Because the engineering mantra of designing something that's the minimum needed to do the job properly has been supplanted with a long-term strategic goal to attempt to sell more things to consumers by selling them devices that don't do everything they need out of the box.
The biggest flaw in the concept of this approach is assuming that the consumer will go to the original supplier for future accessories. You'd think they'd learn that consumers will go to whoever is cheapest, or whoever offers the actual best solution, depending on the penchant of the consumer, and that the original supplier is not necessarily the default option. Unfortunately nearly every company that makes products with modules or consumables makes this mistake.
So instead of providing the simple, robust solution they run themselves in circles attempting to influence the market to benefit them only for all that effort to amount to nothing. Apple has historically been the only company that has managed to do this, but even then, there are plenty of users that will go third-party for accessories.
I'm mildly curious as to the nature of the law that allows the company to effectively act as law enforcement. I'm guessing that buried in the standard licensing agreements are clauses that compel the user to agree to it, but it is still rather surprising.
It's also surprising that Microsoft's HR and legal departments didn't see something like this coming, and take steps to mitigate it. Better counseling, and possibly rotating job duties so that individuals working in this department of the company also work in other departments and do not get immersed in this full time.
I suppose it matters if, as someone browses multiple pages of a website, how much re-downloading of common components of the pages is going on. If I visit the first page for a site to retrieve all of the graphics-intensive formatting stuff, then as I browse thirty more pages on that same site I do not have to re-download that stuff because it's cached then that could make for a difference.
Except that in those cases, the person has to be physically present to perform the tampering, and the person can basically only tamper with one device at a time. On top of that they are there to physically take possession of something, like the vehicle itself, or the chattel property that was stored behind the lock. Lastly, the compromise usually lasts only so long as the perpetrator is physically present.
Software vulnerabilities are compromised remotely and can be compromised in an automated fashion, does not require the perpetrator to touch the device directly, and lasts indefinitely unless steps are taken to end the compromise.
Heh. It's not the rich actors that are impacted so much by California's decision, it's all of the other actors whose names are listed in the end credits rather than the opening titles.
If you can figure out a way to conduct blind auditions like most symphonies do, we'd love to hear your technique.
FYI, that's what orchestras did to combat problems with bias due to gender, race, and age. They stopped looking at those who auditioned and simply listened. Unfortunately that doesn't work so well for a visual medium. But if you've got a better idea let's hear it.
Sure. Now, are you prepared to go through around 225 years of legal precedents through various circuit and supreme court rulings to thoroughly and rigorously define what the law says on the nature of Freedom of Speech when it comes into direct conflict with laws intended to prevent doing harm?
Freedom of Speech is not absolute. It's already law that it may not be used to incite violence, it may not be used to precipitate a dangerous situation through an intent to cause panic, it may not be used to defame. If the State of California can demonstrate that a resource used for employment is causing undue harm to a specfic segment of the population because its disclosure of age and/or birthdate through the the most obvious means to do further background research on those that audition, then that state has an interest in taking what steps it can to try to curb that behavior.
I think this is why Cisco Systems has taken a different approach. They invest in startups that look like they have promise and in the terms of their investment they retain right of first refusal to buy said startup. The upside is that new technology is forced to thrive under someone else's name before Cisco swings in and scoops it up, so if the project doesn't succeed there's no existing Cisco customer base to get upset. The downside is that when Cisco obtains said company, integrating the tech in with the rest of their products is usually clunky, they end up with too much overlap with other products, or poor integration.
It's also fairly likely that these appliances will be "promiscuous" with regard to trying to find WIFI to connect to, because the average consumer can't be counted-on to be tech-savvy enough to set it up properly, and the average appliance installer probably can't either. Even if someone never configures the WIFI, the fridge will probably be configured, out of the box, to look for WIFI, so anyone within range that sets themselves up as a hotspot will become a perferred network for the appliance.
I'm not 100% against the idea of appliances with some kind of network communication, but I am very much against it with the current IoT mindset, which revolves around people in positions of authority that do not understand the ramifications of the threat. Unfortunately I do not see this changing until these manufacturers lose their shirts over compromised applicances.
