Bullshit. You can find all of those in North America, Europe, and basically any place considered "civilized". 99% of the planet's population does not live in Africa, rural China/India, or Oceania.
Its one thing to be a deranged Libertarian asshole, but at least get your facts right. Oh, you depend of FOXNEWS for your information? Never mind.
They should've turned into a computer boutique store. There are tons of them around where I live, all start ups. There is definitely a market for computer repair and/or parts, if they're remotely competitive with online prices they could definitely have something. Computers are a hobby now days, it really sucks they actually got out of it. The shift in focus went from pure 'electronics' to computers, which is why they don't have a target base anymore. Most people aren't doing custom solder jobs while tinkering, but tinkering with their computers.
A market for computer repair? Ha. You'll never make it in retail. Computer repair is at the cusp of an obsolete industry. Something doesn't work? Stick in a new card, or buy a better replacement computer for less than $300. Even now, virus cleanings are just a con by local repair stores. Old consumers just don't get that "repair" is an obsolete industry. Everything is disposable now. Repair is only for niche products in the industrial markets, because there isn't enough "customer" demand to design products to be thrown away.
You realize that the Maker movement (as branded) has only been around for 8 years, and can launch new product lines in less than 6 months? There's no freaking way RS could be relevant in that market; at best, they could have only rode its coattails by religiously following the "industry", and stocking only the most common items. Gad, think of the inventory obsolescence...
You also have to realize that most of that is data and wiki text. The encyclopedia part (without the multimedia data) could probably fit on a DVD (compressed).
Oh come on. Brick & mortar stores are dead. There's no way the gadgeteer could support a brick & mortar geek store. Even stores like Best Buy are on the chopping block, and they were closest to being a model that could support brick & mortar stores with a "geek" shelf. The best model for these kind of product lines are my beloved microcenter.com, and I consider Microcenter on the chopping block.
Face it, if you want to be a geek in the future, you'll have to do it by mail order. There aren't enough geeks in the country to sustain the purchase flow needed for a brick & mortar. Its not the end of the world either; it just means you can't use tactile sense to determine whether to purchase something, and that's a marketing thing anyway.
It's not a cop locating app, it's an app to suggest alternate routes of travel around congested areas. It just has a feature to show where police are, but that's not the purpose of it.
It's BS to say it's putting cops' lives at risk, for the most part. That being said, a lot of cops are feeling really under attack these days because of the public outrage over the last few months and the cops who were ambushed in NYC--like, their families are really worried about them, and I Can respect that.
Then you're as stupid as the cops. Its the cops' job to put themselves into "dangerous" situations in order to protect the public. Cops are scared of "stalkers"? As if stalkers wouldn't exist without a phone app??? Should cops be scared of breathing city air? Should we be providing them breathing masks along with their bulletproof vests and 17 round firearms?
Those two cops that were murdered in NYC were not killed because of an app. They were killed because a deranged shitbag got the jump on them. If cops feel justified killing misdemeanor lifestyle criminals with dangerous, prohibited chokeholds, then they should not feel like the people who pay their salaries support them.
Use your brain. The cops don't want waze because it makes it harder for them to meet their arrest quotas. That is the only effect a speedtrap app can have
That being said, people would be dumb not to check it before robbing a bank, I suppose. Of course, most people who rob banks are pretty dumb.
Only a moron would depend on a voluntary participation app to keep him from getting arrested in a bank robbery. Don't go into crime, you'd get arrested with the other dumbasses.
Any sale of goods, provision of service, or transaction has implied requirements by the vendor to not "damage" the recipient or bystanders. When such vendor is remiss in delivering services as such, OR try to cover up malfeasance, that is a civil harm. When it physically damages individuals, or otherwise legally defined, it is a crime. In most cases, damages are resolved in the civil courts.
Microsoft's products are so pervasive in our society, their ability to be penetrated by hackers threatens bank accounts, personnel records, medical records, and in rare cases, infrastructure. Where Microsoft is "negligent", they can be sued. Its only a matter of time.
And unknown flaw lurking for years does not make Microsoft liable for negligence. A KNOWN flaw, which Microsoft does not move on, will eventually be grounds for civil damages. If it ends up killing people, its possible for it go criminal trial.
