Honestly it is even easier than that since you can use a challenge response mechanism that the car always asks a slightly different question so that the previous answer is worthless. It's effectively an automated version of the same concept that the secureIDs provide by verifying that a valid private key is held by the device requesting authentication.
Also, live sound quality has gone down from my perspective. Loudness is valued over quality or clarity and the market for consumer gear has largely responded to this. That said, if you know what you are doing you can still get very good sound quality out of properly adjusted gear at a reasonable price. Good speakers and speaker placement is a big part of it as a lot of the "high end" speakers are more designed to spread sound out to give ok quality from crappy placement. If you get some "cheap" (relatively) speakers that are focused towards accurate sound reproduction and place and adjust them properly they give an outstanding result. (Personally I use about $350 worth of JBL speakers before their consumer division went all retaily.)
Sadly, many RadioShacks don't even carry components anymore. I died a little inside when I first went to a Radioshack and found the components section had been replaced by more cellphones. "You've got questions, we've got blank stares."
Not really, you simply have to assign each link an identifier so that when they click a link your proxy goes to the original link from your server or might even be more easily done by leaving the https on the links but returning http if the browser is not smart enough to notice the discrepancy.
I use my optical drives for some output, but the main killer of optical drives is not the cloud, but rather the low cost of HDDs. When you can get a 2TB HDD for $100 it really isn't worth spending $1 per 25gb optical disk ($80 for that same 2TB and far more of a nuisance to work with). Give me an optical solution that is 1/4 the price again like DVDs were back in the day and I will switch back to optical backups in a huge way. Small files move on reusable USB sticks or the cloud and backup is just straight HDD or web depending on the amount of data. Large quantities of data still require HDDs as they are the most cost effective way and the cloud isn't really a good option at 100gb+ levels.
It scares me that a study like this could be so far off base. Yes, the rise of mini-games for a new type of gamer are based around short addictive fun. You know how many smartphone games I have in that variety that I've actually had to pay for... about 2 and that was because I was bored out of my mind in an airport with no internet connection. The people that play AAA titles are not the same people that play mobile. For me at least, it is all about the experience of the game. I want a long unwinding storyline that I can play through. Unless the storyline is crap or the game is unplayable, I finish almost every AAA title I start. The better ones I will play multiple times. I don't give a crap about most competitive multiplayer and hate AAA titles that only provide 3 to 4 hours of content to play through. I rarely find them to have any replay value, but games with good solid stories that can take a day or two to get through, I will regularly play through multiple times. Also, co-op capability is a huge plus.
In that case, it either wouldn't be a copyrighted work (clearly not violating copyright if the work is not copywritten) or he would be acting under a granted license. It doesn't have to be all formal. If the band owns the copyrights and gives it to him with the intent that he spread it around to generate hype, then it's all good. It doesn't have to be some formal arrangement. Copyright isn't a bad thing, it was designed to protect artists and in an ideal world it would. It just really needs a lot of reform to avoid the current abuses it receives. (For one, I think the copyright should always remain with the artist, if someone wants to sell their work, they should not get permanent rights to it, but rather rights for a period of time.)
Fair enough, it would more accurately be copyright infringement and it does apparently depend on jurisdiction. In the US, it is pretty clear that copying individual songs from friends isn't legit, but it is also weird because if you recorded it off the radio, it is legal. If you think about it though, the radio station normally pays far more to play the song than your friend paid for the CD (unless the record company is giving it to the station or even paying the station to play it for publicity). The same is true of legit DJs for special events. Generally speaking, the idea behind a consumer CD sale is that you are buying it for personal, non-commercial consumption (not you specifically, but the holder of the disk). You are welcome to play it for your friends and family or any non-public, non-commercial setting really, but if someone wants to be able to have their own copy, then it is just that a copy. It's no longer someone listening to your copy, but duplication and not generally covered by US law (at least under my understanding.)
The difference is that it would not be dependent on the end point site supporting it (in which case the end point site would simply be blocked for supporting it). Instead, it moves the redirect down a level and makes it blend in with a normal HTTPS connection. When it passes over a Telex enabled router, it gets changed out and redirected. The primary problem I see with the system is that all a censor has to do is get the magic box on their own routers and suddenly they can see the traffic and tell where it is coming from. Also, having ISPs provide the service may be tricky. This seems like fairly useless technology unless the explanation was not very good.
