Once again, listen carefully. You don't deter/avoid/eliminate malicious behaviour like this by creating more stringent testing methods. What you've here is decided to spend more money to create better compliance testing, in a world where those being tested (car makers) can profit by finding better ways to cheat.
Congrats, you're just going to breed better cheaters.
And it's obvious why: your playbook is public, theirs is not. They know how you're going to test them. You don't know how they are going to cheat. And we're back to security theatre.
The truly aggravating part is that there's a very easy way to deter this sort of thing: you make it simply destructive to their bottom line. If the penalty for cheating makes it not worthwhile cheating, then they won't cheat. I believe we've said it can be as high as $18 billion dollars. Good start. We're also talking about cars, engineering, safety concerns, false advertising, and stubbing the laws. Sounds like jail time to me -- for anyone responsible for the code, or for supervising the code, right up the chain.
That's why I don't commit significant crimes. It's not because I'm being tested. It's because I risk jail time.
Sounds no different than crossing the atlantic, a few hundred years ago, in a small wooden cabin, on a dizzyingly pitching ship, forever adjusting the sails and bailing water, developing all sorts of mysterious new illnesses (e.g. scurvy), under constant threat of pirates.
Now you have a choice.
You can choose the earlier voyages, where the only benefit was for a shorter route to some spices -- man, how bland was their food?
Or, you can choose the later voyages where you'd be reaching a new, classless world of hostile animals and savages.
The trip to mars is for precisely the same two reasons as any trip has always been: for land, and for the pioneering spirit.
The monitoring company doesn't need to call you first. They need to do whatever you tell them to do. And the question is not whether or not they try to call you first. The question is what do they do when you aren't reachable.
None of this is an issue if you're by your phone waiting for a call. If you can act, then all of this is meaningless. The question is what happens to your notification when you're fucking your dog? What happens when you're on a plane, underground, covered in peanut butter, on vacation?
Then what.
You don't hire a monitoring company to monitor anything. You don't hire a middle man at all. You hire an action man to act on your behalf when you cannot. And then, you ask them to try to be a middle man first, because that's cheaper.
So, a system, vital not only to a process but to a nation's entire constitution and fundamental to its very sense of right and wrong, and the basis for its existence and the reason it's at war with other nations, is ten years old, and you want to replace it?
Here are the HUGE problems.
First, it's used, what, once every 4 years? So you want to replace the system with something new basically every third time. So the first is the test to see if it works, and the second is the fix that hopefully works. Sounds exactly like presidential terms to me. Maybe it should simply be replaced with each new president?
Oh wait, but the bill of rights is also more than ten years old. So are the planes and the guns and the houses and the voters.
Perhaps, just maybe, the system should be built to last a little longer than ten years.
Just a thought.
Oh yeah, there are a few satelites, telescopes, and infrastructure in orbit that are older than ten years.
There's a difference between mouse gestures, which are a rare feature, relatively new, and are a user-selected, per-user feature, and printing, which is a cross-user, fundamentally long-standing feature, scripted away from the user. The former is how it's used, the latter is what it does.
You say they "have programmers to fix the thing themselves". Well, they also have testers to find the problems themselves and analysts to prioritize the problem themselves. You can pray if you want to; I don't.
And no, there's no benefit to me, professionally, from my product suddenly working in edge when before it did not. In fact, there are two huge on-going benefits every day that it remains broken -- welcome to business: profit and service.
Usability is a theshold scenario. Countless tiny things are tiny until they add up to something that crosses that threshold, at which point the entire item becomes useless. For me, mine, and those around me, a browser that can't print is that threshold -- making it useless.
Again, it's not my job to fix their product. They aren't paying me.
You are correct that my clients enjoy the "doesn't work" report. There's a reason that they all do it. It "doesn't work" for their business. It's not only true of bugs. It's also true of things being the wrong colour, or a missing feature. If it doesn't work for their business, then it simply doesn't work.
