Privacy issues and all that aside because what happens when you change jobs? Who owns it?
Are you arguing or agreeing with me. As I said the only criteria is that *you* are in control. Before you talk about 1984 stuff it's worth remembering just how incredibly basic these devices are, how simple they are to modify, how universal their design is, and how short range this is.
Even if you had one of these in your hand right now, you DO have far bigger concerns.
I'm talking about the ID in the hand, on an ID in the hand article. Are people being compensated for putting this ID in at least? I couldn't see a business legally being able to make you get a penis peiracing as a requirement to hold a job, how are they compelling people to be injected with these things?
You are most definitely not commenting on the article or summary you think you're commenting on. But to answer your question very directly: No the person did not get compensated, he actually paid for it out of his own money prompted by nothing other than alcohol, drunk friends, and las vegas.
Not sure if you need to RTFA, RTFS or just RTF Headline;-)
You need to separate features from bugs. Longer spans do not resolve these issues, as longer spans introduce more opportunity to scope creep in additional changes.
Windows 10 updates have not broken anything fundamental compared to previous updates. Windows 10 updates have however had crippling bugs due to MS's absolute $hithouse quality control practices. In fact many of the crippling bugs that have appeared have made it through multiple insider rounds and complaints again showing that the problems experienced are far far deeper than update cadence.
The problem isn't how often updates come. It's MS needing to fundamentally change what they are doing.
You a risk denier, unlike everybody else in the picture, Including Intel.
"Risk denier". Okay I take it back. It's not that you don't understand risk mitigation, you don't understand risk or the risk assessment process at all.
But for future reference: Someone who has done a risk assessment and deems there to be no problem with the current practices is not a "denier" they are deemed to have "accepted" risk.
But hey, enjoy your Linux comfort blanket. I hope for your sake that you never get the year of Linux on Desktop, or you may just find out how very wrong you are about the role OSes play in vulnerabilities. Right now I'll leave you to your blissful ignorance.
An implanted chip? If the security system goes down
In the scale of security failures the component of corporate security that typically has the highest reliability is the system itself. The most frequent failure is human: Failure to question anything out of place.
It's like me sitting here right now typing this from work realising my swipe card is in the other building, but it took this conversation to realise it despite talking to hundreds of people today all of whom were trained to question anyone not displaying their ID.
You are right though, in terms of ultimate security this falls short, but very few companies actually do that level of security. Most of them are more concerned with who opens and closes doors rather than who actually goes through the doors.
The big companies shows so much disregards to privacy that it is sickening.
And yet this article is based on the actions of people in a country where that privacy is legally protected. It's no surprise to see the largely American Slashdot audience so at odds with the people in the article.
NFC chips functionally have not changed. There's nothing to obsolete.
Plus, look at IoT vendor reputation as a whole.
The IoT vendor reputation is a bit different when providing business products as they have for a good 20 years before the acronym IoT started describing their model. This isn't some cheap Chinese made internet connected flusher on your toilet.
We already have biometrics.
Biometrics are a completely different part of the security equation, and despite ID cards (along with these chips) being fundamentally insecure they have a major advantage over biometrics, they can be altered if compromised.
This is a massive security fail. It's just an EEPROM and unique ID combo. Easy to clone.
You've just described EVERY ID card from every company. They aren't trying to enhance security, they are just phasing out the process of carying around a badge.
We've accepted selling ourself into indentured servitude for long enough that it's expected already - this is just one more example.
Work demanding to know your cell phone number, you having to wear a step tracker and heart rate monitor to get full insurance benefits, having to give HR your username/password to any social networking sites you use, fingerprint and eye scanners, scanning your network drives and reporting the content when you VPN in... It should all have been protested a long time ago. But it's the proverbial lobster pot.
Ironically enough the people who are voluntarily chipping themselves for their employer are also in countries where they are legally protected from the behaviours you describe. It is the lobster pot in the USA almost exclusively, though not for lack of trying.
I don't doubt that this isn't going on right now, but.. can you provide examples of such behavior?
