Consumers want more product for less money: Greedy.
Companies want higher profit margins off their products: Greedy.
Investors want higher returns on investment: Greedy.
Upper management sees that there is no way to fulfil all of the above and still give themselves huge pay rises without laying off half the riff-raff and making the other half work twice as hard for half as much: Greedy
Cue ever-decreasing circle as consumers earn less and want even more for it, in the hope of compensating for their shrinking earnings, thus repeating the circle. No single tier here is to blame; we ALL are in a more abstract manner. The blame lies squarely with basic human nature and the words "I want".
What part of "privacy browsing uses the same IP address as your non-private browsing and if they're using even a single large ad network then it's trivial for them to uncloak your 'private' session" do you not understand?
It's cute how you think that does anything. (Hint: It doesn't. They almost certainly can figure out who you are from your IP and tie that back to your known ID, then uncloak your "anonymous" session.)
Which changes precisely nothing. YOU chose to bundle them and advertise their inclusion as a part of YOUR product. That makes you responsible for them.
If you didn't sign a contract with your partners that covered them through the life-cycle of the product, that was your mistake.
If you bought a car and then, while under warranty, a firmware update was released for it that resolved safety issues but also disabled the A/C, would you accept that situation, or would you expect a feature you paid for to be retained? After all, the car manufacturer doesn't make the A/C, they just buy it off the shelf from another company. Why should they have to pay that third party what's required to support the product they chose to build into their own, larger product?
Following your total lack of logic, it's the customer's tough luck to lose that feature. And for that, you, sir, are a moron. (And a deliberately obtuse one who's trying to defend the indefensible.)
Mod parent up. For goodness sakes, I was 17 years old when Windows 3.x first came out, had precisely zero training of any kind, and figured out how to use its GUI all by myself in the space of about ten seconds. It's not just a useless statement, it's also a vast and very obvious over-exaggeration.
Reading comprehension and basic logic: You fail at it. If you didn't want to support those apps for the lifetime of your product, YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE BUNDLED THEM. You can't expect the app developer to keep them updated for you for free, and the app developer didn't sell them to the end user, you did. Ergo, it is your responsibility and to pretend otherwise shows just what a shiatty company Nvidia truly is. (Which is why my next PC won't include Nvidia hardware, incidentally.)
The only reason the bundler wouldn't love it is because the third party would expect to be paid more. Ergo, the bundler doesn't love it because it cuts into their profit margin -- a profit margin they're inflating by advertising the inclusion of software that is then withdrawn from the consumer without their consent.
In other words, you feel that the poor, poor company should be let off scot free because they only stole from the public. Bless their tiny little corporate hearts.
NO. That is not how it works. They sold a product; if part of that product doesn't work because of changes they made, they have a responsibility to pay the developer whatever is necessary to fix it rather than stealing from their own customers.
And now we hear that they even pull this crap on airplanes - entertainment sections, connected to internet, are connected to same switches like engine control - "firewall will stop things!". Fucking idiots.
Butt dialing happens, by definition, by mistake and without your knowledge. When you close your drapes, they don't randomly open by mistake and without your knowledge. This argument by the court is asinine, and the comparison completely specious.
Couldn't agree less about the layout. It's a disorganized mish-mash on the desktop, and filled with utterly unnecessary fluff like comment boxes that float around the screen when you click on them, forcing you to move your mouse unnecessarily to get back to them and lengthening the time until you can start typing. Support for inlined animated GIFs is hardly something I'd consider a plus, just a way for people to annoy me. And I've never had a single spambot try to add me on Facebook, whereas on Google+ the majority of followers are in fact spambots.
As for why it didn't catch on, that's because Facebook already has achieved critical mass, and so Google+ can't compete with it. Why would you use a social network most of your friends aren't on? You wouldn't, and because you wouldn't, nor would they -- it's chicken and egg. The MySpace comparison doesn't hold water because most people had gotten bored of MySpace and stopped using it before Facebook came along, and even those who were still using it had relatively small, activity-free friend networks. (Speaking personally, I didn't know anybody who had more than 15-20 active friends on MySpace at the absolute most by the time Facebook arrived.)
It's unfortunate, but the chances of anybody beating Facebook without an amazing killer app that can't be easily copied (or a major, major faux pas on Facebook's part) are pretty much zero. Doubly so when their only reason for creating the network in the first place is to mine even more data on their users, which was Google's only reason for creating Google+.
My experience tells me that it's mostly cars from the past five years or so that are vulnerable to this type of exploit. Anything pre-CANbus has pretty much zero chance of having complex interconnections.
