But even if lost due to non-nuclear reasons, the nuclear inventory will be lost with the rest of the ship and happily lie waiting for the containment to rust away in the salt water.
OK, so what's the realistic way to use an app that uses more bandwidth than your plan includes?
If you want to use an app that plays video (and you want to use it outside of your wifi) you need a way to get those videos to your phone.
I basically agree with you on that here
The issue here is that most smart phone plans make you, the user, responsible for paying for the total amount of bandwidth consumed, but the phone and the apps don't give you a good mechanism to allow you to act on that responsibility in a meaningful way.
It's not that bad as decent mobile OS offers you options to a) see and meter the data volume used up per application and restrict network activities that are not triggered by actively using the app to a wifi environment ("background data") and even have a list what wifis aren't anything but tethering hooks for another mobile data access.
And as you mentioned, the other problem is feature creep. An app gets added a video play feature, and the data usage goes up. But it's still the app developers who have the right to decide what the "correct" scope of features for their app is. And asuming the developers aren't complete morons, tradeoffs in size, network usage, accessibility and such have been carefully considered and are outweighed by new benefits. (If not, the devs probably ARE morons, but everyone has toe right to make their own app worse than before.)
On the other hand, we still require these not-technologically inclined people to select and sign-up for a data-plan. The proper selection already requires them to be available to connect "seeing videos on cellphone" with "huge data volume required"
So if an app starts to play video, one should know that you're going towards your data limit at bullet-speed. And who else but user (and cellphone provider) know where that limit is? That information is not availble to the facebook app and so that descision has to be made by the user.
I know we can't and shouldn't expect that from facebook-app-user Joe Sixpack, but we already expected him to estimate his bandwidth and monthly data usage when signing up for a data plan. Sp you either can expect an informed descision about video loading or you need to start way earlier.
And for the sake of the argument imagine a good salesperson who is not intrested in just selling the most expensive option and asks "Are you planning to watch mobile video on your phone?". If the user answers "no" here and suddenly sees videos on ths phone, he should remember that his plan may be a bit too small for that.
Ok, so you're saying "never launch the Facebook app" is the only responsible choice?
If you have a limited data-plan, using apps that autoplay/preload huge amount of data is irresponsible.
The sane choice of course would be for the facebook app to limit mobile data usage by culling data-heavy features as video autoplay. At least in a market where most users have data caps on their mobile plans. Or have it optional. If it's opt-in or opt-out could still be determined by the current data-plan prices.
It's worth remembering that not using the facebook app is supposed to hit facebook harder than yourself.
facebook is no human right and neither are mobile videos. And if you use your phone to watch video streaming, you should have a data-plan that matches your online.usage.
You can't test some rare situations in real life because they are so rare.
For example car accidents. We're glad that they have been greatly reduced in real life and aren't predictable enough so that cars can be deliberatly sent into real life accidents. That's why we're running simulated accidents, crash tests. Of course not a computer simulation, it's still a simulation that neglects human factors. (evasion maneuvers might lead to other impact angles and speeds, passengers tensing and bracing for impact are simulated by limp dummys)
These "actual physical" simulations also only test what the test designers have accounted for. (It's just that hurling a large mass at a concrete wall isn't a highly dynamic system so it can be safely assumed that all important parametrs have been accounted for)
(Wow, i guess that's the first correct car anaolgy...)
But after receiving the same shitty customer "service" from a more expensive phone company, I decided that if I'm to get screwed over, I'm not going to pay extra for it.
Sunshields would be a workaround and not a PREVENTION.
Prevention starts at the problem source, which is a curved, reflective surface. Making the curve non-parabolic or pointing the aperture north would have been prevention. But sunshades are rather acknowleding the problem and working around it. (Usually adding more complexity and points of failure, but that's another story)
Yes, sometimes you have to use workarounds, maybe the source of the problem might be the solution to an even bigger problem, or the new problem isn't big enough to warrant fundamental design changes, but still that's not prevention.
OK, you're right with that, but on the other hand it would be okay to measure the results of any therapy only compared to the number of patients who want it to be successful in the first place.
No. Exactly not. Windows and doors are like open ports. If you have them, you need to secure them. A firewall works fine in those cases.