His examples unfortunately are common in America and widely practiced. My own company (I won't say which here other than being in the top 20 of the Fortune list) impliments this practice... in America. They have tried slowly introducing some of these practices in Europe as well only to have their efforts blocked by various legal and union (not the American style union) challenges.
yeah, in the recent past he seems to have gone the way of a lot of our political leaders... if you're not with me, your wrong.
Just because political leaders use the tactic too doesn't make them the same. The key difference is political leaders use their affirmation as being self supporting. Bill Nye while appealing to authority will often have actual logic and science backing him up.
No it's not. Not unless you also carry large amounts of Phosphorus White in that bag with you. Or your laptop was made by the lowest bidder in China and includes no thermal overload protection. It's not the late 90s anymore.
With Wayland, and Mir, was anyone really going "OMG, X Windows sucks so bad.
Yes they were.
The "Who asked for this?" question. systemd having a full network stack and various other huge features instead of just being a better init script.
People have asked for this. You may not have, but that doesn't change this. Actually specific the network stack no people didn't but implementing one turned out to be the most straight forward to to give people what they were asking for.
I really hate being able to stream a graphics shell over ssh on a system that was fast enough to use on a 486."
Go your hardest. This is something that 99.9% of desktop users find a strange requirement. So let me turn your question on itself: "Who asked for this?" I don't do it so it seems like a silly requirement to include for the system that just renders a GUI.
With Windows 8 Metro, or the Ribbon interface, or any of the other Microsoft failures...
Metro? Yes/No. The demand was there. People were asking for small touch screen based computing. The Metro was a misstep. As for your Ribbon interface and your assertion that it was a "Microsoft Failure" first you need to prove that it was. Since the introduction of the Ribbon computers would on the whole appear to have become more accessible. Certainly among UI researchers it was heralded as a great success, and that has led to the adoption of the interface by many other companies too.
Do users need to explicitly ask that computers be easy to use? You sound like you're speaking from the privilaged position of a power user (or day I say: expert).
Or, was it just some middle or upper manager type trying to justify his existence by pushing something his intuition told him would be "the future" with no science and user studies to back it up?
Another silly assertion given the actual R&D that MS used in the development of the interfaces. The interfaces weren't built out of nothing, they were built through the examination of the way people interact with machines. Even the Metro UI had some science behind it (information density relative to current mouse position), but the misstep there was that humans tend not to process relative to the mouse cursor but rather like someone would read a book.
Are people DEMANDING lootboxes? Are people demanding DRM?
Yes, shareholders.
Are people demanding phones with shit battery life that are thinner and thinner and easier to bend? Or "notches" in their screens instead of full screens?
Causality fail. People wanted to do more with their phones. The battery was a victim of that. If you feel like doing less with your phone enable ultra low power mode. My smartphone has a battery of approximately 2 weeks with that mode enabled. Thinner phones? Yes people directly wanted that. The thinner phones were the best selling devices. Incidentally phones stopped getting thinner 3 years ago. Easier to bend, I was going to say that's a causality fail, but really that's just a stupid comment. Phones don't bend, one specific model with a weakness in the case due to the relative position of the button cutouts bent. As for notches, yes a causality fail. Again the best and most popular phones on the market were those with the smallest bezels. The Market spoke. People wanted this stuff.
Where do these anti-features come from? I don't know.
That much is clear. The fact of the matter is that they don't get generated from the ether
Indeed windows 7 to 8 proved 3 years is too soon to work out bugs and stupidity of UI developers.
Yet recent changes have proved that smaller incremental changes are far better than dumping a new UI on users every 3 years. You've fallen into the trap of applying a worst case scenario to a situation that isn't occuring. If anything the old big update with long gaps process is something we should be getting away from.
go shoot the person who said we want a new version of Windows every year. We do not.
What do you mean by version? Do we want a new version of Windows with new APIs, dramatically different underlying stacks, completely changed interfaces? No. Do we want to wait 5 years for minor incremental changes and improvments? Also no.
"New Version" of Windows is not the same thing that it has always been.