That's what Microsoft's response to one of the security bugs. And then they started bitching after Google produced an exploit based on that "trivial" bug.
And how do you prove they're working on the problem in a manner which will result in a quick resolution? Instead of hiring minimum wage flunkys to take calls and say "We're working hard on the problem. Its just a matter of weeks..".
But what gives Google the right to do what they're doing?
What right? The right for the general public to utilize computer products SAFE from thieves and infrastructure terrorism.
They're just as guilty as Microsoft when it comes to security problems and shitty insecure software. Why should they spend their money on announcing other people's flaws, rather than fixing their own?
They are guilty of the same security problems and shitty software. And they should be punished in the commercial markets the way as Microsoft. If they commit the same crime as Microsoft, they should suffer the same penalties. NOT be complicit in covering up competitors' crimes, because they're criminals too.
Especially when Microsoft already has fixed pending and just needs a bit more time to ensure they don't cause even worse problems?
Who honestly thinks that forcing someone to rush out a less-tested patch is a good idea, just because Google has a hard-on for playing the fake superhero?
Microsoft has not always been diligent in correcting security problems, and I'm sure they're more than willing to backslide. Just like once upon a time, you could count on Microsoft putting out reliable windows update patches, but now they drop the ball as when they changed their management and protocols last year.
Posting notices of critical security flaws after giving 90 days for a company to fix it are security researchers' way to tell CORPORATIONS how IMPORTANT it is to design and release secure products.
If you don't do it, marketing will say that security flaw X can't be fixed because too many customers depend on the "insecure" feature. And the COO will say, "why can't you reveal it one year later, so we don't have to hire 12 people to get a fix within 90 days? We can hire 3 people instead." Eventually, some jackass will say "Shoot the messenger! Its their fault bad guys can exploit our insecure product!" Meanwhile, customers and the internet community will be at the mercy of criminals, and critical infrastructure will be vulnerable to hostile, rogue governments.
No company has a RIGHT to jeopardize computer security to ensure a profit, with underqualified developers and marketing deadlines. If you don't let the market determine security's value, then it will be up to civil lawsuits.
Yet another clueless consumer who doesn't understand the nature of the computer security braying their pronouncement of what Google should do.
What's missing in the real world is a litigation avenue where (security) negligence by a (software) company can be address as a class action suit. Now picture companies like Target going bankrupt for their security miscalculation in court, rather than the business hit it took for being publicly embarrassed. Or picture a major bank going under, because of their security design flaw.
Or you can look at Google's actions as tailor made to address security flaws, while minimizing harm to companies and the world's consumers.
Some are deeper architectural problems that, even if an "easy" fix, have a whole ecosystem of software built around that wrong behavior..
Google, or the world, do not have an obligation to tolerate Microsoft's willingness to market a fatally flawed product because a whole industry "expects" to take advantage of an insecure feature. It is no different that a fatally flawed skyscraper design. When such a building or bridge comes about, the world doesn't require architects or engineers to keep quiet about a safety flaw, because people already use it. The owner/design company is required to produce an effective correction to the problem, or the building gets condemned. Otherwise, the company is liable to be sued for the deaths and injury that can be attributed to it when the flaw is finally manifested. Do we really want an industry where companies put out shoddy products that can avoid a bad result in 10-20 years, wait for that error to harm people, and then suffer no economic consequences because they no longer exist?
Boo hoo. So the alternative is allow Microsoft's entire customer to be hacked at will, because Microsoft doesn't want to dedicate resources necessary to resolve a coding issue within 90 days? Security by obscurity.
I'd argue that Slashdot is a website with a national presence and has better topics to cover than a hack in some parent's basement, but apparently not.
Its probably just as cheap as buying a Raspberry Pi or clone. Its probably more useful to start out on assembler with a fully functional computer unit like the RPi. I would see doing assembler on a 6502 more like "embedded" programming, and that's going to be a lost art at some point in the next decade. (The low end with the FPGAs/ASICs and the high end with Artificial Intelligence will eat up most of the market.)
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit. You can find all of those in North America, Europe, and basically any place considered "civilized". 99% of the planet's population does not live in Africa, rural China/India, or Oceania.
Its one thing to be a deranged Libertarian asshole, but at least get your facts right. Oh, you depend of FOXNEWS for your information? Never mind.
