Comment Re:Sounds familiar (Score -1, Offtopic) 110
Close, Trump is a pig's heart in a baboon's ass.
Close, Trump is a pig's heart in a baboon's ass.
LOL, why am I suddenly picturing millions of horny guys getting blown off by a porn AI which has developed attitude?
Except for the people into that whole humiliation thing, I just don't see that being a big selling point.
I think sentient porn is the last thing we want.
God these self-aggrandizing titles are annoying.
He's not the "Cyber Commander", he's in charge of an entity whose purview is things related to the interwebs.
But let's stop treating him like he's the fucking Field Marshall of the internet.
We're getting this stuff from three directions:
1) The manufacturers of products are lazy and incompetent, and carry no liability for that;
2) Organizations take short cuts from within, and don't realize just how vital security is;
3) Entities like the FBI want to undermine our security so they can be assured access to our stuff, while stupidly refusing to accept they're causing security to suck even more;
As long as these things keep happening, we basically live in a world where security is an afterthought, or too complicated, or something to be actively undermined to allow idiots to bypass it.
And all three of those combine to more or less ensure that having real security is almost impossible. Because no matter what the assholes who want to spy on us say, leaving it open for them also leaves it open for everyone else.
The people who claim to be protecting are as much fault for this as anybody else. Only they're too stupid to accept that the world doesn't recognize that only the good guys will bypass security when it's been built to have holes in it.
This is why we can't have nice things.
You don't even need a different source.
The linked article says nothing at all about humans, so why does the headline?
I see being an idiot who apologizes for corporations being assholes and pretending like losing all functionality is the same as still working is your normal operation.
You're the one who made the stupid claim the product still works perfectly even though the product will no longer work at all.
Do you have a different set of facts to support the product still works? Or is all you have being a snide asshole?
Way to over-react without having a brain there or even bothering to read past the headline....
Oh do kindly go fuck yourself, okay?
I read TFA, and I've read the archive.org thing.
TFA says:
What happens to my Revolv service?
As of May 15, 2016, Revolv service will no longer be available. The Revolv app won't open and the hub won't work.
The product most certainly WILL NOT WORK PERFECTLY. In fact, it won't work at all.
The Archive.org of the company website said:
Free lifetime service subscription
I define lifetime as "as long as I still have the product", not when the company arbitrarily decides the lifetime has ended and the product no longer still functions.
Oooh, the product works fine, but it relies on the service, and there's no service so therefore there's no product. But the product works just fine. Yeah, right.
Sorry, but you can cram that bit of semantic bullshit up your ass until your ears bleed, because what they've said is "the product you bought will no longer work because we said so". You can't claim the product still works the company straight up says it won't work.
This is exactly the problem with this IoT shit. You're dependent on them to not suck at security and to keep the service running. If they're incompetent you get hacked, and if they're bastards you no longer have a product.
This is yet another reason why I have no interest in any product which relies on the vendor to keep a service running to let me use the product, and why I will never buy any of this IoT shit. I'm not prepared to have some asshole say my fridge no longer works because they've decided to stop supporting it and I should buy a new one.
And I'm not willing to accept the intellectual bullshit that a product which no longer works "will still work perfectly", because that's a complete fucking lie. It works just fine, except it no longer does anything is some horseshit lie I'd expect from someone in marketing, and if that's you, well, then you really are full of shit.
Tony believes he has the right to reach into your home and pull the plug on your Nest products
So, we buy the product, and they just decide when they'll kill it off, and they'll do it by remotely destroying it?
Yeah, enjoy your IoT bullshit, where other people decide what happens to products you purchase, decide they can do it without recourse, and just do it remotely.
Fuck that. This is yet another reason why this whole IoT thing is a completely terrible idea. If I bought it, it's MINE, not yours. Unless you plan on compensating for it, or replacing it, YOU do not get to destroy it.
And if they can reach in and destroy it, they're a hack or two away from someone else being able to do it just for the hell of it.
"Your friendly reminder that without open standards, you're not "buying" smarthome hardware, you're renting it."
