Comment Re:At a loss (Score 1) 131
They were not planning to make a profit at this point. It's part of the long term strategy. Fancy that, a CEO who can see past the next quarter's results!
This is far more common than the financial experts here on
They were not planning to make a profit at this point. It's part of the long term strategy. Fancy that, a CEO who can see past the next quarter's results!
This is far more common than the financial experts here on
A physical key still unlocks the doors when the car's battery has died. A physical key doesn't itself have a battery to die, leaving you stranded in a blizzard in the middle of nowhere after you stop to pee on the side of the road. And perhaps most importantly - A physical key doesn't cost some $300 to replace when you drop it in a puddle. If that particular scam doesn't solely account for the auto industry's desire to move to keyless fobs, I have a bridge for sale.
I have a 2014 Ford keyless system. Inside the fob is a metal key that will unlock the doors in the event of an emergency. If the fob battery is dead there is a space in the center console where you can place it and still start your car. I assume it uses NFC or something similar in that case. Replacement fobs are going for $90 on eBay, and Ford gives you instructions to program them yourself. None of your points are valid.
TFA says there were no Youtube videos to learn solving methods back in the day. That's true, but there were published solving procedures in book form. I had one when I was around 12 or 13 and after some practice could solve a cube in well under a minute, but it's been so long I can no longer remember the process I used. It worked 100% of the time, though. TFA makes it sound like it was a lot harder to solve in the 80's before the popularization of the Internet, but it wasn't. You just had to buy a book.
I'm not surprised by this ruling at all. The current Supreme Court is very friendly towards businesses acting badly.
What ruling? They declined to hear the case because there isn't a constitutional challenge.
I'd be pissed if my phone started ringing incessantly because it was in a video on
I'm curious to see what it says about me, but not so curious I'll give them access to the entirety of my Facebook account. Do they say what they'll do with your data afterwards? They must be sucking everything they can out of your account, and I doubt they destroy it afterwards even if you revoke permissions for their app.
This scam is a marketer's wet dream.
It's the same deal with photo printers. It's much easier and cheaper to go down to Walmart or Costco when you need to print out your photos and get them to use their professional quality machines to do the job. I think that 3D printers will end up in the same sport. You'll go down to Walmart, and get them to print out an item for you. You'll only need it maybe 5 times a year, so there's no point in owning your own 3D printer. There's already services where you can send a 3D file and somebody will print it out and ship it to you.
I think this is accurate. I'm not ready to buy a 3D printer but I'd drive over to The UPS Store and have them print something out.
See, that's exactly why I'd like to acquire one - there's money to be made printing stuff for other people.
I wanna be the guy making that money.
There are web sites where you can find folks nearby with 3D printers and their costs. There were half a dozen within 10 or so miles. For me, though, that's not how I want to transact business.
It's the same deal with photo printers. It's much easier and cheaper to go down to Walmart or Costco when you need to print out your photos and get them to use their professional quality machines to do the job. I think that 3D printers will end up in the same sport. You'll go down to Walmart, and get them to print out an item for you. You'll only need it maybe 5 times a year, so there's no point in owning your own 3D printer. There's already services where you can send a 3D file and somebody will print it out and ship it to you.
I think this is accurate. I'm not ready to buy a 3D printer but I'd drive over to The UPS Store and have them print something out.
I read the entire transcript but had a hard time grasping the nuances. My favorite quote, though, was this:
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: All I'm trying to get at, and I'm not saying it's outcome determinative or necessarily bad, I'm just saying your technological model is based solely on circumventing legal prohibitions that you don't want to comply with, which is fine. I mean, that's you know, lawyers do that. But I'm just wondering why--
(Laughter.)
Except, of course, open source code also contains horrific security vulnerabilities.
Everyone raise your hand if you know the difference between proprietary software that's closed source, and open source with viewable binaries! That's right kiddies, if you have open source with viewable binaries you can even compile your own, and fix any bugs you find. You can even fork it! You can't do that with closed source, you're at their mercy for patches, fixes, and security holes.