They should've turned into a computer boutique store. There are tons of them around where I live, all start ups. There is definitely a market for computer repair and/or parts, if they're remotely competitive with online prices they could definitely have something. Computers are a hobby now days, it really sucks they actually got out of it. The shift in focus went from pure 'electronics' to computers, which is why they don't have a target base anymore. Most people aren't doing custom solder jobs while tinkering, but tinkering with their computers.
A market for computer repair? Ha. You'll never make it in retail. Computer repair is at the cusp of an obsolete industry. Something doesn't work? Stick in a new card, or buy a better replacement computer for less than $300. Even now, virus cleanings are just a con by local repair stores. Old consumers just don't get that "repair" is an obsolete industry. Everything is disposable now. Repair is only for niche products in the industrial markets, because there isn't enough "customer" demand to design products to be thrown away.
You realize that the Maker movement (as branded) has only been around for 8 years, and can launch new product lines in less than 6 months? There's no freaking way RS could be relevant in that market; at best, they could have only rode its coattails by religiously following the "industry", and stocking only the most common items. Gad, think of the inventory obsolescence...
Little sister? You mean grand aunt.
You also have to realize that most of that is data and wiki text. The encyclopedia part (without the multimedia data) could probably fit on a DVD (compressed).
Oh come on. Brick & mortar stores are dead. There's no way the gadgeteer could support a brick & mortar geek store. Even stores like Best Buy are on the chopping block, and they were closest to being a model that could support brick & mortar stores with a "geek" shelf. The best model for these kind of product lines are my beloved microcenter.com, and I consider Microcenter on the chopping block.
Face it, if you want to be a geek in the future, you'll have to do it by mail order. There aren't enough geeks in the country to sustain the purchase flow needed for a brick & mortar. Its not the end of the world either; it just means you can't use tactile sense to determine whether to purchase something, and that's a marketing thing anyway.
The proper term is ideological fanaticism, not religious.
Losing the factory and designers is a loss to American consumers. Losing a brand name is meaningless.
Oh no! Where will I get my free monthly battery!? j/k
You're better off with multipar rather than chuchusoft's par2 binaries.
:(
It's not a cop locating app, it's an app to suggest alternate routes of travel around congested areas. It just has a feature to show where police are, but that's not the purpose of it.
It's BS to say it's putting cops' lives at risk, for the most part. That being said, a lot of cops are feeling really under attack these days because of the public outrage over the last few months and the cops who were ambushed in NYC--like, their families are really worried about them, and I Can respect that.
Then you're as stupid as the cops. Its the cops' job to put themselves into "dangerous" situations in order to protect the public. Cops are scared of "stalkers"? As if stalkers wouldn't exist without a phone app??? Should cops be scared of breathing city air? Should we be providing them breathing masks along with their bulletproof vests and 17 round firearms?
Those two cops that were murdered in NYC were not killed because of an app. They were killed because a deranged shitbag got the jump on them. If cops feel justified killing misdemeanor lifestyle criminals with dangerous, prohibited chokeholds, then they should not feel like the people who pay their salaries support them.
Use your brain. The cops don't want waze because it makes it harder for them to meet their arrest quotas. That is the only effect a speedtrap app can have
That being said, people would be dumb not to check it before robbing a bank, I suppose. Of course, most people who rob banks are pretty dumb.
Only a moron would depend on a voluntary participation app to keep him from getting arrested in a bank robbery. Don't go into crime, you'd get arrested with the other dumbasses.
Any sale of goods, provision of service, or transaction has implied requirements by the vendor to not "damage" the recipient or bystanders. When such vendor is remiss in delivering services as such, OR try to cover up malfeasance, that is a civil harm. When it physically damages individuals, or otherwise legally defined, it is a crime. In most cases, damages are resolved in the civil courts.
Microsoft's products are so pervasive in our society, their ability to be penetrated by hackers threatens bank accounts, personnel records, medical records, and in rare cases, infrastructure. Where Microsoft is "negligent", they can be sued. Its only a matter of time.
And unknown flaw lurking for years does not make Microsoft liable for negligence. A KNOWN flaw, which Microsoft does not move on, will eventually be grounds for civil damages. If it ends up killing people, its possible for it go criminal trial.
Its called steganography.
