That's at work where I don't manage anything. The list is dynamic except for the social sites.
My mail server has deny and block methods dating to 1993. Not just blacklists and up blocks but dynamic stuff and intrusion scripts that block stuff variably. I know just ham-handed denies are pointless, but at work they also do DLP and watch every byte looking for patterns that match confidential data. If they see data leaked out in the field, they go back and see if it was seen leaving us.
If we failed to secure our data, you would read about it everywhere. E v e r y w h e r e.
Most of the websites blocked here are known malware hosts, sites that link to known malware hosts, and social networking sites that offer too many vectors for infiltraiton.
It's not about appropriateness, it's about data security. Which is, here, appropriate.
Mind you, I rarely feel refreshed after browsing Slashdot any more. And I wouldn't hit Fark here at work, you never know what you'll get.
I didn't have many complaints with their X series. Especially when we could update the processor board from a 486 DX50 to a Pentium 60. Woot! 32MB RAM!
They went 24x7 for 5 years. Not a hiccup. Then came the Cubix chassis, and from there it was downhill into Windows NT server and Compaq.
GSM was the initial platform for SMS. In fact, Deutsche Telekom was an early collaborator and help design the spec we have now.
SMS was initially designed to use a control channel in GSM, It has, of course, expanded to be used in AMPS (now dead), CDMA, and TDMA. This allowed it to use a service not needed for voice calls (and I assume for data nowadays), but imposed some limitations on the amount of data, both in terms of speed and limiting utilization to avoid interfering with necessary functions. The control channel is also used for call setup, among other things.
While this control/signalling channel is built into the GSM specs, it is used for other things, such as set registration and call setup/teardown, so using it 'for free' isn't as simple as ti seems, and it is limited by the protocl that it uses, 160 characters per 'message'. And SMS does require some 'back office' servers and data systems to function, and exchange with other carriers. SMS isn't free, but it is being sold for up to 400 times the profit margin similar data volumes are sold for as what we thing of as 'data' service. Landline telcos did the same thing, charging hugely for in-state toll calls, even to a neighboring town, and discounting nationwide toll calls dramatically. We might see some action some day by the FCC to more appropriately price SMS, unless they buy the argument that the real costs in SMS are handling the messages as they traverse the system. There is some cost and effort in processing >120 Billion SMS a month in the US alone, or 7-87 Trillion SMS worldwide per year.
Other bits of trivia:
SMS is by design a best-effort delivery system. Delivery is not guaranteed. But when was the last time you lost one? I remember when AT&T TDMA service would lose SMS for a few days, and then I would get them all in a flood. I miss my old Nokia 5150, great phone. The Siemens S46, on the other hand...
A5/1 or A5/2 encryption is used, which is weak enough to be trivially broken. There are open-source GMS implementations that let you force an unencrypted connection and own, presumably, all the data, including SMS. If you're into that sort of thing.
The SMS control channel doesn't need much of a signal to function. You can often get an SMS out even if there is no discernable signal being displayed on your phone, and can't even get an emergency call out.
Before GSM developed GPRS, you could use SMS as a 'bearer' or data packet for WAP. I had a phone that did this, and it was no worse than GPRS, which is bad enough. But WAP didn't really take off like this, since you would be locating your WAP server inside the carrier's network, just not feasible. The control channel back then was adequate for very lightweight WAP. There are plenty of places in rural America where you can be stuck with GPRS speeds, usually 8kb/s. I vacation near one. It's fun. iPhone users on AT&T sometimes get a little crazy there.
The audience for Transformers is largely oblivious to that. In fact, the more intellectual the audience, the more subtle the placement. I suspect I've seen several movies that don't fall into the 'juvenile entertainment' category that just peppered me with paid placements and I didn't even notice.
But like some who haven't responded, I make note of companies that tip the scales towards 'evil', and I avoid their products. Like I seek out products not made in China, to a lesser extent those made in Asia, or those I'm aware are made in a way that is just too ugly to tolerate. And yes, this limits my choices in clothings, shoes, and softball bats.
I'm assuming you don't go back where you get bad product or service.
That's brand awareness.
