The real problem is, it can change any time. PS4 can become more stringent
If it starts out not requiring any internet connection, and you never update it, it won't get any more restrictive.
It simply won't be given an option by some of us -- my next console will never see a network, because it's not like I trust Sony either. But the next XBox is definitely not something I'll even consider.
If you're going to allow your vendor to access it, you either need contract language that says they can't do that without approval/will compensate you for downtime, or you deserve what you got.
It usually takes us almost 2 weeks notice to make any changes in a Production environment as we go through all of the approvals and review -- letting a vendor just make a change when they feel like it? Epic fail.
Vendors are very often overly optimistic about how they can do a 'quick change', and quite clueless about what can go wrong and how long it takes to fix -- I learned a long time ago you don't make changes to a live production system unless you really are 100% confident, or can live with outages.
No company I have ever worked for would consider that an acceptable risk. That's just reckless.
the supplier, with no notice, remotely connected to the process control system and completely botched an update to their system. We are down and the vendor is inept and not likely to have us back to 100% for a few days. Obviously the main issue is that they were able to do this at all, but reality is that IT gets overridden by the Process Control department in a manufacturing business.
Whoever allowed that is a freakin' moron.
If you're allowing a vendor to update your production stuff whenever they feel like it and not coordinating with you, then whoever decided on that within your company is a bloody idiot who deserves this.
I feel your pain, but you (in addition to making sure this doesn't happen again) should be making damned sure to scream loudly that you told them so.
If you blindly trusted your vendors and game them that kind of access, something has gone horribly wrong at your company.
This sounds like a case of being lazy and stupid instead of really thinking about your business needs.
Except, the original term was "duck tape" and not "duct tape" -- because it served as waterproofing for ammunition boxes and had nothing to do with ductwork.
It's actually not a very good use on ducts, since it doesn't do the right things -- in some places, it's against code to use it for ducts.
If you have duck tape on your ducts, whoever put it there was lazy (or cheap).
So nobody is likely to use this for actual work, but as a teaching aid, it definitely goes a long way. Explaining with a working physical device the principles of basic computing and Turing machine type things is pretty cool
And, if someone has done this, it's only a matter of time before we start getting some super awesome 3d printed Rube Goldberg type or Steampunk-type of devices.
Absolutely. MIT doesn't get to define "hack" for the culture at large.
No, but the term hacking was in use for a very long time before everyone came along and decided cracker was a better word.
Many of us are old enough to remember the term applying to both, and listening to the whining about how it's supposed to be crack instead of hack gets an eye roll, because those people weren't around when 'hack' covered a lot more.
MIT doesn't get to define the word, but people who are trying to retroactively re-define it are also missing the point.
And to many of us, that's why we still use the word 'hack' in both the making something cool category and 'hacking' into a system.
To me, this insistence on using the word 'cracker' came about a decade too late -- because 'hack' was used for both for a long time, and then a bunch of people starting whining and saying it should be 'cracking'.
For me it will always be hacking code and hacking into a system.
Pretty much the same as most patents nowadays... "a system and methodology for doing something we've been doing for decades, but with a computer".
And to all of these companies who think they're going to be my digital wallet -- good luck with that, I don't trust you and I'm not interested in paying for shit with my phone.
No, no it's not. That's the *point*. The law has been twisted and re-interpreted so that the activities that Congress intended to stop are now allowable.
I remain unconvinced it's Constitutional, at which point, it can't possibly be legal.
No matter how many legal opinions you get that say it's OK.
"Any person who has a security clearance knows that he or she has an obligation to protect classified information and abide by the law,"
Isn't widespread domestic spying without a specific purpose and a warrant against the law?
This guys is brave for identifying himself and releasing this information, but I fear he's going to get absolutely destroyed in this process.
I fear governments have tipped over to the point where security and paranoia will completely obliterate any privacy and anonymity.
Of course, the biggest fear is that now that Microsoft, Google, and almost everyone else have rolled over to help the US do this spying, every other country is going to demand the same. I'm hard pressed to see how they could refuse given the precedent they've set.
Seriously, the need to phone home once/day is a deal breaker. Not being able to take a game over to a friends place without signing into my account is a deal breaker. Telling me how I can sell or giveaway my used games is a deal breaker.
There's nothing about this that I'm interested in. I don't play games online, my XBox isn't connected to a network because they started putting ads into the games, and I refuse to give them a channel for it.
So, my single purchase (or non-purchase) is insignificant, and Microsoft won't care. But of the people I know who own an XBox, pretty much all of them have said they don't want this either.
There's nothing about this new platform that sounds good for the consumer, and it certainly doesn't leave them much choice.
So whatever the first next-generation console is which can be ran entirely offline without any network connection over its lifetime stands a pretty good chance of getting bought. But Microsoft can eat shit if they think I'll pay them for the privilege of owning one of these (which I'm sure the EULA says we don't own anyway).
