Yeah, the people at the high end didn't get hammered nearly has hard as those on the low end with this price increase. Yours was just under a 3% increase, while my 1 at a time + streaming plan had a 61% increase ($9.99 to $15.98). The cost of that plan has doubled in just under 8 months, when it first went up from $8 to $10 in November.
If that was the sole reason, they could have just split the current $9 plan (for example) into a $4.50 disc plan and a $4.50 streaming plan, and gave you the choice to drop one or the other. That would accomplish the same effect.
Instead, they essentially said both of those things are worth $9, so we're going to charge you nearly double. So either their costs went way up, as a market leader they think they can get away with gouging, or they're looking for additional profit.
But it's undeniable that the inventor has a vested interest in proving that the device is safe. That's why third party evaluation is preferred.
In any case, you've brought up some good points and I've done a bit more research based upon your comments here. After all I've read I still can't say that I entirely agree with you, but I do appreciate the debate and the insight.
So instead of believing actual experts in the field, you're going to trust the manufacturer and original inventor? Are you serious?
In another post, you also cite a Johns Hopkins study. After even the most minute amount of research on my part, I found that this came just a month after DHS donated $6m to the university. A study in which the key data is all redacted. A study which no researcher at the university, or anywhere else, would sign their name to. A study that was conducted not on production equipment, but at a research lab owned by the manufacturer on a unit configured differently than those used at airports. A study that a university spokesperson told a reporter was being misued and misinterpreted by the government, and that they have never tested the safety of the units.
If you look at all their official statements, it's always that the "pose no significant health risk." There's a risk, they just don't consider it significant.
"The only real reasons people are uneasy about their health effects are (a) they don't like the scanners on other grounds as well and (b) it contains the word "X-ray", which, like "nuclear" or "radiation", makes it automatically bad regardless of quantitative data."
What a ridiculous claim. All of us would do well to fall into category (b). Unsafe until proven otherwise. Believe it or not, prior to the installation of these scanners in airports, there is a reason why only specially-licensed medical professionals were permitted to x-ray any portion of a human being. Pregnant mothers and young children are at particularly high risk to their effects.
In the UCSF letter of concern, which I find it hard to believe you haven't read about, the key argument is: "Unlike other scanners, these new devices operate at relatively low beam energies (28keV). The majority of their energy is delivered to the skin and the underlying tissue. Thus, while the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high."
Clearly experts in x-ray imaging, biochemistry, and cancer research qualify as being "in the field."
But the safety of the machines is still somewhat in question. The government says they're fine, but researchers in the field aren't quite so sure. You can't just go around radiating people. Beyond the obvious privacy concerns, there are health concerns as well.
"Bullshit. Microsoft has never sued or to my knowledge threatened to sue to prevent anyone from calling a window manager a window manager."
Obviously. Their protected mark is Windows. They can't go after people calling their products window managers. But that doesn't change the fact that of the time of its inception, Windows was a window manager and the App Store was an application store. They're both awfully generic.
In the same manner, should Apple's trademark be granted, I would hope that names like the "Blackberry Application Store" would be similarly protected, where a "Blackberry App Store" would be in violation.
But, like I said, I don't know enough about the law or the full text of the trademark filings to make a clear decision one way or the other. I don't think the comparison is completely ludicrous, though.
Yes, exactly. That's why I was thinking the wording of trademark application could be important. Did they explicitly register it in regards to an "operating system"? Or was it the more generic "Computer software" or "Computer application"? The implication I was making was that since Windows was not a full "operating system" on its own at the time of filing, it may be registered as simply software or something to that effect.
There are certainly some subtleties here that make it unwise to go around calling people idiots, which is all I was really getting at.
No disagreement here, and I certainly never claimed it absolved them from blame. I only wanted to point out that in some manufacturing processes all these problems could be caused by a single point of failure, and does not necessarily imply widespread deficiencies in the assembly process.
The person I was replying to implied that since there were several different problems there must be lots of people on the assembly line who were making mistakes. I just meant to point out that that is not necessarily the case.
Of course, when Windows was originally released (and trademarked), it was a window manager that ran on top of the MS-DOS operating system. It didn't grow into a full operating system until later. The first version was released in 1985. Even when the Windows trademark was filed in 1990, it was still running on top of MS-DOS.
I think you could potentially argue that Windows = Window manager is just as generic as App Store = Application store at the time. It probably depends upon the exact wording of the trademark application, which I can't seem to dig up anywhere, but it's certainly not clear cut enough to go around calling people names over it.
