It has nothing to do with priorities nor can you get full speeds under light loads.
T-Mobile claims it does (as they've claimed for a few years now) and it would be fraudulent (as in sued and regulated out of existence for fraud) of them to make that claim were it not true.
Further, using over 30GB/mo on a regular basis, and this policy actually having been in place for some years now, I can tell you with absolute certainty: no, you do not got throttled under light loads.
My speeds are exactly the same before and after the 26GB mark. The only exception to that rule is when I happen to be in a crowded city, but then I'm not sure if I'm seeing the effects of de-prioritization or just dealing with a congested connection.
On one hand, people are gonna bitch that their consoles still stop having new games made for them after 6 years. On the other hand, people can STFU and realize that they'll be able to still play the old games, which are what they really spent all their money on, on the new console. No more having to choose between adding yet another old console to the collection in order to keep playing the old games, just pop them into the new console (or transfer the downloads, more likely) and keep playing.
As long as the "generations" stay about the same, I think I could be okay with that; and I think most people will follow suit. If, of course, they quit trying to sell it as "every game that comes out from here on out will work on every version of our next console, including the one we're selling today", which is certainly not going to hold true.
That person could be the neighbor, it could be the owner of a stolen cell phone, it could be the administrative contact for a domain the IP address is in. "Someone" is not "the person who posted the link", but that someone could help identify who that really was, using other information in addition to the IP address.
The chance that "someone", not being whoever posted the link or uploaded the file, could identify who did either of those things is exceedingly small.
Fishing Expedition noun1 : a legal interrogation or examination to discover information for a later proceeding 2 : an investigation that does not stick to a stated objective but hopes to uncover incriminating or newsworthy evidence
Well, this isn't a legal interrogation or examination, so definition #1 is right out. Definition #2, on the other hand...
Now, if you want a legal definition, I've got that covered, as well.
Also known as a "fishing trip." Using the courts to find out information beyond the fair scope of the lawsuit. The loose, vague, unfocused questioning of a witness or the overly broad use of the discovery process. Discovery sought on general, loose, and vague allegations, or on suspicion, surmise, or vague guesses. The scope of discovery may be restricted by protective orders as provided for by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Emphasis mine, pay special attention to the italicized bold. In this case, they're not using the courts, but they are seeking information based on suspicion, surmise, and vague guesses. Once they seek a court order, their actions will be converted from a dictionary-defined fishing expedition to a legally-defined fishing expedition. Either way, it is what it is.
Does that mean I'm supporting the uploader of the file, or the link sharer? Certainly not. Nor does the preceding statement mean I'm not supporting either, or both; I'm simply calling things what they are. None of this means, either, that I am attacking Atlantic or their efforts. Yes, this is a warranted fishing expedition, they were harmed (and here I am pro-copyright-reform) and have every right to seek restitution; however, they also have a responsibility to do so within existing legal frameworks.
That is to say, they must seek a court order for the information. Reddit is under no obligation to cooperate without one and would be irresponsible to do so; and, as we're talking about Reddit, I'm honestly surprised they've done the right thing here. Once Atlantic obtains a court order, which they very certainly should do and I fully believe they can do very easily given the evidence they have already, they'll get the information they seek through legal means.
This framework is in place for the protection of all parties, not just the accused. It certainly benefits the accused, especially when the accused is actually innocent, which is a primary reason for it. However, it also protects the accuser and any parties who provide them information or services; that court order essentially says "a Judge agrees that we have a case here" and shields the accuser and their sources from liability should their investigation lead to the wrong person.
While Atlantic certainly can try to press forward without a court order, it would be unwise to do so, just as it was unwise to approach Reddit without one in the first place. It shows disregard for the legal system, which is not a position you want to be in when you intend to prosecute someone in the near future. Judges tend not to appreciate disrespect.
Sued for what? Releasing an IP address (which is not identifying information as we all know) that was the source of a link that the poster KNEW was not authorized?