Either I and people like myself will pretty much be irrelevant, which is fine, or there's going to be a huge consumer backlash against this, and Microsoft is going to find themselves holding the bag on a gaming platform nobody wants.
Well then let's class-action lawsuit them into hell.
They were complying with a 'lawful' demand, so on what basis could you sue them?
Until a court says this practice is illegal, I don't see a lawsuit getting any standing. Given that the Executive Branch these days seems to define what is legal without a court to back them up, even less so.
As soon as you filed the paperwork, men in dark suits and glasses would quietly inform the court that for national security purposes this was to be dropped.
When they make up what is legal on the fly, you really don't have a lot of recourse.
Verizon got informed that they were required to comply, I don't think there was much room for them to disagree.
When someone comes to you with a National Security Letter (or whatever they're called), you don't even have the legal right to tell someone about it without facing (probably secret) charges.
But, I gotta say, you make it sound even more depressing -- we're not spying on you, we're asking them to provide us with information about you.
As someone who frequently gets accused of having the tinfoil hat on a little snug, this is pretty much the worst case scenario.
"We're going to monitor everything, and maybe we'll get lucky" -- and how long before the technology progresses to the point that they can come back and say "hey, we see from phone records you called this alleged drug dealer 5 years ago, so we'll be charging you".
If this isn't about as Orwellian as you can get, I don't know what would be. Give up all your freedoms so we can make sure you keep your freedom is a joke -- Freedom is Slavery, War is Peace.
America is quickly ceasing to be free. And I'm pretty sure this doesn't pass Constitutional muster -- everything nowadays is driven by "we have an opinion which says this is ok, so we're going to do it".
But in order to get any of this you'll need to provide us with extensive information which will be used for marketing purposes, and sign away some other rights.
Most importantly, these 'settlements' amount to trivial amounts, and no real admission of guilt... gee, a whole 16GB USB stick for selling a laptop which is patently not suited for the claimed purposes, several years later when you can buy one at a gas station for $10. That makes up for selling a shitty product in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Sadly, that's at least once per day. The Xbox 1 is going to require to phone home once every 24 hours according to what they've been saying.
So I'm hoping the option to buy the PS4 and never connect it to a network will be viable.
Possibly true, but as long as it doesn't need a network connection *ever*, I'll try to live with that.
Otherwise it, and a steaming pile of shit will be shipped to Sony.
If it starts out not requiring any internet connection, and you never update it, it won't get any more restrictive.
It simply won't be given an option by some of us -- my next console will never see a network, because it's not like I trust Sony either. But the next XBox is definitely not something I'll even consider.
If you're going to allow your vendor to access it, you either need contract language that says they can't do that without approval/will compensate you for downtime, or you deserve what you got.
It usually takes us almost 2 weeks notice to make any changes in a Production environment as we go through all of the approvals and review -- letting a vendor just make a change when they feel like it? Epic fail.
Vendors are very often overly optimistic about how they can do a 'quick change', and quite clueless about what can go wrong and how long it takes to fix -- I learned a long time ago you don't make changes to a live production system unless you really are 100% confident, or can live with outages.
No company I have ever worked for would consider that an acceptable risk. That's just reckless.
Whoever allowed that is a freakin' moron.
If you're allowing a vendor to update your production stuff whenever they feel like it and not coordinating with you, then whoever decided on that within your company is a bloody idiot who deserves this.
I feel your pain, but you (in addition to making sure this doesn't happen again) should be making damned sure to scream loudly that you told them so.
If you blindly trusted your vendors and game them that kind of access, something has gone horribly wrong at your company.
This sounds like a case of being lazy and stupid instead of really thinking about your business needs.
So are fire and the wheel, but still very effective nonetheless.
Except, the original term was "duck tape" and not "duct tape" -- because it served as waterproofing for ammunition boxes and had nothing to do with ductwork.
It's actually not a very good use on ducts, since it doesn't do the right things -- in some places, it's against code to use it for ducts.
If you have duck tape on your ducts, whoever put it there was lazy (or cheap).
So nobody is likely to use this for actual work, but as a teaching aid, it definitely goes a long way. Explaining with a working physical device the principles of basic computing and Turing machine type things is pretty cool
And, if someone has done this, it's only a matter of time before we start getting some super awesome 3d printed Rube Goldberg type or Steampunk-type of devices.
I was counting the pointy stick as most of that cost. ;-)
But you definitely want your pointy stick to be solidly attached -- that way you can have telepresence robot jousting on Fridays.
But, really, anybody with one of these better be saying "exterminate! exterminate!" at every possible opportunity, or they've missed the point.
And for about $2 you can duck tape a pointy stick to it.
And those of us who were around thought it was a crappy movie and have been trying to forget it since then.
No, but the term hacking was in use for a very long time before everyone came along and decided cracker was a better word.
