In the car world if manufacturers make a mistake they can be forced to recall the vehicles. In the device world you can release something and wash your hands of it.
Not diplomat or political scientist, meaning Stamos opinion on why Russia is about as good as yours.
Personally I think Russia would have been sowing discord regardless Clinton, Trumps behaviour, narcissism and lack of diplomacy make him a particularly good stooge for attempting to create turmoil in western nations. See also brexit.
Large car manufacturers tend to be more conservative in terms of long term reliability so are probably more likely to be cautious when engineering the product to avoid large scale recalls. They also like to segment the market and won't want to cannibalize sales of more expensive models so also designed this to occupy some niche in their product line. At the end of the day the performance only needs to be good enough for the majority of their customers.
Aside from perhaps a Microsoft cert I doubt you'll find any "computing programs" that require Windows. Most heavily use open source software which either work better on *nix or are only available there.
If you haven't subscribed to Gold or PSN you're not really deep enough into console gaming to compare the two experiences.
Or just maybe I play single player games? I did a lot of multiplayer gaming over the years and hit a point where I didn't want to bother with that anymore.
Consoles have been transitioning to mid-range black box PCs for a while now. Every new generation gets closer and that trend seems strong. The Xbox One is running Windows 10. I have all the current gen consoles and a high end gaming PC. I find modern consoles and a modern gaming PC to have very similar user experiences except the PC has better graphics, more flexibility, and more game options but at a higher price tag.
Not entirely sure how the architecture of a console is particularly relevant - its a question of what technical knowledge does the user need to know to use/buy the device (is it simple) and the performance / dollar. metric.
What mitigation procedure was that, hoping users launch Fortnite at some point? The active player base of fortnite assuredly launches the game more than once a week, disclosing the vulnerability protects the people who have it on their phone and never launch it as they don't have, and may never have the patch installed otherwise.
Those 'were' selling points. The console you're describing is going the way of the dinosaur.
They haven't so far
Now they require always on internet and monthly subscriptions. It's no longer simple or cheap.
Not the case, and in fact PCs are far worse for that - you can still buy discs of console games while that is now a rarity for PC (though day-1 patches render discs limited). I have never subscribed to any of the console networking myself.
Not when you can play games on your phone for pennies.
Phone games are the worst for predatory pricing where its easy to spend more than the cost of an AAA game, but the reality is that gamers PC or console aren't typically users of phone games.
The guidelines are reasonable, once a patched version is available interested attackers can compare binaries and discover the vulnerability. All hiding the disclosure does is give these attackers more time to exploit the vulnerability by making it less likely users will know to upgrade.
The moment a patch is released attackers have the opportunity to reverse engineer the patch to find the vulnerability regardless of whether there is a subsequent disclosure or not. By this vulnerability being widely circulated in the press its more likely users will upgrade or uninstall than hoping users launch fortnite in the next 90-days. I imagine the real issue Epic has here is that they do not want the bad press leading to users who downloaded Fortnite to try uninstalling.
almost every game that can, offers online multiplayer with VAC protection through Steam without a subscription. this is just beating the corpse of Ayn Rand.
In other words, consoles are circling the drain so fast its starting to look like the nineties blockbuster rental gaming scene.
As someone who plays both I think you're ignoring the selling points of consoles. They're simple, have an expected lifespan and thanks to significant price gouging by Intel & nvidia are a lot less expensive than PCs even accounting for Gold/PSN. Further given nvidia's recent announcement it looks like GPUs are staged to get even more expensive this generation.
The way he blew the Rift launch is one of the most epic failures in tech history. To start with so much hype and so much VC and such a market lead. Then to putter around wasting years, pissing off the fanbase with constant delays and a complete lack of communication, string people along expecting a launch any day a year before the product hit the street. Then to release it at more than double the price he had said it would cost and completely kill the early adoption, handing the market to the competition that was at one point years behind. Only to have repeated price cuts the first year as nobody cared to buy at his insanely high price point. And let's not forget him selling out to facebook in the middle of all this.
I mean... they sold Occulus for 3 billion seems successful.
You have it backwards, Star Wars movies attract a larger number of reviewers who aren't film critics and these cheerleaders drown out critical reviews on aggregators.
I don't recall the pitch of AMP being increased traffic, it was to limit webpages to a subset of elements and scripts to provide a good experience to readers. The reason was of course that publishers had crammed their pages so full of garbage they loaded very slowly and content jumped around.
Google also said they would prioritize these sites (but supposedly also non-AMP sites that performed well) in search results. I don't see how this would ever increase traffic to popular sites, not doing it might reduce traffic as they'd be ranked lower. Traditionally Google also had the idea that increased web usage was beneficial to them, I think this is true for publishers also - if users generally have a good experience reading articles on the web they'll be more likely to read more articles.
Slashdot Mirror
out of 3.5 million, I can see how that would really tilt the rent....
In the car world if manufacturers make a mistake they can be forced to recall the vehicles. In the device world you can release something and wash your hands of it.
Not diplomat or political scientist, meaning Stamos opinion on why Russia is about as good as yours.
Personally I think Russia would have been sowing discord regardless Clinton, Trumps behaviour, narcissism and lack of diplomacy make him a particularly good stooge for attempting to create turmoil in western nations. See also brexit.
