Spend some time on a tailoring forum, and you will hear **precisely** that complaint. Often. Especially if the client has availability issues such that months have passed between fittings.
I'd be surprised if their terms don't specifically cover that. I know if you are ordering a made to measure wedding dress it is clearly specified what the agreed measurements are. It normally also includes specific language to cover situations where someone is having the dress made to a different size, so if the bride is planning on losing weight before the wedding measurements are agreed and set in writing. If they don't manage to lose the weight then the dressmaker is protected and can charge for a new dress or alterations.
A better approach would be to generate a random seed and combine the seed with the password to generate the hash, and store the seed with the hash.
What you are describing is basically salted hashes. You have a salt that you add to the password before you hash it. Normally the same salt is used for every password. This sounds less secure than what you describe as an attacker could generate one hash dictionary to attack all of the hashes but only using one salt means that you don't need to store them in the database with the hashes. This gives an extra level of security as an attacker who only has access to the database doesn't get the salt along with all of the hashes.
That's one of the big issues I see with the "first world". We don't actually make the stuff any more that got us to that position in the first place. How long before the rest of the world doesn't need us any more?
This argument pretty much disproves itself. Other countries need countries like the USA because of the point you are making. Manufacturing products for US companies is a big part of the economy in a lot of countries. As countries like China continue to develop their manufacturing industry they will continue to need Western countries to provide a market for their home grown products.
This is how the world economy works. Different countries economies are based on different things and they trade.
All of which seems to mean I would need to provide a landing page to explain about cookies before taking the user to any pages on which analytics are applied
Most of the implementations I have seen so far just land the user on the page, but don't load the analytics javascript. The page has a "Accept cookies read more on our cookie description page" bar across the top and when the user clicks Accept it then loads the javascript. Others just have a bar that states "By continuing to use this website you are consenting to us using cookies to collect non-identifiable analytics" with a link to a cookie policy.
On the Internet, this is not the case, as long as someone is willing to pay for it then the studios can keep producing their shows and can keep distributing them.
I don't think we are quite there yet. I don't know of any traditionally produced TV show that is exclusively available online and funded by online viewing/subscriptions. I say traditionally produced to distinguish a show with 20-60 minute episodes produced by a big studio from web series like The Guild. By making this distinction I am not attempting to say web shows like The Guild aren't 'real TV' I'm just making the point that there is a big difference between the cost and business model of a show with 5 min episodes and a traditional studio TV show.
Why not just give away the TV series for free to everyone, then sell physical goods to the biggest fans?
Because there is no equivalent of concert tickets for TV shows. DVDs would be the closest comparison, but they are just the same show people have already seen. One of the big reason people pay for expensive concert tickets is because a live concert is a very different experience from listening to a CD.
Funding a show like Game of Thrones with DVD and tshirt sales would be an incredibly risky venture, if not completely impossible. DVD sales are a long tail revenue stream so you would have to fund the whole first season speculatively and then potentially wait years to recoup those costs. Then 12 months later people are expecting a second season, where does the money for that come from? The percentage of people who will run out and buy the DVDs for a show that just finished on TV is pretty low.
I think a lot of the people posting these 'alternative business models' vastly underestimate how much a show like Game of Thrones costs to make. The estimated budget for the first season was about $45 million
Do you really think that HBO will cancel the show? The producers will just shop around some other channels who will most definitely be jumping to buy it and air it on non-premium channels.
Yes and those non-premium channels won't be able to pay anywhere near enough to cover the cost of making the show. Making TV shows is very expensive, making TV shows with top rate actors in fantasy settings that require extensive location shooting, costumes, sets and props is fantastically expensive. This can't be paid for with DVD sales and merch.
Shows like Game of Thrones can be made because they serve as loss leaders for the cable networks. If cable subscriptions fall significantly because people are downloading the shows online then HBO will cancel it in a heartbeat, they would be crazy not to. This happens to shows all the time. If ratings drop below a certain level then the advertising revenue isn't high enough to make the show worthwhile and it is cancelled. This is especially true of shows that are by their very subject matter very expensive to make. One of the reasons Firefly was cancelled was that it was an expensive show to make and Fox didn't think the ratings were high enough to make it pay.
Bingo. I'd pay more for HBO Go than I do for all of Netflix, but I don't have the option unless I *also* pay for cable, and I want exactly nothing from cable except HBO. I don't want to pay $100+ for the DVDs because I doubt I'll re-watch the show.