A heck of a lot more than just the last five years of vehicles use the CAN bus. If your vehicle is made within the last decade it's almost a certainty that it uses the CAN bus.
Exactly. Apple botched its watch from day one by trying to cram in far too much and creating a horrendous UI for it. They completely missed that what the watch is useful for isn't trying to run apps, pan around maps, etc., but for quick at-a-glance stuff -- notifications, very quick messages, etc.
My Android Wear watch -- the Moto 360 -- has the perfect blend of notifications and customizability. I can use apps if I want to -- and the one I use most frequently is a simple "flashlight" app that lights up my watch face so I can see what I'm doing when I'm fumbling with my keys -- but they're not the primary, overriding design goal.
The problem is that the hype mill will inevitably turn against the Apple Watch because it's a poorly-considered design, but because we have short attention spans and Almighty Apple can't be criticized, it will turn into a backlash against smartwatches in general. My fear is that Android Wear will eventually tank not because it wasn't useful and well-designed, but because Apple screwed the pooch and took everybody else down with it.
I'm referring to the hot mess of known facts about the "free" upgrade such as that Win10 will be serving as an advertising platform for Microsoft, will not allow you to opt out of or even briefly defer updates, as well as the fact that Microsoft has point-blank refused to clearly state that there will not be a subscription fee added at some point in the future (which can be taken to infer that there likely will be, at some point.)
You do realize it's a private company doing the freaking out, and not public sector, right? LORAL has a contract on suburban rail in Greater London and parts of Hertfordshire through next year.
Sure, they're wasting police time and court time, but we normally herp derps only about government waste around these parts. The private sector is infallible, and if you suggest otherwise you get called a lib.
Amazon specifically campaigned*for* internet taxation, knowing that dealing with all the variant tax codes is a nightmare that would cripple smaller, more affordable competitors. If you ship with Amazon and whine about sales taxes, you're a moron.
Because three stories on the exact same non-story in one week is excessive.
99.999% of Slashdot readers will never even see one of these cars in real life, and that's on the unlikely assumption it ever even makes it into production. It's a safe bet that not a single Slashdot reader will ever actually drive one, let alone buy one.
As for your other assertion, sorry, but no. This was represented in the first of three stories we saw this month as a vehicle which would be manufactured en masse using 3D printing, with a completely unrealistic production level of 10,000 cars per year. So no, the point is not that it's "just a proof of concept". And even if that was really the case, what, precisely does it bring that's new to 3D printing? As far as I can see, nothing.
This is a totally unrealistic project that's just trying to build hype by using the latest buzzword. No more, no less. Once upon a time, it wouldn't have gotten a word on a geek site worth its salt. Now it gets three fawning articles in a week. It's a bit sad, really, and hence I vented about that. There are real stories out there which are far, far more worthy than this...
This is at least the third separate post on this in the last eight days, all solely because they used the buzzwords "3D printing". The fact it is 3D-printed adds absolutely nothing to the project, which is no lighter or better than a regular sports car of space frame construction.
Which begs the question, what's the deal? How much is Slashdot being paid for these ads, because they're clearly not newsworthy...
Since we're recycling stories now, I'm going to recycle my last comment on the same story:
Frankly, this isn't terribly impressive. The Ariel Atom 500 will manage a 0-60 of 2.3 seconds or less from 200 *fewer* horsepower than the Blade, thanks to an even lighter weight of 1,213 pounds. And like the Blade, it has space frame construction, they just haven't wrapped some flimsy composite panels and a plexiglass windshield over it all. (But what did that add to the weight, really? I doubt it was 187 pounds, so the Atom is still lighter...)
All the Atom really lacks is the "look-at-us" headline-grabbing use of 3D printing, which doesn't seem to be bringing terribly much of an advantage to the table here. And I guess, the styling that's right out of a kid's calendar. But really, what's revolutionary here? It's certainly not the construction or performance...
Up next on Slashdot: A revolutionary new 3D-printed paperweight that holds down paper better than ever. It's going to revolutionize the paperweight industry!
There is one thing conspicuously absent from those videos. At no point do we see a transition from vertical takeoff to traditional flight.
In fact, only one of those three videos is even VTOL, and it's the one where the plane lifts vertically, hovers, and lands vertically without ever moving horizontally to any significant degree. The other two videos aren't VTOL, one is carrier-based STOVL -- short takeoff and vertical landing -- and since it's carrier based and so landing on a moving target, it isn't actually a completely vertical landing. The plane just has to slow to match the speed of the carrier. And the other is short takeoff, but no landing is shown at all.