Large car manufacturers tend to be more conservative in terms of long term reliability so are probably more likely to be cautious when engineering the product to avoid large scale recalls. They also like to segment the market and won't want to cannibalize sales of more expensive models so also designed this to occupy some niche in their product line. At the end of the day the performance only needs to be good enough for the majority of their customers.
https://electrek.co/2016/12/23...
Dell started this trend in 2015.
What? Apple has been and still is the worst offender as far as bezels go across its product lines.
Aside from perhaps a Microsoft cert I doubt you'll find any "computing programs" that require Windows. Most heavily use open source software which either work better on *nix or are only available there.
would anyone be sure this is the first? Its not like Doom 2 has required an active internet connection for the past 24-years.
A similar one is the stigma around being a night person not a morning person.
The real question is why subscribe to cable ;)
Boing Boing had a link to the reporter who originally broke the story which actually has useful information - https://twitter.com/amir/statu...
If you haven't subscribed to Gold or PSN you're not really deep enough into console gaming to compare the two experiences.
Or just maybe I play single player games? I did a lot of multiplayer gaming over the years and hit a point where I didn't want to bother with that anymore.
Consoles have been transitioning to mid-range black box PCs for a while now. Every new generation gets closer and that trend seems strong. The Xbox One is running Windows 10. I have all the current gen consoles and a high end gaming PC. I find modern consoles and a modern gaming PC to have very similar user experiences except the PC has better graphics, more flexibility, and more game options but at a higher price tag.
Not entirely sure how the architecture of a console is particularly relevant - its a question of what technical knowledge does the user need to know to use/buy the device (is it simple) and the performance / dollar. metric.
What mitigation procedure was that, hoping users launch Fortnite at some point? The active player base of fortnite assuredly launches the game more than once a week, disclosing the vulnerability protects the people who have it on their phone and never launch it as they don't have, and may never have the patch installed otherwise.
Those 'were' selling points. The console you're describing is going the way of the dinosaur.
They haven't so far
Now they require always on internet and monthly subscriptions. It's no longer simple or cheap.
Not the case, and in fact PCs are far worse for that - you can still buy discs of console games while that is now a rarity for PC (though day-1 patches render discs limited). I have never subscribed to any of the console networking myself.
Not when you can play games on your phone for pennies.
Phone games are the worst for predatory pricing where its easy to spend more than the cost of an AAA game, but the reality is that gamers PC or console aren't typically users of phone games.
The guidelines are reasonable, once a patched version is available interested attackers can compare binaries and discover the vulnerability. All hiding the disclosure does is give these attackers more time to exploit the vulnerability by making it less likely users will know to upgrade.
The moment a patch is released attackers have the opportunity to reverse engineer the patch to find the vulnerability regardless of whether there is a subsequent disclosure or not. By this vulnerability being widely circulated in the press its more likely users will upgrade or uninstall than hoping users launch fortnite in the next 90-days. I imagine the real issue Epic has here is that they do not want the bad press leading to users who downloaded Fortnite to try uninstalling.
almost every game that can, offers online multiplayer with VAC protection through Steam without a subscription. this is just beating the corpse of Ayn Rand. In other words, consoles are circling the drain so fast its starting to look like the nineties blockbuster rental gaming scene.
As someone who plays both I think you're ignoring the selling points of consoles. They're simple, have an expected lifespan and thanks to significant price gouging by Intel & nvidia are a lot less expensive than PCs even accounting for Gold/PSN. Further given nvidia's recent announcement it looks like GPUs are staged to get even more expensive this generation.
You own at the end. I found this summary very confusing - to me it sounded like just bundling game pass & gold.
The way he blew the Rift launch is one of the most epic failures in tech history. To start with so much hype and so much VC and such a market lead. Then to putter around wasting years, pissing off the fanbase with constant delays and a complete lack of communication, string people along expecting a launch any day a year before the product hit the street. Then to release it at more than double the price he had said it would cost and completely kill the early adoption, handing the market to the competition that was at one point years behind. Only to have repeated price cuts the first year as nobody cared to buy at his insanely high price point. And let's not forget him selling out to facebook in the middle of all this.
I mean... they sold Occulus for 3 billion seems successful.
Founder of company bashes competitor. News at 11...
VR and AR aren't competitors they do very different things. Further, Palmer was fired/left Facebook
He doesn't work for Facebook anymore, so maybe he's been looking for VC funding...
You have it backwards, Star Wars movies attract a larger number of reviewers who aren't film critics and these cheerleaders drown out critical reviews on aggregators.
It isn't about your phones internet connection, its about a dozen scripts doing a bunch o garbage with delays talking to remove servers.
I don't recall the pitch of AMP being increased traffic, it was to limit webpages to a subset of elements and scripts to provide a good experience to readers. The reason was of course that publishers had crammed their pages so full of garbage they loaded very slowly and content jumped around.
Google also said they would prioritize these sites (but supposedly also non-AMP sites that performed well) in search results. I don't see how this would ever increase traffic to popular sites, not doing it might reduce traffic as they'd be ranked lower. Traditionally Google also had the idea that increased web usage was beneficial to them, I think this is true for publishers also - if users generally have a good experience reading articles on the web they'll be more likely to read more articles.