I don't mind licensing as long as it is either a) guaranteed to be available indefinitely (as in will have restrictions removed if the provider goes under) or b) is a significantly lowered rate to provide non-permanent access to a wide variety (ala Netflix/Rhapsody/Napster/etc). The two things I care about as a consumer are perpetual access to content that I wish to support specifically and directly due to its high quality and temporary cheap access to content which offers simple entertainment but is not of a quality that merits purchasing permanently.
I would even go so far as to say I have no issue with DRM provided that a) it is guaranteed to always work (restrictions removed at end of support) and b) does not have a negative impact on the legitimate use of the product beyond what would be possible with a pirated version. This means internet connections should not be required, device allocations should be revocable (I should be able to move it from one device to another as much as I want), device allocations should be reasonable (I figure 5 to 10 is a reasonable number that avoids large scale piracy while fitting the majority of fair use rights), ideally, in the case of music it should be CD burnable and in the case of HD video it should be Bluray burnable. I think all of these objectives are technically achievable and honestly have no issue with DRM if the system meets them. I understand the desire to protect profits, but it can not come at the expense of the rights or convenience of legitimate customers. The music industry as a whole also needs to be radically restructured so that artists are better compensated, but that is a different discussion for a different time and is still not a valid reason to pirate, it is simply a valid reason to choose to not listen to that music or to only go to concerts of those bands.
Wrong. You can make a system that is harder to get in to than the effort to get through a single instance. Your error is to not realize that the system is only easier over multiple trips. The background check and other requirements are harder to accomplish. Someone that can get trusted traveler would be unlikely to be recruit-able and would certainly be risky to try and recruit. Forging shouldn't be a possibility as the records should be electronic and include a photo. The effort to get in to the system would be far harder than a single trip, but over multiple trips, the savings would outweigh the duplicated effort of the normal approach.
A lot of these types of devices used mercury switches instead of accelerometers as they were cheaper and easier to use at the time. Now that we have accelerometers on silicon and think that use of mercury is akin to devil worship, it is a different story.
There is a difference between design review and code review. With good experienced coders that are not lazy, code reviews offer little in the way of finding bugs or ensuring that code is readable as the coder will have already written the code read-ably. It is a waste of time and limits the agility in responding to business needs. That said, some developers may benefit from code reviews if they are still learning the system, may make obvious mistakes or are learning the technology. In this case it could be beneficial.
That is very different from design reviews where you review the overall direction of code and make sure that it fits well with the overall system and what other developers are doing. This is very valuable and critical as long as not overdone. If it starts being a large percentage of time, then it is probably time for a software architect to come in and help with managing the big picture and making sure developers stay in tune with it.
I have multiple family members who are lawyers or work closely with them. How many different firms did you have experience with? Business culture tends to make fairly unified conditions within an organization. I'm also 100% agreeing with you on your last paragraph. My point was mostly that a) it isn't just lawyers that get paid for wasting a lot of their time and b) the bad eggs always stand out and c) just because there may even be a lot of bad eggs doesn't mean there are not good ones or that the entire profession deserves to be thrown under the bus.
I was saying that many people regardless of industry will waste time if they can and still get paid for it. Those who actually do work hard tend to excel ahead of the rest. Just look at how active slashdot is during the workday.
It depends on the lawyer. Your view seems rather jaded. From my experience, most PEOPLE don't know anything about hard work (by your definition) at least in the professional sector or anything outside a factory job. Retail and office work, it seems rampant to have excessive down time. That said, I also know some very hard working lawyers. A lot of succeeding in life has to do with luck and who you know, but a lot of it also has to do with just actually working hard.
They have the same parent company, DevConcepts is correct that they are owned by Time Warner which is the same Warner as Warner Brothers as I recall. Even if it is not 100% ownership (which I believe it is still majority share) there is still a lot of political connection between the organizations. It would be kind of like calling Verizon and Verizon Wireless different companies.