Asking them for more details isn't a part of their report. It's a part of your/my solution. In my world, if a client says it doesn't work, and I don't fix it, they stop using my product, stop paying me, and go elsewhere. The vast majority of "doesn't work" issues are deal-breakers in my industry.
I'm not interested in making sure that microsoft fixes it. I don't benefit from that fix.
You've missed the entire point here. The original post is about benchmarking edge versus other browsers. My point was that you can't benchmark a partial browser against a complete browser.
I think you've just found the values of fake cameras. Not real cameras. The bad guys can't see the feeds.
And now, you're constantly watching your own cameras, worrying about your home when you're away, and worrying about your data reception all the time. It's now your responsibility, your duty, your job, to watch your house 24/7/52+1.
If you're constantly checking your cameras and your feeds, and waiting for notifications of motion, that ain't peace of mind. Peace of mind is specifically the opposite -- i.e. not checking, not being notified, not being worried that every time you're underground or in an area of poor reception that someone is breaking into your home.
Peace of mind is knowing that it's someone else's problem. That means that the alarm doesn't go to you, it goes to someone else, like an alarm monitoring company, and that they'll deal with the problem -- including calling you as much as it takes to reach you. That means you can leave, go on vacation, go to the movies, and not care.
Especially considering that high crime rate is less of a problem when you aren't home -- because you aren't in any danger.
Just put up entry contacts -- doors, windows, glass-breaks. Motion sensors are generally irrelevant if you have any ambulatory pets. Then let it be someone else's problems. Cameras fight insurance fraud, but do nothing in terms of security, unless you've got someone watching the feeds.
And damn it, befriend your neighbours, ensure that they know your routines and your vacation schedules.
Beyond that, you aren't going to stop Ethan Hunt, no matter what you do.
It's "removing" a feature not because it's IE, but because this is a feature that's been in every browser for ages. If you build an e-mail client today, and it doesn't support flagging messages, then you've removed a feature.
It's useless because if it's missing one vital feature, then it's missing many more. And since it's not my job to seek out bugs in other people's products, and it's not my job to solve them, then I have no interest in telling them. I work for my clients, and when this kind of thing happens, then I get to solve it for my clients, not for Microsoft. My clients pay me. It's that simple.
I'm not here bitching. I'm here explaining that benchmarks between full-fledged browsers that work, and mini crummy browsers that don't work, aren't worth shit.
After the e-commerce of the purchasing, and the contact CRM of the mailings, and the scheduling software of the event conference, and the ad display network for the sponsors, and the box office sales systems and cash drawers, and the touch-screen kiosks, and the barcode scanners at the door, and the web-site selling the thing in the first place, and the private wifi network in the building that doesn't have a reliable one of its own.
After all that, the ticket's a report, but only if it can be printed properly.
Oh yeah, and the ticket has contact information, event information, and sponsor ads and a barcode right on it.
Yes everything output by a complicated system to a consumer is a report.
Dude, I've been doing it for 20 years. It's not hard to print 5" by 5" ticket in HTML. Welcome to liquid layouts from the 90's. HTML 0.9 is really good at that.
I develop ticket-purchasing web-sites. Ever printed a ticket to anything? Printing the hidden frame is helpful for the page to actually print what you want, and not the entire page.
And iframes are 19 years old, I believe you. Frames existed way before iframes. So I'm saying decades again.
And I often selected a paragraph or two and hit print, instead of printing the ten page article.
Edge doesn't let me, or a script, print just one frame or iframe content or selection content. Making it useless by breaking functionality that's existed for decades. I'm sure it's got many other missing things for no reason.
Just prop it up on a stand, obviously add a keyboard and a mouse, and it's exactly what I wanted in 1988, when I was 8 years old.
It took me another few years to get a great desk, but it was worth the wait.
To be clear, I'm still using the 11 foot long solid wood desk, but my AT machine -- 12" screen, 20MB of HDD -- is missing in action, absent without leave, and lost across moves.
This whole not-expecting-privacy-on-a-public-street is as laughable as it's always been. There's a missing concept here.