Do you know that for certain? At least one other manufacturer, Dell, assigns the assembly of an entire machine to a single employee. Somebody's first day on the job could result in a machine like the one shown here.
The reason I've always been skeptical of using the Pwn to Own contest results in the way you have is that the guys creating these exploits are going to go after the most valuable targets first. Invariably, that's the Mac in the category. Even if the retail values of the devices are close to each other, the resale value of the Mac is going to be higher.
So, to make the most money from Pwn to Own, you go after the Macs.
Then, you have the notoriety factor, given that Macs have press for being more secure, whether that's accurate or not, you're going to get more press for targeting the Mac.
This is presumed to be a PS3 exclusive for the time being, because as you mentioned... the "premier" Netflix streamer (Roku) can't do it yet either. All the boxes physically support it, it's just Netflix lagging behind.
You can periodically grab these new for $150 or less, and there have been several big deals in the past few weeks for $130. Don't pay $200.
Is my reading of that statue correct, in that you cannot even call yourself an engineer if you're not professionally licensed? As a digital board designer (Electrical Engineer) having a PE is useless in this field. But if I were to move to NC, I couldn't call myself an Engineer even with a Masters in Engineering? That sounds ridiculous.
The GP was most likely referring to Market Capitalization. By that measure, Apple is bigger than even Microsoft and Wal-Mart... second only to Exxon Mobil, which it trails by a fair amount ($330b to $368b).
I think the "companion article" is not as related as the posted claimed it to be. After having read both, they're about two completely different topics.
The article doesn't say which models and brands were attacked. I'd be curious to see which ones they got.
These keys are certainly extremely useful. The key on mine detects if its inside or outside the car, and can even open the trunk if I touch a button by the tail lights. The fact that the manufacturers haven't considered the security ramifications of these keys is unsettling.
From the description, this seems to be a variation on the standard man-in-the-middle attack. These manufacturers should know better.
It sounds like he had the point just right to me. Neither he nor any of the other parent posts state that you should be able to take a modified XBox online. It's generally thought that the loss of online access is an acceptable, though annoying, side effect of modding.
This case is NOT about being able to put a modded XBox online. These guys are perfectly happy to use their XBoxes "Off-road." This case is about whether or not it's illegal to mod it in the first place (or more accurately, whether someone can mod your it for you). That is where, for once, a car analogy is actually pretty accurate.
Where was it suggested that racial profiling be used? Israel has had great success with passenger profiling, and there's a whole lot more to it than skin color.
Unfortunately you need trained and intelligent security agents to make it work, something we're never likely to be able to commit to. Cheap, poorly-trained TSA agents frisking people down looks more impressive to travelers than a couple relatively-expensive guys highly trained in interrogation techniques and reading facial expressions.
Was this not an obvious gag? These guys seem genuinely surprised to have discovered this just a few months ago, claiming "you certainly haven't noticed this." I figured most people had picked up on the "You killed my pine" joke years and years ago.
I see mentions of it on the internet way back into 2000, and it was already regarded as old new then. Yikes.
Not all of them were. The majority of the cases they offered had full back coverage. It's been awhile since I ordered mine, but I think Apple's case was the only one without back coverage.
However, none of the cases they offered were of the slide-in type, which is what is under scrutiny here.
That would be difficult on most recent cars. They generally have a plastic floor under the engine bay to reduce drag and increase fuel economy. They'd have to remove it to place in in the engine bay from underneath. Most have some kind of oil change "hatch" that's easier to remove than taking off the entire cover, but it still is likely to be faster to just get into the passenger compartment and pop the hood.
That annoyed me too, at first, but eventually I realized it was just wasted space. It's far easier to simply trigger Expose to find the window I want, rather than associate which box in the tab bar is associated with which window on my desktop... especially if you have multiple windows from the same program open. On Windows you need the title bar text to distinguish between multiple instances/windows of the same program. On OS X, just select the one with the contents you're looking for.
Microsoft recognized this and made a similar implementation for Windows 7, but left the task bar this new feature rendered obsolete. I expect they'll get rid of it at some point, and didn't want to change too much all at once.
I imagine there are cases where the text-in-box method is preferable, but I don't encounter them in my usage.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, the people at the high end didn't get hammered nearly has hard as those on the low end with this price increase. Yours was just under a 3% increase, while my 1 at a time + streaming plan had a 61% increase ($9.99 to $15.98). The cost of that plan has doubled in just under 8 months, when it first went up from $8 to $10 in November.