That's what Microsoft's response to one of the security bugs. And then they started bitching after Google produced an exploit based on that "trivial" bug.
And how do you prove they're working on the problem in a manner which will result in a quick resolution? Instead of hiring minimum wage flunkys to take calls and say "We're working hard on the problem. Its just a matter of weeks..".
But what gives Google the right to do what they're doing?
What right? The right for the general public to utilize computer products SAFE from thieves and infrastructure terrorism.
They're just as guilty as Microsoft when it comes to security problems and shitty insecure software. Why should they spend their money on announcing other people's flaws, rather than fixing their own?
They are guilty of the same security problems and shitty software. And they should be punished in the commercial markets the way as Microsoft. If they commit the same crime as Microsoft, they should suffer the same penalties. NOT be complicit in covering up competitors' crimes, because they're criminals too.
Especially when Microsoft already has fixed pending and just needs a bit more time to ensure they don't cause even worse problems?
Who honestly thinks that forcing someone to rush out a less-tested patch is a good idea, just because Google has a hard-on for playing the fake superhero?
Microsoft has not always been diligent in correcting security problems, and I'm sure they're more than willing to backslide. Just like once upon a time, you could count on Microsoft putting out reliable windows update patches, but now they drop the ball as when they changed their management and protocols last year.
Posting notices of critical security flaws after giving 90 days for a company to fix it are security researchers' way to tell CORPORATIONS how IMPORTANT it is to design and release secure products.
If you don't do it, marketing will say that security flaw X can't be fixed because too many customers depend on the "insecure" feature. And the COO will say, "why can't you reveal it one year later, so we don't have to hire 12 people to get a fix within 90 days? We can hire 3 people instead." Eventually, some jackass will say "Shoot the messenger! Its their fault bad guys can exploit our insecure product!" Meanwhile, customers and the internet community will be at the mercy of criminals, and critical infrastructure will be vulnerable to hostile, rogue governments.
No company has a RIGHT to jeopardize computer security to ensure a profit, with underqualified developers and marketing deadlines. If you don't let the market determine security's value, then it will be up to civil lawsuits.
Yet another clueless consumer who doesn't understand the nature of the computer security braying their pronouncement of what Google should do.
What's missing in the real world is a litigation avenue where (security) negligence by a (software) company can be address as a class action suit. Now picture companies like Target going bankrupt for their security miscalculation in court, rather than the business hit it took for being publicly embarrassed. Or picture a major bank going under, because of their security design flaw.
Or you can look at Google's actions as tailor made to address security flaws, while minimizing harm to companies and the world's consumers.
Some are deeper architectural problems that, even if an "easy" fix, have a whole ecosystem of software built around that wrong behavior..
Google, or the world, do not have an obligation to tolerate Microsoft's willingness to market a fatally flawed product because a whole industry "expects" to take advantage of an insecure feature. It is no different that a fatally flawed skyscraper design. When such a building or bridge comes about, the world doesn't require architects or engineers to keep quiet about a safety flaw, because people already use it. The owner/design company is required to produce an effective correction to the problem, or the building gets condemned. Otherwise, the company is liable to be sued for the deaths and injury that can be attributed to it when the flaw is finally manifested. Do we really want an industry where companies put out shoddy products that can avoid a bad result in 10-20 years, wait for that error to harm people, and then suffer no economic consequences because they no longer exist?
The sample exploit code is necessary because the corporate response after "I need more than 90 days" is "oh, its not a serious security bug".
Boo hoo. So the alternative is allow Microsoft's entire customer to be hacked at will, because Microsoft doesn't want to dedicate resources necessary to resolve a coding issue within 90 days? Security by obscurity.
I'd argue that Slashdot is a website with a national presence and has better topics to cover than a hack in some parent's basement, but apparently not.
68000? Easier than 8086, absolutely, but probably not easier than ARM. People should be learning assembler on an RPi, or clone, or arduino.
Its probably just as cheap as buying a Raspberry Pi or clone. Its probably more useful to start out on assembler with a fully functional computer unit like the RPi. I would see doing assembler on a 6502 more like "embedded" programming, and that's going to be a lost art at some point in the next decade. (The low end with the FPGAs/ASICs and the high end with Artificial Intelligence will eat up most of the market.)