Being able to distribute your own music cheaply doesn't replace the record label - you still have to get anyone to want to listen to your music at all.
I don't know if I'm representative, but at 46 I no longer discover new music the way I used to. When I was growing up, the radio was the only way to hear new stuff and get to know it before splashing out hard-earned cash (at first pocket money, and then first wages, so buying records was not a throw-away purchase). Nowadays the stations I grew up with are all but unlistenable (yes, that means you, Radio 1) or no longer in existence (Radio Luxembourg, Radio Caroline). OK, I'm happy to put that down to becoming middle-aged, but in the meantime the whole model has changed.
I still find new music that interests me - a large proportion of that is through personal recommendation from friends who know my taste, and also exploring sites such as iTunes. Don't underestimate the power of the free "single of the week" and the recommendations based on what others have bought. I've made a good few discoveries this way. I no longer have time to listen to the radio, and anyway, I prefer talk-based stuff like Radio 4 and NPR these days. I don't think I have ever bought a record because it was on a particular record label - the label is and always has been an irrelevance.
I'm sure that record companies are probably not that interested in my demographic - they want to tap into the teen and young adult market, just as they always did and when I was part of that market it was all about the radio. However I'm pretty sure that modern teens and young adults couldn't care less about the radio either - they are far more online savvy and much more used to searching out stuff on the 'net than my generation is ever likely to be. So the old model of hooking the buyer through the radio is dying rapidly. There's no coherent strategy to replace it with an online model that works (the stuffy old farts that run the labels are all my age anyway, meaning they mostly don't understand the change that's happened), with the possible exception of iTunes which is arguably the least broken attempt to date. If the artists can get together to cut out the thick middle layers and get their stuff on a site like iTunes they'll do as well or not as they deserve on their own merits. If it's good, the kids will find it and tell their friends.
So yes, you've got to get people to listen to your stuff but signing your soul over to the devil is not going to be the only way to do it in future. Make good art and success will follow. I for one can't wait - it might mean an end to the horrible soundcloning that has clogged the traditional media for the last 20 years and get back to bands making it on the strength of their talent and originality instead of how much of a push they're getting from the parasitic suits. It might eventually make even the radio once again worth listening to.
Having obnoxious sound clips attached to every event you can think of was the epitome of the early 90s.
Or, for Mac owners, the epitome of the mid-80s. How we laughed when "eject" was accompanied by the sound of vomiting or a toilet flush! For about three seconds.
Those who can, so. Those who can't delete. It's their way of feeling that they're "contributing", even if it is in fact in a negative way. I for one have long given up contributing anything to Wikipedia, because it's just too much of an uphill struggle to keep any article that I know anything about even remotely free from gradual erosion.
In the words of Monty Python: "Yes, well, that's the sort of blinkered philistine pig ignorance I've come to expect from you non-creative garbage. You sit there on your loathsome, spotty behinds, squeezing blackheads and not giving a tinker's cuss for us struggling artists. You excrement! You whining, hypocritical toadies with your color TV sets and your Tony Jacklin golf clubs. Well I wouldn't become a Freemason now if you got down on your lousy, stinking, purulent knees and begged me!"
They (PML) claim to have got the control systems sorted. It's actually integrated into the wheel - which to me makes sense - really, each wheel just needs to look after itself and it should all come together. I don't really see a need to know what the other wheels are doing if each one can sense its own slip/traction. The other classic problem with in-wheel motors was unsprung weight, but at 20kg a corner, these are barely heavier than the brakes and transmission shafts they replace. I'm not sure that having no mechanical brakes at all would ever be permitted however.
Also GM, and all the rest of you. You are toying with so-called "green" cars and hybrids without taking a fundamental look at what makes your products suck so much - using an IC engine at some point to provide traction to the wheels. Look at this: http://www.pmlflightlink.com/archive/news_mini.html. Someone needs to get behind this and productionise it ASAP. It's been around for over 2 years now. 0-60 mph in 5 seconds *AND* 80mpg - if it had just normal family car amounts of power it would probably manage 150-200 mpg. 65mpg is a joke.