Nope, I'm neither buying it nor renting it
Sorry, but unilaterally bricking a piece of consumer hardware is a dick move, and it basically says you don't give a crap about your customers. I sincerely hope this makes people realize they shouldn't give a crap about Nest.
Destroying someone else's property should be illegal. Oh, wait, without a bullshit EULA, it would be.
where did it's charge go?
It re-enfrobulates the flux of the, er, doo-hicky causing the doo-dad to re-distrube the, umm, polarity of the charge of the base pairs leading to a, err, dispersion of the charge across an, um, er, tensor field exhibiting Jacobian properties and cancelling out the, um, potentiation of the matrix. Yeah, that's is, potentiation of the matrix.
It's quite simple, really.
Color and sound were considered toys for a long time. You only needed them to play games. Real work was done on Green/Amber Screens.
Hmmm
The technology wasn't ready for what Newton promised at that time.
Which is very often the problem when people make these claims about being The Next Big Thing.
Often the technology IS just a toy, and is a proof of concept of something which might be useful in a bunch of years.
So, yeah, you have a seed of a kernel of a nugget of an idea which points to some Really Cool Things down the road. But your cobbled together demo which doesn't, at present, actually DO anything is a long way from changing the world, and you'll excuse us if we roll our eyes and think that you're getting a little ahead of yourself.
I mean, the flying car has been coming Real Soon Now since, what, the mid 60s? Nuclear fusion as cheap energy? Routine trips to space for all of us?
He, we want the cool new future. We're just seldom convinced when the guy in marketing tells us that he has it; because we pretty much know he's full of shit, and he will claim to have The Next Big Thing pretty much for everything he ever tries to tell us about.
By about the 10th time, you stop listening.
Well, strangely the author of TFA actually says "It can be said that being labeled a toy is necessary, but not sufficient, to become the next big thing."
I mean, that's a completely unsubstantiated and meaningless claim.
It's like the entire article is intended to make the bullshit argument that being labelled as a toy is a strong indicator you're onto something.
Being labelled a toy is neither necessary nor sufficient to become the next big thing. The entire article is drivel.
Some things which have been game changers have been dismissed as toys. Just because your shit was dismissed as being a toy doesn't make it a game changer either.
All that shit Microsoft said was a game changer but nobody gave a damn about? Not game changers.
The only thing which differentiates the two is reality of what has actually happened. But the history of people saying "this will revolutionize the world", or "in 5 years we'll all be doing X" -- well, the pundits seem to have a far worse track record of telling us what will happen than what won't.
How many of us have spent decades seeing the stuff the pundits and futurists said would change our lives, only to have them fizzle out into nothing?
If we stamped 100% of all ideas as "toy" or "garbage", I bet we'd be right 80% of the time. People suck at predicting the future.
As it turns out, the extension was sold off to an unnamed buyer who started adding malicious code that would redirect the user's traffic through a proxy, showing ads and collecting analytics on the user's traffic habits.
That really sucks, because basically it means malicious assholes can take control of these things.
But, I think it points to a broader problem: EULAs.
The notion that a product can be sold, have the EULA changed giving the new company the ability to ignore any limitations they don't like, and then have it be "too bad, it's in the license".
There need to be real privacy laws, with real penalties, and real restrictions about what you can do with it once you've collected it.
Shit like this should be illegal. And if people won't make it illegal (because lawmakers are on the payroll of large corporations who want this), then some of the black hats should be looking to burn you to the ground for being such douchebags.
So they want to bypass any proof of wrong-doing, any proper due process, and just be able to assert you infringed and you need to pay.
Sorry, but that is complete bullshit.
Rightscorp isn't in a legal position to impose "fines".
This is a shakedown racket, pure and simple, and Rightscorp wants the right to have ISPs act as the collection muscle with absolutely ZERO standard of proof.
I'm sorry, but we'd trust the assholes at Rightscorp to make these assertions without backing them up with proof, why, exactly?
This isn't a fine, it's fucking protection money which comes with it an implicit admission of guilt. No way in hell there is any legal basis for that.
Doing anything to legitimize these lying bastards is a terrible idea.
Make sure your code does nothing gracefully.