It's not about PRIVACY. It's about RECORDING.
You don't expect privacy when you're talking to a friend in public either. But it's illegal to record the audio of that conversation without permission.
It's the difference between expert testimony (i.e. video evidence) and heresay. One's convincing, always, while the other is completely inadmissable as evidence -- which is a good thing.
Surprisingly, I'm not actually against all of this scanning for data. I'm only against keeping that data in the absence of a crime.
Scan the cars, check the plates, see that it's fine, destroy the data. Let's say within 5 business days. No aggregates, no data-based stats (number of scans made by the truck is fine, number of blue cars is not).
so I'm not carrying all this stuff for nothing. I'm so glad to be a member of a species that thought otherwise for so long. I like my appendix too, by the way, also the other 80% of my brain, thanks very much.
In March, of this year, that's exactly what happened to my servers. It took a few hours to narrow down the traffic logs to find the excess load, and then it became quite obvious, based on the user agent, that it was nothing more than a bittorrent swarm.
The nice part is that it's easily blocked by user-agent -- which isn't something that the original attacker can control.
First, an inventor invented invented a pipe, and installed it, and it was found to leak. Then a plumber improved the pipe and re-installed it, and would never leak again.
Then a new-age company said they could build a cheaper pipe to save costs. It was installed, and it leaked only sometimes. Then a plumber figured out precisely how often it would leak, and designed a maintenance plan to prevent it from leaking, so the leaking would never be a problem again.
Then an accountant saw the money being spent on maintenance of a pipe that didn't leak, and reduced the maintenance until it started to leak.
Now, a new-age company is offering to invent and build and install billions of sensors on the pipe, to see when it's leaking, so we'll know when to perform the maintenance.
It'll work great. Not only will we know exactly when to send out the maintenance crew -- i.e. pretty close to the same rate as when the plumber designed the maintenance plan the first time, because he wasn't stupid -- but we'll spend more money on the sensors than we will on the pipe.
As my mother's always said. You can pay me now, or you can pay me later. So the pipe will be cheap, and the maintenance will be occasional, and the sensors will be amazing.
And then we'll save money on the sensors.
And then we'll have a maintenance plan for the sensors.
And then we'll start monitoring the sensors.
It's turtles all the way down.
Anyone remember how much the high quality pipe that didn't leak in the first place cost? I didn't think so.
I know nothing, but when I put a ball into a bowl of water, it naturally rolls around in the gentle current. Like a ball-point pen, the ball picks up some water, spreading it over the ball.
Wouldn't that thin layer over a sunny ball evaporate faster? And would the over-all wet-ball surface simply be a larger surface area than the otherwise planar surface -- also contributing to greater evaporation?
And if the entire body of water is only good enough for 3 weeks of water, then isn't this kind of "conservation", by reducing the evaporation of water into the atmosphere just completely insignificant? Should they be focussing on getting more water -- i.e. rain?
So, you remain in one place, silent, immobilized, inactive, and unconcious for 6 to 10 contiguous hours each and every single day of your life. But that's not enough down-time for your phucking phone.
Maybe, just maybe, you should throw out your shitty phone, and get one that can last as long as you can.
You might want to put your name to your arguments, if you think them worthy of anything at all. But I'm not surprised that you don't stand behind your arguments. According to you, nothing in Canada is regulated, limited, or restricted competition at all. Oh wait, you're an idiot.
Canada isn't a small town. Small towns don't have this particular problem.
Maybe you ought to stop taking economics classes, and stop researching what other people have already searched. Maybe, instead, you ought to actually do some first-hand observations, do your own measurements, and see what's actually true.
Remeber when your "classes" told you that the three primary colours are red, yellow, and blue? They lied, flat out.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm, I'm really not interested in random/first-time/first-day/once-and-never-again drivers coming to my house, thank you very much.
Once again, listen carefully. You don't deter/avoid/eliminate malicious behaviour like this by creating more stringent testing methods. What you've here is decided to spend more money to create better compliance testing, in a world where those being tested (car makers) can profit by finding better ways to cheat.