No we shouldn't, because there's a clear philosophical difference.
Operating Systems are not a democracy. They are a Dictatorship. Like all dictators it's at least in the partial interest for the dictator to keep some of their subjects (users) placid and occasionally even outright happy, but the reality is you can't please everyone, and dictators have their own priorities too.
What separates the dictatorship of Apple and Microsoft, from the Dictatorship of Linux is that all subjects under the rule of Linux are free to form their own new country under their own new management whenever they chose.
What has the adoption of systemd gotten us? New distributions. Don't like systemd you're free to continue not using it. Don't like systemd but do like the base distribution, you're free to start a group and modify it, e.g. Devuan vs Debian.
if you look at the migration off XP and Win7 it's clear that most users don't want OS updates twice a year but more like twice a decade.
I disagree with this. Just because users do something doesn't mean that users don't want something else. Compare the updates from Windows to those of MacOS. Compare the costs of migration from a large step to incremental changes. Compare the actual costs (Windows 7 cost money). Compare the history (Windows updates in the past came at the cost of requiring new hardware).
I don't think users *want* OS updates twice a decade. I think they were forced into that position. Now assuming that MS actually some day could get it's QA/QC shit together and not release updates that brick computers or delete files, why would users specifically *want* to wait for years at a time to get subtle improvements in their systems? There have been actual incremental improvements (in amongst the shoveld down out throats shit) in every successive Windows 10 update, and many have been quite welcomed. I'm not sure there's any benefit for users to store all these changes together only to the bottom of a cliff face shaped learning curve every few years when all the changes come through at once.
Slashdot Mirror
Privacy issues and all that aside because what happens when you change jobs? Who owns it?
Are you arguing or agreeing with me. As I said the only criteria is that *you* are in control. Before you talk about 1984 stuff it's worth remembering just how incredibly basic these devices are, how simple they are to modify, how universal their design is, and how short range this is.
Even if you had one of these in your hand right now, you DO have far bigger concerns.
I'm talking about the ID in the hand, on an ID in the hand article. Are people being compensated for putting this ID in at least? I couldn't see a business legally being able to make you get a penis peiracing as a requirement to hold a job, how are they compelling people to be injected with these things?
You are most definitely not commenting on the article or summary you think you're commenting on. But to answer your question very directly: No the person did not get compensated, he actually paid for it out of his own money prompted by nothing other than alcohol, drunk friends, and las vegas.
Not sure if you need to RTFA, RTFS or just RTF Headline ;-)
You need to separate features from bugs. Longer spans do not resolve these issues, as longer spans introduce more opportunity to scope creep in additional changes.
Windows 10 updates have not broken anything fundamental compared to previous updates. Windows 10 updates have however had crippling bugs due to MS's absolute $hithouse quality control practices. In fact many of the crippling bugs that have appeared have made it through multiple insider rounds and complaints again showing that the problems experienced are far far deeper than update cadence.
The problem isn't how often updates come. It's MS needing to fundamentally change what they are doing.
You a risk denier, unlike everybody else in the picture, Including Intel.
"Risk denier". Okay I take it back. It's not that you don't understand risk mitigation, you don't understand risk or the risk assessment process at all.
But for future reference: Someone who has done a risk assessment and deems there to be no problem with the current practices is not a "denier" they are deemed to have "accepted" risk.
But hey, enjoy your Linux comfort blanket. I hope for your sake that you never get the year of Linux on Desktop, or you may just find out how very wrong you are about the role OSes play in vulnerabilities. Right now I'll leave you to your blissful ignorance.
An implanted chip? If the security system goes down
In the scale of security failures the component of corporate security that typically has the highest reliability is the system itself. The most frequent failure is human: Failure to question anything out of place.
It's like me sitting here right now typing this from work realising my swipe card is in the other building, but it took this conversation to realise it despite talking to hundreds of people today all of whom were trained to question anyone not displaying their ID.
You are right though, in terms of ultimate security this falls short, but very few companies actually do that level of security. Most of them are more concerned with who opens and closes doors rather than who actually goes through the doors.