If that IP address leads them to contact a person, that IP address did, then, identify that person. Whether the link poster knew the source they linked to was unauthorized really doesn't come into play, as merely posting a link is neither a civil nor criminal offense. Uploading may be either or both, but then we have no proof (nor reaonable cause to believe) that the link poster and uploader are one in the same.
Because it allows Atlantic to determine who the employee was who broke his contract?
Well, for starters, by your own claim an IP address does not identify an individual, so no, it does not identify the uploader, even if the uploader and link poster were one in the same. Which brings me to point number two: the uploader and link poster are most likely not one in the same. Points three and four: the link poster broke no laws in posting that link and has no civil liability for doing so (that's #3), which means Atlantic has no leverage with which to coerce the link poster to give up his source (and there's #4).
Wanna bet that Reddit doesn't have a TOS that prohibits what happened?
You're on, how's $100M sound? USD, of course. Also, pay up.
reddit is designed and supported for personal use only. You may not use reddit to break the law, violate an individual's privacy, or infringe any person or entity’s intellectual property or any other proprietary rights.
Seems the clause does exist. In fact, it's the 6th paragraph of the ToS and the 2nd term listed after the preamble. But, a violation of that ToS does not absolve Reddit of their responsibilities laid out in theor own Privacy Policy. It does seem as though they've got that covered:
We will not share, sell, or give away any of our users’ personal information to third parties, unless one of the following circumstances applies: [...] We may share information if we believe your actions are inconsistent with our user agreements, rules, or other Reddit policies, or to protect the rights, property, and safety of ourselves and others;
However, as this is a legal document, the legal definition of certain terms applies. Reddit, being an internet-based business, reasonably understands that it is unlimely that the link poster and the uploader are one in the same and, so, while they may reasonably believe that the link posted violated their ToS and may take action against him for that (by way of deleting the post containing the link and possibly banning the account, as laid out elsewhere in the Terms), they do not reasonably believe that this user is the uploader, nor that the user will lead Atlantic to the uploader, so the above does, in fact, not apply.
A court order, on the other hand, would provide such reasonable belief. If Atlantic has a case, they should seek one.
You think they want legal liability for any illegal use of their system that happens?
Well, no, they don't, that's why the above-linked ToS clause exists. You think they want legal liability if the IP address they hand over leads to the prosecution of, or a lawsuit against, the wrong person? Of course they don't, that's hwy they won't do it without a court order, which Atlantic can easily obtain if they have actual proof that the IP address they seek will help them track down the uploader. We have legal due process in this country for a very good reason.
This changes nothing about whether Atlantic is correct in asking for the information as a way of tracking down the employee they need to deal with.
And they're fully in the right to seek a court order for that information if they can prove that it will be useful. Without one, Reddit is at risk of being sued by the user whose information is being sought should they release it; they're literally asking Reddit to take on legal liability for their fishing expedition.
Think I'm off base? Get yourself a few hundred million dollars, buy Reddit, and release the user's details without a court order requiring you to do so. If the user doesn't sue you as a result, I'll reimburse you.
You go after logs that exist and contain the data you're actually seeking, which is who uploaded the file. Literally anyone could have posted the link and it was almost certainly not the uploader. In fact, as the uploader is most likely an employee (read: representative) of the label (which has distribution rights to that song), the link was legitimately provided by the label, from the legal perspective of the link poster. They should be left out of this entirely without a court order and Reddit recognizes that handing over their info with said court order potentially opens them up to legal issues, so they're not going to do it.
I hate to say it (really, I do) but... Reddit is in the right here. If there was a court order, I might feel differently.
Yup and without a court order it would likely also get Reddit sued by said user. So no, they're not doing what he said they should be doing, which was "go after THEIR employee", not someone who got a link from a representative of the label holding distribution rights over the music in question. From the perspective of the link poster, they got the link from an authorized distributor.
What was posted to Reddit was a link to the file that was uploaded to Dropfile. The Reddit user who posted the link may not be (and, in fact, likely isn't) the same person who uploaded it to Dropfile; the Reddit user is, most likely, someone with whom the untrustworthy employee who needs to be prosecuted shared the download link.