Putting a firewall where no open ports are makes as much sense as locking non-existant doors. That makes only sense if you're expecting doors to magically appear in your house. Which for a typical windows installation, is less absurd then it may sound. But then those appearing doors are your main problem.
But again. What IS the threat of network traffic to a port no one is listening on? None. What your firewall is you protecting from is NOT bad stuff from the outside. It's protecting you from the inside danger that some service suddenly opens a port which is reachable from the outside. (Hate to dig out the old Win vs. *nix, but the usual suspects for this are usually Windows servers you need to lock down first, as they're usually asuming that they're in a friendly network. On *nix machines you usually need to manually add those services one by one, as you would open the ports on your firewall)
Spot on... Wikipedia is only as unreliable as WE are. If we see an error and don't fix it, we're part of the problem.
Bt when you encounter a lemma about a childrens book you don't know, you usually assume it's just a book you don't know! Which is usually not an error, unless you can claim to know all childrens books. (and the standard pronounciation is pretty far from the prank call like "I'm a liar" that's probably supposed to be)
- Does SecuROM cause security vulnerabilities on PCs on which it is installed?
Adding a method to hide processes running on your system may be considered a security vulnerability. Such systems are usually used only by malware and legitimate software should NOT use any technology to counter the work of anti-virus software. Either your antivirus is weakend (which should be considered a security vulnerability) or "real" malware might also hide under the "invisibility cloak" set up by SecuROM to hide itself.
SecuROm may not be a security threat in itself, but it uses typical malware patterns and generally weakens your system security.
- Does SecuROM prevent applications - other than pirated copies of the game it is supposed to "protect" - from functioning on PCs on which it is installed?
OK, I'm recounting a user report on forum from years ago from the back of my memory here, so take this paragraph with a grain of salt: (may have been a similar copy protection system, if not exactly SecuROM)
I remember a user reporting a broken DVD writer. He bought a new one and replaced the "malfunctioning" drive only to find out that the new drive was also "broken". Turned out it was a DRM system that blocked the DVD writer and that user threw away a perfectly functioning DVD writer. Actual monetary damage here.
- Does SecuROM create any kind of "always on" background process that consumes resources and potentially reduces performance on PCs on which it is installed?
If it is not uninstalled with the software, it permanently eats up ressources that can't be reclaimed by the legitimate owner by uninstalling, as it is hiding itself from the computers software/process management system. (see "rootKit" in #1) As it is hidden, there is no indication that any problem showing up years after the deinstallation of a computer game (#2) might still be connected to a residual software component (read: garbage) from a casual game from a few years ago.
If the answer to any of the above is "yes" then obviously there is a fairly major problem here. If the answer to all of the above is "no", then I'm not quite sure what people are getting upset about given that we are talking about a free game (SecuROM being bundled with paid-for games is another issue entirely).
No. ESPESCIALLY for free games. Why add copy protection to free stuff anyway? It's free to begin with! No one needs or wants to "pirate" it. Unless of course you need a "pirated" copy of the game to keep the negative SecuROM effects from your system.
"Root your system" not as in "rooting your cellphone to get privileged access to do it's job" as your cellphone backup app or filemanager does.
"Root your system" as in applying stealth technologies used to hide malware from your antivirus software, as a so called "RootKit" (special class of malware using said stealth technologies) is doing.
That's interesting, but irrelevant. You don't fix disgruntled paying customers by humiliating them in front of a crowd.
[citation needed]
In what way was he "humiliated"?
Advising a passenger that non-frequent flyers can't board during frequent flyer boarding is NOT humiliation.
What's next? Someone blogging and making someones life living hell just because he was "rude" and "humiliating" by insisting that you need to buy a ticket to watch that movie in the theater?
Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo, Astavista, ... amongst others
Astavista? Thank you for pointing out what kind of search queries you were intrested in :-)
But even if lost due to non-nuclear reasons, the nuclear inventory will be lost with the rest of the ship and happily lie waiting for the containment to rust away in the salt water.
is it in fact unfair to criticize a formerly great artist for his latter day sins, is it better to burn out or fade away?
Doesn't matter as long as you're doing it in dignity.
OK, so what's the realistic way to use an app that uses more bandwidth than your plan includes?
If you want to use an app that plays video (and you want to use it outside of your wifi) you need a way to get those videos to your phone.
