If the Volt had been made be almost anyone else I would have had one already; if it were made by VW, for sure I would, but I need a car, not a leaky broken object that shades a spot on the roadside.
It's not fear of an actual attack. It's fear of the economic consequences (public fear) of showing The Interview in a multi-screen theater where other also profitable shows are showing, thus reducing profits for the duration of the run.
It is true that in cases I'm aware of, solar panel users buy at the same rate as everyone else but sell at a rate much higher than wholesale. In other words, they buy at the same rate as everyone else on the grid, but they sell at a price much higher than the other generation facilities such as hydro plants etc.
A good manager can isolate devs from most meetings and will efficiently communicate what needs communicated. Unavoidable meetings should be scheduled for as short a span as possible and must end on time, no exceptions.
Good point however sometimes dirt cheap has association attached to it, so maybe dirt cheap in the realm of medical devices, or again, sometimes, it's considered beneficial to go for quantity and license the IP for a reasonable fee to many vendors on the hope that a small slice of a much bigger pies is better.
If for instance this allowed 3D ultrasound technology drop to a consumer price point maybe the profitable strategy is to license it cheap to everyone and collect a few bucks on the sale of every iPhone 7 or Galaxy 6.
The purpose of copyright is to ensure the public can continue to enjoy the creative work of artists. Probably good not to forget that. Artists (or their agents) getting paid is an implementation detail. That implementation has been working pretty well but it's not the actual goal.
It's common over there to cross a border (leave the country) in order to get your passport stamped and renew your tourist VISA. The practice is so common there are organized "VISA runs" via bus and even services that will do the legwork (exit for you - lol) every few months. It's possible he was just trying to be in Laos legally.
I'm going to get at least one of these. Should be perfect for my house; I'll mount my users area in my NAS and I can browse the WWW or RDP to my EXSi hosted VMs from a nice little inexpensive terminal I can leave in the living room or garage, or both. I'll probably also send 1-2 of these to some family overseas who like to Skype as well.
It's an incredible (subsidized) value. Not a great main system but still useful in many scenarios.
.... you show you have no clue how these "clones" work. They are not defective, the driver on the other hand is....
If you use Windows, there is an excellent chance that you or someone you know who does use Windows executes my driver code the entire time the PC is operational; I have a pretty decent idea of "how it works".
In this case the device was claiming to be a specific device (and was not) and yet did not correctly behave like the device it was claiming to be. You might not consider that defective. I would. The instructions that change the PID to 0 are discarded by a legit device and would be discarded by a correctly implemented clone.
In the old days the DEC "Tulip" was a pretty popular NIC "standard" and was cloned, I guess it was a kinder gentler world then (of course, where is DEC now?) or maybe the clones were better back then.
I don't think this was wise, but I can understand their interest in defending their brand reputation - when a crap clone says it's made by FDTI and then doesn't perform perfectly it's not going to damage the reputation of an unknown chip cloner in a Chinese alley, it's gonna look like FDTI makes crappy chips, which in my experience is not true.
The new driver treats all devices on the VID/PID set in question the same; defective devices respond in a defective manner, correctly behaving devices are fine. Are we now requiring legit device makers to QA their drivers against clone devices? Seriously?
No matter how you wish to claim this is right, they still willingly gained access to somebody else's property and disabled it.
This is supposition at this point unless you have proof. As Ars says:
It's not immediately clear how or why the drivers are acting this way. It's possible that they're somehow detecting counterfeits and deliberately reprogramming them. It's also possible that the drivers are sending the same commands to both good and bad parts, and these commands just happen to cause bad things in counterfeit parts while being harmless on the real ones. We've asked FTDI for comment but received nothing as yet.
....you are simply displaying you do not know the electronics industry at all. All drivers are written for a generic series of devices, any driver not written in this fashion is a waste of developer time and generally quite crappy.
Yes total crap, the cloners shouldn't use it.
