Re: Who'd Pay?
Boilers cheap? Where? And chucking the thing may well brick the whole shebang.
16605 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
"One lawsuit doesn't make one a vexatious litigant."
Even if it's for a sum as outrageous as ten BEEELION dollars plus over an ad? Isn't that essentially harassing someone through the courts as you say? Not to mention this isn't the plaintiff's first trip to court, already having a criminal record due to a DUI in the past?
You should read the article further, as well as these comments. That can be worked around by pretending to be the lockscreen during an instance when the accelerometer IS allowed and tricking the user into entering his/her PIN on that screen. No amount of lockscreen alterations will cut it as the fake screen can simply simulate any such changes such as randomized pads (which have the added detriment of tripping up people who rely on their muscle memory to remember their PINs).
But the "passive image" attack could STILL defeat that trick by simply using a random but known layout. The attacker would know the pattern and STILL discern the real PIN based on it.
The big problem with side channels is that, most of the time, they can't help but convey information because that's their intended purpose, like how CRIME depends on the very fact that compressed data streams are smaller (their intended purpose). Which leaves you with two choices: cut it off completely or live with it. Like how compression is now generally discouraged for encrypted data streams.
But what happens when customers start telling Verizon, "We'll pay a premium for the privilege!"? How would the investors react to Verizon turning down money at that point? That's the kind of pressure that can build if the monopoly decides to cut off access to the most-desired sites/channels/whatever. That's why the incumbent doesn't stoop THAT low, because then Verizon would GAIN the incentive to actually plunk down.
Thing is, that extortion can work BOTH ways. Google and Facebook have their level of power because they're perhaps the 2 most-demanded services on the Internet: to the effect they're like prerequisites. Sort of like how Disney can demand so much from the cable companies because it happens to own ESPN: THE most-demanded cable channel out there. If cable companies start closing their doors to Disney, customers start closing their wallets and looking for other providers. Similarly, Verizon and the rest know they can't really extort Google and Facebook because they minute they try to block access, customers start looking for a new provider.
I won't comment on whether or not the move is proper or not, but it should come as no surprise that if one acquires a partner, that partner's going to get a say in matters. It would seem that, like it or not, WD is going to demand their say. Given the penchant of the lawyers on all sides, sorting this all out is going to take some time.
But airplanes have metallic shells. Wouldn't that attenuate radio signals somewhat, which is why you usually can't get a lock with a GPS device in a plane unless you're next to the window (firsthand experience)? Plus by placing a picocell on board, all the cell phones focus on it and stop broadcasting willy-nilly?
"If I had it my way, there'd be no children under the age of 20, no electronic devices and no conversations whatsoever on flights. No exceptions."
So what do you tell FAMILIES going on vacation across the ocean? Or those people BOUND by overbearing bosses who DEMAND permanent on-call status?
The FCC can't get involved here because the incident occurred pre-flight, still at the gate. Under the current rules, it's OK to use electronics in this phase because the plane officially hasn't set off yet; they're still officially on the ground. I don't think the FAA and the FCC really want to argue over who has the overriding jurisdiction at this point.
That would add weight to the plane and wouldn't necessarily address the issue due to the crowded nature of the plane. People would STILL be able to hear just as people would still be able to be caught in secondhand smoke.
"As for people with unexpected emergency calls - just exactly how often does that really happen? (And how is it dealt with at the moment?)"
Used to be done with an in-flight phone but what if there isn't one and the caller/receiver is being harassed by an overbearing boss who demands permanent on-call status regardless of situation (cited earlier)...or else?
"Which means, I predict, that if the FCC allows inflight calling that they'll charge extra to allow individuals to make calls inflight, and if you're lucky, they'll charge extra to seat someone in a "quiet row" where calls are not allowed,"
Airlines would be called out on such things as False Advertising because the nature of the beast makes quiet rows practically impossible without expensive and heavy additional infrastructure to provide for soundproofing. Anything you can try to apply to cell phone calls you can apply to smoking, and last I checked smoking is universally banned on all US-connected flights and then some.
"And really, isn't sitting belted on a plane the safest place on the planet to BE distracted, unless you're the pilot?"
No, it's one of the worse places you want to be because you're essentially being restrained, and that makes plenty of people snippy. Or haven't you heard of the spate of in-flight altercations lately that have forced reroutes (meaning safety became an issue)?
That won't help because both devices will be IN the cage now. Besides, the plane's metal shell acts like an attenuator already.
Besides, the proponents will just say wrap the cargo hold or containers in a Faraday cage and you solve the cell phone bomb problem while still allowing conversations.
"Still others are inconsiderate but can be easily shamed into doing the right thing - and these are exactly the people such announcements would target: those who rely on no one actually calling them out."
And then there are those who think rules are made to be broken. Tell them not to do something and they'll just do it even more.
"But for the millions of users working at home, or in small businesses, there really should, in 2017, be messages that at least tell the recipient where to look for the source of the error."
No, they're just as problematic as the corporate lemmings. Indeed, perhaps more so since you're more likely to find the "know-it-alls".
Not really. A tiny little disclaimer that not everything in the contents is true is usually enough, if the Weekly World Lies was any example (IIRC, they didn't stop because they got into legal trouble, they simply weren't selling anymore).
As for Sunday Sport, what's that (consider this writer is American)?
"No one in their right minds would use poison gas in Syria except as a false flag operation."
Don't assume everyone who uses poison has is in their right mind. Plus, what if it's being used strategically on the assumption it will be interpreted as a false flag attack when it's really not? "I know you I know," eh?
"Its tactically almost useless and strategically a disaster."
Please specify why, particularly in regards to a target population/area the user cares little about, meaning indiscriminate casualties don't matter.
"It has marginal use as a terrorist weapon."
But what about as a state weapon? Again, against a target the leader doesn't care about.
It would be nice, but all the media distributors know it would KILL them, so they're forcing everyone into captive markets. After all, if the most-demanded show is under your control, you can dictate terms. It's just that no one really knows from week to week what that show is, so they have to pick and choose.
Unless the viewing audience gets more buying power than the distributors (and that's gonna be a tall order since contracts can easily run nine figures), the status quo will continue.
So if you're a professional gaming clan who competes on Overwatch for money, they're basically a bunch of spineless losers for being forced to use Windows (since it supports no other PC platform and most professional leagues require PCs--no consoles)?
How about instead of dissing everyone, find a way to freeze Hell and make mainstream developers code for Linux and provide a solid, mature professional-quality PC gaming system without having to use anything Microsoft? And remember, Valve's been trying the same for a number of years now with little to show for it and even various top-end companies (like Bethesda Softworks, who made Fallout 4) shunning Linux for various reasons (too fragmented an ecosystem is Bethesda's reason).
Because the Fourth Estate is a myth. A news agency is like any other business: its main goal is to make money to keep itself operating. All else is secondary (wish it was, but it would take a law to do that and even then there are no guarantees). If the Elite pay the bills...
To those who think breaking up the likes of Google is going to be any big help, look at where AT&T is today. It's once again one of the biggest telecom companies in America. The problem is that telecoms is a utility, and utilities have a natural tendency to consolidate due to a number of issues such as infrastructure issues.