They need to go after the uploader and only Dropfile can identify the IP address from which the file was uploaded.
Buy the same song on two or more accounts, record each, average the results. Yes, it takes a little bit of work to align them correctly, but that can easily be automated in software. Normalize, match peaks (applying time-stretching where necessary), average, done. The more inputs, the better quality, at that.
It doesn't even need to be the same person doing all the buying; a release group could set up a server to automate the process, automatically triggering a release after certain quality and security parameters are met (e.g. enough members have uploaded their copies that any recording quality issues and watermarks have been thoroughly averaged out). As it is, the larger groups already have several members buy and rip the same CD and average the results because different drives will (oddly, since it's digital) rip the same disc differently.
Because his point is valid and valid pro-Apple points around here often get modded troll?
That said, ditching the audio jack that's been standard for literally over 100 years, that's used everywhere, that people have come to know and trust, and that is literally the de-facto standard headphone interface across the entirety of the audio industry (and, more importantly, the recording industry) would be an entirely braindead move and I absolutely do note believe for one moment that Apple would actually do it.
Then again, they've been steadily convincing me they've gone completely braindead for the past 5 years or so...
A standardized digital line out will solve that problem.
First of all, I find it amusing that you think we'll end up with a single standardized digital line out. We already have nearly a dozen (that I know of; there are probably more).
Further, an out-of spec cable will cause problems one way or the other; at least with analog you get to hear something and can trace the problem back to the cable. With digital, when the phone and your car won't talk to each other, is it the phone, the car, or the cable causing the problem?
Also, I'm not entirely sure WTF you're talking about. Yes, I'm aware of the functionality as it exists, and my phone (a Galaxy S7 Edge) certainly has it, yet I have no trouble with any of my cables (and some of them are nearly as old as me) with any of my devices; my desktop, 3 different laptops, a mixer panel, and my car all happily accept the input without skipping songs, regardless of which cable I've plugged in. And yes, more than a couple of them have had many repairs made to them over the years (when the wire's good and of good quality, they're worth saving) and at least a couple have some internal shorts I haven't tracked down and cut out yet. No, these are not all pristine and functionally perfect cables.
All of my digital transmission cables, on the other hand... I find that those go to shit if you look at them sideways.
No, utility companies give some significant discounts for you to install heat/AC cutoff devices they control, completely separate from your thermostat. If you consider a one-time payment of $50 to be significant. Yes, it's an easy choice.
And if your counter is then to have a $20 thermostat on hand on the shelf as a backup in case of ransomware, then why have the smart thermostat at all?
I suppose I'd ask my trusted friend, who has a key to my home and has agreed to keep an eye on things for me while I'm gone, pop in and replace the thermostat for me. Don't you have friends?
Of course, that assumes they'd have my email address and not just display the ransom notice on the thermostat itself. Know what's funny about your hypothetical situation? They display the ransom notice on the device itself. I guess I'd just come home to find... well, I live in California, so I'd find that everything was fine, no burst pipes or such, and I need to replace my thermostat. Someone living elsewhere might find that they have a bit more damage done to their home, but it's not like they could have done anything about it in the first place, the ransom notice was displayed on their thermostat, not sent to their email, so they didn't see it until they got back.
Sometimes it's worthwhile to actually read the article before posting.
This article *should* make you ask the question- do you want to inject more problem-vectors into everyone's life?
Okay, so we're in agreement and you just don't see it.
The whole premise of my comment was to replace the hacked item with one which could not be hacked (e.g. a "dumb" model). Or, more to the point, don't install the hackable "smart" version in the first place.
$5000 one time might be cheaper, but you're still vulnerable ant it'll happen again next week. $5000 + the cost of replacing thermostats when you learn this fact is still more than the cost of replacing the thermostats in the first place.
But, you did answer my question. Idiots will pay it.