I do rely on advertising for some awareness of what's available, and the expectation is set by the ad. If it doesn't meet that expectation. I'm less likely to go back if at all, and I'm less likely to trust the source if I can figure out who they are.
SO... movies should be written with characters that never drink soda, never go to a Starbucks, never eat anything other than what they harvested out of the back yard. They don't drive cars made by real corporations, ride buses that actually exist, nor wear clothes that look like anything we, real people, wear. And they don't live in actual cities or town, indeed, they don't even live in actual nations.
Product placements are inevitable. The why is to further the story line, to derive revenue, or both. Oh, wait, movies are intended to drive revenue. There is NO OTHER REASON TO MAKE THEM.
You were hoping for art? Try focusing on dead artists who never received recognition nor revenue for their magnificent works. Lots of those. Leave the movies to those of us who seek entertainment, or indulge in appreciating excellent craft.
As quick look at the program indicated to me that it was focused on enterprise and managed features, and some of this is BIOS related. For me, I'm not sure this is even useful for me. I won't be too hurt.
Now I have a keyboard and can explain my point of view more fully.
The concept of selling software with 'hidden' features that can be quickly enabled for an additional fee really annoys a lot of people. I don't see any real problem here, but it is an interesting and misunderstood concept.
The first thing thing I would address is the use of descriptions as 'easily unlock' or 'unlock with a trivial proess', or any of the descriptions that focus on the simplicity of accessing the additional features. The ease of accessing these features (ignoring the cost, for now) has nothing to do with the effort and cost of developing and including these features in the first place. Trying to link the cost of these 'upgrades' to some notion of complexity in switching them on is pointless and naive.
Next, the complaint that these features are already built and even 'in place' in some cases, and many people complain that they should have gotten these features for the original price. Well, that speaks to marketing and sales, more than to programming or delivery. You probably would not pay $200 for a bare-bones word processor when you can spend just as much for a full suite of office productivity software (and you can get the equivalent for free, so bargain hunters are in a wonderful place right now). But if you would not pay more for less, then when you buy Windows 7 Home Basic as part of a new laptop, do you expect to get all the features of Windoes 7 Ultimate for no additional cost? Why? Because you think the additional features in Ultimate should be sold for no additional cost? Because you expect features that are not going to be used by you (many low-end laptops are not expected nor marketed to business users, and so the OS is not expected to be a business-class OS)? Well, the incremental cost of a commercial OS today is pretty damned small. You are paying for research, design, coding, and the maximum profit they thing they can get. All you Apple fanboys can now join in - it is not just Microsoft. How often has Apple enabled and disabled features in OSX or IOS? The outcry?
Intel has its reasons for this move, but the most interesting thing to me is that this seems focused on business users, and especially focused on heavily-manages systems. There are a lot of management and maintenance features that are part of this, and it almost seeems a selling point to boost i3 sales to these customers. Smart move, if so, though I bet it rolls out to i5 and i7 users also. Intel has had good management features before, so this is consistent.
This is not as simple as unlocking features - it looks like BIOS updates and pre-boot software are part of this. and it looks like your average home user will not be interested in this.
But as a concept, unlocking features is a good way to add value to software and/or hardware, and is, to me, fair if the pricing is otherwise fair. It's just a different delivery system. If you feel better buying some upgrate package, sitting through an install, well, I think you're off the mark.
Actually, look at it as if they don't charge you more for features you didn't want or need? If I wasn't on my phone I would expound further, but if you can't see this, I don't think more words would help.
If you think this is somehow wrong, you need to be kept away from your products.
It takes just as much engineering, development, and 'work' to deliver those features whether they are accessible or 'hidden'. Charging more for more functionality is not a ripoff. Making it as simple as a code or switch is more honest than forcing a de-install/re-install just to activate code that was already there, and had to be tested and compiled to ensure it worked.
What part of pay more for more is a ripoff, unless you expect more for less? Some companies so that. Your choice who you do business with or work for.
I wouldn't mind if they jumped line and went through security ahead of me. after all, I need a pilot to get where I'm going. or the family next to me does.