If that was the sole reason, they could have just split the current $9 plan (for example) into a $4.50 disc plan and a $4.50 streaming plan, and gave you the choice to drop one or the other. That would accomplish the same effect.
Instead, they essentially said both of those things are worth $9, so we're going to charge you nearly double. So either their costs went way up, as a market leader they think they can get away with gouging, or they're looking for additional profit.
But it's undeniable that the inventor has a vested interest in proving that the device is safe. That's why third party evaluation is preferred.
In any case, you've brought up some good points and I've done a bit more research based upon your comments here. After all I've read I still can't say that I entirely agree with you, but I do appreciate the debate and the insight.
So instead of believing actual experts in the field, you're going to trust the manufacturer and original inventor? Are you serious?
In another post, you also cite a Johns Hopkins study. After even the most minute amount of research on my part, I found that this came just a month after DHS donated $6m to the university. A study in which the key data is all redacted. A study which no researcher at the university, or anywhere else, would sign their name to. A study that was conducted not on production equipment, but at a research lab owned by the manufacturer on a unit configured differently than those used at airports. A study that a university spokesperson told a reporter was being misued and misinterpreted by the government, and that they have never tested the safety of the units.
If you look at all their official statements, it's always that the "pose no significant health risk." There's a risk, they just don't consider it significant.
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2011/02/11/i-team-do-airport-x-ray-scanners-pose-a-risk-to-travelers/
"The only real reasons people are uneasy about their health effects are (a) they don't like the scanners on other grounds as well and (b) it contains the word "X-ray", which, like "nuclear" or "radiation", makes it automatically bad regardless of quantitative data."
What a ridiculous claim. All of us would do well to fall into category (b). Unsafe until proven otherwise. Believe it or not, prior to the installation of these scanners in airports, there is a reason why only specially-licensed medical professionals were permitted to x-ray any portion of a human being. Pregnant mothers and young children are at particularly high risk to their effects.
In the UCSF letter of concern, which I find it hard to believe you haven't read about, the key argument is:
"Unlike other scanners, these new devices operate at relatively low beam energies
(28keV). The majority of their energy is delivered to the skin and the underlying
tissue. Thus, while the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume
of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high."
Clearly experts in x-ray imaging, biochemistry, and cancer research qualify as being "in the field."
Fair enough. The mental image of a device that "radiate people" gave me a good laugh. I'd mod you up if I could.
But the safety of the machines is still somewhat in question. The government says they're fine, but researchers in the field aren't quite so sure. You can't just go around radiating people. Beyond the obvious privacy concerns, there are health concerns as well.
"Bullshit. Microsoft has never sued or to my knowledge threatened to sue to prevent anyone from calling a window manager a window manager."
Obviously. Their protected mark is Windows. They can't go after people calling their products window managers. But that doesn't change the fact that of the time of its inception, Windows was a window manager and the App Store was an application store. They're both awfully generic.
In the same manner, should Apple's trademark be granted, I would hope that names like the "Blackberry Application Store" would be similarly protected, where a "Blackberry App Store" would be in violation.
But, like I said, I don't know enough about the law or the full text of the trademark filings to make a clear decision one way or the other. I don't think the comparison is completely ludicrous, though.
Yes, exactly. That's why I was thinking the wording of trademark application could be important. Did they explicitly register it in regards to an "operating system"? Or was it the more generic "Computer software" or "Computer application"? The implication I was making was that since Windows was not a full "operating system" on its own at the time of filing, it may be registered as simply software or something to that effect.
There are certainly some subtleties here that make it unwise to go around calling people idiots, which is all I was really getting at.
No disagreement here, and I certainly never claimed it absolved them from blame. I only wanted to point out that in some manufacturing processes all these problems could be caused by a single point of failure, and does not necessarily imply widespread deficiencies in the assembly process.
The person I was replying to implied that since there were several different problems there must be lots of people on the assembly line who were making mistakes. I just meant to point out that that is not necessarily the case.
Of course, when Windows was originally released (and trademarked), it was a window manager that ran on top of the MS-DOS operating system. It didn't grow into a full operating system until later. The first version was released in 1985. Even when the Windows trademark was filed in 1990, it was still running on top of MS-DOS.
I think you could potentially argue that Windows = Window manager is just as generic as App Store = Application store at the time. It probably depends upon the exact wording of the trademark application, which I can't seem to dig up anywhere, but it's certainly not clear cut enough to go around calling people names over it.