Making epic fantasy tv shows is very expensive. The only reason HBO can afford to make something as lavish as Game of Thrones is that the cable companies will pay them a lot of money for the show. The cable companies are willing to pay that money because then they can use access to HBO as a drive for people to subscribe to cable. It isn't as simple as being able to say "I only want to watch Game of Thrones so I should only have to pay for that". If Game of Thrones wasn't able to drive sales of cable subscriptions, and generate advertising revenue on the channels it is shown on, then it would either never have been made or it would be much lower budget and nothing like the show as it is now.
Except Game of Thrones isn't a requirement for life so your comparison with food is ludicrous.
HBO create Game of Thrones and choose to share it with people who subscribe to their TV channel, or buy DVDs from them. While it is in their interests to sell access to as many people as possible no-one has a 'right' to watch it. They could choose to not let anyone see it, just make the show and then put it in a cupboard somewhere. At the end of the day it is their property and they can do what they want with it. Morality doesn't enter into the equation at all.
To record something on a modern DVR you just select the programme and then press the button for "record this every time it is on". From then on the DVR records that programme every time is is shown. You don't have to worry about the time, day or remembering to record the next episode it just does it. The whole point of the DVR is that you can just tell it what shows you like watching and it records them all for you. Then when you want to watch some TV you can pick and choose from the shows it has downloaded recorded already.
Grappling around for a phone in my pocket and unlocking the screen, etc. just to see the time is actually a burden and a clumsy way to get the time.
I would hardly describe checking the time on a phone to be a burden. I can't think of any phones that don't display the time on the lock screen so unlocking the phone is unnecessary. Also 'grappling around for a phone in my pocket' seems a bit of a stretch. Put hand in pocket, pull out phone, look at phone, hardly a difficult process, it does make me wonder how big your pockets are and what you have rattling around in the same one as your phone.
Watches are useful as they let you know the time at a glance but they are hardly indispensable. I normally wear one but when the battery ran out recently I coped fine for a couple of months just using my phone until I got round to replacing it.
The only apparent advantage as you said is that you remove the middle-men
The advantage is that the thing you pledge to gets made. Full stop.
Yes it may come out in the shops at the same time, or soon after for a cheaper price but the reason people are willing to pledge money through Kickstarter is that if they didn't, it wouldn't be coming out at all. If I want game X then I have two choices, pledge some money to help it get off the ground. Money that I only have to pay if the project hits it's funding target. Or, hope that enough other people do or a publisher comes along so that it gets made and then I can go and buy it in a shop. If I do that I'm taking the risk that it won't happen at all and I will never get game X.
The reason Kickstarter and other crowdfunding services are becoming popular is that they allow niche products, that wouldn't get the backing of traditional investors, to be made. People get to choose what gets made and what doesn't by choosing where they pledge their money.
And that's also why most of the rural UK doesn't have access to electricity, running water and landlines.
If you build a new house or renovate one that doesn't have existing connections to utilities then, shock horror, you have to pay to have them connected. In a suburban plot or in a large village with most main services, a quotation for supply of water and the right to connect to a mains sewer can vary in price between £500 and £700 in addition to the cost of any associated work to the public highway. Gas can vary from a few hundred pounds to over £700 and electricity from £500 to £1,200.
If your new house isn't part of an existing village then depending on how remote it is the cost of having it connected to utilities can be vast, running to tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds which you will have to pay. If you a proper idea of how much it would cost to have say electricity connected to a remote property then take a look at this pricing guidance document produced by Electricity North West who cover the North West of England. It includes detailed breakdowns of how these things are priced. For instance by my reckoning after a quick read to connect a property that is 1km away from current services is going to cost you in excess of £40,000.
that was only enabled for ADSL relatively recently.
What do you consider recently? BT announced 99% coverage of households in the UK back in 2005, the current coverage is even higher than that with the remainder being almost entirely made up of households that are too far away from an exchange for ADSL to work.
The only way you'd know you were moving into a potential broadband blackhole is if you put the postcode into SamKnows before buying the house.
Which I think you will agree is hardly the most difficult part of due diligence you will be doing before buying a house. In fact you don't even need to go as far as finding the SamKnows website you could just phone up BT and they would let you know the coverage and approximate speed in that area over the phone.
Let us be clear here, this article isn't about needing more money to provide standard internet access, practically everyone in the UK already has access to either ADSL or cable internet ranging from 1MB to 100MB. Anyone who lives within a couple of miles of their exchange can get 8MB to 24MB ADSL2+. This article is about 'Superfast broadband' which the government are currently defining as a service which speed in excess of 24MB.