Congrats, you're just going to breed better cheaters.
And it's obvious why: your playbook is public, theirs is not. They know how you're going to test them. You don't know how they are going to cheat. And we're back to security theatre.
The truly aggravating part is that there's a very easy way to deter this sort of thing: you make it simply destructive to their bottom line. If the penalty for cheating makes it not worthwhile cheating, then they won't cheat. I believe we've said it can be as high as $18 billion dollars. Good start. We're also talking about cars, engineering, safety concerns, false advertising, and stubbing the laws. Sounds like jail time to me -- for anyone responsible for the code, or for supervising the code, right up the chain.
That's why I don't commit significant crimes. It's not because I'm being tested. It's because I risk jail time.
Sounds no different than crossing the atlantic, a few hundred years ago, in a small wooden cabin, on a dizzyingly pitching ship, forever adjusting the sails and bailing water, developing all sorts of mysterious new illnesses (e.g. scurvy), under constant threat of pirates.
Now you have a choice.
You can choose the earlier voyages, where the only benefit was for a shorter route to some spices -- man, how bland was their food?
Or, you can choose the later voyages where you'd be reaching a new, classless world of hostile animals and savages.
The trip to mars is for precisely the same two reasons as any trip has always been: for land, and for the pioneering spirit.
I was first, and it is mine!
The monitoring company doesn't need to call you first. They need to do whatever you tell them to do. And the question is not whether or not they try to call you first. The question is what do they do when you aren't reachable.
None of this is an issue if you're by your phone waiting for a call. If you can act, then all of this is meaningless. The question is what happens to your notification when you're fucking your dog? What happens when you're on a plane, underground, covered in peanut butter, on vacation?
Then what.
You don't hire a monitoring company to monitor anything. You don't hire a middle man at all. You hire an action man to act on your behalf when you cannot. And then, you ask them to try to be a middle man first, because that's cheaper.
(That's my first interrobang of the day.)
So, a system, vital not only to a process but to a nation's entire constitution and fundamental to its very sense of right and wrong, and the basis for its existence and the reason it's at war with other nations, is ten years old, and you want to replace it?
Here are the HUGE problems.
First, it's used, what, once every 4 years? So you want to replace the system with something new basically every third time. So the first is the test to see if it works, and the second is the fix that hopefully works. Sounds exactly like presidential terms to me. Maybe it should simply be replaced with each new president?
Oh wait, but the bill of rights is also more than ten years old. So are the planes and the guns and the houses and the voters.
Perhaps, just maybe, the system should be built to last a little longer than ten years.
Just a thought.
Oh yeah, there are a few satelites, telescopes, and infrastructure in orbit that are older than ten years.
There's a difference between mouse gestures, which are a rare feature, relatively new, and are a user-selected, per-user feature, and printing, which is a cross-user, fundamentally long-standing feature, scripted away from the user. The former is how it's used, the latter is what it does.
You say they "have programmers to fix the thing themselves". Well, they also have testers to find the problems themselves and analysts to prioritize the problem themselves. You can pray if you want to; I don't.
And no, there's no benefit to me, professionally, from my product suddenly working in edge when before it did not. In fact, there are two huge on-going benefits every day that it remains broken -- welcome to business: profit and service.
Usability is a theshold scenario. Countless tiny things are tiny until they add up to something that crosses that threshold, at which point the entire item becomes useless. For me, mine, and those around me, a browser that can't print is that threshold -- making it useless.
Again, it's not my job to fix their product. They aren't paying me.
You are correct that my clients enjoy the "doesn't work" report. There's a reason that they all do it. It "doesn't work" for their business. It's not only true of bugs. It's also true of things being the wrong colour, or a missing feature. If it doesn't work for their business, then it simply doesn't work.
Asking them for more details isn't a part of their report. It's a part of your/my solution. In my world, if a client says it doesn't work, and I don't fix it, they stop using my product, stop paying me, and go elsewhere. The vast majority of "doesn't work" issues are deal-breakers in my industry.