What I'd like to see -- even under ideal conditions -- is a true VTOL flight cycle that transitions from vertical takeoff thru forward flight and back to vertical landing, taking off and landing on a stationary platform. Care to cite an example?
This. Block or ignore the pings and move on. If your network monitoring freaks out over a small handful of pings from a small handful of known IP addresses and you can't figure out how to address them, you probably shouldn't be in charge of it anyway. (And I say this as somebody who was for quite a few years a network engineer for what, at the time, was a top 25 company on the Fortune 500. After being promoted a few times I chose to move on to a different, more challenging career, incidentally. The long shift hours take it out of you, and don't lend themselves to family life.)
From the summary: "And since adult household members pay the cable bills, TV content has to be grown-up content: "The Sopranos," "Mad Men," "Breaking Bad," "The Wire," "The Good Wife."
Never in my life have I read such nonsense.
For one thing, of the shows cited, not a single one is from the last five years. (Yes, some ended within the last five years, but the most recent of the bunch in terms of start date is already six years old. Two (The Sopranos and The Wire) are more than a decade old, and predate the existence of YouTube. Only two of the shows listed are more recent than Netflix's unlimited streaming service. These shows are hardly indicative of a reaction to the internet.
Secondly, a ten-second glance at your TV is enough to confirm that these shows are a tiny, tiny minority. The overwhelming majority of shows -- while extremely adult in nature -- are plotless, crass and utterly childish drivel that is the furthest thing possible from grown-up content. Think, for example, of the entire catalog aired by Bravo, a channel once devoted to "fine arts and film", but now almost entirely populated by "reality" TV drivel. If anything, this would prove the opposite of the assertion: That TV's response to the internet has been a dumbing-down to provide a constant stream of lowest common denominator trash.
However, I wouldn't make that assertion because unlike the submitter of this article, I understand that correlation doesn't equal causation. It's just as possible we'd have gotten the same drek on our TVs even without the existence of the Internet.
Slashdot Mirror
Consumers want more product for less money: Greedy.
Companies want higher profit margins off their products: Greedy.
Investors want higher returns on investment: Greedy.
Upper management sees that there is no way to fulfil all of the above and still give themselves huge pay rises without laying off half the riff-raff and making the other half work twice as hard for half as much: Greedy
Cue ever-decreasing circle as consumers earn less and want even more for it, in the hope of compensating for their shrinking earnings, thus repeating the circle. No single tier here is to blame; we ALL are in a more abstract manner. The blame lies squarely with basic human nature and the words "I want".
What part of "privacy browsing uses the same IP address as your non-private browsing and if they're using even a single large ad network then it's trivial for them to uncloak your 'private' session" do you not understand?
It's cute how you think that does anything. (Hint: It doesn't. They almost certainly can figure out who you are from your IP and tie that back to your known ID, then uncloak your "anonymous" session.)
What part of "will not honor a web browser's 'do not track' setting" did you find so difficult to understand?
Which changes precisely nothing. YOU chose to bundle them and advertise their inclusion as a part of YOUR product. That makes you responsible for them. If you didn't sign a contract with your partners that covered them through the life-cycle of the product, that was your mistake.
If you bought a car and then, while under warranty, a firmware update was released for it that resolved safety issues but also disabled the A/C, would you accept that situation, or would you expect a feature you paid for to be retained? After all, the car manufacturer doesn't make the A/C, they just buy it off the shelf from another company. Why should they have to pay that third party what's required to support the product they chose to build into their own, larger product?
Following your total lack of logic, it's the customer's tough luck to lose that feature. And for that, you, sir, are a moron. (And a deliberately obtuse one who's trying to defend the indefensible.)
The part where "optional" was not a word used in grandparent's post.
Mod parent up. For goodness sakes, I was 17 years old when Windows 3.x first came out, had precisely zero training of any kind, and figured out how to use its GUI all by myself in the space of about ten seconds. It's not just a useless statement, it's also a vast and very obvious over-exaggeration.
Reading comprehension and basic logic: You fail at it. If you didn't want to support those apps for the lifetime of your product, YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE BUNDLED THEM. You can't expect the app developer to keep them updated for you for free, and the app developer didn't sell them to the end user, you did. Ergo, it is your responsibility and to pretend otherwise shows just what a shiatty company Nvidia truly is. (Which is why my next PC won't include Nvidia hardware, incidentally.)
The only reason the bundler wouldn't love it is because the third party would expect to be paid more. Ergo, the bundler doesn't love it because it cuts into their profit margin -- a profit margin they're inflating by advertising the inclusion of software that is then withdrawn from the consumer without their consent.