I basically agree with you on that here
The issue here is that most smart phone plans make you, the user, responsible for paying for the total amount of bandwidth consumed, but the phone and the apps don't give you a good mechanism to allow you to act on that responsibility in a meaningful way.
It's not that bad as decent mobile OS offers you options to a) see and meter the data volume used up per application and restrict network activities that are not triggered by actively using the app to a wifi environment ("background data") and even have a list what wifis aren't anything but tethering hooks for another mobile data access.
And as you mentioned, the other problem is feature creep. An app gets added a video play feature, and the data usage goes up. But it's still the app developers who have the right to decide what the "correct" scope of features for their app is. And asuming the developers aren't complete morons, tradeoffs in size, network usage, accessibility and such have been carefully considered and are outweighed by new benefits. (If not, the devs probably ARE morons, but everyone has toe right to make their own app worse than before.)
Absolutely right.
On the other hand, we still require these not-technologically inclined people to select and sign-up for a data-plan. The proper selection already requires them to be available to connect "seeing videos on cellphone" with "huge data volume required"
So if an app starts to play video, one should know that you're going towards your data limit at bullet-speed. And who else but user (and cellphone provider) know where that limit is? That information is not availble to the facebook app and so that descision has to be made by the user.
I know we can't and shouldn't expect that from facebook-app-user Joe Sixpack, but we already expected him to estimate his bandwidth and monthly data usage when signing up for a data plan. Sp you either can expect an informed descision about video loading or you need to start way earlier.
And for the sake of the argument imagine a good salesperson who is not intrested in just selling the most expensive option and asks "Are you planning to watch mobile video on your phone?". If the user answers "no" here and suddenly sees videos on ths phone, he should remember that his plan may be a bit too small for that.
Ok, so you're saying "never launch the Facebook app" is the only responsible choice?
If you have a limited data-plan, using apps that autoplay/preload huge amount of data is irresponsible.
The sane choice of course would be for the facebook app to limit mobile data usage by culling data-heavy features as video autoplay. At least in a market where most users have data caps on their mobile plans. Or have it optional. If it's opt-in or opt-out could still be determined by the current data-plan prices.
It's worth remembering that not using the facebook app is supposed to hit facebook harder than yourself.
facebook is no human right and neither are mobile videos. And if you use your phone to watch video streaming, you should have a data-plan that matches your online.usage.
So not with their own money, but still the government pays for it.
Please define "simulation".
You can't test some rare situations in real life because they are so rare.
For example car accidents. We're glad that they have been greatly reduced in real life and aren't predictable enough so that cars can be deliberatly sent into real life accidents. That's why we're running simulated accidents, crash tests. Of course not a computer simulation, it's still a simulation that neglects human factors. (evasion maneuvers might lead to other impact angles and speeds, passengers tensing and bracing for impact are simulated by limp dummys)
These "actual physical" simulations also only test what the test designers have accounted for. (It's just that hurling a large mass at a concrete wall isn't a highly dynamic system so it can be safely assumed that all important parametrs have been accounted for)
(Wow, i guess that's the first correct car anaolgy...)
Well, I once thought that too.
But after receiving the same shitty customer "service" from a more expensive phone company, I decided that if I'm to get screwed over, I'm not going to pay extra for it.
Call the unexploded scotsman disposal squad?
No. "I fart in your general direction"
Sunshields would be a workaround and not a PREVENTION.
Prevention starts at the problem source, which is a curved, reflective surface. Making the curve non-parabolic or pointing the aperture north would have been prevention. But sunshades are rather acknowleding the problem and working around it. (Usually adding more complexity and points of failure, but that's another story)
Yes, sometimes you have to use workarounds, maybe the source of the problem might be the solution to an even bigger problem, or the new problem isn't big enough to warrant fundamental design changes, but still that's not prevention.
OK, you're right with that, but on the other hand it would be okay to measure the results of any therapy only compared to the number of patients who want it to be successful in the first place.
This is about teaching on HOW to say no despite peer pressure.
No. Exactly not. Windows and doors are like open ports. If you have them, you need to secure them. A firewall works fine in those cases.