Just put a limit on the amount you can be asked to pay back based on how much you yourself put in to it. If I sue, say Sony, for removing features from my PS3 and only pay $5000 on a lawyer, then my risk would be limited to having to pay say $6000 of Sony's legal fees since using $100,000 of lawyers fees would be a rather excessive defense to my $5000 lawyer.
A better idea might be to have a discussion of the legal fee structure prior to the start of litigation. Another option would be to have a cap on how much the group or person bringing the suit based on how much they spend on their legal team. The idea being that it should be possible to mount a reasonable defense for close to the same amount as being spent on fighting for the suit.
You just need to be able to rotate the bike around to switch directions, you could also face it in or out in order to simulate accelerating and decelerating.
I have a 50 foot run of HMDI 1.4 cable that I paid $42 (now only $30) for and it works great. If you are paying more than $1 a foot for just about any digital cable you are getting ripped off (plus maybe a buck for each connector for shorter runs). I wouldn't want to go much cheaper for long runs since interference will become a problem if not properly insulated, but there is nothing incredibly special about copper conductors and basic shielding with a digital signal.
From my read of the article, it sounds like the developer would have been perfectly reasonable. I can understand his frustration with the situation since the information was incorrect and he couldn't respond to it, but he never attacked the reviewer in his article, just said that the claims were untrue and paranoid (both accurate statements). Based on his other statements about customer service and the fact that he said repeatedly that he didn't blame the reviewer make me think your view of the developer is unwarranted.
You are ignoring the fact that Amazon was ignoring filters for devices that were not supported. He was going to get a ton of bad reviews and completely inaccurate reviews are a part of life as well. If you can not respond to reviews like this to reassure your customers that the concerns are being addressed or are an issue with the store, then your sales will tank, just like his did. I would expect that it would have failed gracefully since his manifest didn't match the device unless amazon somehow is stripping it. It sounds like he was relying on Android's in-built functionality which isn't necessarily a bad thing. He probably could do more to mitigate it, but from my experience Amazon has never been particularly good at letting vendors actually do good business.
Also, just a side point, "the customer is always right" is a bullshit statement. Good customer service should try to help the customer at all times if at all possible, but some customers will wish to abuse the vendor and so the customer isn't always right. It's an over-simplified statement designed to try to avoid losing sales because of some nit-wit CSR that doesn't understand the customer. A good CSR should be able to point out that the customer is wrong, if they can determine for sure the customer is wrong without being offensive and offer the best resolution that is fair.
Ah, if you want to comment on my website, it does support third party authentication through Janrain or on site accounts are stored on a secured server using WordPress' security. That site is actually running on a dedicated server box for a gaming news site that I administer. Unfortunately due to it's high pagerank the page gets mercilessly attacked by spambots which is why I had to put the registration requirement on. Even with a CAPTCHA I still get about 1 to 3 false registrations a week from spam bots that don't realize posts also require at least one past approval to show on the site. Otherwise, e-mail also can work as a good form of off-board communications.
I'll have to check out some of your posts when I get a chance. I definitely do not have a problem with profanity and doubt I will be offended.
"You're the first person I've ever heard of that thinks McVeigh is in heaven."
Wow, that honestly kind of surprises me. (Also, just to clarify, my opinion on McVeigh is that I honestly have no idea, but if he did honestly repent, then I am sure he is in heaven. I have no idea if he did or not.) I live in upstate NY and I know many Christian's who believe firmly that you can't be too screwed up or do too much wrong to be forgiven and go to heaven. I'd actually say that is one key thing that you can't not believe and still be Christian. Equality of sinners as equally screwed up is pretty firmly established in the scriptures. The only real serious debate I'm aware of in that area among those I consider to be strong practicing Christian's is the meaning of the passage that speaks of blaspheming the holy spirit as an unforgivable sin. (If curious, my personal take on that has always been that it is either impossible to truly blaspheme the spirit until the day of judgement when you can say with full knowledge and realization "you are God and sovereign, but I will have no part in it." or it is something you can not do without having your heart at a point so unrepentant that you will never wish to repent. Either situation makes it effectively irrelevant as neither of the situations I believe that passage could refer to would have any bearing on someone who is in fact repentant.)
