I am not sure why go to such great lengths to obtain UDID when device MAC address is readily available (and must be for variety of software to work) and globally unique.
MAC address are easy to change, and don't actually have to be globally unique. That may be why they don't want to use them -- too easy to to bypass that sort of check.
MAC addresses only have to be unique at layer 2 of the OSI model (essentially, this means they only have to be unique on your local ethernet or wifi network). You and I can have the exact same MAC on our devices without causing any problem at all as long as we don't both directly connect to the same LAN at the same time.
This is generally true, but there do, in fact, exist services that are entirely free and are even devoid of advertising. You shouldn't assume that "nothing is free", but you should pay attention to terms of service just in case.
No. Systemd won on political ground. The technical "win" is had was demonstrating that it was a technically workable solution, not that it was a technically superior solution.
The funny thing is that the kickstarter juicer is clearly the superior product -- it's less expensive and lets you put your own mix of produce in the bag that it squeezes.
Properly prepared kale caesar salad is absolutely delicious.
I don't believe you. I find kale to be the exact opposite of "delicious" no matter how its been prepared. Not as nasty as cilantro, but in the ballpark.
People need to stop looking at food as merely something they put in their mouths because they enjoy it, and start looking at it more like medicine they need to take daily in order to be healthy
I disagree emphatically with this. This would suck all of the joy out of food entirely and turn it into a chore.
That said, I'm with you in that it would be helpful for most people to seriously reduce the amount of things like sugar in their diets. The key, though, isn't to get people to treat food like medicine. It's to teach people how to make food that is fulfilling and delicious while at the same time being good for you.
Part of that is to stop telling people to eat certain things because "they're good for you" and encourage people to eat the foods that they like that happen to be good for them.
Another part is that it's far from clear that any specific type of food is good for you regardless of who you are. The best dietary advice both in terms of being supported by research and in terms of real-world experience is to eat a wide variety of things, and to eat in moderation.
It's not hard to see why people would be attracted to that ease - especially early in the morning before they've had coffee.
I find it hard to see why people would be attracted enough for that ease to pay that much for it. The difference in effort between an Aeropress and a Keurig is pretty tiny.
What I don't understand is the CEO requiring the machine to buy the packets, there must be money in the packets too, or it's a seriously flawed business model.
The juice packs are a huge profit center for them, as they are grossly overpriced. However, their investors have made it clear that they aren't interested in investing in a food company -- they want to invest in a tech company. It's the sales of the machines that are of interest to them, not the packs. So Juicero has to have some way to make sure that people will buy the machines.
On the technology front, I can't quite figure out why exactly this device needs wifi. What purpose does it serve, if any? Is it just to enforce its own DRM?
Yes, it is. The other "benefits" they cite are just the things they hope will convince people otherwise. Last year, Doug Evans, the CEO of Juicero, said that the reason for internet connectivity is that they're learning from the experience of Keurig in terms of how to prevent third-party juice packs. Since the cost of the juice from the Juicero (ignoring the cost of the machine) is more than $4 per 8 oz, preventing cheaper alternatives is clearly essential to them.
What if someone's using it to heat something and it needs to remain on and immobile? Unless you could make it telepathic, having it ask you if you're done seems like a great way for it to find out.
No, it really doesn't. If you want to cover use cases of people using the iron for things other than ironing, then simply provide an override switch to disable the timeout.
I would note, as someone else has, that this auto-off feature has been a pretty standard thing on irons for years now. Making things internet connected comes with costs for the user. If the benefit does not outweigh those costs, then it's a bad idea. With an iron, it's hard to see what the benefit actually is.
The QR code on the back and the much-maligned internet connectivity ensures that when people start putting bad batches of juice in the machine, the machine won't press them, and the company gets notified that customer X's bags of veggies are past their use-by date
So, in other words, the internet connectivity is nearly worthless.
That's a terrible use case. A better solution to that iron problem is for the iron to just turn itself off once it has sensed that nobody's moved it for 15 minutes or so.
I have to agree, what exactly is the purpose of this "juicer"?
The same purpose as the Keurig that they compare themselves to: to extract money from people who don't know any better, or from companies who want to show off how much money they can afford to burn.
