"The first world has been engaged in a sado-masochistic game of auto-erotic asphyxiation with their own economies(for the benefit of the economic rent-seeking behavior of the top 10 most profitable corporations on the globe) for the past 40+ years."
Not sure that that is the correct distinction. When I posted the original submission, the distinction I was specifically talking about was applicationsthat run as distinct pieces of software, and applications that run completely in the web browser.
Apple is currently the richest organization in the world. They have more cash on hand than the US treasury, and their net income exceeds even the most profligate budget they could come up with.
The fact that this question gets asked basically every year should more than sufficiently answer the question.
True, that the question gets asked every year. But that, in and of itself doesn't disprove the existence of a trend which does not show any sign of slowing.
Oh, bullshit. Millions of people in developed nations (particularly the U.S.) have "broadband" that is a few hundred Kbps, or a couple of Mbps--let's just call it 3 orders of magnitude, or more, slower than a spinning disk.
True, but that doesn't change the fact that the companies behind these products would prefer lower functionality but ongoing consistent revenue over higher functionality but lower "lumpy" revenue. I'm the original submitter, and I have no desire to live in a world where we subscribe to everything we use rather than buy it. However, I find the trend alarming, and I don't see any hard limits that well resourced companies with an agenda and incentive couldn't get around.
Looking at the trends of today, however, the vast majority of people seem only too willing to serve up their privacy on a silver platter. Are there enough people who care about privacy to create an ecosystem around, or will we have a divide between the functional, privacy free, mainstream technology world, and the dusty poorly maintained, undermanned and underfunded world where a few diehards cling to ideals that have long since been abandoned?
Perhaps you could have a two tier level of trust where repositories that are from signed approved vendors are automatically permitted, but unlisted ones require specific admin permission to install from. Of course, power users could mark an unlisted certificate as trustworthy to prevent the auth request, but it would prevent installs from silently coming in from hijacked repositories in the scenario described above.
Is that really what they are doing? I have a counterfeit Prolific device that "broke" after a driver update. I simply uninstalled the new drivers and installed an old version to make it work.
Admittedly, that's a different OEM, so they may be doing something different.
This is exactly correct. I've experienced this with a radio programming cable with a counterfeit chip supposedly from Prolific. The drivers that Windows automatically downloaded for it caused the device to not function. Rather than stuffing around with the supplier, I simply downloaded an old working driver, uninstalled the new driver, installed the old driver, and done.
Certainly not a job my mother could do, but also not the same as the OEM bricking devices, which would legally be dangerous for them as it could be argued that they were willingly causing property damage.
From a commercial point if view I think it is an appropriate measure, albeit perhaps not the most reasonable from consumers' perspectives.
SurfaceRT was a failure. The only way only explanation that I can think of for you asserting that the Surface Pro line has been a failure is if your head is located in a place that makes it difficult to see what's going on in the world around you.
I’ve got news for you. The sexual liberation movement has already been and gone, and most of society no longer has a puritanical view of sex and sexuality. You’ll have to find some other reason to explain the difficulty you’re having getting laid.
Implementing proper domain and user authentication by baking PGP or some other PKI right into the email protocols will both solve the spam problem comprehensively AND allow UTF8 domains with minimum risk of phishing/spoofing.
I agree. The real solution is hardened authentication getting baked right into email. I'm all for UTF8 domain names and email user names, however if the email protocol suite is going to be expanded to allow for more features, then I think security should be top of that list.
Sure, for a while, domains that span multiple character sets such as hotmail.com with a Cyrillic o could be spam flagged, however what happens when (not, if, but when) legitimate domains with multiple character sets start appearing? What about domains that use characters restricted to the intersection of two character sets such that they appear to be from one but are in fact from another?
The ONLY answer to this is an email client that can associate a certificate with a domain and checks it against received email as a matter of course. This solution not only has the property of preventing domain spoofing, but also comprehensively solves the spam problem. (It didn't get done earlier because it fell foul of the "requires everyone to agree at the same time" point on that pro forma "Why your proposal won't work" sheet.)
What would be wrong with just buying a couple of Nexus 7s, remove all junkware, put skype as the only app on it and distribute those? Surely the center has WiFi?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. It's their way of saying "go fuck yourself".
"The first world has been engaged in a sado-masochistic game of auto-erotic asphyxiation with their own economies(for the benefit of the economic rent-seeking behavior of the top 10 most profitable corporations on the globe) for the past 40+ years."
Best. Comment. Ever.
Not sure that that is the correct distinction. When I posted the original submission, the distinction I was specifically talking about was applicationsthat run as distinct pieces of software, and applications that run completely in the web browser.