It's not like your irreplaceable (because who has proper backups) files on your computer, which is how they're able to demand $5000 to unlock a $600 computer. Your favorite recipes won't be lost when your oven gets hacked, you just replace the $2000 oven with a cheaper model that isn't vulnerable, rather than paying the $5000, and you're protected in the future and you've saved a few grand over paying off the criminals.
Likewise with a car. They want $5000? A used model that isn't vulnerable can be had for less.
It works on computers because you can't get your kid's birthday party photos back if you don't pay. It doesn't work with an oven or a car -- or a thermostat -- that you can replace without losing anything more than (maybe) a couple of features; and you can remove power in the interim in order to prevent the disasters you mention.
Might that have something to do with the fact that Microsoft is dong more with Windows lately than the entire Linux community has been doing with Linux? A lot of interest seems to have died down after everyone switched to systemd.
I know I'm going to be modded troll and/or flamebait for this, be really... think about it.
I see that you meant Linux. Also, that feature left Insider status on the 2nd, when the Anniversary Update was release. Now, if they could just get the JVM running properly on it...
DRM. They'd rather you pay them and not be able to use the app than not pay them and be able to use the app. Shortsighted, as people will just not use the Windows Store if it becomes a common problem. Gates himself named ability to openly pirate software as one of the major contributing factors to the success of Windows; that they're working so hard to kill that ability should be telling.
Since you obviously can't pay any attention to the facts, why should I bother?
You're the one not paying attention. You can't see why I not only implied, but flat out stated (the fact) that you can't list another, so allow me to elaborate, in depth.
You listed one country where a "ban" was "successful". There are other countries where firearms have been banned, nowhere else has it been successful. In fact, there's really no ban in Australia, nor has it been successful (it can't be by way of not existing). Here's a summary of Australia's gun laws:
A person who wants to possess or use a firearm must have a firearm licence. Licence holders must be at least 18 years of age, have a "genuine reason" for holding a firearm licence and must not be a "prohibited person". All firearms in Australia must be registered by serial number to the owner, who holds a firearms licence, except that firearms manufactured before 1 January 1901 may not need to be registered in some states. The firearm owner must have secure storage for the firearm. Firearms dealers must be over 21 years of age and hold a dealer's licence, and dealers' employees must be vetted by the police. "Prohibited persons" cannot be employed by dealers. Besides other requirements, dealers must ensure that the purchaser of a firearm holds a firearm licence, must maintain a register and must notify police of each transaction.
That sure as shit doesn't sound like a ban to me, sir.
You didn't address the facts, just play a Trump-ian distraction game.
Well, are have they been addressed now?
I must be wrong because Chewbacca lives on Endor.
No, you must be wrong because you gave one example of what many people falsely believe to be a country with a gun ban and could not provide a valid example when prompted, because that example does not exist.
So I'm 100% right, but you'll argue unrelated minutiae about "respect".
Eh? Where are you right in all of this? You're certainly not factually correct and if your morals are based on false beliefs, you cannot be morally right, either.
"Respect" the gun, because they are deadly boomsticks.
Yes, respect the gun, but I was talking about respecting the other people at the range. Respect for other humans is a difficult concept for you, isn't it? I mean, just look at how you reply to people here, the complete lack of respect in how you word things, the insults, the insinuations, it's almost as though you have no respect for anyone, including yourself, to be able to portray yourself in that manner.
But they aren't deadly, just treat them like they are.
An unloaded gun is no more deadly than a spoon. You could bludgeon someone to death with it, but that's really about it. You treat them like they are, though, so you don't get in the habit of pointing them at people or things you don't intend to shoot and do so out of reflex with a loaded weapon. It's the very same reason I was taught that as a kid with a cap gun. Not because the cap gun was deadly (you couldn't even bludgeon someone with it, it would have cracked and fallen apart), but because the habit is dangerous, should I ever hold a real gun in my hand.
Slashdot Mirror
It has nothing to do with priorities nor can you get full speeds under light loads.
T-Mobile claims it does (as they've claimed for a few years now) and it would be fraudulent (as in sued and regulated out of existence for fraud) of them to make that claim were it not true.
