Yes, but the makers of such appliances have a big interest in making them, because they can sell that additional information about you. This in turn allows them to offer their always-online toasters cheaper, and given that people are miserly bastards this will drive the makers of non-internet toasters out of the market because these things would have to sell for more and people don't give a fuck about privacy as long as cheap and gimmegimme. For reference, see Facebook.
Why do you think that it would suddenly matter what you, the consumer, want? What matters is what the maker of the product wants.
Warranty becomes pretty interesting once you broke the WiFi antenna to disconnect it and then find out that with a broken WiFi system the toaster won't finish booting properly, telling you to return it.
Neither do I. But I do need a fridge, a dishwasher, a washing machine...
One could argue that you can live your life without any of those machines, but face it: Most people would rather bite the bullet of connecting them to the internet before even pondering doing without.
Nope. What I say is that watching who was offered as a "choice", how the election was done, how people reacted before and after to the candidates and how people act now after the results, I can't say that this species should now, or ever, be allowed to contaminate any other planet. It's bad enough that it infests this one.
What's subjective about calling the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient being that nobody ever saw "extraordinary"? The opposite would be ordinary, is that what you'd consider something like this? If so, I'd really want to hear what would be extraordinary for you if omniscient, omnipotent, transcending space and time and world creation isn't enough to be called "extraordinary".
And yes, not having EVER encountered something IS a pretty good framework to define something as "extraordinary". I'd again really, really like to hear your definition of it.
As for your "but the people with imaginary friends is bigger" argument: Reality is not a matter of consensus. It's a matter of what is. Else I am pretty sure it would be easy to find enough people to wish gravity out of existence, but guess what: No matter how many people want to float on air, it ain't gonna happen. Consensus and majorities are not a valid way to determine what is. It's a good way to determine what we as a collective want, but reality doesn't give a fuck about that.
Testing is necessary, but don't test subset A and tell everyone up front that you'll test subset A. Same as in school, what did you learn when your teacher told you that you're going to get tested about the stuff on pages 80-110? You learned the stuff on pages 80-110. If it was on page 79 or 111, it didn't even cross your mind to learn any of that. Because it would literally be useless knowledge.
Should you have learned it? Yes, of course. Because pages 60-80 explained just what 80-110 required you to know to understand it. But you didn't, you learned 80-110, didn't understand it and just crammed it into your head for the test, swiftly followed by blissful forgetting right after the test was over.
With testing like this, it's no wonder that we don't get anywhere. In school and technology. We have to make sure that tests cover the whole spectrum of what's required. And if it's impossible to test it all for some reason, make sure that your test subject doesn't know what part you'll want from it and thus HAS to be prepared for everything.
The article is indeed worth a read. I couldn't imagine a maker of hardware saying today "Yeah, I wrote that cheating routine myself, that way we come out on top every time a comparison is run, pretty clever, eh?"
They may THINK that, but I doubt they'd have the chutzpah to just throw that in your face.
What you say here is the equivalent of Software having bugs isn't the problem, it's all the malware's fault if you get infected. Yes, the malware abuses those faults, but the faults enable it in the first place.
If you have standardized tests, people will do what's necessary to perform well on those standardized tests and ignore anything else. What happened when schools got them? Every teacher began teaching to the test, i.e. what will be asked at this test, everything else was simply swept under the rug. Why? Because it won't be tested, so it's superfluous. Actually harmful, because it will take up valuable time and brain capacity for no gain.
No gain at the test, that is.
Same here. Your test will perform X, so we'll do good at X. And on nothing else.
There's also that problem that customers want cheap TVs that have great features, and that is pretty much the exact opposite of power conservation. You cannot build cheap TVs that have all sorts of features, great resolution, high contrast, fast switching and so on, and don't consume much power.
Now take a wild guess which of the three things "cheap", "performance" and "compliance" gets thrown out the window? Hint: You can't fire cheap, because that's what both the maker and the customer wants. You can't cut performance, because the user would eventually notice and a huge stink ensues on various test sites on the internet. And compliance is something that gets tested once and nobody really gives a fuck about it.
Everything else you could ask from a union you can get there. Lawyers for work related disputes, information about your rights towards your employer, wage negotiations...
The "magical" part of IPv6 in this regard is that your provider will assign you a sizable amount of addresses instead of one, taking away the necessity of NATing and making it "so much easier" to have your crap hooked to the internet directly. People will gladly take that offer, since a lot more of the things they have will "just work" now that they can also act as servers (which required you to configure your router to forward the traffic).
And that also means that people are much more prone to plugging their network together in a wrong way. Because it will work if you plug your IoT device in front of the firewall. Actually, my guess is that it would work a lot "better"...
