The XBox isn't sold as an Intel PC, it is sold as a console.
If you go into a shop and ask "Is this suitable for use as a general PC" they will say no.
No one is being scammed. The XBox is clearly being marketed for a specific purpose. If you want to use it for another purpose then fine, but you are on your own.
Generally speaking (as laws are different in different countries)....
Consumer protection law typically has the concepts of "fit for purpose" and the "reasonable person".
To be considered "fit for purpose" the good has to be fit for the general purpose for which it was sold as well as any specific additions covered by discussions etc between the purchaser and the seller.
On top of that is the concept of the "reasonable person".
As far as an XBox goes it's general purpose is to play XBox games (and work with other XBox hardware). The existence of the buffer underrun is clearly not required for that purpose.
You would find it very difficult to convince someone that a "reasonable person" would consider the buffer underrun as a feature of the product:
a) It is not advertised by the manufacturer.
b) In general discussion it is typically referred to as a bug (ie the "Dashboard bug") rather than as a feature of the product.
The case with your Apex is somewhat different. The functionality that disappeared was a real feature that a "reasonable person" purchasing the product would expect to (continue to) be there.
Here in Australia (and the UK I think) a good has to be "fit for purpose" which basically means being fit for the purpose for which they are generally sold, and also being fit for any specific or particular purpose made known at the time of purchase agreement.
I think that most reasonable people would accept that the purpose for which an XBox is generally sold is for the running of XBox games. Unless an update interferes with that and therefore renders the XBox unfit for purpose I doubt we'd get much help from consumer protection law.
The concept of a "reasonable person" is also used. I doubt you could argue successfully that a "reasonable person" would expect something that is unadvertised by the manufacturer and publically discussed as a "bug" is a "feature" that has subsequently been removed.
So I think in terms of consumer protection law you'd be out of luck in declaring that the product has been rendered defective or unfit for purpose by the update.
There might be other legal avenues, but I think that one is closed.
In the meantime it does seem to prudent to err on the safe side though.
That said this sort of problem must be difficult to analyze scientifically. They appear rare (100s in 10 years worth of flights in Australia) and I don't imagine much thought is given to analyzing the problem while it's in progress. Planes must be fairly complex environment to replicate.
Presumably in these cases the systems that display wierdness get a thorough check up after the event and come back clean so it must be some form of external influence?
Slashdot is full of unsupported opinion so if you've actually got experience to back it up it's generally worth mentioning lest it be lost in the crowd.
There's some value in that. The nurse for example may well know that her mobile phone can interfere with certain instruments but it is perfectly safe for her to carry one as long as she keeps the phone at least two meters away from such instruments.
She hopefully has better things to be doing than explaining that to every Tom, Dick and Harry who walks through the door.
Have you put in as many hours as, oooh, let's say commercial airline pilots?
And have you been situated somewhere where you'd be aware of such problems, such as the cockpit?
By definition a prediction has to be made before the event.
Nor does the statement "it's only a matter of time" seem that outlandish. Already we've seen Linux being adopted by major Unix vendors. It's not unlikely that it will continue to make inroads in core areas and gradually drive their traditional offerings to more "niche" areas which ultimatly may be too small to warrent the expense of maintaining a seperate offering.
And you should care "if port X of all the clueless people's machines get abused" for the simple reason that it may effect your service too.
I don't know how fat your pipe even if you are a knowledgable home user with a firewall on your end of that pipe a significant amount of incoming traffic can still effect you connectivity even if you are dropping it once it's come accross your link. It could even cost you money.
Even if you do prevent a worm entering your PC the fact that it is active on a significant number of other PCs at your ISP can still mean you suffer the effects.
I think it is entirely reasonable for an ISP to block certain ports by default especially if they provide a simple mechanism for a user who does want to expose those ports.
Slashdot Mirror
Is going to be a real pain in the ass.
Still, if it comes at a reasonable price then it would fit in well with my home network.
;)
The XBox isn't sold as an Intel PC, it is sold as a console.
If you go into a shop and ask "Is this suitable for use as a general PC" they will say no.
No one is being scammed. The XBox is clearly being marketed for a specific purpose. If you want to use it for another purpose then fine, but you are on your own.
Generally speaking (as laws are different in different countries).... Consumer protection law typically has the concepts of "fit for purpose" and the "reasonable person".
To be considered "fit for purpose" the good has to be fit for the general purpose for which it was sold as well as any specific additions covered by discussions etc between the purchaser and the seller.