But avoiding any screening at all defeats at the very least the sniffers and x-ray machines I get to put my laptop and cell phone through. Am I really that much more likely to try and sneak something bad onboard than a pilot? I look exactly like a pilot, minus a uniform I can steal from a dry cleaner every day the week and twice on Saturday. I can get an old catalog case out of storage and fill it with maps, handbooks, and something bad. I can even dress up the wiring and shape it like lunch, and I bet I get it onboard.
So pilots are above suspicion. Right. I get it. Since security is too time consuming and demeaning for the pilots, let them through. Clearly cabin crew need not also go through security. Nor mechanics or skilled technicians. the TSA focuses instead on screening the masses, mostly in a show of effort, and filling the 'no-fly' list with the names of people who are suspected of not liking the process. You can be sure a determined terrorist will not only fly their route over and over to establish a pattern of benign behavior, they will never ever make themselves a cause for concern to anyone anywhere. Only law-abiding, plain nomal citizens will get riled up at a patdown,and for that they will be dragged through a mitten to punish them for such hubris.
Ripley had a real loader. Just needed some duct tape. The Avatar mechs had plastic windscreens. Not good enough, but very few movie mechs actually could be real world designs.
Glorified loader, huge. I think the Iron Man concept doesn't apply to something so enormous, but his protagonist in the first film sure thought size mattered.
Next thing we know, you'll be complaining that Obama's got buddies in the business waiting to rent/lease/buy these vacated datacenters for pennies on the dollar, and will recycle the servers for less, making this all a 'green' project. Saving the environment, tax dollars, and all.
Whatever. Well, all except those pathetic little coloc centers Agriculture got stuck with. Good riddance to the closets, really, what can you DO in 1000 sq ft? Stickhandle?
Slashdot Mirror
Amen! Yes, you nailed it on each point.
But that will not change a thing about those who hate God.
Good try though.
That's at work where I don't manage anything. The list is dynamic except for the social sites.
My mail server has deny and block methods dating to 1993. Not just blacklists and up blocks but dynamic stuff and intrusion scripts that block stuff variably. I know just ham-handed denies are pointless, but at work they also do DLP and watch every byte looking for patterns that match confidential data. If they see data leaked out in the field, they go back and see if it was seen leaving us.
If we failed to secure our data, you would read about it everywhere. E v e r y w h e r e.
It's not a job I want any more.
Most of the websites blocked here are known malware hosts, sites that link to known malware hosts, and social networking sites that offer too many vectors for infiltraiton.
It's not about appropriateness, it's about data security. Which is, here, appropriate.
Mind you, I rarely feel refreshed after browsing Slashdot any more. And I wouldn't hit Fark here at work, you never know what you'll get.
I didn't have many complaints with their X series. Especially when we could update the processor board from a 486 DX50 to a Pentium 60. Woot! 32MB RAM!
They went 24x7 for 5 years. Not a hiccup. Then came the Cubix chassis, and from there it was downhill into Windows NT server and Compaq.
GSM was the initial platform for SMS. In fact, Deutsche Telekom was an early collaborator and help design the spec we have now.
SMS was initially designed to use a control channel in GSM, It has, of course, expanded to be used in AMPS (now dead), CDMA, and TDMA. This allowed it to use a service not needed for voice calls (and I assume for data nowadays), but imposed some limitations on the amount of data, both in terms of speed and limiting utilization to avoid interfering with necessary functions. The control channel is also used for call setup, among other things.
While this control/signalling channel is built into the GSM specs, it is used for other things, such as set registration and call setup/teardown, so using it 'for free' isn't as simple as ti seems, and it is limited by the protocl that it uses, 160 characters per 'message'. And SMS does require some 'back office' servers and data systems to function, and exchange with other carriers. SMS isn't free, but it is being sold for up to 400 times the profit margin similar data volumes are sold for as what we thing of as 'data' service. Landline telcos did the same thing, charging hugely for in-state toll calls, even to a neighboring town, and discounting nationwide toll calls dramatically. We might see some action some day by the FCC to more appropriately price SMS, unless they buy the argument that the real costs in SMS are handling the messages as they traverse the system. There is some cost and effort in processing >120 Billion SMS a month in the US alone, or 7-87 Trillion SMS worldwide per year.