Unfortunately developers do not think about security implications either, and worse yet, companies are closing down their QA departments and trying to foist the QA responsibilties onto developers.
The only solution that I can see is to force product liability on to the manufacturers when these devices are found to have software vulnerabilities. This requires regulation though, so I don't think it's going to happen for some time unless the right people get sufficiently burned by it. And "the right people" probably are buying SubZero or Viking, not Lucky-Goldstar.
this is true for most people even if they won't admit it.
Most people actually like the idea of something that allows people that are unemployed to not become destitute. The argument is only over for how long the person may remain on this sort of assistance and the initial conditions that allow for the individual to get on it in the first place.
I'm calling for regulation of industries that have a proven track record of causing harm. I did not call for government to be business. I invoke government as a function of the populace to regulate the specific ills that individual people would commit against others in the name of their own personal benefit.
If you're so wrapped-up in anti-government rhetoric that you cannot divorce the concept of government from socialism then I feel sorry for you.
Wow, and I thought I was quite the jaded nihilist...
I suppose I see it that if human beings have the ability to work together for collective endeavors, like government, then there's no reason why we should not try to structure such to get the best balance of outcomes.
Companies like Uber and Lyft are not "ride sharing" companies despite whatever verbiage they attempt to use to describe themselves. They're passenger livery services. Laws that govern the passenger livery service apply to them whether they want them to or not. Also, the way they've structured themselves, they retain enough control over those that work for them to where those individuals are employees. They're running the opposite of the taxi model where the drivers actually are contractors in many cases; lots of taxi companies lease the car to the driver for a daily figure, provide dispatch for pickups if the driver wishes, and otherwise the driver is free to use the car to transport all the fares that the driver can, local laws (like airport rights) not withstanding. Those taxi drivers can drive as much or as little as they want, and short of engaging in bad behavior that reflects on the car owner, doesn't have a lot to answer for to the company itself.
By so tightly controlling the drivers and how they're compensated it's clear that the drivers are not simply contractors, and the only other class by and large is employee. And in my view that's as it should be.
In many ways I use the online presence of small businesses in the same way I used the yellow pages telephone directory, with the addendum that they usually have hours of operation, alternate hours for holidays, and a map to the location present. I generally still have to call to inquire if the business is a specialty supplier, and I have to go in person to do business even if it isn't. As you point out with restaurants it can be nice to have a menu, but I don't need "the experience" that so many restaurants attempt to foster on their website, I just need to know what they serve and when they're open.
And don't forget that a lot, a lot of small businesses make more money than their respective tax agencies are told about. Under-the-table methods of buying and selling contribute a large part to the bottom lines of many small business owners, and those business owners are often not about to change that which would upset that applecart.
I guess then, I'm not exactly sure what you intended with your original reply to me. I distinguished IT and CIS because while related, they're not the same field. There are some that are very good at maintaining hardware, troubleshooting, working with configuration issues, that are definitely not programmers or DBAs or systems architects, and there are programmers, that if you see them walking toward the server room with a screwdriver, you should call security...
I don't see how math reduces to philosophy or sociology. If anything the concept of the mathematical proof helps demonstrate how mathematics seeks to be internally consistent without relying on untested assumptions or givens. Even fundamental integers have been subject to proofs.
Well, a programmer is probably technical enough to understand that the device might have a factory reset function, and if it turns out that the wife is being scapegoated, a programmer is also likely in a position to know enough to be dangerous.
One of the biggest problems in IT and CIS is the assumption that if one is capable on one's particular field, that one is capable in all fields. This simply isn't true in most examples; most people are jack-of-all-trades or are master of a single discipline, and some are jack-of-all-trades and maybe master of one or two in particular. No one is master of all trades.
I will agree that the bulk off the summary is crap. It goes off onto a tangent but doesn't adequately flesh-out that tangent.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the engineering mantra of designing something that's the minimum needed to do the job properly has been supplanted with a long-term strategic goal to attempt to sell more things to consumers by selling them devices that don't do everything they need out of the box.
