Where I live, they change the password from the default one during the setup process on the cable modems. Annoyingly, changing the network name isn't as automatic and so you've got a lot of networks with the same name, different password in my area.
You're forgetting the possibility that such problems might result in the IoT ending up being essentially a fad--with people opting to simply not have anything important hooked up to the IoT once the problems with securing it become sufficiently known and left unfixed. You might have a few things still connected,
maybe a few exterior lights hooked up so you could switch them on remotely, but beyond that? Nope.
Under the proposed rules, this would make it the fault of whomever ensured that no matter what the user did, their things would be insecure. A good way to encourage them to think about it is to have it be a liability risk--make the potential costs serious enough, and you'll have their legal department insisting.
I suggest starting with your legislator(s) to make it so security is not something they can get freed from liability for by having the EULA say it's your problem not theirs if they screw up. (Yes, there's things you cannot sign away in a contract, nor agree to do in a contract. We're unlikely to see much improvement overall in security until no party can possibly shift liability away.)
It sounds like you've never met the particular flavor of phone tree hell that is the USPS's service number. It hangs up on you, no explanation, no nothing, on certain of the routes, not even a "Go visit your local post office." You just select an option and, with no particular rhyme or reason other than certain options being pretty consistent in doing this, it'll just hang up on you. While I've repeatedly managed to stumble across how to reach a human? About the only advice I can give on how to pull that off is that screaming HUMAN at the phone tree is going to be necessary, but it also is not reliably. No particular observed pattern here.
Oh, and it appears that sometimes the entire call center will just shut down for the night, not bothering to do things like make sure nobody's still on hold or turn off hold with a "Awww, you've been waiting for a human for hours? Well, you're not getting one tonight!" notice, leaving you just sitting and being reassured by the on-hold recording that they'll get to your call. Eventually.
The worst part is that, really, as far as I can tell, the sole reason you would need to call the number instead of doing it online is because you need a human...
Yeah, this is a situation where while it might get sent out by the no-reply address, it should be simple enough to code the bot to have a reply-to address when it's sending out a "Contact us please" notice--I'd think that whom to contact would be one of the blanks in the form letter, really, so not only will the email go to the correct place when you click reply, but it'll be in the body of the email too, possibly with a phone number and hours if calling will be an option.
It generally isn't difficult to find the general contact information for a business--there's almost always a Contact Us page on their website, and you can find a link either in the header or footer of their home page, if not on every page. It's only particularly difficult to get this info if the company's a fly-by-night affair. (Now, finding the contact info for the people you actually need can be a bit of a trick, but usually you can go with something genetic in the basic area you need and if you guessed wrong they'll probably be able to direct you to where you need to be. I've done this song-and-dance when I had to deal with a company where my problem was I'd very much like to pay them but their site wouldn't let me.)
I've been at a uni where all the comps were terminals that when you logged in loaded up a fresh image of Windows--in fact, they switched to doing things that way while I was there.
From the first day I got access to the system, it was wanting updates, and when I left it still was.
One thing hasn't changed, the dumbass idiots who use computers. 95% of them will click "NO" every time Windows wants to download a security update, meaning their Wal-Mart brand PCs won't get updated, and thus making them more prone to spread infections elsewhere.
Microsoft has an annoying habit of having interesting ideas of what does and does not constitute a security update which do not match what everybody outside of Microsoft might consider such, which has as its end result being that users develop a (healthy) distrust. Look at how Win10 got released...and oh, yeah, if you didn't go into your settings, it'd 'helpfully' use your bandwidth to help spread Win10.
The last is not necessarily a bad thing with Win10's update behavior being what it is. The problem is that, in order to 'fix' the 'problem' of users not installing security updates, they've gone and made all updates install themselves and not even make sure you get proper warning before rebooting the system to install. Not only that, but I suspect the current regime at Microsoft would happily insist that all of those were 'legitimate security updates' if that lets them get around the pesky issue of having to ask users' permission, especially when one of the 'security holes' fixed is users wanting privacy.