That person may genuinely want the service, but it's just not economically viable to run it out there to him and him alone.
In that case the person needs to sit down and think hard about his choice to live where he does. The government subsidising roll out of broadband to every remote cottage in order to be able to claim 100% availability is a tremendous waste of money.
When you choose where to live you take into account a lot of different factors, nearby schools, sports facilities, local restaurants or amenities. Why is broadband any different from anything else? Last time I moved I checked likely ADSL speeds and availability of cable online when I was making a short list of properties.
I can't move to a remote location and then demand someone comes and builds a pub next door so I don't have to walk so far for a pint. Why should I expect someone to run miles of expensive cable to my door.
Then don't. Seriously, so much noise is made in the UK about universal access to broadband and the majority of it is people complaining that the speeds they get are terrible. Or that BT has told them they need to pay thousands if they want connecting. What do all of these people have in common? They live in rural areas often right in the middle of nowhere.
The papers love this kind of thing as it allows then to print headlines like "Rural Pensioner charged £90,000 for broadband setup". Ignoring what should be obvious to anyone which is if you choose to live in a remote location then you have to accept that there may be downsides to that decision. One of those downsides will inevitably be poorer access to services. Expecting any company (or government) to run miles of cable and install switching equipment for the sake of one house is ludicrous.
In the same way I can't move to the middle of nowhere and then complain that I have to walk miles to buy a paper in the morning, complaining about not having access to the best broadband speeds is hardly reasonable.
Protip: If they rap it up with Bitly.com how will you know???
You will be able to tell by looking at the address in the address bar after you have followed the link. If it is a standard product page link then great, if it has a load of referrer cruft tagged on to the end of it then you may want to take the recommendation with a pinch of salt.
At the end of the day you can either trust your friends and therefore be safe in the assumption that they have your best interests at heart, or you can't.
If they are the kind of friend who would push products on you just because they are getting paid then you probably couldn't trust their opinion anyway. Now at least you know. The friends who give you a well reasoned recommendation or information about their personal experience with a product / service can probably be trusted. The 'friends' who send you a referrer link out of the blue probably can't.
I don't see how any of that is different from having an annoying friend who constantly goes on about his business or keeps handing you leaflets every time you see them. Just tell them you aren't interested, if they keep doing it then tell them it is annoying and ask them to stop. If they don't stop then they are obviously so obnoxious you are probably better off not being friends with them anymore.
The summary makes a right hash of stating the issue and manages to contradict itself within the same couple of sentences by stating that Mein Kampf is both "banned in Germany since World War II." and "The book is not banned by law in Germany". The linked articles contradict each other as well with theatlantic.com stating that is is banned and the BBC stating that it isn't.
While I am inclined to believe the BBC is any clarification of this available?
Slashdot Mirror
I'd be surprised if their terms don't specifically cover that. I know if you are ordering a made to measure wedding dress it is clearly specified what the agreed measurements are. It normally also includes specific language to cover situations where someone is having the dress made to a different size, so if the bride is planning on losing weight before the wedding measurements are agreed and set in writing. If they don't manage to lose the weight then the dressmaker is protected and can charge for a new dress or alterations.
What you are describing is basically salted hashes. You have a salt that you add to the password before you hash it. Normally the same salt is used for every password. This sounds less secure than what you describe as an attacker could generate one hash dictionary to attack all of the hashes but only using one salt means that you don't need to store them in the database with the hashes. This gives an extra level of security as an attacker who only has access to the database doesn't get the salt along with all of the hashes.
This argument pretty much disproves itself. Other countries need countries like the USA because of the point you are making. Manufacturing products for US companies is a big part of the economy in a lot of countries. As countries like China continue to develop their manufacturing industry they will continue to need Western countries to provide a market for their home grown products.
This is how the world economy works. Different countries economies are based on different things and they trade.
Most of the implementations I have seen so far just land the user on the page, but don't load the analytics javascript. The page has a "Accept cookies read more on our cookie description page" bar across the top and when the user clicks Accept it then loads the javascript. Others just have a bar that states "By continuing to use this website you are consenting to us using cookies to collect non-identifiable analytics" with a link to a cookie policy.
I don't think we are quite there yet. I don't know of any traditionally produced TV show that is exclusively available online and funded by online viewing/subscriptions. I say traditionally produced to distinguish a show with 20-60 minute episodes produced by a big studio from web series like The Guild. By making this distinction I am not attempting to say web shows like The Guild aren't 'real TV' I'm just making the point that there is a big difference between the cost and business model of a show with 5 min episodes and a traditional studio TV show.
