Nope. That's a single point of failure. You need two of those, too.
Basically you need to have two racks in different DCs with replication between their filers
Or you need to accept that you can't guarantee uptime
You don't really need two separate filers, you just need a two headed filer to prevent any single point of failure. You can lose anything (even a controller on a disk shelf) and not even notice until the replacement is fedexed to you tomorrow.
The USA should have an agency (maybe call it the NSA+) that's tasked with helping companies shore up cyber defenses... Maybe even doing code reviews and penetration testing of common software to look for vulnerabilities. Instead we have an NSA that exploits vulnerabilities and creates new backdoors into software and networks with no real oversight or accountability
By now, everyone not living in total isolation knows that HBO has announced plans to offer content streaming in 2015 with no TV subscription requirements.
I like to think that I'm not in total isolation, I read online news (including Slashdot), occasionally check in to Facebook and Twitter, but I never heard this before.
I heard that all the cool kids are on Snapchat now - I suppose that's where this news broke?
When the settlement was first announced (works out to $1-2K/defendant) I sent a complaint about the small amount to the generic email address at the plaintiff's law firm. Much to my surprise, one of the lawyers on the case contacted me back. He pointed out the defendant's legal budgets are essentially infinite, and they are more than willing to fight the case to the supreme court. Once you get there, a victory by the plaintiffs are not assured. Remember, these are the guys who handed down Citizen's United.
Do you want a new TV now, or a very(!) small chance to get a new car 5-10 years from now? That's what it comes down to.
As someone who works in Silicon Valley and is paid one of the insane salaries earned by tech workers here, $1K or even $5K ($600 - $3K after taxes?) of "found money" is just not that much money. I'd gladly gamble it on continued litigation just to make sure that the companies involved actually felt some pain, even if there wasn't the prospect of a 10X higher settlement in the future. $300M is barely a slap on the risk to a company that has billions in the bank.
Though I can see why the lawyers were happy to settle and get their cut of a $300M payout rather than risk years of litigation with no payout.
That sounds great and all... but court decisions that bankrupt companies result in pretty much the same thing every time. The company goes bankrupt and, at best, the lawyers get paid. Then the company reopens with all the same people that made the decision in charge but under new ownership and the debt gets written off. The old owners would be all those same employees that had their retirement in stock which is now worthless. The people in charge are long retired and don't care.
I agree that it's not fair, but there simply doesn't exist the legal mechanisms to make managers that made these decisions over a decade ago pay. The primary culprit seemed to be Steve Jobs and God took care of him.
Somehow I don't think a multibillion dollar settlement is going to force Google or Apple into bankruptcy:
Apple Inc.'s $158.8 billion cash stockpile more than triples the $48.5 billion currently in the coffers of the U.S. government, according to a new report. Microsoft Corp. and Google Inc. also have also posted cash and cash equivalents worth more than the total U.S. Treasury at roughly $84 billion and $58 billion, respectively, according to U.S. Trust data cited by British newspaper the Telegraph.
Part of the reason they have these multi billion dollar cash reserves is by illegally colluding to keep employee turnover down and reduce wages.
They don't want people looking at their devices with their headphones in when the captain says "brace for impact" a moment before you're supposed to land normally. It's not that hard to just be ready for an important announcement before takeoff and landing. And they're right that you want everything stowed away for those two phases of the flight.
I'll take my chances that even if I did brace for impact it wouldn't make a significant difference in my survival or chance of injury. And whether I'm looking at my kindle, staring out the window, even staring right at the flight attendant in the jump seat, I don't think it's going to affect my reaction time at all. Even with headphones on I can hear cabin announcements (I sure wish I couldn't, so I could sleep while the captain points out that we're crossing over the Rocky Mountains).
I don't remember ever being asked to stow a book, and my kindle is smaller and lighter than most hardcover books (even many paperbacks). Besides, I've seen the overhead compartments come unlatched during severe turbulence, so in the event of a real crash, a loose kindle is the least of anyone's worries.
The problem isn't whether you brace or not but if that kindle you're holding flies out of your hand and moves fast enough to hurt someone due to heavy turbulence, for example, or an actual crash. Not all crashes kill everyone on board and it would suck if someone who would have lived instead died from having your kindle halfway through their noggin.