I know then when I'm really working on challenging programming, I get hungry - very hungry. But when I'm just doing routine stuff that isn't all that taxing I don't. So that would tend to suggest that "hard thinking" requires more fuel. I snack a lot when I'm coding - calorie-wise it must be heading for the 3000-4000 a day mark and some of it's non-too healthy. Yeah, yeah, just another morbidly obese coder you may be thinking. Well, no. I weigh 70kg and always have and probably always will. No matter what I do my weight is a constant. At 6ft tall that makes me pretty skinny. I seem to have a gene for some sort of metabolic homoeostasis - if I eat a lot more, it just speeds up to compensate and vice versa, so my weight stays pinned at 70kg. I have no idea if that's really what's going on but my siblings are the same.
I get 12GB/month for AU$90 from Telstra Countrywide. That is a rip-off (and about the only option for me), so those of you worrying about a 250GB cap should stop bloody whinging!!
Ah now come on. You *know* you can't open with Bond Street unless you're playing under the King Alfred (amended) rules and it's well known that that isn't recognised as an official version. So maybe I could suggest the alternative of Baker Street, which is a more generally accepted opener?
I'm pretty sure if my dog had swallowed 98% of the minifigs produced in 30 years he'd be feeling pretty sick. Plus, I'd have noticed. So I doubt that claim.
Jeez, you must be a hoot at dinner parties. Does anyone ever get through an anecdote when you're around without every single minor incidental detail getting "fact checked" first?
My error was a minor technical detail. You know what I meant - the engines on the early 737s were those thin, noisy pencil-like ones, not the big fan-jets the newer ones have. RyanAir were flying these early type 737s at least as late as 2000 when this occurred. The aircraft was obviously very old and judging by the state of the cabin trim was well-used. Otherwise the story is entirely true. (And by the way, making an error about a technical detail doesn't throw the veracity of the rest of it into question for two reasons 1. I know it's true and 2. the technical details of the engines are not relevant to the story, except in so far as their lower power may have made the overloading more problematic than it might have been).
Somewhat tangential to the story, but the two worst flights of my life were on RyanAir. The first, to Turin, involved a barely controlled crash-landing where everyone was amazed that the tail didn't snap off. The sense of relief when we realised we were all still alive was palpable. The steward actually used that old joke: "Welcome to Turin. The captain will now taxi what's left of the aircraft to the terminal for disembarkation" - only the obvious shakiness in her voice meant that nobody laughed.
The return flight was almost as bad. The flight was overloaded due to an earlier flight being cancelled, and the replacement plane was a series-100 737 with the old turbojet engines and not the modern -600 series with the CFM engines. The plane was filled to capacity and because it was mostly skiers returning from a winter break, the luggage hold was full of skis and heavy clothing and so on. Basically I'm pretty sure that the plane was at or over MTW as it took an age to get off the runway, and then had to circle the airport for about 45 minutes to gain enough height to get over the Alps. I kept looking out of the window and just not seeing the ground getting any further away - we seemed to be at about 2000ft for ages, so given the previous landing experience I really felt quite nervous for the first time ever when flying. I'd recently qualified for my PPL so I had some knowledge of what was going on - maybe too much for comfort. The landing was bad also, with a manual approach flown by an apparently rookie pilot - the throttle was up, down, up, down, up, down and constantly jinking left and right and pitching up and down - obviously having trouble maintaining the ILS. In the end gave up and did a go-around which added another half an hour due to the very poor climb performance. The second approach was smooth as - must have decided to switch on the autopilot. Even when a go-around and/or a manual approach are standard OP, passengers do get nervous because it doesn't "feel normal". And anxiety is contagious, so once again after landing there was an obvious sense of relief. Since then I have avoided flying with RyanAir - any airline that packs them in that tight and then treats a fare-paying flight as a training exercise for its junior pilots isn't really treating the customer with respect.
Don't buy an iPhone if you don't want to, that's your prerogative. But you do realise that the NDA being discussed here is for the software SDK, NOT the iPhone itself, right? You only agree to the NDA *if* you download the SDK and that in turn means you are presumably interested in *developing* iPhone apps, not just using the darn phone. So yes, "I don't follow apple things" is right, because taking this stance on this basis is just idiotic.
One thing that is a nuisance about this NDA is that the cocoa-dev mailing list is currently cluttered with people asking about development issues on iPhone and repeatedly being told "you can't talk about that". As a non-iPhone Mac developer, the noise is annoying, so I hope they do something about it soon.