HBOs shows are syndicated to other channels which do show ads. Also all of the other cable channels that HBO works as a loss leader for show adverts.
Because there is no equivalent of concert tickets for TV shows. DVDs would be the closest comparison, but they are just the same show people have already seen. One of the big reason people pay for expensive concert tickets is because a live concert is a very different experience from listening to a CD.
Funding a show like Game of Thrones with DVD and tshirt sales would be an incredibly risky venture, if not completely impossible. DVD sales are a long tail revenue stream so you would have to fund the whole first season speculatively and then potentially wait years to recoup those costs. Then 12 months later people are expecting a second season, where does the money for that come from? The percentage of people who will run out and buy the DVDs for a show that just finished on TV is pretty low.
I think a lot of the people posting these 'alternative business models' vastly underestimate how much a show like Game of Thrones costs to make. The estimated budget for the first season was about $45 million
Yes and those non-premium channels won't be able to pay anywhere near enough to cover the cost of making the show. Making TV shows is very expensive, making TV shows with top rate actors in fantasy settings that require extensive location shooting, costumes, sets and props is fantastically expensive. This can't be paid for with DVD sales and merch.
Shows like Game of Thrones can be made because they serve as loss leaders for the cable networks. If cable subscriptions fall significantly because people are downloading the shows online then HBO will cancel it in a heartbeat, they would be crazy not to. This happens to shows all the time. If ratings drop below a certain level then the advertising revenue isn't high enough to make the show worthwhile and it is cancelled. This is especially true of shows that are by their very subject matter very expensive to make. One of the reasons Firefly was cancelled was that it was an expensive show to make and Fox didn't think the ratings were high enough to make it pay.
Making epic fantasy tv shows is very expensive. The only reason HBO can afford to make something as lavish as Game of Thrones is that the cable companies will pay them a lot of money for the show. The cable companies are willing to pay that money because then they can use access to HBO as a drive for people to subscribe to cable. It isn't as simple as being able to say "I only want to watch Game of Thrones so I should only have to pay for that". If Game of Thrones wasn't able to drive sales of cable subscriptions, and generate advertising revenue on the channels it is shown on, then it would either never have been made or it would be much lower budget and nothing like the show as it is now.
Except Game of Thrones isn't a requirement for life so your comparison with food is ludicrous.
HBO create Game of Thrones and choose to share it with people who subscribe to their TV channel, or buy DVDs from them. While it is in their interests to sell access to as many people as possible no-one has a 'right' to watch it. They could choose to not let anyone see it, just make the show and then put it in a cupboard somewhere. At the end of the day it is their property and they can do what they want with it. Morality doesn't enter into the equation at all.
To record something on a modern DVR you just select the programme and then press the button for "record this every time it is on". From then on the DVR records that programme every time is is shown. You don't have to worry about the time, day or remembering to record the next episode it just does it. The whole point of the DVR is that you can just tell it what shows you like watching and it records them all for you. Then when you want to watch some TV you can pick and choose from the shows it has downloaded recorded already.
I would hardly describe checking the time on a phone to be a burden. I can't think of any phones that don't display the time on the lock screen so unlocking the phone is unnecessary. Also 'grappling around for a phone in my pocket' seems a bit of a stretch. Put hand in pocket, pull out phone, look at phone, hardly a difficult process, it does make me wonder how big your pockets are and what you have rattling around in the same one as your phone.
Watches are useful as they let you know the time at a glance but they are hardly indispensable. I normally wear one but when the battery ran out recently I coped fine for a couple of months just using my phone until I got round to replacing it.
Not sure where you have been looking but the first season has been out on DVD and BluRay for ages.
Giff Gaff may use the O2 network but it isn't exactly the same as being on O2. Giff Gaff have a pretty dubious history of outages.
The advantage is that the thing you pledge to gets made. Full stop.
Yes it may come out in the shops at the same time, or soon after for a cheaper price but the reason people are willing to pledge money through Kickstarter is that if they didn't, it wouldn't be coming out at all. If I want game X then I have two choices, pledge some money to help it get off the ground. Money that I only have to pay if the project hits it's funding target. Or, hope that enough other people do or a publisher comes along so that it gets made and then I can go and buy it in a shop. If I do that I'm taking the risk that it won't happen at all and I will never get game X.