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly it is even easier than that since you can use a challenge response mechanism that the car always asks a slightly different question so that the previous answer is worthless. It's effectively an automated version of the same concept that the secureIDs provide by verifying that a valid private key is held by the device requesting authentication.
Also, live sound quality has gone down from my perspective. Loudness is valued over quality or clarity and the market for consumer gear has largely responded to this. That said, if you know what you are doing you can still get very good sound quality out of properly adjusted gear at a reasonable price. Good speakers and speaker placement is a big part of it as a lot of the "high end" speakers are more designed to spread sound out to give ok quality from crappy placement. If you get some "cheap" (relatively) speakers that are focused towards accurate sound reproduction and place and adjust them properly they give an outstanding result. (Personally I use about $350 worth of JBL speakers before their consumer division went all retaily.)
Sadly, many RadioShacks don't even carry components anymore. I died a little inside when I first went to a Radioshack and found the components section had been replaced by more cellphones. "You've got questions, we've got blank stares."
Not really, you simply have to assign each link an identifier so that when they click a link your proxy goes to the original link from your server or might even be more easily done by leaving the https on the links but returning http if the browser is not smart enough to notice the discrepancy.
I use my optical drives for some output, but the main killer of optical drives is not the cloud, but rather the low cost of HDDs. When you can get a 2TB HDD for $100 it really isn't worth spending $1 per 25gb optical disk ($80 for that same 2TB and far more of a nuisance to work with). Give me an optical solution that is 1/4 the price again like DVDs were back in the day and I will switch back to optical backups in a huge way. Small files move on reusable USB sticks or the cloud and backup is just straight HDD or web depending on the amount of data. Large quantities of data still require HDDs as they are the most cost effective way and the cloud isn't really a good option at 100gb+ levels.
It scares me that a study like this could be so far off base. Yes, the rise of mini-games for a new type of gamer are based around short addictive fun. You know how many smartphone games I have in that variety that I've actually had to pay for... about 2 and that was because I was bored out of my mind in an airport with no internet connection. The people that play AAA titles are not the same people that play mobile. For me at least, it is all about the experience of the game. I want a long unwinding storyline that I can play through. Unless the storyline is crap or the game is unplayable, I finish almost every AAA title I start. The better ones I will play multiple times. I don't give a crap about most competitive multiplayer and hate AAA titles that only provide 3 to 4 hours of content to play through. I rarely find them to have any replay value, but games with good solid stories that can take a day or two to get through, I will regularly play through multiple times. Also, co-op capability is a huge plus.
In that case, it either wouldn't be a copyrighted work (clearly not violating copyright if the work is not copywritten) or he would be acting under a granted license. It doesn't have to be all formal. If the band owns the copyrights and gives it to him with the intent that he spread it around to generate hype, then it's all good. It doesn't have to be some formal arrangement. Copyright isn't a bad thing, it was designed to protect artists and in an ideal world it would. It just really needs a lot of reform to avoid the current abuses it receives. (For one, I think the copyright should always remain with the artist, if someone wants to sell their work, they should not get permanent rights to it, but rather rights for a period of time.)
Fair enough, it would more accurately be copyright infringement and it does apparently depend on jurisdiction. In the US, it is pretty clear that copying individual songs from friends isn't legit, but it is also weird because if you recorded it off the radio, it is legal. If you think about it though, the radio station normally pays far more to play the song than your friend paid for the CD (unless the record company is giving it to the station or even paying the station to play it for publicity). The same is true of legit DJs for special events. Generally speaking, the idea behind a consumer CD sale is that you are buying it for personal, non-commercial consumption (not you specifically, but the holder of the disk). You are welcome to play it for your friends and family or any non-public, non-commercial setting really, but if someone wants to be able to have their own copy, then it is just that a copy. It's no longer someone listening to your copy, but duplication and not generally covered by US law (at least under my understanding.)
The difference is that it would not be dependent on the end point site supporting it (in which case the end point site would simply be blocked for supporting it). Instead, it moves the redirect down a level and makes it blend in with a normal HTTPS connection. When it passes over a Telex enabled router, it gets changed out and redirected. The primary problem I see with the system is that all a censor has to do is get the magic box on their own routers and suddenly they can see the traffic and tell where it is coming from. Also, having ISPs provide the service may be tricky. This seems like fairly useless technology unless the explanation was not very good.