But they are ok with the 2 lb book I'm carrying or the can of coke (or bottle of wine/whiskey) that the flight attendant just sold me knocking them in the head or the 300 lb beverage cart ending up in their lap? Airlines still let infants travel on their parent's lap, surely if they were worried about my Kindle hitting someone in the head, they'd be worried about the child becoming a projectile.
Sure, I understand that loose items are dangerous in a crash,but if that's a significant risk, the solution to that is to ban *all* of the items, not just the ones that happen to have a battery.
She might do better to give everyone a lecture on the perils of obesity, and go all Richard Simmons on them, get everyone up out of their seats and doing calisthenics. Might save more lives doing that instead.
For that matter, requiring passengers to sit through driver training exercises on flights would do a lot more to keep them safe than making them put down an iPad during takeoff/landing given that they are *far* more likely to die in a car than a plane.
United has a new "humorous" preflight briefing, and if I hadn't already been through hundreds of preflight briefings, I'm not sure that I'd understand exactly what I'm supposed to do based on this video. I can't believe the FAA ever approved it.
They don't want people looking at their devices with their headphones in when the captain says "brace for impact" a moment before you're supposed to land normally. It's not that hard to just be ready for an important announcement before takeoff and landing. And they're right that you want everything stowed away for those two phases of the flight.
I'll take my chances that even if I did brace for impact it wouldn't make a significant difference in my survival or chance of injury. And whether I'm looking at my kindle, staring out the window, even staring right at the flight attendant in the jump seat, I don't think it's going to affect my reaction time at all. Even with headphones on I can hear cabin announcements (I sure wish I couldn't, so I could sleep while the captain points out that we're crossing over the Rocky Mountains).
I don't remember ever being asked to stow a book, and my kindle is smaller and lighter than most hardcover books (even many paperbacks). Besides, I've seen the overhead compartments come unlatched during severe turbulence, so in the event of a real crash, a loose kindle is the least of anyone's worries.
I believe you are incorrect. The phrase contains 7 dictionary words. The linux dictionary contains more than 47000 words. To do a "dictionary attack" you would have to go through 47000 words in each of the 7 locations to even get close to brute forcing the password. Lets not forget to include capitalization, punctuation, and spaces in there! Compare that with the 8 character password which is comprised of ascii characters. To brute force that, you would only need to try at most 120 or so characters in 8 locations. It is clear that using the easily remembered dictionary words is more resilient against a brute force attack.
If you know the password is made of an English phrase, you can cut down the phrase search space a lot by applying english grammar rules.
Guess what? Your consumption and all the other houses in your area are just a rounding error.
And where will these LEDs and insulation come from when the fossil fuel fiesta stops?
You better get used to insulating with animal hair and mud, if you can afford to raise animals by candlelight, that is.
Ahh, but fossil fuels won't just suddenly 'stop', they'll just get more and more expensive as it becomes harder and harder to extract from the ground. As fossil fuels rise in price, making changes to use less fuel becomes more attractive. Of course, it's much cheaper and easier to make the switch now while fossil fuels are plentiful, but there's no reason to believe that fossil fuel production will suddenly stop and we'll all be raising animals by candlelight.
Put up warning signs and include the penalty warning in the "In the case of a water landing you may not be able to update your facebook status.." presentation at the beginning of each flight. Then just have the air waitresses scan before the flight to make sure everything is off. During flight have them scan and take down the people's names and put them on the "never gets to fly again, EVER!" list. Good luck getting back from Hawaii, asshole!
After enough walkers/bussers/boaters (depending on where they want to travel) start screaming online most other special snowflakes will get the clue.
Yeah, that sounds much better than making sure that airliners are immune to common sources of RF interference (including terrestrial sources that are going to exist whether or not anyone uses Wifi on the plane). Put grandma on a no-fly list because she wanted to play angry birds and didn't know how to put her phone into airplane mode. While on other aircraft, airlines *encourage* you to use Wifi to access inflight internet and entertainment.
Cheaper option: Have the flight attendants go around with wifi scanners and arrest people who have it operating during the flight. (And smack them over the head.)
That's only cheaper if you think flight attendants work for free (and that they have the power to arrest anyone). Labor is a significant portion of an airline's budget.
Besides, the FAA approved hammer used to smack passengers over the head would probably cost more than just swapping out the equipment.
If they came here on a solar sail, they must be experts at tacking upwind. I admit, I haven't done the calculations on converting mass into energy, but neither have you. I'm just guessing here, but the light pr3ssure exerted by alpha-centauri on the ort cloud approaches ZERO pretty damn quick.