On top of that is the concept of the "reasonable person".
As far as an XBox goes it's general purpose is to play XBox games (and work with other XBox hardware). The existence of the buffer underrun is clearly not required for that purpose.
You would find it very difficult to convince someone that a "reasonable person" would consider the buffer underrun as a feature of the product:
a) It is not advertised by the manufacturer.
b) In general discussion it is typically referred to as a bug (ie the "Dashboard bug") rather than as a feature of the product.
The case with your Apex is somewhat different. The functionality that disappeared was a real feature that a "reasonable person" purchasing the product would expect to (continue to) be there.
Here in Australia (and the UK I think) a good has to be "fit for purpose" which basically means being fit for the purpose for which they are generally sold, and also being fit for any specific or particular purpose made known at the time of purchase agreement.
I think that most reasonable people would accept that the purpose for which an XBox is generally sold is for the running of XBox games. Unless an update interferes with that and therefore renders the XBox unfit for purpose I doubt we'd get much help from consumer protection law.
The concept of a "reasonable person" is also used. I doubt you could argue successfully that a "reasonable person" would expect something that is unadvertised by the manufacturer and publically discussed as a "bug" is a "feature" that has subsequently been removed.
So I think in terms of consumer protection law you'd be out of luck in declaring that the product has been rendered defective or unfit for purpose by the update.
There might be other legal avenues, but I think that one is closed.
return NXDOMAIN for www.verisign.com, sitefinder.verisign.com and www.thawte.com while you are at it.
Perhaps they'll rethink the value of unilateral action after that.
In the meantime it does seem to prudent to err on the safe side though.
That said this sort of problem must be difficult to analyze scientifically. They appear rare (100s in 10 years worth of flights in Australia) and I don't imagine much thought is given to analyzing the problem while it's in progress. Planes must be fairly complex environment to replicate.
Presumably in these cases the systems that display wierdness get a thorough check up after the event and come back clean so it must be some form of external influence?
It could be Gremlins I guess.
Slashdot is full of unsupported opinion so if you've actually got experience to back it up it's generally worth mentioning lest it be lost in the crowd.
There's some value in that. The nurse for example may well know that her mobile phone can interfere with certain instruments but it is perfectly safe for her to carry one as long as she keeps the phone at least two meters away from such instruments.
She hopefully has better things to be doing than explaining that to every Tom, Dick and Harry who walks through the door.
Have you put in as many hours as, oooh, let's say commercial airline pilots?
And have you been situated somewhere where you'd be aware of such problems, such as the cockpit?
I doubt that's the answer you wanted to hear though.
It's fairly common for them to ask you to turn off all electronic items including games and walkmen during take off and landing.
I expect they are just extra careful at those times because the closer to the ground (and other planes) you are the less margin for error there is.
By definition a prediction has to be made before the event.
Nor does the statement "it's only a matter of time" seem that outlandish. Already we've seen Linux being adopted by major Unix vendors. It's not unlikely that it will continue to make inroads in core areas and gradually drive their traditional offerings to more "niche" areas which ultimatly may be too small to warrent the expense of maintaining a seperate offering.
Video memory with a built in high resolution LCD display.
Simply reciting a proverb does not constitute insight.
For every proverb there is an equal and opposite proverb.
Fear is the mind killer!
An album, at least one from any reasonable artist, is a work in it's entirety.
The DVD equivalent would be complaining that you only want the exciting car chase scene and don't want to have to buy the rest of it.
The copyright holder is the owner of exclusive rights.
If you take on the execution of one of those rights for yourself and make a copy then you have taken away from the exclusivity that they own.
The first one's easy, but where did the positive moderations (other than Funny) come from.....
Apparently they couldn't get it ready in time for the initial rollout but they are pretty keen to get it out the door ASAP.
With any luck it will bring some stability to the game.
Every Slashdotter knows no-one reads them anyway....
For 95% of people.
And you should care "if port X of all the clueless people's machines get abused" for the simple reason that it may effect your service too.
I don't know how fat your pipe even if you are a knowledgable home user with a firewall on your end of that pipe a significant amount of incoming traffic can still effect you connectivity even if you are dropping it once it's come accross your link. It could even cost you money.
At least completely.
Even if you do prevent a worm entering your PC the fact that it is active on a significant number of other PCs at your ISP can still mean you suffer the effects.
I think it is entirely reasonable for an ISP to block certain ports by default especially if they provide a simple mechanism for a user who does want to expose those ports.
It's almost a value added service.