Greedy parasites? Who are they sucking who doesn't agree with it and like it? Go ahead, create a startup without any financial backers (or venture capitalists, as you call them).
Not all financial backers are venture capitalists. VCs tend to be corrosive, in my experience -- and my experience includes a couple of successful startups. Despite your insinuation, it is very, very possible to have a successful startup without taking a dime of VC money.
Perhaps it works for some people, but it certainly doesn't for many. After my experience with it, I refuse to work for any company that employs it. It is a nightmare for me.
Now, people will leave Firefox due to WebExtensions, which is... what Chrome uses.
If I stop using Firefox (which looks increasingly likely with every announcement Mozilla makes), I will not be switching to Chrome, so that doesn't matter to me.
What matters to me is that the changes they're planning appears to make it impossible to develop extensions that can do what current extensions can do, and those extensions are currently the only reason I stay with Firefox. Why they're breaking it doesn't matter one bit to me. It's a dealbreaker.
Many of the remaining Firefox users are only still using Firefox because of legacy or custom extensions.
This is the reason I have not already bailed on Firefox. I will certainly stop upgrading when the extension changes come out. If this introduces any serious security issues, then I will stop using Firefox.
I agree. What has been making Firefox increasingly painful to use isn't that new features aren't pushed out often enough. In fact, a part of the problem with Firefox is the opposite of that.
Nothing in this change gives any hint that this will improve any of the fundamental problems.
My solution for Android requires root, but it is effective: I run a firewall that automatically blocks all traffic to and from all apps. Then I make exceptions for specific apps that both actually require internet access to do the tasks I want and that I am comfortable with. There are very, very few of those.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not sure why go to such great lengths to obtain UDID when device MAC address is readily available (and must be for variety of software to work) and globally unique.
MAC address are easy to change, and don't actually have to be globally unique. That may be why they don't want to use them -- too easy to to bypass that sort of check.
MAC addresses only have to be unique at layer 2 of the OSI model (essentially, this means they only have to be unique on your local ethernet or wifi network). You and I can have the exact same MAC on our devices without causing any problem at all as long as we don't both directly connect to the same LAN at the same time.
This is generally true, but there do, in fact, exist services that are entirely free and are even devoid of advertising. You shouldn't assume that "nothing is free", but you should pay attention to terms of service just in case.
Systemd won on all technical ground.
No. Systemd won on political ground. The technical "win" is had was demonstrating that it was a technically workable solution, not that it was a technically superior solution.
No, it wasn't. But the company they just filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against is: https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...
The funny thing is that the kickstarter juicer is clearly the superior product -- it's less expensive and lets you put your own mix of produce in the bag that it squeezes.
IMHO a pretty decent reply
Interesting take. I thought the reply was equal parts hilarious and insulting. I wouldn't have thought that anyone could have considered it "decent".
Properly prepared kale caesar salad is absolutely delicious.
I don't believe you. I find kale to be the exact opposite of "delicious" no matter how its been prepared. Not as nasty as cilantro, but in the ballpark.
People need to stop looking at food as merely something they put in their mouths because they enjoy it, and start looking at it more like medicine they need to take daily in order to be healthy
I disagree emphatically with this. This would suck all of the joy out of food entirely and turn it into a chore.
That said, I'm with you in that it would be helpful for most people to seriously reduce the amount of things like sugar in their diets. The key, though, isn't to get people to treat food like medicine. It's to teach people how to make food that is fulfilling and delicious while at the same time being good for you.
Part of that is to stop telling people to eat certain things because "they're good for you" and encourage people to eat the foods that they like that happen to be good for them.
Another part is that it's far from clear that any specific type of food is good for you regardless of who you are. The best dietary advice both in terms of being supported by research and in terms of real-world experience is to eat a wide variety of things, and to eat in moderation.
To LinkedIn has decided that they need to become Tinder now? SIlly me, I remember when it was about business.
It's not hard to see why people would be attracted to that ease - especially early in the morning before they've had coffee.
I find it hard to see why people would be attracted enough for that ease to pay that much for it. The difference in effort between an Aeropress and a Keurig is pretty tiny.