You missed the point. The runtime *already* guarantees that it has done a memset (or calloc) so that everything is zero when you first allocate the object. Thus you can assume that's the case and so ASSERTing it is pointless. If you can't trust the runtime to actually do that, what can you trust it to do? (given that the runtime is a very important and non-optional piece of core code that implements the entire dynamic-dispatch system that everything you write in Obj-C relies on).
The presence of the ASSERTs is not just pointless, it obscures the code that needs to assign any non-zero values, so makes the code less readable and harder to maintain.
Recently I prepared some code I'd written in Objective-C for use by another developer. They were licensing the source and wanted me to use their coding guidelines where possible. One of these had me scratching my head.
When objects are instantiated in Objective-C, the runtime implements the language specification that states that all data members are initialised to zero. In the light of that, the developer's insistence that every member variable be ASSERTed to check that it really was zero seems ridiculous. I mean, if you can't trust the runtime to do what it says it will do and what the spec insists that it does do, what can you trust it to do? By that logic the only safe way forward is to start by implementing your own runtime...
The developers argued that ASSERTs are not *supposed* to execute, so it's not as if they are slowing things down... But I really think that seriously missed the point. One practical effect of adding all those ASSERTs at their insistence was that it made any initialisation code that set things to non-zero values much harder to pick out, read and check. Now that particular customer has moved on, I'm gradually removing all that pointless clutter as I re-encounter it...
Sounds like a great initiative, but I can't help feeling there is some bizarre logic that says we need to be running all those air conditioners on a hot day. How much insulation could 4.3bn dollars buy? Maybe Texas is way, way hotter than Australia, and it already builds its homes as effectively as possible for thermal efficiency, but here in Oz, the situation is crazy. Building codes do not force proper levels of insulation, and even orientation with respect to the sun is frequently disregarded or misunderstood. The average Aussie home is ridiculously poorly insulated and as a result they boil in summer and freeze in winter. Solution? For many people, it's to rush out and buy a multi-thousand dollar reverse-cycle air conditioner (which are constantly being pushed on TV ads, etc) which costs a great deal to run. Already the government is planning to build more power stations to meet the *summer* time demand for A/C and the lack of progress on sustainable sources means that nuclear is back on the agenda.
There really needs to be a big campaign to wise people up to the idiocy of A/C and to incentivise retrofitting of insulation and to dramatically improve building codes. Working on greater supply of clean energy is an excellent thing, but unless it's balanced by moves to reduce demand for power that for the most part is pissed away warming up the *exterior* of houses, then it's effort and money unwisely spent.
Now I can't stand it. The Apple GUI is a piece of shit. They have gone to weird symbols in their GUI instead of nice buttons with labels.
Example: I needed to add a user. I bought up the little user management app and didn't see any add user button. After a short Google, I found that to add a user, you click the small plus sign at the bottom. Maybe I should have figured that out without Googling, but it sure didn't seem obvious at the time.
ROFL!! Yes, you really should. I mean, a list of users with a button marked with a '+' symbol and you couldn't guess that meant "add user"? Especially as that '+' and '-' thing is really pervasive all over the interface in many apps and system utilities. Those buttons have several advantages over text buttons - first, they are consistent, second they never need localising, third, they take up less space, fourth, they look nicer. I might add that exactly the same kinds of buttons are found in Windows pretty commonly so I don't think you can base your reason for hating the Mac's entire GUI on this alone.
You've put your finger on the problem with Windows - its culture. Its culture which is established by Microsoft and followed by every Tom, Dick and Harry developer on the platform is this: you don't own your computer - WE do.
This is really one of the main non-technological differences between Windows and Mac. Spend any time on a Mac developers' forum and you very quickly come to understand that the culture is very different - anything that takes ownership away from the user is frowned upon and quickly slapped down. For what it's worth.
It would be really cool to find a utility app in there that was for "testing" the machine - like whether the money dispensing mechanics were working... I bet if that exists in some form on there (has to really - at some point the software has to command the hardware to do its thing, and I bet that it's a really simple, insecure protocol) and word gets out, banks will very shortly insist on Diebold et. al. doing something about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Being able to distribute your own music cheaply doesn't replace the record label - you still have to get anyone to want to listen to your music at all.