NAT is as close as the average consumer gets these days to something that could resemble something like a firewall.
Yes, this can all be done quickly with a simple firewall rule. You want to teach the masses out there that think TCP might be the Chinese secret service what ports are and how to properly configure a router to forward the ones that they want? Or should we rather put them behind NATing routers and pray they don't find out how to activate UPnP?
Which one do you personally think will actually work out in a real life scenario?
We're talking about at device they most likely designed for home users with little to no networking knowledge, and even less knowledge of IPv6. Hell, IPv6 still baffles some people who allegedly understood v4...
The main obstacle here is most likely that this firewall appliance will literally have to be sitting between the devices and whatever connection to the internet the user may have. This alone is a headache and a half, considering the various ways people connect to the internet (and how poorly some of those hodgepodge connection thingamajigs support anything but Windows PCs) and considering that the devices themselves will probably not like being firewalled and will try to get around it.
What they're trying to sell here is a firewall/router appliance that even specialized companies like Cisco can't get right, AND a packet inspection application on top of that (which has to have a secure way of getting relevant updates constantly) AND all of that in a way that allows sensible traffic speeds.
And all that for a price that doesn't make the average consumer go blind.
Yes. Of course that is a huge part of it. Nerd-cred, knowing more about some show that some other nerd, is a pretty big issue here. Who doesn't want to be the wise sage for something his circle of friends considers relevant?
And before you belittle and patronize those that do, don't try to tell me you don't have some kind of pet topic that you try to know more about than anyone else, even though it's neither marketable nor will ever make you a dime, simply because it makes you look knowledgeable? It's the same with the guy at the sports bar that knows all the football results back to times immemorial.
As I pointed out, the manufacturer can feature not connecting to the internet as a security and reliability feature and charge more for it.
Oh yes. Tell me, how well did that work for manufacturers of inkjet printers that allowed refilling who in turn had to sell the printers for their real cost+markup instead of at a loss?
Slashdot Mirror
It's called a clean room class 1 according to ISO 14644-1.
Move in there.
Yes, but the makers of such appliances have a big interest in making them, because they can sell that additional information about you. This in turn allows them to offer their always-online toasters cheaper, and given that people are miserly bastards this will drive the makers of non-internet toasters out of the market because these things would have to sell for more and people don't give a fuck about privacy as long as cheap and gimmegimme. For reference, see Facebook.
Why do you think that it would suddenly matter what you, the consumer, want? What matters is what the maker of the product wants.
Warranty becomes pretty interesting once you broke the WiFi antenna to disconnect it and then find out that with a broken WiFi system the toaster won't finish booting properly, telling you to return it.
Neither do I. But I do need a fridge, a dishwasher, a washing machine...
One could argue that you can live your life without any of those machines, but face it: Most people would rather bite the bullet of connecting them to the internet before even pondering doing without.
Nope. What I say is that watching who was offered as a "choice", how the election was done, how people reacted before and after to the candidates and how people act now after the results, I can't say that this species should now, or ever, be allowed to contaminate any other planet. It's bad enough that it infests this one.
After the 2016 election, I'm more inclined to say we better stay on this rock. Let's contain the disease while we can.
What's subjective about calling the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient being that nobody ever saw "extraordinary"? The opposite would be ordinary, is that what you'd consider something like this? If so, I'd really want to hear what would be extraordinary for you if omniscient, omnipotent, transcending space and time and world creation isn't enough to be called "extraordinary".
And yes, not having EVER encountered something IS a pretty good framework to define something as "extraordinary". I'd again really, really like to hear your definition of it.
As for your "but the people with imaginary friends is bigger" argument: Reality is not a matter of consensus. It's a matter of what is. Else I am pretty sure it would be easy to find enough people to wish gravity out of existence, but guess what: No matter how many people want to float on air, it ain't gonna happen. Consensus and majorities are not a valid way to determine what is. It's a good way to determine what we as a collective want, but reality doesn't give a fuck about that.
Testing is necessary, but don't test subset A and tell everyone up front that you'll test subset A. Same as in school, what did you learn when your teacher told you that you're going to get tested about the stuff on pages 80-110? You learned the stuff on pages 80-110. If it was on page 79 or 111, it didn't even cross your mind to learn any of that. Because it would literally be useless knowledge.
Should you have learned it? Yes, of course. Because pages 60-80 explained just what 80-110 required you to know to understand it. But you didn't, you learned 80-110, didn't understand it and just crammed it into your head for the test, swiftly followed by blissful forgetting right after the test was over.
With testing like this, it's no wonder that we don't get anywhere. In school and technology. We have to make sure that tests cover the whole spectrum of what's required. And if it's impossible to test it all for some reason, make sure that your test subject doesn't know what part you'll want from it and thus HAS to be prepared for everything.