Other bits of trivia:
SMS is by design a best-effort delivery system. Delivery is not guaranteed. But when was the last time you lost one? I remember when AT&T TDMA service would lose SMS for a few days, and then I would get them all in a flood. I miss my old Nokia 5150, great phone. The Siemens S46, on the other hand...
A5/1 or A5/2 encryption is used, which is weak enough to be trivially broken. There are open-source GMS implementations that let you force an unencrypted connection and own, presumably, all the data, including SMS. If you're into that sort of thing.
The SMS control channel doesn't need much of a signal to function. You can often get an SMS out even if there is no discernable signal being displayed on your phone, and can't even get an emergency call out.
Before GSM developed GPRS, you could use SMS as a 'bearer' or data packet for WAP. I had a phone that did this, and it was no worse than GPRS, which is bad enough. But WAP didn't really take off like this, since you would be locating your WAP server inside the carrier's network, just not feasible. The control channel back then was adequate for very lightweight WAP. There are plenty of places in rural America where you can be stuck with GPRS speeds, usually 8kb/s. I vacation near one. It's fun. iPhone users on AT&T sometimes get a little crazy there.
Google much?
What you said.
The audience for Transformers is largely oblivious to that. In fact, the more intellectual the audience, the more subtle the placement. I suspect I've seen several movies that don't fall into the 'juvenile entertainment' category that just peppered me with paid placements and I didn't even notice.
But like some who haven't responded, I make note of companies that tip the scales towards 'evil', and I avoid their products. Like I seek out products not made in China, to a lesser extent those made in Asia, or those I'm aware are made in a way that is just too ugly to tolerate. And yes, this limits my choices in clothings, shoes, and softball bats.
That doesn't adequately address the 'product placement' in Gran Torino.
More like some terminal emulations not implemented very well.
Star Wars?
I'm assuming you don't go back where you get bad product or service.
That's brand awareness.
I do rely on advertising for some awareness of what's available, and the expectation is set by the ad. If it doesn't meet that expectation. I'm less likely to go back if at all, and I'm less likely to trust the source if I can figure out who they are.
And what if what they drive IS the story? Or what they eat, or drink, or wear?
SO... movies should be written with characters that never drink soda, never go to a Starbucks, never eat anything other than what they harvested out of the back yard. They don't drive cars made by real corporations, ride buses that actually exist, nor wear clothes that look like anything we, real people, wear. And they don't live in actual cities or town, indeed, they don't even live in actual nations.
Product placements are inevitable. The why is to further the story line, to derive revenue, or both. Oh, wait, movies are intended to drive revenue. There is NO OTHER REASON TO MAKE THEM.
You were hoping for art? Try focusing on dead artists who never received recognition nor revenue for their magnificent works. Lots of those. Leave the movies to those of us who seek entertainment, or indulge in appreciating excellent craft.
As quick look at the program indicated to me that it was focused on enterprise and managed features, and some of this is BIOS related. For me, I'm not sure this is even useful for me. I won't be too hurt.
Now I have a keyboard and can explain my point of view more fully.
The concept of selling software with 'hidden' features that can be quickly enabled for an additional fee really annoys a lot of people. I don't see any real problem here, but it is an interesting and misunderstood concept.
The first thing thing I would address is the use of descriptions as 'easily unlock' or 'unlock with a trivial proess', or any of the descriptions that focus on the simplicity of accessing the additional features. The ease of accessing these features (ignoring the cost, for now) has nothing to do with the effort and cost of developing and including these features in the first place. Trying to link the cost of these 'upgrades' to some notion of complexity in switching them on is pointless and naive.