Awww, this is so cute! You're talking a lot about ideal circumstances--such as when the diagnosis is relatively soon after onset. One of the major problems with getting a lot of the conditions where weight gain is a symptom diagnosed is that doctors can be real fucking dicks about listening to the patient, and with most of these kinds of conditions the amount of weight gained is a function of time--hormones tell your body to do X, and it will keep doing X until the hormone levels drop below a given threshold. (Or rise above, depending on which hormone and what function we're talking about.)
There's also a lot of things involved here that we're outright just now figuring out--the research couldn't even begin until we could start investigating function on a molecular level, and a lot of what we thought we knew is turning out to be not actually true. For one, we accidentally got proof that intestinal flora plays a significant role in how much fat you store...and did so recently enough that I'd be pretty impressed if anybody's managed to get to publication research on how to do that on purpose instead of by accident.
That said? It should tell you something that doctors don't check out weight gain early because of the possibility it's a tumor. That's actually in many ways the nicest thing to have going wrong. Cancer can be cured. The other things...currently are generally expected to be permanent.
Also, exercise has been found by a recent study to not actually be important--the important part is to eat appropriately for your activity level and needs, and be aware that if you're not losing weight when you've cut calories significantly? It's time to go to the doctor.
Possibly, admittedly, it may be time to find a new doctor if your current one doesn't grasp that no, really, this should be concerning. Once you've cut calories back, if you're not losing weight after a while and especially if you're still gaining weight? Well, the problems can range from "Congrats, you actually have a dietary intolerance" to "Oh, that's not fat, that's a tumor." Note that one end of this range you also want to identify as early and quickly as possible...and that "Everything normal, you just need to try harder (somehow)" is not on this list.
Yeah, part of why I tend to be leery of the body-positive movement is that its name seems more euphemistic than anything else--it doesn't talk about finding the right place anywhere as much as "Don't show me people who are thin when it makes me sad I'm not so thin!" I'd like an actual body-positive movement which includes encouraging people with dysmorphic disorders--which would include eating disorders--to get help.
The problem is that unless you're literally going out and culling only the elderly, most of the time you absolutely need to check what the age distribution of the population is before you make any calls on if a reduction in population is needed in any species--what matters when it comes to calculating the long-term stability of a population is the percent that's of reproductive age. (If you're just getting rid of individuals too old to reproduce, at least the population has a better chance of recovering if you wipe out too many so your math doesn't need to be quite so careful.)
Two problems here. First off, the myth of overpopulation has long overstayed its welcome, despite its lovely racist history. (China's not the only place with a known record of...less than ethical methods being used for population control. For example, Mexico's had problems with women getting sterilized under conditions were consent was not possible.) The end result is that the population is not that likely to stabilize at a good level--it will crash, and crash hard. Secondly, the speed of automation isn't sufficient to ensure that the population will remain above modern civilization's bus factor--automation can certainly lessen the number of people outright required to maintain the infrastructure necessary, but short of a sudden breakthrough we're probably doomed.
Given Facebook's market, I suspect you'd have problems as a result unless you combined it with sufficient idiot-proofing that you have to work to do this kind of thing.
There's nothing that'd keep you from having both going on at once--especially since once you've established that there are Ghostbusters teams elsewhere, you would lose a lot of the problems with getting the cast back together for a sequel with no need to actually write out a character. They're just busy elsewhere, doing other things.
Really? I'd expect testing the translucency of a lens to actually be a relatively simple exercise in spectroscopy, and the only thing you'd really need to do is find the right type of spectrograph. First check your light source to make sure it produces UV light, then do a second reading after sliding the glasses into place as a filter--and I'd actually be rather surprised if people haven't recycled paper glasses as a filter/lens source in science, since they're light, inexpensive, and sometimes distinctly easier to find.
There's no possible way for you to confirm yourself before buying, when you're buying online. The problem here is that Amazon should have exercised more caution earlier--it should be beyond obviously simple here to refuse to list safety equipment without getting its claims verified & have in the contracts penalties for any seller who might let their standards...relax once they've gotten their listing OK. (Given the nature of Amazon, I'd suggest that there should be a financial penalty, and the sum that Amazon gets must be put in escrow before the listing goes live.)