The article is indeed worth a read. I couldn't imagine a maker of hardware saying today "Yeah, I wrote that cheating routine myself, that way we come out on top every time a comparison is run, pretty clever, eh?"
They may THINK that, but I doubt they'd have the chutzpah to just throw that in your face.
If the test can be gamed, it sucks. Period.
What you say here is the equivalent of Software having bugs isn't the problem, it's all the malware's fault if you get infected. Yes, the malware abuses those faults, but the faults enable it in the first place.
If you have standardized tests, people will do what's necessary to perform well on those standardized tests and ignore anything else. What happened when schools got them? Every teacher began teaching to the test, i.e. what will be asked at this test, everything else was simply swept under the rug. Why? Because it won't be tested, so it's superfluous. Actually harmful, because it will take up valuable time and brain capacity for no gain.
No gain at the test, that is.
Same here. Your test will perform X, so we'll do good at X. And on nothing else.
There's also that problem that customers want cheap TVs that have great features, and that is pretty much the exact opposite of power conservation. You cannot build cheap TVs that have all sorts of features, great resolution, high contrast, fast switching and so on, and don't consume much power.
Now take a wild guess which of the three things "cheap", "performance" and "compliance" gets thrown out the window? Hint: You can't fire cheap, because that's what both the maker and the customer wants. You can't cut performance, because the user would eventually notice and a huge stink ensues on various test sites on the internet. And compliance is something that gets tested once and nobody really gives a fuck about it.
So pick the one that you could do without.
Lemme guess: They're the only electric company that could service you?
At some point it will be cheaper to get cheap mobile internet than to buy an appliance that doesn't require it.
Ok, you actually found the difference.
Everything else you could ask from a union you can get there. Lawyers for work related disputes, information about your rights towards your employer, wage negotiations...
But it's one more security feature!
The "magical" part of IPv6 in this regard is that your provider will assign you a sizable amount of addresses instead of one, taking away the necessity of NATing and making it "so much easier" to have your crap hooked to the internet directly. People will gladly take that offer, since a lot more of the things they have will "just work" now that they can also act as servers (which required you to configure your router to forward the traffic).
And that also means that people are much more prone to plugging their network together in a wrong way. Because it will work if you plug your IoT device in front of the firewall. Actually, my guess is that it would work a lot "better"...
Sorry, the internet is too important to rely on mass ADHD.
NAT is as close as the average consumer gets these days to something that could resemble something like a firewall.
Yes, this can all be done quickly with a simple firewall rule. You want to teach the masses out there that think TCP might be the Chinese secret service what ports are and how to properly configure a router to forward the ones that they want? Or should we rather put them behind NATing routers and pray they don't find out how to activate UPnP?
Which one do you personally think will actually work out in a real life scenario?
We're talking about at device they most likely designed for home users with little to no networking knowledge, and even less knowledge of IPv6. Hell, IPv6 still baffles some people who allegedly understood v4...
The main obstacle here is most likely that this firewall appliance will literally have to be sitting between the devices and whatever connection to the internet the user may have. This alone is a headache and a half, considering the various ways people connect to the internet (and how poorly some of those hodgepodge connection thingamajigs support anything but Windows PCs) and considering that the devices themselves will probably not like being firewalled and will try to get around it.
What they're trying to sell here is a firewall/router appliance that even specialized companies like Cisco can't get right, AND a packet inspection application on top of that (which has to have a secure way of getting relevant updates constantly) AND all of that in a way that allows sensible traffic speeds.
And all that for a price that doesn't make the average consumer go blind.
Yes. Of course that is a huge part of it. Nerd-cred, knowing more about some show that some other nerd, is a pretty big issue here. Who doesn't want to be the wise sage for something his circle of friends considers relevant?
And before you belittle and patronize those that do, don't try to tell me you don't have some kind of pet topic that you try to know more about than anyone else, even though it's neither marketable nor will ever make you a dime, simply because it makes you look knowledgeable? It's the same with the guy at the sports bar that knows all the football results back to times immemorial.
Hard to do when you can't get the movies in the way you liked them anymore, isn't it?
But that's exactly what happens. People have a concept of certain characters, later movies change what they're like and people feel hurt by it.
Well, then do the second part of my statement: Get rid of it and tell us how much better off you're now.
You should know the Arbeiterkammer before you facepalm. They are basically what unions are in other countries.
As I pointed out, the manufacturer can feature not connecting to the internet as a security and reliability feature and charge more for it.
Oh yes. Tell me, how well did that work for manufacturers of inkjet printers that allowed refilling who in turn had to sell the printers for their real cost+markup instead of at a loss?