So no, these drivers aren't specific to a device made by a specific manufacturer. They are specific to a particular hardware-software interface that anybody can freely imitate that infact became the de-facto standard for USB-Serial interfaces.
Clearly the clone is defective, or it would behave like the real thing. By definition.
This is why we can't have nice things. First of all, drivers aren't unique to one specific device
These drivers are specific to a line of devices produced by a specific manufacturer. They are not generic drivers like the ones Microsoft supplies for a host of generic devices. My humble suggestion would be that if a chip maker doesn't like the way their chip interacts with a competitors driver, they could stop using the other parties driver.
Besides the complete wrongness of freeloading on someone else work, there is the fact that a flaky device that says "Hi, I'm a device from company Zxcv" and that doesn't perform to the normal standards of Zxcv because it's made by someone else is damaging to the brand and potentially costly in other ways.
Not to mention that since the 3rd party part is not part of Zxcv QA process, so you know, things like driver updates might make it malfunction. Like this.
It was not malfunctioning, it happened to use the same driver.
The driver detected a device that claimed to be compatible, but that was not. That sounds like a malfunction, and before you claim it was behaving correctly I would point out that if it was actually behaving like what it claimed to be, the driver wouldn't know the difference. So yes, it was absolutely defective, whether defective by accident or by design.
The device was already malfunctioning - it's now safer in that it's predictable.
Your analogy is badly flawed in that it involves all sorts of trespassing and so on that don't apply. This would be more like a surgical robot refusing to function with non-OEM instruments attached, which is exactly what the most popular line of surgical robots (ISRG) do if they detect non-OEM tools installed, by the way.
Slashdot Mirror
If the Volt had been made be almost anyone else I would have had one already; if it were made by VW, for sure I would, but I need a car, not a leaky broken object that shades a spot on the roadside.
Explained here.
It's not fear of an actual attack. It's fear of the economic consequences (public fear) of showing The Interview in a multi-screen theater where other also profitable shows are showing, thus reducing profits for the duration of the run.
It is true that in cases I'm aware of, solar panel users buy at the same rate as everyone else but sell at a rate much higher than wholesale. In other words, they buy at the same rate as everyone else on the grid, but they sell at a price much higher than the other generation facilities such as hydro plants etc.
You need a man cave.
Get the meetings in check.
A good manager can isolate devs from most meetings and will efficiently communicate what needs communicated. Unavoidable meetings should be scheduled for as short a span as possible and must end on time, no exceptions.
TFA states this is for type 1.
Good point however sometimes dirt cheap has association attached to it, so maybe dirt cheap in the realm of medical devices, or again, sometimes, it's considered beneficial to go for quantity and license the IP for a reasonable fee to many vendors on the hope that a small slice of a much bigger pies is better.
If for instance this allowed 3D ultrasound technology drop to a consumer price point maybe the profitable strategy is to license it cheap to everyone and collect a few bucks on the sale of every iPhone 7 or Galaxy 6.
The purpose of copyright is to ensure the public can continue to enjoy the creative work of artists. Probably good not to forget that. Artists (or their agents) getting paid is an implementation detail. That implementation has been working pretty well but it's not the actual goal.
It's common over there to cross a border (leave the country) in order to get your passport stamped and renew your tourist VISA. The practice is so common there are organized "VISA runs" via bus and even services that will do the legwork (exit for you - lol) every few months. It's possible he was just trying to be in Laos legally.
AGAIN, the clones are not defective and behave like the standard product from a software point of view
Device drivers are software. The clones behave differently, therefore, the statement above is incorrect.
If you have a NAS, who cares, and if you don't have a NAS, why not?
I'm going to get at least one of these. Should be perfect for my house; I'll mount my users area in my NAS and I can browse the WWW or RDP to my EXSi hosted VMs from a nice little inexpensive terminal I can leave in the living room or garage, or both. I'll probably also send 1-2 of these to some family overseas who like to Skype as well.