Many of us are old enough to remember the term applying to both, and listening to the whining about how it's supposed to be crack instead of hack gets an eye roll, because those people weren't around when 'hack' covered a lot more.
MIT doesn't get to define the word, but people who are trying to retroactively re-define it are also missing the point.
And to many of us, that's why we still use the word 'hack' in both the making something cool category and 'hacking' into a system.
To me, this insistence on using the word 'cracker' came about a decade too late -- because 'hack' was used for both for a long time, and then a bunch of people starting whining and saying it should be 'cracking'.
For me it will always be hacking code and hacking into a system.
Pretty much the same as most patents nowadays ... "a system and methodology for doing something we've been doing for decades, but with a computer".
And to all of these companies who think they're going to be my digital wallet -- good luck with that, I don't trust you and I'm not interested in paying for shit with my phone.
Didn't Wally do this in Dilbert a while back?
Sounds like an idea which most people will wonder why they're doing it.
I remain unconvinced it's Constitutional, at which point, it can't possibly be legal.
No matter how many legal opinions you get that say it's OK.
Well, this is Hong Kong not mainland China, so there are some differences in the legal system and the like.
But, having said that, I have no idea if they will resist any extradition or not.
Isn't widespread domestic spying without a specific purpose and a warrant against the law?
This guys is brave for identifying himself and releasing this information, but I fear he's going to get absolutely destroyed in this process.
I fear governments have tipped over to the point where security and paranoia will completely obliterate any privacy and anonymity.
Of course, the biggest fear is that now that Microsoft, Google, and almost everyone else have rolled over to help the US do this spying, every other country is going to demand the same. I'm hard pressed to see how they could refuse given the precedent they've set.
Seriously, the need to phone home once/day is a deal breaker. Not being able to take a game over to a friends place without signing into my account is a deal breaker. Telling me how I can sell or giveaway my used games is a deal breaker.
There's nothing about this that I'm interested in. I don't play games online, my XBox isn't connected to a network because they started putting ads into the games, and I refuse to give them a channel for it.
So, my single purchase (or non-purchase) is insignificant, and Microsoft won't care. But of the people I know who own an XBox, pretty much all of them have said they don't want this either.
There's nothing about this new platform that sounds good for the consumer, and it certainly doesn't leave them much choice.
So whatever the first next-generation console is which can be ran entirely offline without any network connection over its lifetime stands a pretty good chance of getting bought. But Microsoft can eat shit if they think I'll pay them for the privilege of owning one of these (which I'm sure the EULA says we don't own anyway).
Either I and people like myself will pretty much be irrelevant, which is fine, or there's going to be a huge consumer backlash against this, and Microsoft is going to find themselves holding the bag on a gaming platform nobody wants.
They were complying with a 'lawful' demand, so on what basis could you sue them?
Until a court says this practice is illegal, I don't see a lawsuit getting any standing. Given that the Executive Branch these days seems to define what is legal without a court to back them up, even less so.
As soon as you filed the paperwork, men in dark suits and glasses would quietly inform the court that for national security purposes this was to be dropped.
When they make up what is legal on the fly, you really don't have a lot of recourse.
Verizon got informed that they were required to comply, I don't think there was much room for them to disagree.
When someone comes to you with a National Security Letter (or whatever they're called), you don't even have the legal right to tell someone about it without facing (probably secret) charges.
But, I gotta say, you make it sound even more depressing -- we're not spying on you, we're asking them to provide us with information about you.
As someone who frequently gets accused of having the tinfoil hat on a little snug, this is pretty much the worst case scenario.
"We're going to monitor everything, and maybe we'll get lucky" -- and how long before the technology progresses to the point that they can come back and say "hey, we see from phone records you called this alleged drug dealer 5 years ago, so we'll be charging you".
If this isn't about as Orwellian as you can get, I don't know what would be. Give up all your freedoms so we can make sure you keep your freedom is a joke -- Freedom is Slavery, War is Peace.
America is quickly ceasing to be free. And I'm pretty sure this doesn't pass Constitutional muster -- everything nowadays is driven by "we have an opinion which says this is ok, so we're going to do it".
New rule, only the people who solve the problem get credit.
Otherwise we'll end up with the Fermat/Coca Cola theorem, or The Theory of Relativity, brought to you by Kinkos.
So, being quite cynical about such things, in what way would a proof of this conjecture allow him to make more money?
Philanthropy and advancing science are good, but my first thoughts is that if someone can prove this he stands to make massive amounts of money.
But in order to get any of this you'll need to provide us with extensive information which will be used for marketing purposes, and sign away some other rights.
Most importantly, these 'settlements' amount to trivial amounts, and no real admission of guilt ... gee, a whole 16GB USB stick for selling a laptop which is patently not suited for the claimed purposes, several years later when you can buy one at a gas station for $10. That makes up for selling a shitty product in the first place.