Putting a firewall where no open ports are makes as much sense as locking non-existant doors. That makes only sense if you're expecting doors to magically appear in your house. Which for a typical windows installation, is less absurd then it may sound. But then those appearing doors are your main problem.
But again. What IS the threat of network traffic to a port no one is listening on? None. What your firewall is you protecting from is NOT bad stuff from the outside. It's protecting you from the inside danger that some service suddenly opens a port which is reachable from the outside. (Hate to dig out the old Win vs. *nix, but the usual suspects for this are usually Windows servers you need to lock down first, as they're usually asuming that they're in a friendly network. On *nix machines you usually need to manually add those services one by one, as you would open the ports on your firewall)
Spot on... Wikipedia is only as unreliable as WE are. If we see an error and don't fix it, we're part of the problem.
Bt when you encounter a lemma about a childrens book you don't know, you usually assume it's just a book you don't know! Which is usually not an error, unless you can claim to know all childrens books. (and the standard pronounciation is pretty far from the prank call like "I'm a liar" that's probably supposed to be)
Unrealistic expectations?
Not for the best of the Best of the BEST, SIR!
youporn, pornhub and redtube?
Real and respected brands in their field of business.
In related news: Who is surfing to such sites without AdBlocker and NoScript shields up?
thx
- Does SecuROM cause security vulnerabilities on PCs on which it is installed?
Adding a method to hide processes running on your system may be considered a security vulnerability. Such systems are usually used only by malware and legitimate software should NOT use any technology to counter the work of anti-virus software. Either your antivirus is weakend (which should be considered a security vulnerability) or "real" malware might also hide under the "invisibility cloak" set up by SecuROM to hide itself.
SecuROm may not be a security threat in itself, but it uses typical malware patterns and generally weakens your system security.
- Does SecuROM prevent applications - other than pirated copies of the game it is supposed to "protect" - from functioning on PCs on which it is installed?
OK, I'm recounting a user report on forum from years ago from the back of my memory here, so take this paragraph with a grain of salt: (may have been a similar copy protection system, if not exactly SecuROM)
I remember a user reporting a broken DVD writer. He bought a new one and replaced the "malfunctioning" drive only to find out that the new drive was also "broken". Turned out it was a DRM system that blocked the DVD writer and that user threw away a perfectly functioning DVD writer. Actual monetary damage here.
- Does SecuROM create any kind of "always on" background process that consumes resources and potentially reduces performance on PCs on which it is installed?
If it is not uninstalled with the software, it permanently eats up ressources that can't be reclaimed by the legitimate owner by uninstalling, as it is hiding itself from the computers software/process management system. (see "rootKit" in #1) As it is hidden, there is no indication that any problem showing up years after the deinstallation of a computer game (#2) might still be connected to a residual software component (read: garbage) from a casual game from a few years ago.
If the answer to any of the above is "yes" then obviously there is a fairly major problem here. If the answer to all of the above is "no", then I'm not quite sure what people are getting upset about given that we are talking about a free game (SecuROM being bundled with paid-for games is another issue entirely).
No. ESPESCIALLY for free games. Why add copy protection to free stuff anyway? It's free to begin with! No one needs or wants to "pirate" it. Unless of course you need a "pirated" copy of the game to keep the negative SecuROM effects from your system.
"Root your system" not as in "rooting your cellphone to get privileged access to do it's job" as your cellphone backup app or filemanager does.
"Root your system" as in applying stealth technologies used to hide malware from your antivirus software, as a so called "RootKit" (special class of malware using said stealth technologies) is doing.
And no, my video driver isn't doing that.
That's interesting, but irrelevant. You don't fix disgruntled paying customers by humiliating them in front of a crowd.
[citation needed]
In what way was he "humiliated"?
Advising a passenger that non-frequent flyers can't board during frequent flyer boarding is NOT humiliation.
What's next? Someone blogging and making someones life living hell just because he was "rude" and "humiliating" by insisting that you need to buy a ticket to watch that movie in the theater?
After all, he committed several unforgivable sins in a police state:
1. Being critical of authority
And what state would thet be where you think some company clerk is "authority"?
Corporate america where they brainwashed you that it is completly ok if money has power over the weak ones?
And exactly THAT is why it is not as "harmless" to call out names on the public internet as some posters here claimed it was.
Thank you for the demonstration.