I would think it generally reasonable to expect you to know if you're trying to contact a teapot. This would also effectively improve the security on IoT teapots to above any other thing on the IoT because you'd have to figure out if it's really a teapot or is lying to you.
"I'm a teapot" for such errors has being very great benefit of ensuring that such individuals will be kept busy trying to figure out why their program is talking to an actual teapot. People who will know this is a non sequitur will understand that whatever went wrong, it went quite horribly wrong.
It also seems like actually a pretty useful error code to implement for use as a fallback for when the problem is roughly "Request was nonsense," on the general theory that the person should know if, in fact, the machine in question is a teapot or at all likely to be a teapot...
Don't forget that not putting much if any effort into providing the things which they value is a form of bias against them, since you're sending a definite message about how you feel about their values...and that is "You're wrong to want these things."
I'm not interested in working for a company that is openly looking to favor groups I do belong to. I like being able to trust that when I'm told I did a good job, it's actually true.
They tried that with the Ghostbusters reboot and it failed. As expected.
Being a reboot where all they did was flip the genders around is the main reason why I not didn't see it but why I also wanted that travesty to fail. Had it been a sequel featuring the daughters of the original Ghostbusters I could have gotten behind it but a remake where they're all just women and where they casted a bunch of unfunny ones at that was just a disaster waiting to happen.
My problem was that I wouldn't have been particularly interested no matter which women they'd cast. They lost me pretty much immediately when they thought that the line to sell that clunker was 'Same movie, but with the team being chicks!"--if I want to see the Ghostbusters, for less than the price of a movie ticket I can get the original on DVD. Plus, I'd not be left with the nasty feeling that I'd rewarded Hollywood for treating women as cheap, lazy gimmicks.
The movie I wanted and would have paid to see? Something along the lines of 'daughters of the original Ghostbusters' would definitely be it.
Slashdot Mirror
Where I live, they change the password from the default one during the setup process on the cable modems. Annoyingly, changing the network name isn't as automatic and so you've got a lot of networks with the same name, different password in my area.
You're forgetting the possibility that such problems might result in the IoT ending up being essentially a fad--with people opting to simply not have anything important hooked up to the IoT once the problems with securing it become sufficiently known and left unfixed. You might have a few things still connected, maybe a few exterior lights hooked up so you could switch them on remotely, but beyond that? Nope.
Under the proposed rules, this would make it the fault of whomever ensured that no matter what the user did, their things would be insecure. A good way to encourage them to think about it is to have it be a liability risk--make the potential costs serious enough, and you'll have their legal department insisting.
I suggest starting with your legislator(s) to make it so security is not something they can get freed from liability for by having the EULA say it's your problem not theirs if they screw up. (Yes, there's things you cannot sign away in a contract, nor agree to do in a contract. We're unlikely to see much improvement overall in security until no party can possibly shift liability away.)
It sounds like you've never met the particular flavor of phone tree hell that is the USPS's service number. It hangs up on you, no explanation, no nothing, on certain of the routes, not even a "Go visit your local post office." You just select an option and, with no particular rhyme or reason other than certain options being pretty consistent in doing this, it'll just hang up on you. While I've repeatedly managed to stumble across how to reach a human? About the only advice I can give on how to pull that off is that screaming HUMAN at the phone tree is going to be necessary, but it also is not reliably. No particular observed pattern here.
Oh, and it appears that sometimes the entire call center will just shut down for the night, not bothering to do things like make sure nobody's still on hold or turn off hold with a "Awww, you've been waiting for a human for hours? Well, you're not getting one tonight!" notice, leaving you just sitting and being reassured by the on-hold recording that they'll get to your call. Eventually.
The worst part is that, really, as far as I can tell, the sole reason you would need to call the number instead of doing it online is because you need a human...