I think the theory behind the solar sail is to deploy a huge (many many square kilometers) sail when you have the solar wind behind you (perhaps with some laser assist from your home planet)to pick up speed, then stow it away when you're no longer going with the wind. When you approach your destination, you deploy the sail again to slow down.
If ETs have enough energy at their disposal to get here, certainly they have enough energy to deal with anything that this world's religions can throw at them.
Depends. If they got here on a solar sail, they may not have much in terms of "space blasters" and such. Then again, just what CAN religion throw at them? Pamphlets? Tracts? Bibles?
Of course, if they came here on a Solar Sail, after thousands of years traveling here, they are probably anxious to get off their ship and onto solid ground. After taking care to squash any ants or other undesirable creatures that may be crawling around on the planet.
LEDs are only expensive if your electricity is free.
Clearly not. If my electricity is $0.01/kWh, then it will take 8.5 years just to pay for a $10 LED. Is anyone paying only a penny per kWh? No, but I just refuted your claim. FWIW, I'm paying about $0.10 a kWH-- including the delivery charges, which people forget about-- so it would take me about a year to pay for a $10 LED. A lot of people aren't getting even a year out of theirs, so you can see why they are upset.
You refuted my claim with a made-up rate that you admit that no one is actually paying? Why didn't you just make up a negative number and claim that the power company pays *you* for energy you consume so LED's actually make you lose money?
I repeat the part of my comment that you did not understand "Yeah, most of them will last a lot longer than the printed date, because chances are you won't buy them and install them on the day they make them."
I am talking about bulbs that should have lasted 2 years of constant use, 12 years of actual, use, but I had to replace 8 months after I bought them.
If they had a 2 year past manufacture date guarantee, it would solve my problem.
But to be honest, I did not even try to return the curly bulb 8 months after I bought it. But I seriously doubt a normal retailer would have accepted it's return.
So that is why I want a guarantee printed on the bulb, based on constant use from date of manufacture. To get the manufacturer to stand behind their product, not screw everyone over ridiculously.
What good is a 2 year "sell by" date on a product that the manufacturer says will last 15 years? Does that really provide the consumer with useful information? The buld doesn't age appreciably when it's sitting on a store shelf, so what good is a fake "expiration" date that has no correlation at all to expected lifetime? All it will do is drive up the cost of bulbs when merchants and manufacturers have to carefully control inventory to make sure they don't have bulbs sitting in a warehouse long enough to appreciably affect the expiration date - and merchants may be left holding unsellable inventory as consumers dig through the boxes to buy "expires March 2015" bulbs before the "Expires January 2015" bulbs even though there's no real difference in expected lifetime.
If you're going to ask for a change that makes a different to consumers, why not require merchants to exchange bulbs for X years after purchase, and require manufacturers to do a mail-in exchange for the full advertised lifetime? Purchase date (well, in-use date) is much more relevant than manufacture date.
That said, I exchanged two 6 month old CFL's (expensive high wattage lamps) at Home Depot when they burnt out within weeks of each other, but others from the same purchase were still running fine (and 3 years later, they are still fine)
Slashdot Mirror
There is no cloud service provider that is approved for handling credit card information at this time. That is not an accident.
It's not clear which flavor of "cloud" you're referring to.
If you mean IaaS, Amazon AWS is PCI certified:
https://aws.amazon.com/complia...
If you mean PaaS, WIndows Azure is certified:
http://azure.microsoft.com/blo...
If you mean SaaS, Stripe is certified:
https://stripe.com/help/securi...
Of course, even if the service provider is certified, it's up to the customer to ensure that their own implementation is compliant - the service provider certification is just one checkmark in the requirements.
So they've "invented" Steganography?
What's with the down-votes? Is hiding an encrypted payload in an image file anything but steganography? it's certainly not a novel way to write a virus since the Windows virus writers have been hiding their code with encryption for quite some time.
So they've "invented" Steganography?
All a gigabit cellular network would do is give you the ability to hit your data limit in less than a minute. I would prefer to take time to savor the precious data I've paid through the nose for and my provider has so thoughtfully allocated to me.
Well. I guess that's one way to take a shit on technology before it even materializes.
And I thought I was a pessimist.
Oh, and by the way, anytime people want to start actually enforcing these things called anti-monopoly laws so you might have a fucking choice in the matter ...