It's an incredible (subsidized) value. Not a great main system but still useful in many scenarios.
So they have a history of genius life choices then.
Radar
It's possible - I lurked without signing up for close to a decade.
.... you show you have no clue how these "clones" work. They are not defective, the driver on the other hand is....
If you use Windows, there is an excellent chance that you or someone you know who does use Windows executes my driver code the entire time the PC is operational; I have a pretty decent idea of "how it works".
In this case the device was claiming to be a specific device (and was not) and yet did not correctly behave like the device it was claiming to be. You might not consider that defective. I would. The instructions that change the PID to 0 are discarded by a legit device and would be discarded by a correctly implemented clone.
In the old days the DEC "Tulip" was a pretty popular NIC "standard" and was cloned, I guess it was a kinder gentler world then (of course, where is DEC now?) or maybe the clones were better back then.
I don't think this was wise, but I can understand their interest in defending their brand reputation - when a crap clone says it's made by FDTI and then doesn't perform perfectly it's not going to damage the reputation of an unknown chip cloner in a Chinese alley, it's gonna look like FDTI makes crappy chips, which in my experience is not true.
Frequent contributor Bennet you mean?
He is a frequent contributor after all.
The new driver treats all devices on the VID/PID set in question the same; defective devices respond in a defective manner, correctly behaving devices are fine. Are we now requiring legit device makers to QA their drivers against clone devices? Seriously?
No matter how you wish to claim this is right, they still willingly gained access to somebody else's property and disabled it.
This is supposition at this point unless you have proof. As Ars says:
It's not immediately clear how or why the drivers are acting this way. It's possible that they're somehow detecting counterfeits and deliberately reprogramming them. It's also possible that the drivers are sending the same commands to both good and bad parts, and these commands just happen to cause bad things in counterfeit parts while being harmless on the real ones. We've asked FTDI for comment but received nothing as yet.
....you are simply displaying you do not know the electronics industry at all. All drivers are written for a generic series of devices, any driver not written in this fashion is a waste of developer time and generally quite crappy.
Yes total crap, the cloners shouldn't use it.
So no, these drivers aren't specific to a device made by a specific manufacturer. They are specific to a particular hardware-software interface that anybody can freely imitate that infact became the de-facto standard for USB-Serial interfaces.
Clearly the clone is defective, or it would behave like the real thing. By definition.
This is why we can't have nice things. First of all, drivers aren't unique to one specific device
These drivers are specific to a line of devices produced by a specific manufacturer. They are not generic drivers like the ones Microsoft supplies for a host of generic devices. My humble suggestion would be that if a chip maker doesn't like the way their chip interacts with a competitors driver, they could stop using the other parties driver.
Besides the complete wrongness of freeloading on someone else work, there is the fact that a flaky device that says "Hi, I'm a device from company Zxcv" and that doesn't perform to the normal standards of Zxcv because it's made by someone else is damaging to the brand and potentially costly in other ways.
Not to mention that since the 3rd party part is not part of Zxcv QA process, so you know, things like driver updates might make it malfunction. Like this.
Sure, if I want a 30 minute timeout every couple hours along the few routes they service. Hope you didn't want to drive through Yellowstone.
It was not malfunctioning, it happened to use the same driver.
The driver detected a device that claimed to be compatible, but that was not. That sounds like a malfunction, and before you claim it was behaving correctly I would point out that if it was actually behaving like what it claimed to be, the driver wouldn't know the difference. So yes, it was absolutely defective, whether defective by accident or by design.
The device was already malfunctioning - it's now safer in that it's predictable.
Your analogy is badly flawed in that it involves all sorts of trespassing and so on that don't apply. This would be more like a surgical robot refusing to function with non-OEM instruments attached, which is exactly what the most popular line of surgical robots (ISRG) do if they detect non-OEM tools installed, by the way.