Bricking something has a pretty specific meaning, it's like being pregnant; you are not sort of bricked or a little pregnant. These defective devices have been detected and removed from being incorrectly identified. That's not bricked. It's not good, but it's not bricked.
They didn't destroy anything, the fine summary is wrong. They temporarily and reversibly altered a writable configuration area to prevent the malfunctioning device from further malfunctioning.
Irrecoverable vs recoverable is a distinction with a huge difference. Bricked is bricked, this is reversibly altered so as to no longer report that it is something it is not.
Bricked implies that the change is irreversible. This is simply a change to the PID, which can be undone or set to some other PID pretty easily. So no, not bricked, not destroyed, just fake detected and it's fakery undone as a matter of configuration.
Or just a flat annual/quarterly/whatever tax on the more than $200,000,000,000,000 in assets that Americans hold. A rate of $1 per $1000 annually would give a huge stack of money.
Yup. I worked briefly for a business owner who was obligated in a divorce to split the profits of his machine shop business w/ the ex. The (already existing for liability reasons) corporations that he also controlled suddenly started charging the "real" business so much in lease fees (tools, plant) that it only turned a few thousand dollars a year in net net profit.
A corporation that has many organs can make money flow as it wishes with a few simple "renegotiations".
Here's a "for instance". Suppose a company like Google had a lot of IP, and decided to transfer the rights to that IP to a Swiss Google. Then the US Google may make an ass-ton of revenue, but the US Google has to pay the Swiss Google for the use of that IP, so the US Google has very little net profit to tax. Of course the Swiss Google is insanely profitable, but that's not something that the US can tax.
This is just for instance and the names and locales I picked are of course arbitrary, merely for the purpose of illustration.
I was willing to accept your assertion that it's good now. But 'it's been good for ten years'. Bullshit on you!
"The better part of a decade" would be anything more than 5 years. I'm sticking to facts here, I'm sorry if they don't line up with your preconceived notions.
Why would it be 'rational' to go back to a company that has already demonstrated complete disregard for the user?
Since when is "responding to customer concerns with an effective fix" complete disregard for customers? It seems exactly the opposite. The product has tested well for protection and top or near top for performance for the better part of a decade now; holding onto some past injury for what (in tech) is essentially a century is not rational.
It's true that the damage to their reputation from that era has been difficult to overcome, but people who are rational about it are slowing coming back and seeing things as they are; for them the stink washed out. Some customers it's really better to let someone else have anyway.
They are very clear which version (consumer version) and the language and benchmarks are very clear. In the past I also had complaints about the performance of Norton AV, maybe 7-10 years ago it WAS very slow. Those issues were real and those complaints and concerns were addressed, to the point where the current versions are in fact among the highest performers in the market. I say good for them.
Slashdot Mirror
Bricking something has a pretty specific meaning, it's like being pregnant; you are not sort of bricked or a little pregnant. These defective devices have been detected and removed from being incorrectly identified. That's not bricked. It's not good, but it's not bricked.
They didn't destroy anything, the fine summary is wrong. They temporarily and reversibly altered a writable configuration area to prevent the malfunctioning device from further malfunctioning.
They detected one of their devices malfunctioning and altered it to prevent future malfunctions. Service required.
Irrecoverable vs recoverable is a distinction with a huge difference. Bricked is bricked, this is reversibly altered so as to no longer report that it is something it is not.
They detected one of their devices malfunctioning and removed it from future discovery to prevent further malfunctions. Bravo, well done.
"We detected one of our devices malfunctioning and modified it (non-destructively) to eliminate future malfunctions."
Except they're not bricking anything.
I'm shocked that the fine summary that was so breathlessly cut and pasted could be in the slightest inaccurate, I tell you.
The chips are not destroyed.
Bricked implies that the change is irreversible. This is simply a change to the PID, which can be undone or set to some other PID pretty easily. So no, not bricked, not destroyed, just fake detected and it's fakery undone as a matter of configuration.
To be fair that record was set by accident.
So it turns out that women are from Venus and are best suited to send to Mars? Maybe I'm fixing a metaphor.
Yeah, I was hasty - I meant monthly. Little more than 1% a year would pay a lot.
Or just a flat annual/quarterly/whatever tax on the more than $200,000,000,000,000 in assets that Americans hold. A rate of $1 per $1000 annually would give a huge stack of money.
Yup. I worked briefly for a business owner who was obligated in a divorce to split the profits of his machine shop business w/ the ex. The (already existing for liability reasons) corporations that he also controlled suddenly started charging the "real" business so much in lease fees (tools, plant) that it only turned a few thousand dollars a year in net net profit. A corporation that has many organs can make money flow as it wishes with a few simple "renegotiations".
Here's a "for instance". Suppose a company like Google had a lot of IP, and decided to transfer the rights to that IP to a Swiss Google. Then the US Google may make an ass-ton of revenue, but the US Google has to pay the Swiss Google for the use of that IP, so the US Google has very little net profit to tax. Of course the Swiss Google is insanely profitable, but that's not something that the US can tax.
This is just for instance and the names and locales I picked are of course arbitrary, merely for the purpose of illustration.
Taxes on revenues? Because they are not making any profit; that's how it works you see.
I was willing to accept your assertion that it's good now. But 'it's been good for ten years'. Bullshit on you!
"The better part of a decade" would be anything more than 5 years. I'm sticking to facts here, I'm sorry if they don't line up with your preconceived notions.
Why would it be 'rational' to go back to a company that has already demonstrated complete disregard for the user?
Since when is "responding to customer concerns with an effective fix" complete disregard for customers? It seems exactly the opposite. The product has tested well for protection and top or near top for performance for the better part of a decade now; holding onto some past injury for what (in tech) is essentially a century is not rational.
Whereas being turned out to starve and/or be eaten by predators is sweet sweet freedom. Nutcase.
Also eliminates the need for a lawyer/prenup. Win-win.
And you can source the bride locally.
Free will is a convenient illusion.
It's true that the damage to their reputation from that era has been difficult to overcome, but people who are rational about it are slowing coming back and seeing things as they are; for them the stink washed out. Some customers it's really better to let someone else have anyway.
They are very clear which version (consumer version) and the language and benchmarks are very clear. In the past I also had complaints about the performance of Norton AV, maybe 7-10 years ago it WAS very slow. Those issues were real and those complaints and concerns were addressed, to the point where the current versions are in fact among the highest performers in the market. I say good for them.