The big companies shows so much disregards to privacy that it is sickening.
And yet this article is based on the actions of people in a country where that privacy is legally protected. It's no surprise to see the largely American Slashdot audience so at odds with the people in the article.
First, chips are often obsoleted.
NFC chips functionally have not changed. There's nothing to obsolete.
Plus, look at IoT vendor reputation as a whole.
The IoT vendor reputation is a bit different when providing business products as they have for a good 20 years before the acronym IoT started describing their model. This isn't some cheap Chinese made internet connected flusher on your toilet.
We already have biometrics.
Biometrics are a completely different part of the security equation, and despite ID cards (along with these chips) being fundamentally insecure they have a major advantage over biometrics, they can be altered if compromised.
This is a massive security fail. It's just an EEPROM and unique ID combo. Easy to clone.
You've just described EVERY ID card from every company. They aren't trying to enhance security, they are just phasing out the process of carying around a badge.
demand lifetime healthcare if they want to implant one
You don't have this already? What kind of a country do you live in?
We've accepted selling ourself into indentured servitude for long enough that it's expected already - this is just one more example.
Work demanding to know your cell phone number, you having to wear a step tracker and heart rate monitor to get full insurance benefits, having to give HR your username/password to any social networking sites you use, fingerprint and eye scanners, scanning your network drives and reporting the content when you VPN in...
It should all have been protested a long time ago. But it's the proverbial lobster pot.
Ironically enough the people who are voluntarily chipping themselves for their employer are also in countries where they are legally protected from the behaviours you describe. It is the lobster pot in the USA almost exclusively, though not for lack of trying.
I don't doubt that this isn't going on right now, but .. can you provide examples of such behavior?
His examples unfortunately are common in America and widely practiced. My own company (I won't say which here other than being in the top 20 of the Fortune list) impliments this practice ... in America. They have tried slowly introducing some of these practices in Europe as well only to have their efforts blocked by various legal and union (not the American style union) challenges.
Especially if it's for work.
Why especially if it's for work? The criteria should not be if it's for work or not, it should be that *you* are in control of its data.
How is it legal for a company to compel employees to modify their bodies?
That makes two of us. I for example don't understand how your brain worked to produce that though in response to this article.
Kids nowadays are nuts.
Yeah but they can hide it. It could be worse, they could come home with a tattoo.
yeah, in the recent past he seems to have gone the way of a lot of our political leaders... if you're not with me, your wrong.
Just because political leaders use the tactic too doesn't make them the same. The key difference is political leaders use their affirmation as being self supporting. Bill Nye while appealing to authority will often have actual logic and science backing him up.
Often time computers set up in these situations are not used often
There is nothing more embarrassing than loading up your laptop...
Fire risk anyone?
No it's not. Not unless you also carry large amounts of Phosphorus White in that bag with you. Or your laptop was made by the lowest bidder in China and includes no thermal overload protection. It's not the late 90s anymore.
Just another comment of yours showing that you have no understanding of risk mittigation.
With Wayland, and Mir, was anyone really going "OMG, X Windows sucks so bad.
Yes they were.
The "Who asked for this?" question. systemd having a full network stack and various other huge features instead of just being a better init script.
People have asked for this. You may not have, but that doesn't change this. Actually specific the network stack no people didn't but implementing one turned out to be the most straight forward to to give people what they were asking for.
I really hate being able to stream a graphics shell over ssh on a system that was fast enough to use on a 486."
Go your hardest. This is something that 99.9% of desktop users find a strange requirement. So let me turn your question on itself: "Who asked for this?" I don't do it so it seems like a silly requirement to include for the system that just renders a GUI.
With Windows 8 Metro, or the Ribbon interface, or any of the other Microsoft failures...
Metro? Yes/No. The demand was there. People were asking for small touch screen based computing. The Metro was a misstep. As for your Ribbon interface and your assertion that it was a "Microsoft Failure" first you need to prove that it was. Since the introduction of the Ribbon computers would on the whole appear to have become more accessible. Certainly among UI researchers it was heralded as a great success, and that has led to the adoption of the interface by many other companies too.