The reason Kickstarter and other crowdfunding services are becoming popular is that they allow niche products, that wouldn't get the backing of traditional investors, to be made. People get to choose what gets made and what doesn't by choosing where they pledge their money.
If you build a new house or renovate one that doesn't have existing connections to utilities then, shock horror, you have to pay to have them connected. In a suburban plot or in a large village with most main services, a quotation for supply of water and the right to connect to a mains sewer can vary in price between £500 and £700 in addition to the cost of any associated work to the public highway. Gas can vary from a few hundred pounds to over £700 and electricity from £500 to £1,200.
If your new house isn't part of an existing village then depending on how remote it is the cost of having it connected to utilities can be vast, running to tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds which you will have to pay. If you a proper idea of how much it would cost to have say electricity connected to a remote property then take a look at this pricing guidance document produced by Electricity North West who cover the North West of England. It includes detailed breakdowns of how these things are priced. For instance by my reckoning after a quick read to connect a property that is 1km away from current services is going to cost you in excess of £40,000.
What do you consider recently? BT announced 99% coverage of households in the UK back in 2005, the current coverage is even higher than that with the remainder being almost entirely made up of households that are too far away from an exchange for ADSL to work.
Which I think you will agree is hardly the most difficult part of due diligence you will be doing before buying a house. In fact you don't even need to go as far as finding the SamKnows website you could just phone up BT and they would let you know the coverage and approximate speed in that area over the phone.
Let us be clear here, this article isn't about needing more money to provide standard internet access, practically everyone in the UK already has access to either ADSL or cable internet ranging from 1MB to 100MB. Anyone who lives within a couple of miles of their exchange can get 8MB to 24MB ADSL2+. This article is about 'Superfast broadband' which the government are currently defining as a service which speed in excess of 24MB.
In that case the person needs to sit down and think hard about his choice to live where he does. The government subsidising roll out of broadband to every remote cottage in order to be able to claim 100% availability is a tremendous waste of money.
When you choose where to live you take into account a lot of different factors, nearby schools, sports facilities, local restaurants or amenities. Why is broadband any different from anything else? Last time I moved I checked likely ADSL speeds and availability of cable online when I was making a short list of properties.
I can't move to a remote location and then demand someone comes and builds a pub next door so I don't have to walk so far for a pint. Why should I expect someone to run miles of expensive cable to my door.
Then don't. Seriously, so much noise is made in the UK about universal access to broadband and the majority of it is people complaining that the speeds they get are terrible. Or that BT has told them they need to pay thousands if they want connecting. What do all of these people have in common? They live in rural areas often right in the middle of nowhere.
The papers love this kind of thing as it allows then to print headlines like "Rural Pensioner charged £90,000 for broadband setup". Ignoring what should be obvious to anyone which is if you choose to live in a remote location then you have to accept that there may be downsides to that decision. One of those downsides will inevitably be poorer access to services. Expecting any company (or government) to run miles of cable and install switching equipment for the sake of one house is ludicrous.
In the same way I can't move to the middle of nowhere and then complain that I have to walk miles to buy a paper in the morning, complaining about not having access to the best broadband speeds is hardly reasonable.
You mean like a disco ball?
You will be able to tell by looking at the address in the address bar after you have followed the link. If it is a standard product page link then great, if it has a load of referrer cruft tagged on to the end of it then you may want to take the recommendation with a pinch of salt.
At the end of the day you can either trust your friends and therefore be safe in the assumption that they have your best interests at heart, or you can't.
If they are the kind of friend who would push products on you just because they are getting paid then you probably couldn't trust their opinion anyway. Now at least you know. The friends who give you a well reasoned recommendation or information about their personal experience with a product / service can probably be trusted. The 'friends' who send you a referrer link out of the blue probably can't.
I don't see how any of that is different from having an annoying friend who constantly goes on about his business or keeps handing you leaflets every time you see them. Just tell them you aren't interested, if they keep doing it then tell them it is annoying and ask them to stop. If they don't stop then they are obviously so obnoxious you are probably better off not being friends with them anymore.
I don't really use Facebook so I can't give you a specific guide but you can just filter out all that stuff so only 'real' posts appear on your page.
The summary makes a right hash of stating the issue and manages to contradict itself within the same couple of sentences by stating that Mein Kampf is both "banned in Germany since World War II." and "The book is not banned by law in Germany". The linked articles contradict each other as well with theatlantic.com stating that is is banned and the BBC stating that it isn't.
While I am inclined to believe the BBC is any clarification of this available?