"We're sorry we have sold you shitty products but won't fix it" is just PR.
"We're sorry we've solve you shitty products but will replace it at our expense" is actually doing something.
I suspect this is one of those corporate apologies designed to say "fuck you, but thanks for playing, hopefully we've minimized the fallout of writing shitty products by issuing a half-assed apology".
I'm hoping the absence of my DIR-615 isn't "we're sorry to tell you we made a shitty product and forgot to check if it was vulnerable".
I keep saying, corporations should have some liability for implementing terrible security. Especially for a product whose job it is to be a firewall.
Bah, the entire purpose for the merger is to be able to do this crap on a larger scale.
They don't give a crap about customers, they care about corporate profits, executive bonuses, and the price of cocaine and hookers.
They want to give worse service, and charge even more for it. With even more customers they can sit on their infrastructure for even longer without upgrading it, all while claiming to have cutting edge service.
This is gimmicks, toys, and other crap... mostly designed to sell analytics to corporations... utterlly lacking in scientific merit, and serving no real purpose.
"young, asymptomatic, middle-class neurotics continuously monitoring their vital signs while they sleep."
Indeed. Pointless solutions to first world problems.
No thanks, put down your phone and get out and do something.
"Oh noes, google is teh big evil corp'ration, let's go with teh Microsoft". I mean, what the hell are they thinking?
This just sounds like the point at which the free software folks sell out and say fuck it, let's just follow the money.
I have a hard time people are going to buy an Android device, so they can wipe it, kick out Google, and bring in Microsoft. If you want that, buy a Microsoft device and get on with it.
Honestly though, we see pretty much daily that the number of security holes in a system is proportional to its complexity.
A modern aircraft is an immensely complex maze of wiring. A 'modern' aircraft could be easily 10-15 years (or more) old, and full of systems which weren't designed with security in mind.
If you've ever sat in an aircraft seat and seen the navigation display which shows your position, altitude and speed... you can bet your ass there is some connectivity among the systems.
So, if the default assumption in security is all software has bugs, and all systems have weaknesses... it's reasonable to conclude that we simply don't know the risks here.
But you don't simply say "oh noes, teh evidence isn't there so it's teh safe". Be it IP or not, if there are physical connections between the components, there is probably an exploit.
So, Mr cyber Expert and Pilot, other than saying "nuh uh", do you have anything to suggest there is no chance of this?
We know people can hack air gaps, and if the in-flight wi-fi is at all connected to the electronics in the airplane, there's potentially a lot of attack vectors.
And since there is no actual article, just a summary which says some guy says it can't happen... I call "bullshit" on the whole story.
Seriously, timothy, a link to a story or this is nothing more than innuendo.
Moreover, "designed for security" is just a meaningless marketing term. It's a catch phrase, but it doesn't actually mean much, apparently.
You can't just say "I'm making the most secure thing evar" and have that mean anything unless you've spent a LOT of time and effort making it so. You can't just throw something together and think you've made something secure.
And if you make this big bold claim, and then trip on your own dicks, you look like idiots.
My general rule would be to treat a claim like "designed for security" as at best puffery, and at worst a dangerous lie designed to make your product look good. But I sure as heck would't treat it as an indication of actual security.
We at the Church of the Big Titties are an inclusive group, and do not discriminate on the basis of actually possessing any.
We are a community founded on the appreciation of breasts of all shape and size (despite our name)... we have but three commandments, "thou shalt not touch the titties of anyone without their consent", and except during the "Sacraments of the Holy Wet T-Shirt" or other appropriate contexts "thou shall endeavor to maintain normal eye contact with the owner of the boobies", and finally "thou shalt not discriminate on the basis of someone having (or not having) titties".
We ask only a small donation to assist in our administrative overhead (purchasing of the Blessed Beer).
If you wish information about establishing a local parish or ordination we offer very reasonable rates. Although, we would in no means infringe on someone else's right to participate in their own form of the Admiring of the Boobies, as we feel that would be contrary to our message.
Slashdot Mirror
Fine, if I no longer fucking own the damned car, then they can charge me considerably less for it.
What they want to do it wipe out the doctrine of "First Sale" which says "this is my property, what you think I should do is irrelevant".
This is just a cash grab by greedy assholes.
But if the car isn't mine, don't go expecting the same amount of money for it.
I sincerely hope these auto makers get smacked down really hard.
And, don't forget "Sold It To Disney, Bitches" Lane.
Look, we know it can't be a plot.
Lucas has demonstrated with the prequels that he doesn't understand 'plot'. ;-)
Who says he'll sell them? Maybe he'll just collect a modest rent?
Bah, just screen every scene involving Jar Jar Binks on a continuous loop on a 50' tall screen.
That'll really piss them off.
So two complete idiots almost earned themselves Darwin awards then?
Fucking morons.
Depends on how we define "mean anything".
"We're sorry we have sold you shitty products but won't fix it" is just PR.
"We're sorry we've solve you shitty products but will replace it at our expense" is actually doing something.
I suspect this is one of those corporate apologies designed to say "fuck you, but thanks for playing, hopefully we've minimized the fallout of writing shitty products by issuing a half-assed apology".
I'm hoping the absence of my DIR-615 isn't "we're sorry to tell you we made a shitty product and forgot to check if it was vulnerable".
I keep saying, corporations should have some liability for implementing terrible security. Especially for a product whose job it is to be a firewall.