Further, using over 30GB/mo on a regular basis, and this policy actually having been in place for some years now, I can tell you with absolute certainty: no, you do not got throttled under light loads.
My speeds are exactly the same before and after the 26GB mark. The only exception to that rule is when I happen to be in a crowded city, but then I'm not sure if I'm seeing the effects of de-prioritization or just dealing with a congested connection.
On one hand, people are gonna bitch that their consoles still stop having new games made for them after 6 years. On the other hand, people can STFU and realize that they'll be able to still play the old games, which are what they really spent all their money on, on the new console. No more having to choose between adding yet another old console to the collection in order to keep playing the old games, just pop them into the new console (or transfer the downloads, more likely) and keep playing.
As long as the "generations" stay about the same, I think I could be okay with that; and I think most people will follow suit. If, of course, they quit trying to sell it as "every game that comes out from here on out will work on every version of our next console, including the one we're selling today", which is certainly not going to hold true.
That person could be the neighbor, it could be the owner of a stolen cell phone, it could be the administrative contact for a domain the IP address is in. "Someone" is not "the person who posted the link", but that someone could help identify who that really was, using other information in addition to the IP address.
The chance that "someone", not being whoever posted the link or uploaded the file, could identify who did either of those things is exceedingly small.
Fishing Expedition
noun 1 : a legal interrogation or examination to discover information for a later proceeding
2 : an investigation that does not stick to a stated objective but hopes to uncover incriminating or newsworthy evidence
Well, this isn't a legal interrogation or examination, so definition #1 is right out. Definition #2, on the other hand...
Now, if you want a legal definition, I've got that covered, as well.
Also known as a "fishing trip." Using the courts to find out information beyond the fair scope of the lawsuit. The loose, vague, unfocused questioning of a witness or the overly broad use of the discovery process. Discovery sought on general, loose, and vague allegations, or on suspicion, surmise, or vague guesses. The scope of discovery may be restricted by protective orders as provided for by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Emphasis mine, pay special attention to the italicized bold. In this case, they're not using the courts, but they are seeking information based on suspicion, surmise, and vague guesses. Once they seek a court order, their actions will be converted from a dictionary-defined fishing expedition to a legally-defined fishing expedition. Either way, it is what it is.
Does that mean I'm supporting the uploader of the file, or the link sharer? Certainly not. Nor does the preceding statement mean I'm not supporting either, or both; I'm simply calling things what they are. None of this means, either, that I am attacking Atlantic or their efforts. Yes, this is a warranted fishing expedition, they were harmed (and here I am pro-copyright-reform) and have every right to seek restitution; however, they also have a responsibility to do so within existing legal frameworks.
That is to say, they must seek a court order for the information. Reddit is under no obligation to cooperate without one and would be irresponsible to do so; and, as we're talking about Reddit, I'm honestly surprised they've done the right thing here. Once Atlantic obtains a court order, which they very certainly should do and I fully believe they can do very easily given the evidence they have already, they'll get the information they seek through legal means.
This framework is in place for the protection of all parties, not just the accused. It certainly benefits the accused, especially when the accused is actually innocent, which is a primary reason for it. However, it also protects the accuser and any parties who provide them information or services; that court order essentially says "a Judge agrees that we have a case here" and shields the accuser and their sources from liability should their investigation lead to the wrong person.
While Atlantic certainly can try to press forward without a court order, it would be unwise to do so, just as it was unwise to approach Reddit without one in the first place. It shows disregard for the legal system, which is not a position you want to be in when you intend to prosecute someone in the near future. Judges tend not to appreciate disrespect.
Sued for what? Releasing an IP address (which is not identifying information as we all know) that was the source of a link that the poster KNEW was not authorized?
If that IP address leads them to contact a person, that IP address did, then, identify that person. Whether the link poster knew the source they linked to was unauthorized really doesn't come into play, as merely posting a link is neither a civil nor criminal offense. Uploading may be either or both, but then we have no proof (nor reaonable cause to believe) that the link poster and uploader are one in the same.