As you seem to be unfamiliar with the difference between source code and compiled binaries, I will assume you don't yet have the required skillset to do what you're suggesting. That's ok, I don't either. I can write code, to a point, but I don't have the skills needed to audit it for security vulnerabilities.
FOSS _can_ be more secure than proprietary code, but that doesn't mean it is, or that it is not. It merely has the potential, and in that respect is superior to proprietary code. Potential isn't the same as reality, though. Perhaps in the future the EFF or something similar will come along and make its mission the independent review of source code for major projects.
Except, of course, open source code also contains horrific security vulnerabilities.
But you know about those, and can fix them if you want. That's the difference between open and closed source.
It's not that simple. My point, before it was moderated into oblivion, is that there is no implied additional security just because something is FOSS. I've contributed code to FOSS projects from time to time and I know I am not qualified to audit source for security vulnerabilities. There's appears to be an assumption that "someone" is doing this, but the reality is this doesn't happen often. TrueCrypt is an example of where this is being addressed, but how many projects have had an independant code review? Hardly any. So when you say you know about [vulnerabilities]... maybe you do, and maybe you don't. And when you say you can fix them if you want, maybe you can and maybe you can't.
Look, everyone seemed to assume I was attacking FOSS for some reason. I'm not. I like FOSS, I use it every day, and I contribute to it when I am capable of doing so. The OP's position that simply installing FOSS firmware instead of proprietary firmware somehow magically equated to a secure platform is severely flawed and should be examined critically and objectively.
I say tomato..
Just load OpenWRT or some other open source firmware, problem solved.
What do you mean there isn't a port for your hardware? Why did you buy it in the first place? Throw it away (or donate it to someone who can do the port) and buy something that has been ported.
NEVER buy hardware without a open source port at least in progress.. You have been warned!
Except, of course, open source code also contains horrific security vulnerabilities.
Plus the iPad was _expensive_.
No way. I can still remember the collective gasp that echoed through cyberspace when Apple announced the price for an entry grade iPad will cost $499. People were expecting something much closer to $1000.
At the time there was no basis of comparison except for netbooks and the iPod Touch.
He said he predicted failure for their SECOND tablet. Which was the iPad.
Yes, this is what I meant, and I was far from the only one saying so. Those who weren't Apple fanbois mostly predicted the iPad to be nothing more than an oversized iPod Touch filling a small niche that could only cannibalize from Apple's existing portfolio.
10" touchscreen tablets were totally unheard of, the Newton was a flop, and everyone hated laptops with touchscreens. A tablet, keyboardless computer had, in the history of mankind, never been successful. Plus the iPad was _expensive_. People would buy the cheaper Kindle or netbooks (remember those?) instead. The concept of carrying around a tablet instead of a laptop was ludicrous, because the apps that would enable you to do that did not yet exist. Four years later it's easy to look back and say "well, duh", but in 2010 it was seen as a risky move for Apple.
My point is that it's easy to be wrong about what people will buy, and it's too early to know what will happen with wearable computing. The right product at the right time could change everything.
Anything that makes "wearables" die out faster is good in my book. Keep releasing different models all running different OSes and all doing different versions of nothing useful. Manufactured product pushes are like diarrhea. The sooner all the products exit the pipeline, the sooner corporate sees that marketing was blowing smoke up their ass when they told them "wearables" were going to be hot, the sooner I don't have to hear about them and, hopefully, the sooner that marketing dipshit is fired.
The same goes for the asshole who decided that Wendy's, Carl's Jr/Hardees, and Sonic all had to jump on the non-existent pretzel bun bandwagon. Oh wait, nobody actually wanted those? Better jump on the ciabatta bandwagon! That failed too?! Well what about brioche? Still no boost in sales? Revert back to our "classic" buns to save money and leverage our brand!
Sometimes the product vision is right but the timing or state of technology is wrong. I think wearables might fall into that category but it's too soon to tell. Groundwork and thought leadership today could reap rewards later. Apple's first tablet was such a colossal failure that many, including me, predicted the same for their second attempt. I was definitely wrong.
Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature. -- Rich Kulawiec