Bah, the entire purpose for the merger is to be able to do this crap on a larger scale.
They don't give a crap about customers, they care about corporate profits, executive bonuses, and the price of cocaine and hookers.
They want to give worse service, and charge even more for it. With even more customers they can sit on their infrastructure for even longer without upgrading it, all while claiming to have cutting edge service.
Why do you hate America?
Do we mean "bribery" or "campaign contributions"?
This just sounds like a company trying to ensure it gets to have its monopoly and eat our cake too.
This is gimmicks, toys, and other crap ... mostly designed to sell analytics to corporations ... utterlly lacking in scientific merit, and serving no real purpose.
"young, asymptomatic, middle-class neurotics continuously monitoring their vital signs while they sleep."
Indeed. Pointless solutions to first world problems.
No thanks, put down your phone and get out and do something.
Well, except it's not a law ... not a natural law, not a man-made law ... it's an observation, that's about it.
You can call it a law all you like, but that doesn't make it true.
Ergo, meme.
You want proof?
How about we start with this:
He has more or less publicly admitted that he hawks stuff which there is insufficient evidence for.
He's a paid shill, with little medical credibility, because he advocates which he is paid to advocate.
Which means he has now stayed into being entertainment, but not fact or medicine. But he sure as hell isn't acting as a credible medical professional.
That's just awesome ... in the literal meaning of the word. Space has such cool stuff in it.
"Begging your pardon, Sir, but it's a big-ass sky!"
That's kind of my point ... are people who are trying to kick Google off their android devices all keen to get Microsoft instead?
This is like a hard core Linux user wiping his Windows machine and then installing a version of Office.
I just can't figure out who the target market for this is.
But now you're stuck with Microsoft.
Is this supposed to be some kind of improvement?
"Oh noes, google is teh big evil corp'ration, let's go with teh Microsoft". I mean, what the hell are they thinking?
This just sounds like the point at which the free software folks sell out and say fuck it, let's just follow the money.
I have a hard time people are going to buy an Android device, so they can wipe it, kick out Google, and bring in Microsoft. If you want that, buy a Microsoft device and get on with it.
Honestly though, we see pretty much daily that the number of security holes in a system is proportional to its complexity.
A modern aircraft is an immensely complex maze of wiring. A 'modern' aircraft could be easily 10-15 years (or more) old, and full of systems which weren't designed with security in mind.
If you've ever sat in an aircraft seat and seen the navigation display which shows your position, altitude and speed ... you can bet your ass there is some connectivity among the systems.
So, if the default assumption in security is all software has bugs, and all systems have weaknesses ... it's reasonable to conclude that we simply don't know the risks here.
But you don't simply say "oh noes, teh evidence isn't there so it's teh safe". Be it IP or not, if there are physical connections between the components, there is probably an exploit.
So, Mr cyber Expert and Pilot, other than saying "nuh uh", do you have anything to suggest there is no chance of this?
We know people can hack air gaps, and if the in-flight wi-fi is at all connected to the electronics in the airplane, there's potentially a lot of attack vectors.
And since there is no actual article, just a summary which says some guy says it can't happen ... I call "bullshit" on the whole story.
Seriously, timothy, a link to a story or this is nothing more than innuendo.
And how much power does that consume? :-P
Why am I not convinced your way sounds like the "easy way"?
I can't event think of the mechanical stresses involved in opening this thing up to spin it around.
In fact, it sounds outright crazy.
And that's before we start considering a fuel tank designed to open up. Because, what could possibly go wrong there?
Moreover, "designed for security" is just a meaningless marketing term. It's a catch phrase, but it doesn't actually mean much, apparently.
You can't just say "I'm making the most secure thing evar" and have that mean anything unless you've spent a LOT of time and effort making it so. You can't just throw something together and think you've made something secure.
And if you make this big bold claim, and then trip on your own dicks, you look like idiots.
My general rule would be to treat a claim like "designed for security" as at best puffery, and at worst a dangerous lie designed to make your product look good. But I sure as heck would't treat it as an indication of actual security.
It was supposed to change the world, but it didn't.
But, I was in a busy downtown once and saw an older gentleman with only one leg riding on a Segway ... I bet for him, the Segway was no joke.
Well, that's why we have Poe's Law.
Weeding out the funny-stupid from the actual-stupid can be a full time job, so people don't bother. ;-)
I agree you should have the right to believe any bat-shit crazy thing you choose. That is your right.
I disagree that simply proclaiming this should entitle you to a tax-free status.
Unless, of course, we're all free to say we believe in any random thing as our religion and are therefore entitled to tax-free status.
We at the Church of the Big Titties are an inclusive group, and do not discriminate on the basis of actually possessing any.
We are a community founded on the appreciation of breasts of all shape and size (despite our name) ... we have but three commandments, "thou shalt not touch the titties of anyone without their consent", and except during the "Sacraments of the Holy Wet T-Shirt" or other appropriate contexts "thou shall endeavor to maintain normal eye contact with the owner of the boobies", and finally "thou shalt not discriminate on the basis of someone having (or not having) titties".
We ask only a small donation to assist in our administrative overhead (purchasing of the Blessed Beer).
If you wish information about establishing a local parish or ordination we offer very reasonable rates. Although, we would in no means infringe on someone else's right to participate in their own form of the Admiring of the Boobies, as we feel that would be contrary to our message.
Honestly, if there's a better reason to write a piece of software, I can't think of it. :-P