Because it allows Atlantic to determine who the employee was who broke his contract?
Well, for starters, by your own claim an IP address does not identify an individual, so no, it does not identify the uploader, even if the uploader and link poster were one in the same. Which brings me to point number two: the uploader and link poster are most likely not one in the same. Points three and four: the link poster broke no laws in posting that link and has no civil liability for doing so (that's #3), which means Atlantic has no leverage with which to coerce the link poster to give up his source (and there's #4).
Wanna bet that Reddit doesn't have a TOS that prohibits what happened?
You're on, how's $100M sound? USD, of course. Also, pay up.
reddit is designed and supported for personal use only. You may not use reddit to break the law, violate an individual's privacy, or infringe any person or entity’s intellectual property or any other proprietary rights.
Seems the clause does exist. In fact, it's the 6th paragraph of the ToS and the 2nd term listed after the preamble. But, a violation of that ToS does not absolve Reddit of their responsibilities laid out in theor own Privacy Policy. It does seem as though they've got that covered:
We will not share, sell, or give away any of our users’ personal information to third parties, unless one of the following circumstances applies: [...] We may share information if we believe your actions are inconsistent with our user agreements, rules, or other Reddit policies, or to protect the rights, property, and safety of ourselves and others;
However, as this is a legal document, the legal definition of certain terms applies. Reddit, being an internet-based business, reasonably understands that it is unlimely that the link poster and the uploader are one in the same and, so, while they may reasonably believe that the link posted violated their ToS and may take action against him for that (by way of deleting the post containing the link and possibly banning the account, as laid out elsewhere in the Terms), they do not reasonably believe that this user is the uploader, nor that the user will lead Atlantic to the uploader, so the above does, in fact, not apply.
A court order, on the other hand, would provide such reasonable belief. If Atlantic has a case, they should seek one.
You think they want legal liability for any illegal use of their system that happens?
Well, no, they don't, that's why the above-linked ToS clause exists. You think they want legal liability if the IP address they hand over leads to the prosecution of, or a lawsuit against, the wrong person? Of course they don't, that's hwy they won't do it without a court order, which Atlantic can easily obtain if they have actual proof that the IP address they seek will help them track down the uploader. We have legal due process in this country for a very good reason.
Yep. Know it, in fact.
And yet you can't back that state
This changes nothing about whether Atlantic is correct in asking for the information as a way of tracking down the employee they need to deal with.
And they're fully in the right to seek a court order for that information if they can prove that it will be useful. Without one, Reddit is at risk of being sued by the user whose information is being sought should they release it; they're literally asking Reddit to take on legal liability for their fishing expedition.
Think I'm off base? Get yourself a few hundred million dollars, buy Reddit, and release the user's details without a court order requiring you to do so. If the user doesn't sue you as a result, I'll reimburse you.
You go after logs that exist and contain the data you're actually seeking, which is who uploaded the file. Literally anyone could have posted the link and it was almost certainly not the uploader. In fact, as the uploader is most likely an employee (read: representative) of the label (which has distribution rights to that song), the link was legitimately provided by the label, from the legal perspective of the link poster. They should be left out of this entirely without a court order and Reddit recognizes that handing over their info with said court order potentially opens them up to legal issues, so they're not going to do it.
I hate to say it (really, I do) but... Reddit is in the right here. If there was a court order, I might feel differently.
Yup and without a court order it would likely also get Reddit sued by said user. So no, they're not doing what he said they should be doing, which was "go after THEIR employee", not someone who got a link from a representative of the label holding distribution rights over the music in question. From the perspective of the link poster, they got the link from an authorized distributor.
What was posted to Reddit was a link to the file that was uploaded to Dropfile. The Reddit user who posted the link may not be (and, in fact, likely isn't) the same person who uploaded it to Dropfile; the Reddit user is, most likely, someone with whom the untrustworthy employee who needs to be prosecuted shared the download link.
They need to go after the uploader and only Dropfile can identify the IP address from which the file was uploaded.