Do users need to explicitly ask that computers be easy to use? You sound like you're speaking from the privilaged position of a power user (or day I say: expert).
Or, was it just some middle or upper manager type trying to justify his existence by pushing something his intuition told him would be "the future" with no science and user studies to back it up?
Another silly assertion given the actual R&D that MS used in the development of the interfaces. The interfaces weren't built out of nothing, they were built through the examination of the way people interact with machines. Even the Metro UI had some science behind it (information density relative to current mouse position), but the misstep there was that humans tend not to process relative to the mouse cursor but rather like someone would read a book.
Are people DEMANDING lootboxes? Are people demanding DRM?
Yes, shareholders.
Are people demanding phones with shit battery life that are thinner and thinner and easier to bend? Or "notches" in their screens instead of full screens?
Causality fail. People wanted to do more with their phones. The battery was a victim of that. If you feel like doing less with your phone enable ultra low power mode. My smartphone has a battery of approximately 2 weeks with that mode enabled. Thinner phones? Yes people directly wanted that. The thinner phones were the best selling devices. Incidentally phones stopped getting thinner 3 years ago. Easier to bend, I was going to say that's a causality fail, but really that's just a stupid comment. Phones don't bend, one specific model with a weakness in the case due to the relative position of the button cutouts bent. As for notches, yes a causality fail. Again the best and most popular phones on the market were those with the smallest bezels. The Market spoke. People wanted this stuff.
Where do these anti-features come from? I don't know.
That much is clear. The fact of the matter is that they don't get generated from the ether
Indeed windows 7 to 8 proved 3 years is too soon to work out bugs and stupidity of UI developers.
Yet recent changes have proved that smaller incremental changes are far better than dumping a new UI on users every 3 years. You've fallen into the trap of applying a worst case scenario to a situation that isn't occuring. If anything the old big update with long gaps process is something we should be getting away from.
go shoot the person who said we want a new version of Windows every year. We do not.
What do you mean by version?
Do we want a new version of Windows with new APIs, dramatically different underlying stacks, completely changed interfaces? No.
Do we want to wait 5 years for minor incremental changes and improvments? Also no.
"New Version" of Windows is not the same thing that it has always been.
That would be embarrasing given how you can control this to happen outside of your event time.
No we shouldn't, because there's a clear philosophical difference.
Operating Systems are not a democracy. They are a Dictatorship. Like all dictators it's at least in the partial interest for the dictator to keep some of their subjects (users) placid and occasionally even outright happy, but the reality is you can't please everyone, and dictators have their own priorities too.
What separates the dictatorship of Apple and Microsoft, from the Dictatorship of Linux is that all subjects under the rule of Linux are free to form their own new country under their own new management whenever they chose.
What has the adoption of systemd gotten us? New distributions. Don't like systemd you're free to continue not using it. Don't like systemd but do like the base distribution, you're free to start a group and modify it, e.g. Devuan vs Debian.
if you look at the migration off XP and Win7 it's clear that most users don't want OS updates twice a year but more like twice a decade.
I disagree with this. Just because users do something doesn't mean that users don't want something else. Compare the updates from Windows to those of MacOS. Compare the costs of migration from a large step to incremental changes. Compare the actual costs (Windows 7 cost money). Compare the history (Windows updates in the past came at the cost of requiring new hardware).
I don't think users *want* OS updates twice a decade. I think they were forced into that position. Now assuming that MS actually some day could get it's QA/QC shit together and not release updates that brick computers or delete files, why would users specifically *want* to wait for years at a time to get subtle improvements in their systems? There have been actual incremental improvements (in amongst the shoveld down out throats shit) in every successive Windows 10 update, and many have been quite welcomed. I'm not sure there's any benefit for users to store all these changes together only to the bottom of a cliff face shaped learning curve every few years when all the changes come through at once.
This is a great idea. I think we should tell Microsoft. They can do something crazy like integrate Internet Explorer into the underlying OS.
As with all older electronics, the act of turning it off could be what killed it.