Yeah, this is a situation where while it might get sent out by the no-reply address, it should be simple enough to code the bot to have a reply-to address when it's sending out a "Contact us please" notice--I'd think that whom to contact would be one of the blanks in the form letter, really, so not only will the email go to the correct place when you click reply, but it'll be in the body of the email too, possibly with a phone number and hours if calling will be an option.
It generally isn't difficult to find the general contact information for a business--there's almost always a Contact Us page on their website, and you can find a link either in the header or footer of their home page, if not on every page. It's only particularly difficult to get this info if the company's a fly-by-night affair. (Now, finding the contact info for the people you actually need can be a bit of a trick, but usually you can go with something genetic in the basic area you need and if you guessed wrong they'll probably be able to direct you to where you need to be. I've done this song-and-dance when I had to deal with a company where my problem was I'd very much like to pay them but their site wouldn't let me.)
I've been at a uni where all the comps were terminals that when you logged in loaded up a fresh image of Windows--in fact, they switched to doing things that way while I was there.
From the first day I got access to the system, it was wanting updates, and when I left it still was.
One thing hasn't changed, the dumbass idiots who use computers. 95% of them will click "NO" every time Windows wants to download a security update, meaning their Wal-Mart brand PCs won't get updated, and thus making them more prone to spread infections elsewhere.
Microsoft has an annoying habit of having interesting ideas of what does and does not constitute a security update which do not match what everybody outside of Microsoft might consider such, which has as its end result being that users develop a (healthy) distrust. Look at how Win10 got released...and oh, yeah, if you didn't go into your settings, it'd 'helpfully' use your bandwidth to help spread Win10.
The last is not necessarily a bad thing with Win10's update behavior being what it is. The problem is that, in order to 'fix' the 'problem' of users not installing security updates, they've gone and made all updates install themselves and not even make sure you get proper warning before rebooting the system to install. Not only that, but I suspect the current regime at Microsoft would happily insist that all of those were 'legitimate security updates' if that lets them get around the pesky issue of having to ask users' permission, especially when one of the 'security holes' fixed is users wanting privacy.
The one computer I own that does run Win10 has Bing blocked.
Awww, this is so cute! You're talking a lot about ideal circumstances--such as when the diagnosis is relatively soon after onset. One of the major problems with getting a lot of the conditions where weight gain is a symptom diagnosed is that doctors can be real fucking dicks about listening to the patient, and with most of these kinds of conditions the amount of weight gained is a function of time--hormones tell your body to do X, and it will keep doing X until the hormone levels drop below a given threshold. (Or rise above, depending on which hormone and what function we're talking about.)
There's also a lot of things involved here that we're outright just now figuring out--the research couldn't even begin until we could start investigating function on a molecular level, and a lot of what we thought we knew is turning out to be not actually true. For one, we accidentally got proof that intestinal flora plays a significant role in how much fat you store...and did so recently enough that I'd be pretty impressed if anybody's managed to get to publication research on how to do that on purpose instead of by accident.
That said? It should tell you something that doctors don't check out weight gain early because of the possibility it's a tumor. That's actually in many ways the nicest thing to have going wrong. Cancer can be cured. The other things...currently are generally expected to be permanent.
Also, exercise has been found by a recent study to not actually be important--the important part is to eat appropriately for your activity level and needs, and be aware that if you're not losing weight when you've cut calories significantly? It's time to go to the doctor.
Possibly, admittedly, it may be time to find a new doctor if your current one doesn't grasp that no, really, this should be concerning. Once you've cut calories back, if you're not losing weight after a while and especially if you're still gaining weight? Well, the problems can range from "Congrats, you actually have a dietary intolerance" to "Oh, that's not fat, that's a tumor." Note that one end of this range you also want to identify as early and quickly as possible...and that "Everything normal, you just need to try harder (somehow)" is not on this list.
Yeah, part of why I tend to be leery of the body-positive movement is that its name seems more euphemistic than anything else--it doesn't talk about finding the right place anywhere as much as "Don't show me people who are thin when it makes me sad I'm not so thin!" I'd like an actual body-positive movement which includes encouraging people with dysmorphic disorders--which would include eating disorders--to get help.