As long as the current duopolies keep feeding legislators with money, there's not going to be any real anti-trust enforcement.
You don't really need two separate filers, you just need a two headed filer to prevent any single point of failure
Til you lose the site...
I'm pretty sure that it goes without saying that single-site redundancy means that if you lose the site, you lose everything. Though if you have a segmented datacenter, Netapp will let you separate the heads by up to 500 meters. Likewise, you can separate the disk trays so you can lose an entire datacenter segment without losing data.
If you want replication across sites, Netapp will be more than happy to help you out with a variety of synchronous and asynchronous replication options. For a price, of course.
You should have your VM images on some storage system like a NetApp
Nope. That's a single point of failure. You need two of those, too.
Basically you need to have two racks in different DCs with replication between their filers
Or you need to accept that you can't guarantee uptime
You don't really need two separate filers, you just need a two headed filer to prevent any single point of failure. You can lose anything (even a controller on a disk shelf) and not even notice until the replacement is fedexed to you tomorrow.
The USA should have an agency (maybe call it the NSA+) that's tasked with helping companies shore up cyber defenses... Maybe even doing code reviews and penetration testing of common software to look for vulnerabilities. Instead we have an NSA that exploits vulnerabilities and creates new backdoors into software and networks with no real oversight or accountability
By now, everyone not living in total isolation knows that HBO has announced plans to offer content streaming in 2015 with no TV subscription requirements.
I like to think that I'm not in total isolation, I read online news (including Slashdot), occasionally check in to Facebook and Twitter, but I never heard this before.
I heard that all the cool kids are on Snapchat now - I suppose that's where this news broke?
When the settlement was first announced (works out to $1-2K/defendant) I sent a complaint about the small amount to the generic email address at the plaintiff's law firm. Much to my surprise, one of the lawyers on the case contacted me back. He pointed out the defendant's legal budgets are essentially infinite, and they are more than willing to fight the case to the supreme court. Once you get there, a victory by the plaintiffs are not assured. Remember, these are the guys who handed down Citizen's United.
Do you want a new TV now, or a very(!) small chance to get a new car 5-10 years from now? That's what it comes down to.
As someone who works in Silicon Valley and is paid one of the insane salaries earned by tech workers here, $1K or even $5K ($600 - $3K after taxes?) of "found money" is just not that much money. I'd gladly gamble it on continued litigation just to make sure that the companies involved actually felt some pain, even if there wasn't the prospect of a 10X higher settlement in the future. $300M is barely a slap on the risk to a company that has billions in the bank.
Though I can see why the lawyers were happy to settle and get their cut of a $300M payout rather than risk years of litigation with no payout.
That sounds great and all... but court decisions that bankrupt companies result in pretty much the same thing every time. The company goes bankrupt and, at best, the lawyers get paid. Then the company reopens with all the same people that made the decision in charge but under new ownership and the debt gets written off. The old owners would be all those same employees that had their retirement in stock which is now worthless. The people in charge are long retired and don't care.
I agree that it's not fair, but there simply doesn't exist the legal mechanisms to make managers that made these decisions over a decade ago pay. The primary culprit seemed to be Steve Jobs and God took care of him.
Somehow I don't think a multibillion dollar settlement is going to force Google or Apple into bankruptcy:
http://www.bizjournals.com/san...
Apple Inc.'s $158.8 billion cash stockpile more than triples the $48.5 billion currently in the coffers of the U.S. government, according to a new report.
Microsoft Corp. and Google Inc. also have also posted cash and cash equivalents worth more than the total U.S. Treasury at roughly $84 billion and $58 billion, respectively, according to U.S. Trust data cited by British newspaper the Telegraph.
Part of the reason they have these multi billion dollar cash reserves is by illegally colluding to keep employee turnover down and reduce wages.
They don't want people looking at their devices with their headphones in when the captain says "brace for impact" a moment before you're supposed to land normally. It's not that hard to just be ready for an important announcement before takeoff and landing. And they're right that you want everything stowed away for those two phases of the flight.
I'll take my chances that even if I did brace for impact it wouldn't make a significant difference in my survival or chance of injury. And whether I'm looking at my kindle, staring out the window, even staring right at the flight attendant in the jump seat, I don't think it's going to affect my reaction time at all. Even with headphones on I can hear cabin announcements (I sure wish I couldn't, so I could sleep while the captain points out that we're crossing over the Rocky Mountains).