Also, Harvard isn't the only educational institution with 11 figure endowments.
Apple is currently the richest organization in the world. They have more cash on hand than the US treasury, and their net income exceeds even the most profligate budget they could come up with.
Well, there's this company called Google. They've got this thing called Google Docs. No idea what it does though.
Office 365. Basecamp. Evernote. Dropbox/GDrive/OneDrive. Trello. Prezi.
Where are you living, dude? In the middle of the Congo?
Even an autonomous car that was limited to ONLY driving at slow pace rush hour freeway driving would be a huge boon to automotive life.
Unless the driver is Spock, in which case the scissors bend.
Tell that to Harvard.
You mean like this guy?
Original submitter here. I sincerely do NOT want to live in a web-only world.
True, that the question gets asked every year. But that, in and of itself doesn't disprove the existence of a trend which does not show any sign of slowing.
True, but that doesn't change the fact that the companies behind these products would prefer lower functionality but ongoing consistent revenue over higher functionality but lower "lumpy" revenue. I'm the original submitter, and I have no desire to live in a world where we subscribe to everything we use rather than buy it. However, I find the trend alarming, and I don't see any hard limits that well resourced companies with an agenda and incentive couldn't get around.
Looking at the trends of today, however, the vast majority of people seem only too willing to serve up their privacy on a silver platter. Are there enough people who care about privacy to create an ecosystem around, or will we have a divide between the functional, privacy free, mainstream technology world, and the dusty poorly maintained, undermanned and underfunded world where a few diehards cling to ideals that have long since been abandoned?
Perhaps you could have a two tier level of trust where repositories that are from signed approved vendors are automatically permitted, but unlisted ones require specific admin permission to install from. Of course, power users could mark an unlisted certificate as trustworthy to prevent the auth request, but it would prevent installs from silently coming in from hijacked repositories in the scenario described above.
Is that really what they are doing? I have a counterfeit Prolific device that "broke" after a driver update. I simply uninstalled the new drivers and installed an old version to make it work.
Admittedly, that's a different OEM, so they may be doing something different.
None of these analogies are correct.
They are not changing the device at all, they are simply making their drivers not work with the fake ones.
There is no reasonable analogy that can be made involving a Gucci product.
This is exactly correct. I've experienced this with a radio programming cable with a counterfeit chip supposedly from Prolific. The drivers that Windows automatically downloaded for it caused the device to not function. Rather than stuffing around with the supplier, I simply downloaded an old working driver, uninstalled the new driver, installed the old driver, and done.
Certainly not a job my mother could do, but also not the same as the OEM bricking devices, which would legally be dangerous for them as it could be argued that they were willingly causing property damage.
From a commercial point if view I think it is an appropriate measure, albeit perhaps not the most reasonable from consumers' perspectives.
SurfaceRT was a failure. The only way only explanation that I can think of for you asserting that the Surface Pro line has been a failure is if your head is located in a place that makes it difficult to see what's going on in the world around you.
The main difference is that FreeBSD users know what Google is and how to use it.
I'll avoid that. I don't think I could stomach such brutality.
I’ve got news for you. The sexual liberation movement has already been and gone, and most of society no longer has a puritanical view of sex and sexuality. You’ll have to find some other reason to explain the difficulty you’re having getting laid.
Implementing proper domain and user authentication by baking PGP or some other PKI right into the email protocols will both solve the spam problem comprehensively AND allow UTF8 domains with minimum risk of phishing /spoofing.
I agree. The real solution is hardened authentication getting baked right into email. I'm all for UTF8 domain names and email user names, however if the email protocol suite is going to be expanded to allow for more features, then I think security should be top of that list.
Sure, for a while, domains that span multiple character sets such as hotmail.com with a Cyrillic o could be spam flagged, however what happens when (not, if, but when) legitimate domains with multiple character sets start appearing? What about domains that use characters restricted to the intersection of two character sets such that they appear to be from one but are in fact from another?
The ONLY answer to this is an email client that can associate a certificate with a domain and checks it against received email as a matter of course. This solution not only has the property of preventing domain spoofing, but also comprehensively solves the spam problem. (It didn't get done earlier because it fell foul of the "requires everyone to agree at the same time" point on that pro forma "Why your proposal won't work" sheet.)
What would be wrong with just buying a couple of Nexus 7s, remove all junkware, put skype as the only app on it and distribute those? Surely the center has WiFi?
Yea! We don't need no stinkin' ecosystem! We got technologies! Raaa!