The problem is that unless you're literally going out and culling only the elderly, most of the time you absolutely need to check what the age distribution of the population is before you make any calls on if a reduction in population is needed in any species--what matters when it comes to calculating the long-term stability of a population is the percent that's of reproductive age. (If you're just getting rid of individuals too old to reproduce, at least the population has a better chance of recovering if you wipe out too many so your math doesn't need to be quite so careful.)
Two problems here. First off, the myth of overpopulation has long overstayed its welcome, despite its lovely racist history. (China's not the only place with a known record of...less than ethical methods being used for population control. For example, Mexico's had problems with women getting sterilized under conditions were consent was not possible.) The end result is that the population is not that likely to stabilize at a good level--it will crash, and crash hard. Secondly, the speed of automation isn't sufficient to ensure that the population will remain above modern civilization's bus factor--automation can certainly lessen the number of people outright required to maintain the infrastructure necessary, but short of a sudden breakthrough we're probably doomed.
Given Facebook's market, I suspect you'd have problems as a result unless you combined it with sufficient idiot-proofing that you have to work to do this kind of thing.
There's nothing that'd keep you from having both going on at once--especially since once you've established that there are Ghostbusters teams elsewhere, you would lose a lot of the problems with getting the cast back together for a sequel with no need to actually write out a character. They're just busy elsewhere, doing other things.
Before bitcoin or the small central American country collapses?
Really? I'd expect testing the translucency of a lens to actually be a relatively simple exercise in spectroscopy, and the only thing you'd really need to do is find the right type of spectrograph. First check your light source to make sure it produces UV light, then do a second reading after sliding the glasses into place as a filter--and I'd actually be rather surprised if people haven't recycled paper glasses as a filter/lens source in science, since they're light, inexpensive, and sometimes distinctly easier to find.
There's no possible way for you to confirm yourself before buying, when you're buying online. The problem here is that Amazon should have exercised more caution earlier--it should be beyond obviously simple here to refuse to list safety equipment without getting its claims verified & have in the contracts penalties for any seller who might let their standards...relax once they've gotten their listing OK. (Given the nature of Amazon, I'd suggest that there should be a financial penalty, and the sum that Amazon gets must be put in escrow before the listing goes live.)
I would think it generally reasonable to expect you to know if you're trying to contact a teapot. This would also effectively improve the security on IoT teapots to above any other thing on the IoT because you'd have to figure out if it's really a teapot or is lying to you.
"I'm a teapot" for such errors has being very great benefit of ensuring that such individuals will be kept busy trying to figure out why their program is talking to an actual teapot. People who will know this is a non sequitur will understand that whatever went wrong, it went quite horribly wrong.
It also seems like actually a pretty useful error code to implement for use as a fallback for when the problem is roughly "Request was nonsense," on the general theory that the person should know if, in fact, the machine in question is a teapot or at all likely to be a teapot...
Don't forget that not putting much if any effort into providing the things which they value is a form of bias against them, since you're sending a definite message about how you feel about their values...and that is "You're wrong to want these things."
I'm not interested in working for a company that is openly looking to favor groups I do belong to. I like being able to trust that when I'm told I did a good job, it's actually true.
They tried that with the Ghostbusters reboot and it failed. As expected.
Being a reboot where all they did was flip the genders around is the main reason why I not didn't see it but why I also wanted that travesty to fail. Had it been a sequel featuring the daughters of the original Ghostbusters I could have gotten behind it but a remake where they're all just women and where they casted a bunch of unfunny ones at that was just a disaster waiting to happen.
My problem was that I wouldn't have been particularly interested no matter which women they'd cast. They lost me pretty much immediately when they thought that the line to sell that clunker was 'Same movie, but with the team being chicks!"--if I want to see the Ghostbusters, for less than the price of a movie ticket I can get the original on DVD. Plus, I'd not be left with the nasty feeling that I'd rewarded Hollywood for treating women as cheap, lazy gimmicks.
The movie I wanted and would have paid to see? Something along the lines of 'daughters of the original Ghostbusters' would definitely be it.