I don't know if I'm representative, but at 46 I no longer discover new music the way I used to. When I was growing up, the radio was the only way to hear new stuff and get to know it before splashing out hard-earned cash (at first pocket money, and then first wages, so buying records was not a throw-away purchase). Nowadays the stations I grew up with are all but unlistenable (yes, that means you, Radio 1) or no longer in existence (Radio Luxembourg, Radio Caroline). OK, I'm happy to put that down to becoming middle-aged, but in the meantime the whole model has changed.
I still find new music that interests me - a large proportion of that is through personal recommendation from friends who know my taste, and also exploring sites such as iTunes. Don't underestimate the power of the free "single of the week" and the recommendations based on what others have bought. I've made a good few discoveries this way. I no longer have time to listen to the radio, and anyway, I prefer talk-based stuff like Radio 4 and NPR these days. I don't think I have ever bought a record because it was on a particular record label - the label is and always has been an irrelevance.
I'm sure that record companies are probably not that interested in my demographic - they want to tap into the teen and young adult market, just as they always did and when I was part of that market it was all about the radio. However I'm pretty sure that modern teens and young adults couldn't care less about the radio either - they are far more online savvy and much more used to searching out stuff on the 'net than my generation is ever likely to be. So the old model of hooking the buyer through the radio is dying rapidly. There's no coherent strategy to replace it with an online model that works (the stuffy old farts that run the labels are all my age anyway, meaning they mostly don't understand the change that's happened), with the possible exception of iTunes which is arguably the least broken attempt to date. If the artists can get together to cut out the thick middle layers and get their stuff on a site like iTunes they'll do as well or not as they deserve on their own merits. If it's good, the kids will find it and tell their friends.
So yes, you've got to get people to listen to your stuff but signing your soul over to the devil is not going to be the only way to do it in future. Make good art and success will follow. I for one can't wait - it might mean an end to the horrible soundcloning that has clogged the traditional media for the last 20 years and get back to bands making it on the strength of their talent and originality instead of how much of a push they're getting from the parasitic suits. It might eventually make even the radio once again worth listening to.
Having obnoxious sound clips attached to every event you can think of was the epitome of the early 90s.
Or, for Mac owners, the epitome of the mid-80s. How we laughed when "eject" was accompanied by the sound of vomiting or a toilet flush! For about three seconds.
Those who can, so. Those who can't delete. It's their way of feeling that they're "contributing", even if it is in fact in a negative way. I for one have long given up contributing anything to Wikipedia, because it's just too much of an uphill struggle to keep any article that I know anything about even remotely free from gradual erosion.
In the words of Monty Python: "Yes, well, that's the sort of blinkered philistine pig ignorance I've come to expect from you non-creative garbage. You sit there on your loathsome, spotty behinds, squeezing blackheads and not giving a tinker's cuss for us struggling artists. You excrement! You whining, hypocritical toadies with your color TV sets and your Tony Jacklin golf clubs. Well I wouldn't become a Freemason now if you got down on your lousy, stinking, purulent knees and begged me!"
They (PML) claim to have got the control systems sorted. It's actually integrated into the wheel - which to me makes sense - really, each wheel just needs to look after itself and it should all come together. I don't really see a need to know what the other wheels are doing if each one can sense its own slip/traction. The other classic problem with in-wheel motors was unsprung weight, but at 20kg a corner, these are barely heavier than the brakes and transmission shafts they replace. I'm not sure that having no mechanical brakes at all would ever be permitted however.
Also GM, and all the rest of you. You are toying with so-called "green" cars and hybrids without taking a fundamental look at what makes your products suck so much - using an IC engine at some point to provide traction to the wheels. Look at this: http://www.pmlflightlink.com/archive/news_mini.html. Someone needs to get behind this and productionise it ASAP. It's been around for over 2 years now. 0-60 mph in 5 seconds *AND* 80mpg - if it had just normal family car amounts of power it would probably manage 150-200 mpg. 65mpg is a joke.
I also know creationism happened.
Can you back that up with evidence?
I know then when I'm really working on challenging programming, I get hungry - very hungry. But when I'm just doing routine stuff that isn't all that taxing I don't. So that would tend to suggest that "hard thinking" requires more fuel. I snack a lot when I'm coding - calorie-wise it must be heading for the 3000-4000 a day mark and some of it's non-too healthy. Yeah, yeah, just another morbidly obese coder you may be thinking. Well, no. I weigh 70kg and always have and probably always will. No matter what I do my weight is a constant. At 6ft tall that makes me pretty skinny. I seem to have a gene for some sort of metabolic homoeostasis - if I eat a lot more, it just speeds up to compensate and vice versa, so my weight stays pinned at 70kg. I have no idea if that's really what's going on but my siblings are the same.