The biggest flaw in the concept of this approach is assuming that the consumer will go to the original supplier for future accessories. You'd think they'd learn that consumers will go to whoever is cheapest, or whoever offers the actual best solution, depending on the penchant of the consumer, and that the original supplier is not necessarily the default option. Unfortunately nearly every company that makes products with modules or consumables makes this mistake.
So instead of providing the simple, robust solution they run themselves in circles attempting to influence the market to benefit them only for all that effort to amount to nothing. Apple has historically been the only company that has managed to do this, but even then, there are plenty of users that will go third-party for accessories.
I'm mildly curious as to the nature of the law that allows the company to effectively act as law enforcement. I'm guessing that buried in the standard licensing agreements are clauses that compel the user to agree to it, but it is still rather surprising.
It's also surprising that Microsoft's HR and legal departments didn't see something like this coming, and take steps to mitigate it. Better counseling, and possibly rotating job duties so that individuals working in this department of the company also work in other departments and do not get immersed in this full time.
And the problem is, like the Presidency, anyone that actually wants the job should be disqualified by default.
I hope the brakes on the truck hold out...
I suppose it matters if, as someone browses multiple pages of a website, how much re-downloading of common components of the pages is going on. If I visit the first page for a site to retrieve all of the graphics-intensive formatting stuff, then as I browse thirty more pages on that same site I do not have to re-download that stuff because it's cached then that could make for a difference.
Except that in those cases, the person has to be physically present to perform the tampering, and the person can basically only tamper with one device at a time. On top of that they are there to physically take possession of something, like the vehicle itself, or the chattel property that was stored behind the lock. Lastly, the compromise usually lasts only so long as the perpetrator is physically present.
Software vulnerabilities are compromised remotely and can be compromised in an automated fashion, does not require the perpetrator to touch the device directly, and lasts indefinitely unless steps are taken to end the compromise.
Maybe even they have standards...
so what's left will basically be a holding company
'cause it worked so well for Sears...
Can't find it now but there was a Dilbert strip where the PHB's phone associated via Bluetooth to the jet aircraft he was in and Hilarity Ensued...
I'm thinking non-routable LAN...
Heh. It's not the rich actors that are impacted so much by California's decision, it's all of the other actors whose names are listed in the end credits rather than the opening titles.
If you can figure out a way to conduct blind auditions like most symphonies do, we'd love to hear your technique.
FYI, that's what orchestras did to combat problems with bias due to gender, race, and age. They stopped looking at those who auditioned and simply listened. Unfortunately that doesn't work so well for a visual medium. But if you've got a better idea let's hear it.
Sure. Now, are you prepared to go through around 225 years of legal precedents through various circuit and supreme court rulings to thoroughly and rigorously define what the law says on the nature of Freedom of Speech when it comes into direct conflict with laws intended to prevent doing harm?
Freedom of Speech is not absolute. It's already law that it may not be used to incite violence, it may not be used to precipitate a dangerous situation through an intent to cause panic, it may not be used to defame. If the State of California can demonstrate that a resource used for employment is causing undue harm to a specfic segment of the population because its disclosure of age and/or birthdate through the the most obvious means to do further background research on those that audition, then that state has an interest in taking what steps it can to try to curb that behavior.
I think this is why Cisco Systems has taken a different approach. They invest in startups that look like they have promise and in the terms of their investment they retain right of first refusal to buy said startup. The upside is that new technology is forced to thrive under someone else's name before Cisco swings in and scoops it up, so if the project doesn't succeed there's no existing Cisco customer base to get upset. The downside is that when Cisco obtains said company, integrating the tech in with the rest of their products is usually clunky, they end up with too much overlap with other products, or poor integration.
It's also fairly likely that these appliances will be "promiscuous" with regard to trying to find WIFI to connect to, because the average consumer can't be counted-on to be tech-savvy enough to set it up properly, and the average appliance installer probably can't either. Even if someone never configures the WIFI, the fridge will probably be configured, out of the box, to look for WIFI, so anyone within range that sets themselves up as a hotspot will become a perferred network for the appliance.