What I don't understand is the CEO requiring the machine to buy the packets, there must be money in the packets too, or it's a seriously flawed business model.
The juice packs are a huge profit center for them, as they are grossly overpriced. However, their investors have made it clear that they aren't interested in investing in a food company -- they want to invest in a tech company. It's the sales of the machines that are of interest to them, not the packs. So Juicero has to have some way to make sure that people will buy the machines.
On the technology front, I can't quite figure out why exactly this device needs wifi. What purpose does it serve, if any? Is it just to enforce its own DRM?
Yes, it is. The other "benefits" they cite are just the things they hope will convince people otherwise. Last year, Doug Evans, the CEO of Juicero, said that the reason for internet connectivity is that they're learning from the experience of Keurig in terms of how to prevent third-party juice packs. Since the cost of the juice from the Juicero (ignoring the cost of the machine) is more than $4 per 8 oz, preventing cheaper alternatives is clearly essential to them.
What if someone's using it to heat something and it needs to remain on and immobile? Unless you could make it telepathic, having it ask you if you're done seems like a great way for it to find out.
No, it really doesn't. If you want to cover use cases of people using the iron for things other than ironing, then simply provide an override switch to disable the timeout.
I would note, as someone else has, that this auto-off feature has been a pretty standard thing on irons for years now. Making things internet connected comes with costs for the user. If the benefit does not outweigh those costs, then it's a bad idea. With an iron, it's hard to see what the benefit actually is.
Much like with the juicer.
The QR code on the back and the much-maligned internet connectivity ensures that when people start putting bad batches of juice in the machine, the machine won't press them, and the company gets notified that customer X's bags of veggies are past their use-by date
So, in other words, the internet connectivity is nearly worthless.
That's a terrible use case. A better solution to that iron problem is for the iron to just turn itself off once it has sensed that nobody's moved it for 15 minutes or so.
I have to agree, what exactly is the purpose of this "juicer"?
The same purpose as the Keurig that they compare themselves to: to extract money from people who don't know any better, or from companies who want to show off how much money they can afford to burn.
That's why it's so idiotic that some people want to punish success and even wish failure on people just because they make money.
That would be idiotic if anyone actually thought that way. However, outside of a few on the radical fringe, nobody does.
Greedy parasites? Who are they sucking who doesn't agree with it and like it? Go ahead, create a startup without any financial backers (or venture capitalists, as you call them).
Not all financial backers are venture capitalists. VCs tend to be corrosive, in my experience -- and my experience includes a couple of successful startups. Despite your insinuation, it is very, very possible to have a successful startup without taking a dime of VC money.
The number 6 I do not understand.
Perhaps it works for some people, but it certainly doesn't for many. After my experience with it, I refuse to work for any company that employs it. It is a nightmare for me.
Now, people will leave Firefox due to WebExtensions, which is... what Chrome uses.
If I stop using Firefox (which looks increasingly likely with every announcement Mozilla makes), I will not be switching to Chrome, so that doesn't matter to me.
What matters to me is that the changes they're planning appears to make it impossible to develop extensions that can do what current extensions can do, and those extensions are currently the only reason I stay with Firefox. Why they're breaking it doesn't matter one bit to me. It's a dealbreaker.
Many of the remaining Firefox users are only still using Firefox because of legacy or custom extensions.
This is the reason I have not already bailed on Firefox. I will certainly stop upgrading when the extension changes come out. If this introduces any serious security issues, then I will stop using Firefox.
I agree. What has been making Firefox increasingly painful to use isn't that new features aren't pushed out often enough. In fact, a part of the problem with Firefox is the opposite of that.
Nothing in this change gives any hint that this will improve any of the fundamental problems.
Who's that?
How can a pair of headphones prevent me from using my audio player to adjust the balance?
My solution for Android requires root, but it is effective: I run a firewall that automatically blocks all traffic to and from all apps. Then I make exceptions for specific apps that both actually require internet access to do the tasks I want and that I am comfortable with. There are very, very few of those.
The cost of all of those free sites you visit.
if you had to pay $1 a month to every website you want to visit, would you do it?
Yes.