I get 12GB/month for AU$90 from Telstra Countrywide. That is a rip-off (and about the only option for me), so those of you worrying about a 250GB cap should stop bloody whinging!!
"I've never heard of him therefore he can't be of any importance". How arrogant does that sound? By the way, it's PERKINS, not Palmer.
Ah now come on. You *know* you can't open with Bond Street unless you're playing under the King Alfred (amended) rules and it's well known that that isn't recognised as an official version. So maybe I could suggest the alternative of Baker Street, which is a more generally accepted opener?
How about Technetium? You don't see too much stuff made from that...
I'm pretty sure if my dog had swallowed 98% of the minifigs produced in 30 years he'd be feeling pretty sick. Plus, I'd have noticed. So I doubt that claim.
Japan demands...something or other.
And the batteries in these iPods? "Made In Japan". Glad to see they take their own QA so seriously.
The point is the more realistic something is, the more disturbing any 'defects' in it's simulation are
Well, your grammar is certainly quite close to the real thing - making its defects all the more disturbing.
In some sports, including car rallying, DNF stands for DID NOT FINISH. Apropos, somehow...
Jeez, you must be a hoot at dinner parties. Does anyone ever get through an anecdote when you're around without every single minor incidental detail getting "fact checked" first?
My error was a minor technical detail. You know what I meant - the engines on the early 737s were those thin, noisy pencil-like ones, not the big fan-jets the newer ones have. RyanAir were flying these early type 737s at least as late as 2000 when this occurred. The aircraft was obviously very old and judging by the state of the cabin trim was well-used. Otherwise the story is entirely true. (And by the way, making an error about a technical detail doesn't throw the veracity of the rest of it into question for two reasons 1. I know it's true and 2. the technical details of the engines are not relevant to the story, except in so far as their lower power may have made the overloading more problematic than it might have been).
Somewhat tangential to the story, but the two worst flights of my life were on RyanAir. The first, to Turin, involved a barely controlled crash-landing where everyone was amazed that the tail didn't snap off. The sense of relief when we realised we were all still alive was palpable. The steward actually used that old joke: "Welcome to Turin. The captain will now taxi what's left of the aircraft to the terminal for disembarkation" - only the obvious shakiness in her voice meant that nobody laughed.
The return flight was almost as bad. The flight was overloaded due to an earlier flight being cancelled, and the replacement plane was a series-100 737 with the old turbojet engines and not the modern -600 series with the CFM engines. The plane was filled to capacity and because it was mostly skiers returning from a winter break, the luggage hold was full of skis and heavy clothing and so on. Basically I'm pretty sure that the plane was at or over MTW as it took an age to get off the runway, and then had to circle the airport for about 45 minutes to gain enough height to get over the Alps. I kept looking out of the window and just not seeing the ground getting any further away - we seemed to be at about 2000ft for ages, so given the previous landing experience I really felt quite nervous for the first time ever when flying. I'd recently qualified for my PPL so I had some knowledge of what was going on - maybe too much for comfort. The landing was bad also, with a manual approach flown by an apparently rookie pilot - the throttle was up, down, up, down, up, down and constantly jinking left and right and pitching up and down - obviously having trouble maintaining the ILS. In the end gave up and did a go-around which added another half an hour due to the very poor climb performance. The second approach was smooth as - must have decided to switch on the autopilot. Even when a go-around and/or a manual approach are standard OP, passengers do get nervous because it doesn't "feel normal". And anxiety is contagious, so once again after landing there was an obvious sense of relief. Since then I have avoided flying with RyanAir - any airline that packs them in that tight and then treats a fare-paying flight as a training exercise for its junior pilots isn't really treating the customer with respect.
Don't buy an iPhone if you don't want to, that's your prerogative. But you do realise that the NDA being discussed here is for the software SDK, NOT the iPhone itself, right? You only agree to the NDA *if* you download the SDK and that in turn means you are presumably interested in *developing* iPhone apps, not just using the darn phone. So yes, "I don't follow apple things" is right, because taking this stance on this basis is just idiotic.
