The problem with TV is that the amount of advertising is increasing to the point where watching in real time is too frustrating.
Of course people are turning to other sources where they can watch without the constant interruption of yet more and more and more commercials. The channels are starting to run certain ads more than once during a single ad break: Why would anyone want to watch that?
Without a PVR, TV is simply unwatchable.
memo to self: ALWAYS swallow the coffee BEFORE reading Hognoxious' posts.
I'm going to need a new keyboard!
"- is it time for the government to roll out legislation that will enforce safety standards for car computers as well?"
Which would be covered under *any* sort of "product liability for software" legislation.
Seriously: You can't buy food without the producer going through FDA checks, you can't buy a car without all the right safety and functionality checked by a gummint agency, you can't trade stocks without oversight by the SEC, so why can software vendors continue to peddle insecure crap with no liability?
'...a suite of middleware that relies heavily on some of the internals of Windows. Changing out anything is a risk that the product doesn't work as expected. '
You need to FIX that. ITSec researchers are seeing more and more threats going forwards. Any product that locks an end user to a specific configuration with no updates allowed is a security nightmare waiting to happen.
Devs have to accept and adjust to a world where every library and tool (Java, Oracle, Adobe, M$, etc.) is going to be updated at short notice as part of the enterprise need to have secure systems and meet regulatory and contractual obligations. The days are OVER where lazy businesses and devs can assume they will be on the same IE 6 and Java JRE 3.1 forever and ever because security is Someone Else's Problem.
The enterprise is going to be interesting with this stuff. If MS sends PII from Windows 10 to Microsoft, and an enterprise in the USA or Europe "upgrades" to Windows 10, then how can that enterprise continue to claim "Safe Harbor" certification?
I suspect that Microsoft is going to have to rip out all the privacy-destroying stuff before it can sell to a company that needs to be "Safe Harbor" certified.
5.47 pounds is reasonable for a "business laptop". It is WAY overweight for an "ultrabook". The whole point of an ultrabook is that it's powerful *and* light. And way expensive, too. It's the supermodel of laptops.
5.47 pounds just makes it the Rosanne Barr of ultrabooks.
The problem there is that when the well is contaminated, it's WAY too late to do anything. Even if the responsible company immediately stops fracking completely, the well will continue to provide polluted water until the aquifer gets cleaned out somehow. That may be anytime from years to millenia.
I think it's more reasonable for the landowner to be able to force the fracking company to "fix what they broke" and to ensure the landowner has a supply of clean water equal to their current well production available to them for free until the well runs clean again. Or the frackers pay for all the land at pre-fracking market value.
Yeah, I'm a dreamer.
So first they say " left turned on for 248 days, it will enter a failsafe mode" then they say "all the Generator Control Units will shut off, leaving the plane without power, and the control of the plane will be lost."
That is NOT fail "SAFE". That is fail "EVERYBODY DEAD".
Hmm, all banks with a common API so any flaw in that API means that the cybercriminals have instant access to all banking information for everyone everywhere. And we know d*mned well that there WILL be flaws in that API.
I prefer the bazaar to the cathedral, please.
ISPs lie. Who knew?
Seriously, if I had a nickel for every time my ISP (*cough* rogers.com *cough*) lied to me, I'd be a rich man.
I think they deliberately fill their storefronts with toxic twerps who score the highest on sociopathy tests.
"Actually I fail to see how "motivate your employees to work harder" necessarily translates into "employees are happier""
Fair criticism. I just think that for people with common sense, more money likely (not necessarily!) translates into a better life and more satisfaction, up to a point.
A larger apartment closer to work for a more relaxing commute, fewer nagging worries about money, chances to enjoy nicer "things", etc. are all minor but real improvements in quality of life that can be enjoyed with a higher salary. Some people are very much motivated by money and some are less so, but unless your staff have genuine addiction problems, more money is likely something they will appreciate.
He surely owns a large chunk of the company: Why take a huge salary when you can motivate your employees to work harder and make the company worth more? That is a faster way to get rich than just paying yourself a salary.
He gets rich faster, and the employees are happier. It's win-win. Just don't pretend it's about "justice" and not simple self-interest.
"Confound these ancestors.... They've stolen our best ideas!" - Ben Jonson