Next, the complaint that these features are already built and even 'in place' in some cases, and many people complain that they should have gotten these features for the original price. Well, that speaks to marketing and sales, more than to programming or delivery. You probably would not pay $200 for a bare-bones word processor when you can spend just as much for a full suite of office productivity software (and you can get the equivalent for free, so bargain hunters are in a wonderful place right now). But if you would not pay more for less, then when you buy Windows 7 Home Basic as part of a new laptop, do you expect to get all the features of Windoes 7 Ultimate for no additional cost? Why? Because you think the additional features in Ultimate should be sold for no additional cost? Because you expect features that are not going to be used by you (many low-end laptops are not expected nor marketed to business users, and so the OS is not expected to be a business-class OS)? Well, the incremental cost of a commercial OS today is pretty damned small. You are paying for research, design, coding, and the maximum profit they thing they can get. All you Apple fanboys can now join in - it is not just Microsoft. How often has Apple enabled and disabled features in OSX or IOS? The outcry?
Intel has its reasons for this move, but the most interesting thing to me is that this seems focused on business users, and especially focused on heavily-manages systems. There are a lot of management and maintenance features that are part of this, and it almost seeems a selling point to boost i3 sales to these customers. Smart move, if so, though I bet it rolls out to i5 and i7 users also. Intel has had good management features before, so this is consistent.
This is not as simple as unlocking features - it looks like BIOS updates and pre-boot software are part of this. and it looks like your average home user will not be interested in this.
But as a concept, unlocking features is a good way to add value to software and/or hardware, and is, to me, fair if the pricing is otherwise fair. It's just a different delivery system. If you feel better buying some upgrate package, sitting through an install, well, I think you're off the mark.
Actually, look at it as if they don't charge you more for features you didn't want or need? If I wasn't on my phone I would expound further, but if you can't see this, I don't think more words would help.
If you think this is somehow wrong, you need to be kept away from your products.
It takes just as much engineering, development, and 'work' to deliver those features whether they are accessible or 'hidden'. Charging more for more functionality is not a ripoff. Making it as simple as a code or switch is more honest than forcing a de-install/re-install just to activate code that was already there, and had to be tested and compiled to ensure it worked.
What part of pay more for more is a ripoff, unless you expect more for less? Some companies so that. Your choice who you do business with or work for.
Does El Al screen their pilots?
I wouldn't mind if they jumped line and went through security ahead of me. after all, I need a pilot to get where I'm going. or the family next to me does.
But avoiding any screening at all defeats at the very least the sniffers and x-ray machines I get to put my laptop and cell phone through. Am I really that much more likely to try and sneak something bad onboard than a pilot? I look exactly like a pilot, minus a uniform I can steal from a dry cleaner every day the week and twice on Saturday. I can get an old catalog case out of storage and fill it with maps, handbooks, and something bad. I can even dress up the wiring and shape it like lunch, and I bet I get it onboard.
So pilots are above suspicion. Right. I get it. Since security is too time consuming and demeaning for the pilots, let them through. Clearly cabin crew need not also go through security. Nor mechanics or skilled technicians. the TSA focuses instead on screening the masses, mostly in a show of effort, and filling the 'no-fly' list with the names of people who are suspected of not liking the process. You can be sure a determined terrorist will not only fly their route over and over to establish a pattern of benign behavior, they will never ever make themselves a cause for concern to anyone anywhere. Only law-abiding, plain nomal citizens will get riled up at a patdown,and for that they will be dragged through a mitten to punish them for such hubris.
This is just not worth it. If only Amtrak worked.
So the solution is to use the GNU license to avoid liability.
You must work in the industry. Maybe as a CEO?
Acer, for one, would not find that funny at all. They seem to think they manufacture laptops also.
There are more than three laptop manufacturers, even if you limit yourself to mainstream brands.
Ripley had a real loader. Just needed some duct tape. The Avatar mechs had plastic windscreens. Not good enough, but very few movie mechs actually could be real world designs.
Glorified loader, huge. I think the Iron Man concept doesn't apply to something so enormous, but his protagonist in the first film sure thought size mattered.
Next thing we know, you'll be complaining that Obama's got buddies in the business waiting to rent/lease/buy these vacated datacenters for pennies on the dollar, and will recycle the servers for less, making this all a 'green' project. Saving the environment, tax dollars, and all.
Whatever. Well, all except those pathetic little coloc centers Agriculture got stuck with. Good riddance to the closets, really, what can you DO in 1000 sq ft? Stickhandle?