One thing that is a nuisance about this NDA is that the cocoa-dev mailing list is currently cluttered with people asking about development issues on iPhone and repeatedly being told "you can't talk about that". As a non-iPhone Mac developer, the noise is annoying, so I hope they do something about it soon.
You missed the point. The runtime *already* guarantees that it has done a memset (or calloc) so that everything is zero when you first allocate the object. Thus you can assume that's the case and so ASSERTing it is pointless. If you can't trust the runtime to actually do that, what can you trust it to do? (given that the runtime is a very important and non-optional piece of core code that implements the entire dynamic-dispatch system that everything you write in Obj-C relies on).
The presence of the ASSERTs is not just pointless, it obscures the code that needs to assign any non-zero values, so makes the code less readable and harder to maintain.
Recently I prepared some code I'd written in Objective-C for use by another developer. They were licensing the source and wanted me to use their coding guidelines where possible. One of these had me scratching my head.
When objects are instantiated in Objective-C, the runtime implements the language specification that states that all data members are initialised to zero. In the light of that, the developer's insistence that every member variable be ASSERTed to check that it really was zero seems ridiculous. I mean, if you can't trust the runtime to do what it says it will do and what the spec insists that it does do, what can you trust it to do? By that logic the only safe way forward is to start by implementing your own runtime...
The developers argued that ASSERTs are not *supposed* to execute, so it's not as if they are slowing things down... But I really think that seriously missed the point. One practical effect of adding all those ASSERTs at their insistence was that it made any initialisation code that set things to non-zero values much harder to pick out, read and check. Now that particular customer has moved on, I'm gradually removing all that pointless clutter as I re-encounter it...
Sounds like a great initiative, but I can't help feeling there is some bizarre logic that says we need to be running all those air conditioners on a hot day. How much insulation could 4.3bn dollars buy? Maybe Texas is way, way hotter than Australia, and it already builds its homes as effectively as possible for thermal efficiency, but here in Oz, the situation is crazy. Building codes do not force proper levels of insulation, and even orientation with respect to the sun is frequently disregarded or misunderstood. The average Aussie home is ridiculously poorly insulated and as a result they boil in summer and freeze in winter. Solution? For many people, it's to rush out and buy a multi-thousand dollar reverse-cycle air conditioner (which are constantly being pushed on TV ads, etc) which costs a great deal to run. Already the government is planning to build more power stations to meet the *summer* time demand for A/C and the lack of progress on sustainable sources means that nuclear is back on the agenda.
There really needs to be a big campaign to wise people up to the idiocy of A/C and to incentivise retrofitting of insulation and to dramatically improve building codes. Working on greater supply of clean energy is an excellent thing, but unless it's balanced by moves to reduce demand for power that for the most part is pissed away warming up the *exterior* of houses, then it's effort and money unwisely spent.
Now I can't stand it. The Apple GUI is a piece of shit. They have gone to weird symbols in their GUI instead of nice buttons with labels.
Example: I needed to add a user. I bought up the little user management app and didn't see any add user button. After a short Google, I found that to add a user, you click the small plus sign at the bottom. Maybe I should have figured that out without Googling, but it sure didn't seem obvious at the time.
ROFL!! Yes, you really should. I mean, a list of users with a button marked with a '+' symbol and you couldn't guess that meant "add user"? Especially as that '+' and '-' thing is really pervasive all over the interface in many apps and system utilities. Those buttons have several advantages over text buttons - first, they are consistent, second they never need localising, third, they take up less space, fourth, they look nicer. I might add that exactly the same kinds of buttons are found in Windows pretty commonly so I don't think you can base your reason for hating the Mac's entire GUI on this alone.
You've put your finger on the problem with Windows - its culture. Its culture which is established by Microsoft and followed by every Tom, Dick and Harry developer on the platform is this: you don't own your computer - WE do.
This is really one of the main non-technological differences between Windows and Mac. Spend any time on a Mac developers' forum and you very quickly come to understand that the culture is very different - anything that takes ownership away from the user is frowned upon and quickly slapped down. For what it's worth.
It would be really cool to find a utility app in there that was for "testing" the machine - like whether the money dispensing mechanics were working... I bet if that exists in some form on there (has to really - at some point the software has to command the hardware to do its thing, and I bet that it's a really simple, insecure protocol) and word gets out, banks will very shortly insist on Diebold et. al. doing something about it.