In other words, you feel that the poor, poor company should be let off scot free because they only stole from the public. Bless their tiny little corporate hearts.
NO. That is not how it works. They sold a product; if part of that product doesn't work because of changes they made, they have a responsibility to pay the developer whatever is necessary to fix it rather than stealing from their own customers.
And now we hear that they even pull this crap on airplanes - entertainment sections, connected to internet, are connected to same switches like engine control - "firewall will stop things!". Fucking idiots.
[citationneeded.jpg]
Butt dialing happens, by definition, by mistake and without your knowledge. When you close your drapes, they don't randomly open by mistake and without your knowledge. This argument by the court is asinine, and the comparison completely specious.
Couldn't agree less about the layout. It's a disorganized mish-mash on the desktop, and filled with utterly unnecessary fluff like comment boxes that float around the screen when you click on them, forcing you to move your mouse unnecessarily to get back to them and lengthening the time until you can start typing. Support for inlined animated GIFs is hardly something I'd consider a plus, just a way for people to annoy me. And I've never had a single spambot try to add me on Facebook, whereas on Google+ the majority of followers are in fact spambots.
As for why it didn't catch on, that's because Facebook already has achieved critical mass, and so Google+ can't compete with it. Why would you use a social network most of your friends aren't on? You wouldn't, and because you wouldn't, nor would they -- it's chicken and egg. The MySpace comparison doesn't hold water because most people had gotten bored of MySpace and stopped using it before Facebook came along, and even those who were still using it had relatively small, activity-free friend networks. (Speaking personally, I didn't know anybody who had more than 15-20 active friends on MySpace at the absolute most by the time Facebook arrived.)
It's unfortunate, but the chances of anybody beating Facebook without an amazing killer app that can't be easily copied (or a major, major faux pas on Facebook's part) are pretty much zero. Doubly so when their only reason for creating the network in the first place is to mine even more data on their users, which was Google's only reason for creating Google+.
My experience tells me that it's mostly cars from the past five years or so that are vulnerable to this type of exploit. Anything pre-CANbus has pretty much zero chance of having complex interconnections.
You do realize that the earliest iterations of the CAN bus date back to the late 1980s, it has been in the majority of US-market vehicles for more than a decade, and by 2008 was a legal requirement in mass-market vehicles, right?
A heck of a lot more than just the last five years of vehicles use the CAN bus. If your vehicle is made within the last decade it's almost a certainty that it uses the CAN bus.
Exactly. Apple botched its watch from day one by trying to cram in far too much and creating a horrendous UI for it. They completely missed that what the watch is useful for isn't trying to run apps, pan around maps, etc., but for quick at-a-glance stuff -- notifications, very quick messages, etc.
My Android Wear watch -- the Moto 360 -- has the perfect blend of notifications and customizability. I can use apps if I want to -- and the one I use most frequently is a simple "flashlight" app that lights up my watch face so I can see what I'm doing when I'm fumbling with my keys -- but they're not the primary, overriding design goal.
The problem is that the hype mill will inevitably turn against the Apple Watch because it's a poorly-considered design, but because we have short attention spans and Almighty Apple can't be criticized, it will turn into a backlash against smartwatches in general. My fear is that Android Wear will eventually tank not because it wasn't useful and well-designed, but because Apple screwed the pooch and took everybody else down with it.
I'm referring to the hot mess of known facts about the "free" upgrade such as that Win10 will be serving as an advertising platform for Microsoft, will not allow you to opt out of or even briefly defer updates, as well as the fact that Microsoft has point-blank refused to clearly state that there will not be a subscription fee added at some point in the future (which can be taken to infer that there likely will be, at some point.)
And soon you will realize how prophetic the air quotes around "free" really were. Good luck with that hot mess.
...are pretty much zip, because he knows if he does so, he'll be the next one to find himself mysteriously assigned a 400/400 threat rating.
You do realize it's a private company doing the freaking out, and not public sector, right? LORAL has a contract on suburban rail in Greater London and parts of Hertfordshire through next year.
Sure, they're wasting police time and court time, but we normally herp derps only about government waste around these parts. The private sector is infallible, and if you suggest otherwise you get called a lib.
Amazon specifically campaigned*for* internet taxation, knowing that dealing with all the variant tax codes is a nightmare that would cripple smaller, more affordable competitors. If you ship with Amazon and whine about sales taxes, you're a moron.
Because three stories on the exact same non-story in one week is excessive.