Buy the same song on two or more accounts, record each, average the results. Yes, it takes a little bit of work to align them correctly, but that can easily be automated in software. Normalize, match peaks (applying time-stretching where necessary), average, done. The more inputs, the better quality, at that.
It doesn't even need to be the same person doing all the buying; a release group could set up a server to automate the process, automatically triggering a release after certain quality and security parameters are met (e.g. enough members have uploaded their copies that any recording quality issues and watermarks have been thoroughly averaged out). As it is, the larger groups already have several members buy and rip the same CD and average the results because different drives will (oddly, since it's digital) rip the same disc differently.
If we can still install it.
Because his point is valid and valid pro-Apple points around here often get modded troll?
That said, ditching the audio jack that's been standard for literally over 100 years, that's used everywhere, that people have come to know and trust, and that is literally the de-facto standard headphone interface across the entirety of the audio industry (and, more importantly, the recording industry) would be an entirely braindead move and I absolutely do note believe for one moment that Apple would actually do it.
Then again, they've been steadily convincing me they've gone completely braindead for the past 5 years or so...
A standardized digital line out will solve that problem.
First of all, I find it amusing that you think we'll end up with a single standardized digital line out. We already have nearly a dozen (that I know of; there are probably more).
Further, an out-of spec cable will cause problems one way or the other; at least with analog you get to hear something and can trace the problem back to the cable. With digital, when the phone and your car won't talk to each other, is it the phone, the car, or the cable causing the problem?
Also, I'm not entirely sure WTF you're talking about. Yes, I'm aware of the functionality as it exists, and my phone (a Galaxy S7 Edge) certainly has it, yet I have no trouble with any of my cables (and some of them are nearly as old as me) with any of my devices; my desktop, 3 different laptops, a mixer panel, and my car all happily accept the input without skipping songs, regardless of which cable I've plugged in. And yes, more than a couple of them have had many repairs made to them over the years (when the wire's good and of good quality, they're worth saving) and at least a couple have some internal shorts I haven't tracked down and cut out yet. No, these are not all pristine and functionally perfect cables.
All of my digital transmission cables, on the other hand... I find that those go to shit if you look at them sideways.
No, utility companies give some significant discounts for you to install heat/AC cutoff devices they control, completely separate from your thermostat. If you consider a one-time payment of $50 to be significant. Yes, it's an easy choice.
And if your counter is then to have a $20 thermostat on hand on the shelf as a backup in case of ransomware, then why have the smart thermostat at all?
Actually, you can find my counter in bold.
Send the ransom note... where? RTFA, they display the ransom note on the thermostat itself because, well, they don't have your email address.
And you're still ahead. A single bitcoin is nearly double that at the moment.
I suppose I'd ask my trusted friend, who has a key to my home and has agreed to keep an eye on things for me while I'm gone, pop in and replace the thermostat for me. Don't you have friends?
Of course, that assumes they'd have my email address and not just display the ransom notice on the thermostat itself. Know what's funny about your hypothetical situation? They display the ransom notice on the device itself. I guess I'd just come home to find... well, I live in California, so I'd find that everything was fine, no burst pipes or such, and I need to replace my thermostat. Someone living elsewhere might find that they have a bit more damage done to their home, but it's not like they could have done anything about it in the first place, the ransom notice was displayed on their thermostat, not sent to their email, so they didn't see it until they got back.
Sometimes it's worthwhile to actually read the article before posting.
This article *should* make you ask the question- do you want to inject more problem-vectors into everyone's life?
Okay, so we're in agreement and you just don't see it.
The whole premise of my comment was to replace the hacked item with one which could not be hacked (e.g. a "dumb" model). Or, more to the point, don't install the hackable "smart" version in the first place.
Do you see it now?
$5000 one time might be cheaper, but you're still vulnerable ant it'll happen again next week. $5000 + the cost of replacing thermostats when you learn this fact is still more than the cost of replacing the thermostats in the first place.
But, you did answer my question. Idiots will pay it.