Do you know that for certain? At least one other manufacturer, Dell, assigns the assembly of an entire machine to a single employee. Somebody's first day on the job could result in a machine like the one shown here.
The reason I've always been skeptical of using the Pwn to Own contest results in the way you have is that the guys creating these exploits are going to go after the most valuable targets first. Invariably, that's the Mac in the category. Even if the retail values of the devices are close to each other, the resale value of the Mac is going to be higher.
So, to make the most money from Pwn to Own, you go after the Macs.
Then, you have the notoriety factor, given that Macs have press for being more secure, whether that's accurate or not, you're going to get more press for targeting the Mac.
This is presumed to be a PS3 exclusive for the time being, because as you mentioned... the "premier" Netflix streamer (Roku) can't do it yet either. All the boxes physically support it, it's just Netflix lagging behind.
You can periodically grab these new for $150 or less, and there have been several big deals in the past few weeks for $130. Don't pay $200.
Is my reading of that statue correct, in that you cannot even call yourself an engineer if you're not professionally licensed? As a digital board designer (Electrical Engineer) having a PE is useless in this field. But if I were to move to NC, I couldn't call myself an Engineer even with a Masters in Engineering? That sounds ridiculous.
It depends what metric you use.
The GP was most likely referring to Market Capitalization. By that measure, Apple is bigger than even Microsoft and Wal-Mart... second only to Exxon Mobil, which it trails by a fair amount ($330b to $368b).
I think the "companion article" is not as related as the posted claimed it to be. After having read both, they're about two completely different topics.
The article doesn't say which models and brands were attacked. I'd be curious to see which ones they got.
These keys are certainly extremely useful. The key on mine detects if its inside or outside the car, and can even open the trunk if I touch a button by the tail lights. The fact that the manufacturers haven't considered the security ramifications of these keys is unsettling.
From the description, this seems to be a variation on the standard man-in-the-middle attack. These manufacturers should know better.
It sounds like he had the point just right to me. Neither he nor any of the other parent posts state that you should be able to take a modified XBox online. It's generally thought that the loss of online access is an acceptable, though annoying, side effect of modding.
This case is NOT about being able to put a modded XBox online. These guys are perfectly happy to use their XBoxes "Off-road." This case is about whether or not it's illegal to mod it in the first place (or more accurately, whether someone can mod your it for you). That is where, for once, a car analogy is actually pretty accurate.
Where was it suggested that racial profiling be used? Israel has had great success with passenger profiling, and there's a whole lot more to it than skin color.
Unfortunately you need trained and intelligent security agents to make it work, something we're never likely to be able to commit to. Cheap, poorly-trained TSA agents frisking people down looks more impressive to travelers than a couple relatively-expensive guys highly trained in interrogation techniques and reading facial expressions.
Was this not an obvious gag? These guys seem genuinely surprised to have discovered this just a few months ago, claiming "you certainly haven't noticed this." I figured most people had picked up on the "You killed my pine" joke years and years ago.
I see mentions of it on the internet way back into 2000, and it was already regarded as old new then. Yikes.
Still, it was a clever joke.
Not all of them were. The majority of the cases they offered had full back coverage. It's been awhile since I ordered mine, but I think Apple's case was the only one without back coverage.
However, none of the cases they offered were of the slide-in type, which is what is under scrutiny here.
Apple did not provide any slider-type cases as part of the free case program, and these investigations are targeted only at that one type of case.
That would be difficult on most recent cars. They generally have a plastic floor under the engine bay to reduce drag and increase fuel economy. They'd have to remove it to place in in the engine bay from underneath. Most have some kind of oil change "hatch" that's easier to remove than taking off the entire cover, but it still is likely to be faster to just get into the passenger compartment and pop the hood.
That annoyed me too, at first, but eventually I realized it was just wasted space. It's far easier to simply trigger Expose to find the window I want, rather than associate which box in the tab bar is associated with which window on my desktop... especially if you have multiple windows from the same program open. On Windows you need the title bar text to distinguish between multiple instances/windows of the same program. On OS X, just select the one with the contents you're looking for.
Microsoft recognized this and made a similar implementation for Windows 7, but left the task bar this new feature rendered obsolete. I expect they'll get rid of it at some point, and didn't want to change too much all at once.
I imagine there are cases where the text-in-box method is preferable, but I don't encounter them in my usage.