99.999% of Slashdot readers will never even see one of these cars in real life, and that's on the unlikely assumption it ever even makes it into production. It's a safe bet that not a single Slashdot reader will ever actually drive one, let alone buy one.
As for your other assertion, sorry, but no. This was represented in the first of three stories we saw this month as a vehicle which would be manufactured en masse using 3D printing, with a completely unrealistic production level of 10,000 cars per year. So no, the point is not that it's "just a proof of concept". And even if that was really the case, what, precisely does it bring that's new to 3D printing? As far as I can see, nothing.
This is a totally unrealistic project that's just trying to build hype by using the latest buzzword. No more, no less. Once upon a time, it wouldn't have gotten a word on a geek site worth its salt. Now it gets three fawning articles in a week. It's a bit sad, really, and hence I vented about that. There are real stories out there which are far, far more worthy than this...
This is at least the third separate post on this in the last eight days, all solely because they used the buzzwords "3D printing". The fact it is 3D-printed adds absolutely nothing to the project, which is no lighter or better than a regular sports car of space frame construction.
Which begs the question, what's the deal? How much is Slashdot being paid for these ads, because they're clearly not newsworthy...
Since we're recycling stories now, I'm going to recycle my last comment on the same story:
Frankly, this isn't terribly impressive. The Ariel Atom 500 will manage a 0-60 of 2.3 seconds or less from 200 *fewer* horsepower than the Blade, thanks to an even lighter weight of 1,213 pounds. And like the Blade, it has space frame construction, they just haven't wrapped some flimsy composite panels and a plexiglass windshield over it all. (But what did that add to the weight, really? I doubt it was 187 pounds, so the Atom is still lighter...)
All the Atom really lacks is the "look-at-us" headline-grabbing use of 3D printing, which doesn't seem to be bringing terribly much of an advantage to the table here. And I guess, the styling that's right out of a kid's calendar. But really, what's revolutionary here? It's certainly not the construction or performance...
Up next on Slashdot: A revolutionary new 3D-printed paperweight that holds down paper better than ever. It's going to revolutionize the paperweight industry!
There is one thing conspicuously absent from those videos. At no point do we see a transition from vertical takeoff to traditional flight.
In fact, only one of those three videos is even VTOL, and it's the one where the plane lifts vertically, hovers, and lands vertically without ever moving horizontally to any significant degree. The other two videos aren't VTOL, one is carrier-based STOVL -- short takeoff and vertical landing -- and since it's carrier based and so landing on a moving target, it isn't actually a completely vertical landing. The plane just has to slow to match the speed of the carrier. And the other is short takeoff, but no landing is shown at all.
What I'd like to see -- even under ideal conditions -- is a true VTOL flight cycle that transitions from vertical takeoff thru forward flight and back to vertical landing, taking off and landing on a stationary platform. Care to cite an example?
This. Block or ignore the pings and move on. If your network monitoring freaks out over a small handful of pings from a small handful of known IP addresses and you can't figure out how to address them, you probably shouldn't be in charge of it anyway. (And I say this as somebody who was for quite a few years a network engineer for what, at the time, was a top 25 company on the Fortune 500. After being promoted a few times I chose to move on to a different, more challenging career, incidentally. The long shift hours take it out of you, and don't lend themselves to family life.)
From the summary: "And since adult household members pay the cable bills, TV content has to be grown-up content: "The Sopranos," "Mad Men," "Breaking Bad," "The Wire," "The Good Wife."
Never in my life have I read such nonsense.
For one thing, of the shows cited, not a single one is from the last five years. (Yes, some ended within the last five years, but the most recent of the bunch in terms of start date is already six years old. Two (The Sopranos and The Wire) are more than a decade old, and predate the existence of YouTube. Only two of the shows listed are more recent than Netflix's unlimited streaming service. These shows are hardly indicative of a reaction to the internet.
Secondly, a ten-second glance at your TV is enough to confirm that these shows are a tiny, tiny minority. The overwhelming majority of shows -- while extremely adult in nature -- are plotless, crass and utterly childish drivel that is the furthest thing possible from grown-up content. Think, for example, of the entire catalog aired by Bravo, a channel once devoted to "fine arts and film", but now almost entirely populated by "reality" TV drivel. If anything, this would prove the opposite of the assertion: That TV's response to the internet has been a dumbing-down to provide a constant stream of lowest common denominator trash.
However, I wouldn't make that assertion because unlike the submitter of this article, I understand that correlation doesn't equal causation. It's just as possible we'd have gotten the same drek on our TVs even without the existence of the Internet.
My goodness, they've sent you pings? How appalling! What next, email??