I'm not interested in making sure that microsoft fixes it. I don't benefit from that fix.
You've missed the entire point here. The original post is about benchmarking edge versus other browsers. My point was that you can't benchmark a partial browser against a complete browser.
Stay in context.
I think you've just found the values of fake cameras. Not real cameras. The bad guys can't see the feeds.
And now, you're constantly watching your own cameras, worrying about your home when you're away, and worrying about your data reception all the time. It's now your responsibility, your duty, your job, to watch your house 24/7/52+1.
If you're constantly checking your cameras and your feeds, and waiting for notifications of motion, that ain't peace of mind. Peace of mind is specifically the opposite -- i.e. not checking, not being notified, not being worried that every time you're underground or in an area of poor reception that someone is breaking into your home.
Peace of mind is knowing that it's someone else's problem. That means that the alarm doesn't go to you, it goes to someone else, like an alarm monitoring company, and that they'll deal with the problem -- including calling you as much as it takes to reach you. That means you can leave, go on vacation, go to the movies, and not care.
Especially considering that high crime rate is less of a problem when you aren't home -- because you aren't in any danger.
Just put up entry contacts -- doors, windows, glass-breaks. Motion sensors are generally irrelevant if you have any ambulatory pets. Then let it be someone else's problems. Cameras fight insurance fraud, but do nothing in terms of security, unless you've got someone watching the feeds.
And damn it, befriend your neighbours, ensure that they know your routines and your vacation schedules.
Beyond that, you aren't going to stop Ethan Hunt, no matter what you do.
It's "removing" a feature not because it's IE, but because this is a feature that's been in every browser for ages. If you build an e-mail client today, and it doesn't support flagging messages, then you've removed a feature.
It's useless because if it's missing one vital feature, then it's missing many more. And since it's not my job to seek out bugs in other people's products, and it's not my job to solve them, then I have no interest in telling them. I work for my clients, and when this kind of thing happens, then I get to solve it for my clients, not for Microsoft. My clients pay me. It's that simple.
I'm not here bitching. I'm here explaining that benchmarks between full-fledged browsers that work, and mini crummy browsers that don't work, aren't worth shit.
After the e-commerce of the purchasing, and the contact CRM of the mailings, and the scheduling software of the event conference, and the ad display network for the sponsors, and the box office sales systems and cash drawers, and the touch-screen kiosks, and the barcode scanners at the door, and the web-site selling the thing in the first place, and the private wifi network in the building that doesn't have a reliable one of its own.
After all that, the ticket's a report, but only if it can be printed properly.
Oh yeah, and the ticket has contact information, event information, and sponsor ads and a barcode right on it.
Yes everything output by a complicated system to a consumer is a report.
Dude, I've been doing it for 20 years. It's not hard to print 5" by 5" ticket in HTML. Welcome to liquid layouts from the 90's. HTML 0.9 is really good at that.
Using paper creates trees. Welcome to capitalism.
I develop ticket-purchasing web-sites. Ever printed a ticket to anything? Printing the hidden frame is helpful for the page to actually print what you want, and not the entire page.
And iframes are 19 years old, I believe you. Frames existed way before iframes. So I'm saying decades again.
And I often selected a paragraph or two and hit print, instead of printing the ten page article.
I program ticketing solutions for a living. Ever printed a ticket to anything?
Edge doesn't let me, or a script, print just one frame or iframe content or selection content. Making it useless by breaking functionality that's existed for decades. I'm sure it's got many other missing things for no reason.
Just prop it up on a stand, obviously add a keyboard and a mouse, and it's exactly what I wanted in 1988, when I was 8 years old.
It took me another few years to get a great desk, but it was worth the wait.
To be clear, I'm still using the 11 foot long solid wood desk, but my AT machine -- 12" screen, 20MB of HDD -- is missing in action, absent without leave, and lost across moves.