I don't mind licensing as long as it is either a) guaranteed to be available indefinitely (as in will have restrictions removed if the provider goes under) or b) is a significantly lowered rate to provide non-permanent access to a wide variety (ala Netflix/Rhapsody/Napster/etc). The two things I care about as a consumer are perpetual access to content that I wish to support specifically and directly due to its high quality and temporary cheap access to content which offers simple entertainment but is not of a quality that merits purchasing permanently.
I would even go so far as to say I have no issue with DRM provided that a) it is guaranteed to always work (restrictions removed at end of support) and b) does not have a negative impact on the legitimate use of the product beyond what would be possible with a pirated version. This means internet connections should not be required, device allocations should be revocable (I should be able to move it from one device to another as much as I want), device allocations should be reasonable (I figure 5 to 10 is a reasonable number that avoids large scale piracy while fitting the majority of fair use rights), ideally, in the case of music it should be CD burnable and in the case of HD video it should be Bluray burnable. I think all of these objectives are technically achievable and honestly have no issue with DRM if the system meets them. I understand the desire to protect profits, but it can not come at the expense of the rights or convenience of legitimate customers. The music industry as a whole also needs to be radically restructured so that artists are better compensated, but that is a different discussion for a different time and is still not a valid reason to pirate, it is simply a valid reason to choose to not listen to that music or to only go to concerts of those bands.
"any song that is very good, i get from my friends. i dunno if that counts as piracy or not." - Yes it does.
Wrong. You can make a system that is harder to get in to than the effort to get through a single instance. Your error is to not realize that the system is only easier over multiple trips. The background check and other requirements are harder to accomplish. Someone that can get trusted traveler would be unlikely to be recruit-able and would certainly be risky to try and recruit. Forging shouldn't be a possibility as the records should be electronic and include a photo. The effort to get in to the system would be far harder than a single trip, but over multiple trips, the savings would outweigh the duplicated effort of the normal approach.
A lot of these types of devices used mercury switches instead of accelerometers as they were cheaper and easier to use at the time. Now that we have accelerometers on silicon and think that use of mercury is akin to devil worship, it is a different story.
There is a difference between design review and code review. With good experienced coders that are not lazy, code reviews offer little in the way of finding bugs or ensuring that code is readable as the coder will have already written the code read-ably. It is a waste of time and limits the agility in responding to business needs. That said, some developers may benefit from code reviews if they are still learning the system, may make obvious mistakes or are learning the technology. In this case it could be beneficial.
That is very different from design reviews where you review the overall direction of code and make sure that it fits well with the overall system and what other developers are doing. This is very valuable and critical as long as not overdone. If it starts being a large percentage of time, then it is probably time for a software architect to come in and help with managing the big picture and making sure developers stay in tune with it.
I have multiple family members who are lawyers or work closely with them. How many different firms did you have experience with? Business culture tends to make fairly unified conditions within an organization. I'm also 100% agreeing with you on your last paragraph. My point was mostly that a) it isn't just lawyers that get paid for wasting a lot of their time and b) the bad eggs always stand out and c) just because there may even be a lot of bad eggs doesn't mean there are not good ones or that the entire profession deserves to be thrown under the bus.
I was saying that many people regardless of industry will waste time if they can and still get paid for it. Those who actually do work hard tend to excel ahead of the rest. Just look at how active slashdot is during the workday.
It depends on the lawyer. Your view seems rather jaded. From my experience, most PEOPLE don't know anything about hard work (by your definition) at least in the professional sector or anything outside a factory job. Retail and office work, it seems rampant to have excessive down time. That said, I also know some very hard working lawyers. A lot of succeeding in life has to do with luck and who you know, but a lot of it also has to do with just actually working hard.
They have the same parent company, DevConcepts is correct that they are owned by Time Warner which is the same Warner as Warner Brothers as I recall. Even if it is not 100% ownership (which I believe it is still majority share) there is still a lot of political connection between the organizations. It would be kind of like calling Verizon and Verizon Wireless different companies.