I'm not 100% against the idea of appliances with some kind of network communication, but I am very much against it with the current IoT mindset, which revolves around people in positions of authority that do not understand the ramifications of the threat. Unfortunately I do not see this changing until these manufacturers lose their shirts over compromised applicances.
Unfortunately developers do not think about security implications either, and worse yet, companies are closing down their QA departments and trying to foist the QA responsibilties onto developers.
The only solution that I can see is to force product liability on to the manufacturers when these devices are found to have software vulnerabilities. This requires regulation though, so I don't think it's going to happen for some time unless the right people get sufficiently burned by it. And "the right people" probably are buying SubZero or Viking, not Lucky-Goldstar.
this is true for most people even if they won't admit it.
Most people actually like the idea of something that allows people that are unemployed to not become destitute. The argument is only over for how long the person may remain on this sort of assistance and the initial conditions that allow for the individual to get on it in the first place.
Where did I say anything about Socialism?
I'm calling for regulation of industries that have a proven track record of causing harm. I did not call for government to be business. I invoke government as a function of the populace to regulate the specific ills that individual people would commit against others in the name of their own personal benefit.
If you're so wrapped-up in anti-government rhetoric that you cannot divorce the concept of government from socialism then I feel sorry for you.
Wow, and I thought I was quite the jaded nihilist...
I suppose I see it that if human beings have the ability to work together for collective endeavors, like government, then there's no reason why we should not try to structure such to get the best balance of outcomes.
Companies like Uber and Lyft are not "ride sharing" companies despite whatever verbiage they attempt to use to describe themselves. They're passenger livery services. Laws that govern the passenger livery service apply to them whether they want them to or not. Also, the way they've structured themselves, they retain enough control over those that work for them to where those individuals are employees. They're running the opposite of the taxi model where the drivers actually are contractors in many cases; lots of taxi companies lease the car to the driver for a daily figure, provide dispatch for pickups if the driver wishes, and otherwise the driver is free to use the car to transport all the fares that the driver can, local laws (like airport rights) not withstanding. Those taxi drivers can drive as much or as little as they want, and short of engaging in bad behavior that reflects on the car owner, doesn't have a lot to answer for to the company itself.
By so tightly controlling the drivers and how they're compensated it's clear that the drivers are not simply contractors, and the only other class by and large is employee. And in my view that's as it should be.
In many ways I use the online presence of small businesses in the same way I used the yellow pages telephone directory, with the addendum that they usually have hours of operation, alternate hours for holidays, and a map to the location present. I generally still have to call to inquire if the business is a specialty supplier, and I have to go in person to do business even if it isn't. As you point out with restaurants it can be nice to have a menu, but I don't need "the experience" that so many restaurants attempt to foster on their website, I just need to know what they serve and when they're open.
And don't forget that a lot, a lot of small businesses make more money than their respective tax agencies are told about. Under-the-table methods of buying and selling contribute a large part to the bottom lines of many small business owners, and those business owners are often not about to change that which would upset that applecart.
I see you shiver with antici...
...
...
...pation!
I guess then, I'm not exactly sure what you intended with your original reply to me. I distinguished IT and CIS because while related, they're not the same field. There are some that are very good at maintaining hardware, troubleshooting, working with configuration issues, that are definitely not programmers or DBAs or systems architects, and there are programmers, that if you see them walking toward the server room with a screwdriver, you should call security...
I don't see how math reduces to philosophy or sociology. If anything the concept of the mathematical proof helps demonstrate how mathematics seeks to be internally consistent without relying on untested assumptions or givens. Even fundamental integers have been subject to proofs.
Well, a programmer is probably technical enough to understand that the device might have a factory reset function, and if it turns out that the wife is being scapegoated, a programmer is also likely in a position to know enough to be dangerous.
One of the biggest problems in IT and CIS is the assumption that if one is capable on one's particular field, that one is capable in all fields. This simply isn't true in most examples; most people are jack-of-all-trades or are master of a single discipline, and some are jack-of-all-trades and maybe master of one or two in particular. No one is master of all trades.
I will agree that the bulk off the summary is crap. It goes off onto a tangent but doesn't adequately flesh-out that tangent.