It's not like your irreplaceable (because who has proper backups) files on your computer, which is how they're able to demand $5000 to unlock a $600 computer. Your favorite recipes won't be lost when your oven gets hacked, you just replace the $2000 oven with a cheaper model that isn't vulnerable, rather than paying the $5000, and you're protected in the future and you've saved a few grand over paying off the criminals.
Likewise with a car. They want $5000? A used model that isn't vulnerable can be had for less.
It works on computers because you can't get your kid's birthday party photos back if you don't pay. It doesn't work with an oven or a car -- or a thermostat -- that you can replace without losing anything more than (maybe) a couple of features; and you can remove power in the interim in order to prevent the disasters you mention.
Hmm... Pay you hundreds of dollars, or replace the damn thing with a $20 model you can't hack remotely. Seems an easy choice for me.
Not when my IDE requires it...
Or are you thinking of the Java browser plugin? In which case, yes, I agree.
Might that have something to do with the fact that Microsoft is dong more with Windows lately than the entire Linux community has been doing with Linux? A lot of interest seems to have died down after everyone switched to systemd.
I know I'm going to be modded troll and/or flamebait for this, be really... think about it.
I see that you meant Linux. Also, that feature left Insider status on the 2nd, when the Anniversary Update was release. Now, if they could just get the JVM running properly on it...
DRM. They'd rather you pay them and not be able to use the app than not pay them and be able to use the app. Shortsighted, as people will just not use the Windows Store if it becomes a common problem. Gates himself named ability to openly pirate software as one of the major contributing factors to the success of Windows; that they're working so hard to kill that ability should be telling.
You're the one not paying attention. You can't see why I not only implied, but flat out stated (the fact) that you can't list another, so allow me to elaborate, in depth.
You listed one country where a "ban" was "successful". There are other countries where firearms have been banned, nowhere else has it been successful. In fact, there's really no ban in Australia, nor has it been successful (it can't be by way of not existing). Here's a summary of Australia's gun laws:
A person who wants to possess or use a firearm must have a firearm licence. Licence holders must be at least 18 years of age, have a "genuine reason" for holding a firearm licence and must not be a "prohibited person". All firearms in Australia must be registered by serial number to the owner, who holds a firearms licence, except that firearms manufactured before 1 January 1901 may not need to be registered in some states. The firearm owner must have secure storage for the firearm. Firearms dealers must be over 21 years of age and hold a dealer's licence, and dealers' employees must be vetted by the police. "Prohibited persons" cannot be employed by dealers. Besides other requirements, dealers must ensure that the purchaser of a firearm holds a firearm licence, must maintain a register and must notify police of each transaction.
That sure as shit doesn't sound like a ban to me, sir.
You didn't address the facts, just play a Trump-ian distraction game.
Well, are have they been addressed now?
I must be wrong because Chewbacca lives on Endor.
No, you must be wrong because you gave one example of what many people falsely believe to be a country with a gun ban and could not provide a valid example when prompted, because that example does not exist.
So I'm 100% right, but you'll argue unrelated minutiae about "respect".
Eh? Where are you right in all of this? You're certainly not factually correct and if your morals are based on false beliefs, you cannot be morally right, either.
"Respect" the gun, because they are deadly boomsticks.
Yes, respect the gun, but I was talking about respecting the other people at the range. Respect for other humans is a difficult concept for you, isn't it? I mean, just look at how you reply to people here, the complete lack of respect in how you word things, the insults, the insinuations, it's almost as though you have no respect for anyone, including yourself, to be able to portray yourself in that manner.
But they aren't deadly, just treat them like they are.
An unloaded gun is no more deadly than a spoon. You could bludgeon someone to death with it, but that's really about it. You treat them like they are, though, so you don't get in the habit of pointing them at people or things you don't intend to shoot and do so out of reflex with a loaded weapon. It's the very same reason I was taught that as a kid with a cap gun. Not because the cap gun was deadly (you couldn't even bludgeon someone with it, it would have cracked and fallen apart), but because the habit is dangerous, should I ever hold a real gun in my hand.