I don't remember ever being asked to stow a book, and my kindle is smaller and lighter than most hardcover books (even many paperbacks). Besides, I've seen the overhead compartments come unlatched during severe turbulence, so in the event of a real crash, a loose kindle is the least of anyone's worries.
The problem isn't whether you brace or not but if that kindle you're holding flies out of your hand and moves fast enough to hurt someone due to heavy turbulence, for example, or an actual crash. Not all crashes kill everyone on board and it would suck if someone who would have lived instead died from having your kindle halfway through their noggin.
But they are ok with the 2 lb book I'm carrying or the can of coke (or bottle of wine/whiskey) that the flight attendant just sold me knocking them in the head or the 300 lb beverage cart ending up in their lap? Airlines still let infants travel on their parent's lap, surely if they were worried about my Kindle hitting someone in the head, they'd be worried about the child becoming a projectile.
Sure, I understand that loose items are dangerous in a crash,but if that's a significant risk, the solution to that is to ban *all* of the items, not just the ones that happen to have a battery.
She might do better to give everyone a lecture on the perils of obesity, and go all Richard Simmons on them, get everyone up out of their seats and doing calisthenics. Might save more lives doing that instead.
For that matter, requiring passengers to sit through driver training exercises on flights would do a lot more to keep them safe than making them put down an iPad during takeoff/landing given that they are *far* more likely to die in a car than a plane.
Virgin Airlines has a video instead of flight attendants do the safety spiel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Time for other airlines to get with the times.
United has a new "humorous" preflight briefing, and if I hadn't already been through hundreds of preflight briefings, I'm not sure that I'd understand exactly what I'm supposed to do based on this video. I can't believe the FAA ever approved it.
They don't want people looking at their devices with their headphones in when the captain says "brace for impact" a moment before you're supposed to land normally. It's not that hard to just be ready for an important announcement before takeoff and landing. And they're right that you want everything stowed away for those two phases of the flight.
I'll take my chances that even if I did brace for impact it wouldn't make a significant difference in my survival or chance of injury. And whether I'm looking at my kindle, staring out the window, even staring right at the flight attendant in the jump seat, I don't think it's going to affect my reaction time at all. Even with headphones on I can hear cabin announcements (I sure wish I couldn't, so I could sleep while the captain points out that we're crossing over the Rocky Mountains).
I don't remember ever being asked to stow a book, and my kindle is smaller and lighter than most hardcover books (even many paperbacks). Besides, I've seen the overhead compartments come unlatched during severe turbulence, so in the event of a real crash, a loose kindle is the least of anyone's worries.
Pretty certain that Coal kills more birds than wind power
Is that better or worse?
Killing more birds sounds worse, unless wind turbines kill more endangered (or otherwise valuable) species.
I believe you are incorrect. The phrase contains 7 dictionary words. The linux dictionary contains more than 47000 words. To do a "dictionary attack" you would have to go through 47000 words in each of the 7 locations to even get close to brute forcing the password. Lets not forget to include capitalization, punctuation, and spaces in there! Compare that with the 8 character password which is comprised of ascii characters. To brute force that, you would only need to try at most 120 or so characters in 8 locations. It is clear that using the easily remembered dictionary words is more resilient against a brute force attack.
If you know the password is made of an English phrase, you can cut down the phrase search space a lot by applying english grammar rules.
Guess what? Your consumption and all the other houses in your area are just a rounding error.
And where will these LEDs and insulation come from when the fossil fuel fiesta stops?
You better get used to insulating with animal hair and mud, if you can afford to raise animals by candlelight, that is.
Ahh, but fossil fuels won't just suddenly 'stop', they'll just get more and more expensive as it becomes harder and harder to extract from the ground. As fossil fuels rise in price, making changes to use less fuel becomes more attractive. Of course, it's much cheaper and easier to make the switch now while fossil fuels are plentiful, but there's no reason to believe that fossil fuel production will suddenly stop and we'll all be raising animals by candlelight.
Put up warning signs and include the penalty warning in the "In the case of a water landing you may not be able to update your facebook status.." presentation at the beginning of each flight. Then just have the air waitresses scan before the flight to make sure everything is off. During flight have them scan and take down the people's names and put them on the "never gets to fly again, EVER!" list. Good luck getting back from Hawaii, asshole!
After enough walkers/bussers/boaters (depending on where they want to travel) start screaming online most other special snowflakes will get the clue.