This whole not-expecting-privacy-on-a-public-street is as laughable as it's always been. There's a missing concept here.
It's not about PRIVACY. It's about RECORDING.
You don't expect privacy when you're talking to a friend in public either. But it's illegal to record the audio of that conversation without permission.
It's the difference between expert testimony (i.e. video evidence) and heresay. One's convincing, always, while the other is completely inadmissable as evidence -- which is a good thing.
Surprisingly, I'm not actually against all of this scanning for data. I'm only against keeping that data in the absence of a crime.
Scan the cars, check the plates, see that it's fine, destroy the data. Let's say within 5 business days. No aggregates, no data-based stats (number of scans made by the truck is fine, number of blue cars is not).
"NO CRIME = NO RECORD", plain and simple.
so I'm not carrying all this stuff for nothing. I'm so glad to be a member of a species that thought otherwise for so long. I like my appendix too, by the way, also the other 80% of my brain, thanks very much.
In March, of this year, that's exactly what happened to my servers. It took a few hours to narrow down the traffic logs to find the excess load, and then it became quite obvious, based on the user agent, that it was nothing more than a bittorrent swarm.
The nice part is that it's easily blocked by user-agent -- which isn't something that the original attacker can control.
First, an inventor invented invented a pipe, and installed it, and it was found to leak. Then a plumber improved the pipe and re-installed it, and would never leak again.
Then a new-age company said they could build a cheaper pipe to save costs. It was installed, and it leaked only sometimes. Then a plumber figured out precisely how often it would leak, and designed a maintenance plan to prevent it from leaking, so the leaking would never be a problem again.
Then an accountant saw the money being spent on maintenance of a pipe that didn't leak, and reduced the maintenance until it started to leak.
Now, a new-age company is offering to invent and build and install billions of sensors on the pipe, to see when it's leaking, so we'll know when to perform the maintenance.
It'll work great. Not only will we know exactly when to send out the maintenance crew -- i.e. pretty close to the same rate as when the plumber designed the maintenance plan the first time, because he wasn't stupid -- but we'll spend more money on the sensors than we will on the pipe.
As my mother's always said. You can pay me now, or you can pay me later. So the pipe will be cheap, and the maintenance will be occasional, and the sensors will be amazing.
And then we'll save money on the sensors.
And then we'll have a maintenance plan for the sensors.
And then we'll start monitoring the sensors.
It's turtles all the way down.
Anyone remember how much the high quality pipe that didn't leak in the first place cost? I didn't think so.
I know nothing, but when I put a ball into a bowl of water, it naturally rolls around in the gentle current. Like a ball-point pen, the ball picks up some water, spreading it over the ball.
Wouldn't that thin layer over a sunny ball evaporate faster? And would the over-all wet-ball surface simply be a larger surface area than the otherwise planar surface -- also contributing to greater evaporation?
And if the entire body of water is only good enough for 3 weeks of water, then isn't this kind of "conservation", by reducing the evaporation of water into the atmosphere just completely insignificant? Should they be focussing on getting more water -- i.e. rain?
So, you remain in one place, silent, immobilized, inactive, and unconcious for 6 to 10 contiguous hours each and every single day of your life. But that's not enough down-time for your phucking phone.
Maybe, just maybe, you should throw out your shitty phone, and get one that can last as long as you can.
You might want to put your name to your arguments, if you think them worthy of anything at all. But I'm not surprised that you don't stand behind your arguments. According to you, nothing in Canada is regulated, limited, or restricted competition at all. Oh wait, you're an idiot.
Canada isn't a small town. Small towns don't have this particular problem.
Maybe you ought to stop taking economics classes, and stop researching what other people have already searched. Maybe, instead, you ought to actually do some first-hand observations, do your own measurements, and see what's actually true.
Remeber when your "classes" told you that the three primary colours are red, yellow, and blue? They lied, flat out.
I said nothing about income taxes. I said sales taxes. The drivers are expected to collect and submit sales taxes, but they are not doing so.