You're both right in a way. The 3278s did have a cap lock next to the A key. That was because the 3278s replaced typewriters in the corporate environment. The original PC/XT/AT systems were not targeted at the corporate environment, they were targeted at the SOHO market. Those keyboards did not have the caps lock next to the A key. The 3270PC was used as a replacement for 3278, and it had the caps lock next to the A. This was the first IBM PC targeted for corporate. After that most of their PCS were corporate use, and they retained that layout.
And by the time you have modified the ATM software you no longer have an ATM, you have this safe. So what exactly is the point?
ATMs require access to the account. Think it's a good idea to give all your employees access to your bank account?
ATMs do not count the money (well, some count individually inserted bills - just what you want your employee to be doing)
ATMs do not create reports of deposits made.
ATMs do not allow management to remotely check on deposits.
It is a 'safe' in the same sense an ATM is a safe. It counts (and sorts) the money that is inserted and credits it to your bank account. It records who made deposits (requires user management). It prints reports. It notifies Brinks when it is time to empty the safe. It allows a remote manager access to see deposits made, etc.
So at the very least it needs to interface with a bill counter/sorter, network (encryption, etc), touch screen, printer, card reader, and lock mechanism. Is there any reason besides stupidity you would implement all that with a FPGA or hard-coded application?
A rather key feature of this 'safe' is that it counts the cash and credits your bank account. It notifies Brinks when a pickup must be made. It prints reports of deposits made, etc. It allows a central location to see that deposits are being made and how much money is in the safe. It has multiple users and roles. It has a touch screen to allow for management of user and roles, logging on, reporting, unlocking, etc. It is getting harder and harder to do on a simple microcontroller with no OS, and impossible to do without some sort of external connectivity.
Well, it is easy to make statements like that when you have no idea what the thing actually is or how it is used.
First, this thing is meant to be used in stores, gas stations, etc. The employee logs on and puts the cash in and it is counted and reported to the bank. The manager can check and see how much cash is in there and who put it in. At some later time, an armed Brinks employee comes in and empties the safe.
So, what happens with your simple safe? Assuming you aren't dumb enough to give the employees the combination you need a 'drop' type safe. OK. But now you don't know how much money is in it until you open it (security problem). The money is just sitting in your safe, useless, until it gets delivered to the bank. So how do you get the money to the bank? Open the safe, take out the cash, and drive it to the bank yourself? Giant security problem. Have Brinks come and pick it up daily? More secure, but expensive. Who opens the safe when you are not available? Now you have to give the combination to someone else. Security problem.
Here is one of these safes. The first, most obvious thing is that it has a touch-screen device, a printer, a network connection, a card reader, a cash counter, and a safe. That is a lot of hardware to drive with no OS.
It also has mutliple users, with various roles for each user. Sounds like more OS stuff.
It has ways to add and delete users, and change passwords. More OS stuff.
It can make reports, so obviously it has some sort of storage, which means some sort of file system. More OS stuff.
It has ways to update the software. More OS stuff.
So the real question is, why would anyone in their right mind NOT use an OS on a device like this?
Hey morons, you already posted this TODAY.
Thre don't get penalized for walks. If they are walked it doesn't count as an 'at bat', so it has no effect on their average at all.
Wrong. If you are distributing,modifed or not, YOU must offer the source code.
For a rather obvious example, see Red Hat. I have an RHN registered machine. I can download a binary RPM (GPL), and I can also download the source. I can pass that binary to you, but I can not simply say 'you can get the source from RHN', because RHN won't let you in without a registered machine (which costs money). In that case, I am the one violating the license, not Red Hat. It would be up to me to get the source from RHN and provide it to you.
Yet Uber and Lyft are much more popular, so you've proved their point.
Where did you get THAT bizarre idea? Uber claims 140 million rides/year WORLDWIDE. NYC taxis do 236 million rides/year just in NYC.
Depends where you are. In large cities taxis are hailed. In small cities taxi rides are pre-arranged and not hailed.
A car's design is defective if it was not designed to withstand people trying to hack it.
Why? Just because you said so? Since when it is a manufacturers responsibility to protect against criminal actions involving his product?
The locks are a convenience feature and not actual security.
No, he is saying it is NOT A DEFECT. The cars are not designed to stop criminal actions. Is it a 'defect' that the windows can be 'exploited' by not being bullet-proof? Is it a defect that the body is not armored? Is it a defect that brake lines can be cut? Is it a defect that the car can be towed away by a criminal?