Yeah, that sounds much better than making sure that airliners are immune to common sources of RF interference (including terrestrial sources that are going to exist whether or not anyone uses Wifi on the plane). Put grandma on a no-fly list because she wanted to play angry birds and didn't know how to put her phone into airplane mode. While on other aircraft, airlines *encourage* you to use Wifi to access inflight internet and entertainment.
Oh man, I'm cryin'
Over 1300 aircraft, that's only around $10,000 each, or for a plane that makes one flight per day for a year, that's less than $30 per flight.
Cheaper option: Have the flight attendants go around with wifi scanners and arrest people who have it operating during the flight. (And smack them over the head.)
That's only cheaper if you think flight attendants work for free (and that they have the power to arrest anyone). Labor is a significant portion of an airline's budget.
Besides, the FAA approved hammer used to smack passengers over the head would probably cost more than just swapping out the equipment.
If they came here on a solar sail, they must be experts at tacking upwind. I admit, I haven't done the calculations on converting mass into energy, but neither have you. I'm just guessing here, but the light pr3ssure exerted by alpha-centauri on the ort cloud approaches ZERO pretty damn quick.
I think the theory behind the solar sail is to deploy a huge (many many square kilometers) sail when you have the solar wind behind you (perhaps with some laser assist from your home planet)to pick up speed, then stow it away when you're no longer going with the wind. When you approach your destination, you deploy the sail again to slow down.
If ETs have enough energy at their disposal to get here, certainly they have enough energy to deal with anything that this world's religions can throw at them.
Depends. If they got here on a solar sail, they may not have much in terms of "space blasters" and such. Then again, just what CAN religion throw at them? Pamphlets? Tracts? Bibles?
Of course, if they came here on a Solar Sail, after thousands of years traveling here, they are probably anxious to get off their ship and onto solid ground. After taking care to squash any ants or other undesirable creatures that may be crawling around on the planet.
Did you factor in time value of money?
I thought I was pretty clear in describing my assumptions, if you want to factor in the time value of money, feel free.
But over a year or two timespan, I wouldn't expect it to significantly change the economics.
Clearly not. If my electricity is $0.01/kWh, then it will take 8.5 years just to pay for a $10 LED. Is anyone paying only a penny per kWh? No, but I just refuted your claim. FWIW, I'm paying about $0.10 a kWH-- including the delivery charges, which people forget about-- so it would take me about a year to pay for a $10 LED. A lot of people aren't getting even a year out of theirs, so you can see why they are upset.
You refuted my claim with a made-up rate that you admit that no one is actually paying? Why didn't you just make up a negative number and claim that the power company pays *you* for energy you consume so LED's actually make you lose money?
I repeat the part of my comment that you did not understand "Yeah, most of them will last a lot longer than the printed date, because chances are you won't buy them and install them on the day they make them."
I am talking about bulbs that should have lasted 2 years of constant use, 12 years of actual, use, but I had to replace 8 months after I bought them.
If they had a 2 year past manufacture date guarantee, it would solve my problem.
But to be honest, I did not even try to return the curly bulb 8 months after I bought it. But I seriously doubt a normal retailer would have accepted it's return.
So that is why I want a guarantee printed on the bulb, based on constant use from date of manufacture. To get the manufacturer to stand behind their product, not screw everyone over ridiculously.
What good is a 2 year "sell by" date on a product that the manufacturer says will last 15 years? Does that really provide the consumer with useful information? The buld doesn't age appreciably when it's sitting on a store shelf, so what good is a fake "expiration" date that has no correlation at all to expected lifetime? All it will do is drive up the cost of bulbs when merchants and manufacturers have to carefully control inventory to make sure they don't have bulbs sitting in a warehouse long enough to appreciably affect the expiration date - and merchants may be left holding unsellable inventory as consumers dig through the boxes to buy "expires March 2015" bulbs before the "Expires January 2015" bulbs even though there's no real difference in expected lifetime.
If you're going to ask for a change that makes a different to consumers, why not require merchants to exchange bulbs for X years after purchase, and require manufacturers to do a mail-in exchange for the full advertised lifetime? Purchase date (well, in-use date) is much more relevant than manufacture date.
That said, I exchanged two 6 month old CFL's (expensive high wattage lamps) at Home Depot when they burnt out within weeks of each other, but others from the same purchase were still running fine (and 3 years later, they are still fine)