Just put a limit on the amount you can be asked to pay back based on how much you yourself put in to it. If I sue, say Sony, for removing features from my PS3 and only pay $5000 on a lawyer, then my risk would be limited to having to pay say $6000 of Sony's legal fees since using $100,000 of lawyers fees would be a rather excessive defense to my $5000 lawyer.
A better idea might be to have a discussion of the legal fee structure prior to the start of litigation. Another option would be to have a cap on how much the group or person bringing the suit based on how much they spend on their legal team. The idea being that it should be possible to mount a reasonable defense for close to the same amount as being spent on fighting for the suit.
You just need to be able to rotate the bike around to switch directions, you could also face it in or out in order to simulate accelerating and decelerating.
Is that spacing out?
I have a 50 foot run of HMDI 1.4 cable that I paid $42 (now only $30) for and it works great. If you are paying more than $1 a foot for just about any digital cable you are getting ripped off (plus maybe a buck for each connector for shorter runs). I wouldn't want to go much cheaper for long runs since interference will become a problem if not properly insulated, but there is nothing incredibly special about copper conductors and basic shielding with a digital signal.
From my read of the article, it sounds like the developer would have been perfectly reasonable. I can understand his frustration with the situation since the information was incorrect and he couldn't respond to it, but he never attacked the reviewer in his article, just said that the claims were untrue and paranoid (both accurate statements). Based on his other statements about customer service and the fact that he said repeatedly that he didn't blame the reviewer make me think your view of the developer is unwarranted.
You are ignoring the fact that Amazon was ignoring filters for devices that were not supported. He was going to get a ton of bad reviews and completely inaccurate reviews are a part of life as well. If you can not respond to reviews like this to reassure your customers that the concerns are being addressed or are an issue with the store, then your sales will tank, just like his did. I would expect that it would have failed gracefully since his manifest didn't match the device unless amazon somehow is stripping it. It sounds like he was relying on Android's in-built functionality which isn't necessarily a bad thing. He probably could do more to mitigate it, but from my experience Amazon has never been particularly good at letting vendors actually do good business.
Also, just a side point, "the customer is always right" is a bullshit statement. Good customer service should try to help the customer at all times if at all possible, but some customers will wish to abuse the vendor and so the customer isn't always right. It's an over-simplified statement designed to try to avoid losing sales because of some nit-wit CSR that doesn't understand the customer. A good CSR should be able to point out that the customer is wrong, if they can determine for sure the customer is wrong without being offensive and offer the best resolution that is fair.
Ah, if you want to comment on my website, it does support third party authentication through Janrain or on site accounts are stored on a secured server using WordPress' security. That site is actually running on a dedicated server box for a gaming news site that I administer. Unfortunately due to it's high pagerank the page gets mercilessly attacked by spambots which is why I had to put the registration requirement on. Even with a CAPTCHA I still get about 1 to 3 false registrations a week from spam bots that don't realize posts also require at least one past approval to show on the site. Otherwise, e-mail also can work as a good form of off-board communications.
I'll have to check out some of your posts when I get a chance. I definitely do not have a problem with profanity and doubt I will be offended.
"You're the first person I've ever heard of that thinks McVeigh is in heaven."
Wow, that honestly kind of surprises me. (Also, just to clarify, my opinion on McVeigh is that I honestly have no idea, but if he did honestly repent, then I am sure he is in heaven. I have no idea if he did or not.) I live in upstate NY and I know many Christian's who believe firmly that you can't be too screwed up or do too much wrong to be forgiven and go to heaven. I'd actually say that is one key thing that you can't not believe and still be Christian. Equality of sinners as equally screwed up is pretty firmly established in the scriptures. The only real serious debate I'm aware of in that area among those I consider to be strong practicing Christian's is the meaning of the passage that speaks of blaspheming the holy spirit as an unforgivable sin. (If curious, my personal take on that has always been that it is either impossible to truly blaspheme the spirit until the day of judgement when you can say with full knowledge and realization "you are God and sovereign, but I will have no part in it." or it is something you can not do without having your heart at a point so unrepentant that you will never wish to repent. Either situation makes it effectively irrelevant as neither of the situations I believe that passage could refer to would have any bearing on someone who is in fact repentant.)