"You name it, I'll disable it, thanks."
Pretty soon, most of the web will REQUIRE it just to run, in which case you'll have a decision to make. Bend over or go back to the Sears catalog (as in abandon the Internet altogether)?
16605 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
Yes, I do get it. What I'm saying is that the big big plan is to make it so that modern society comes part and parcel with Big Brother via the backdoor. How will you buy a dumb TV, for example, when there aren't any left because TV standards will REQUIRE an interactive TV just to pick up the channels? You can't use analog TVs by themselves anymore because all channels for digital, for example. That's just the first step.
And it'll apply to all appliances soon, using powerline networking or whispernets if need be to get around anything cleverdicks/smartypants try to block the networking (and using suicide circuits to break the devices if you try to kill the radio chips).
I'D like to suggest that, to them, it's not a mess; it's the desired result. It's also the human condition; you versus the neighbors. And unless you want to go back to hairshirts, making everything you need from scratch, no electricity or running water and life expectancies under 50, you pretty much have to bend over.
"A UL for software needs to occur. We need to give software the same legal status as hardware and allow software companies to be sued. No more 50 page disclaimers. Software needs the same legal status as any hardware device, like a car."
How do you deal with the China angle, though? China has sovereignty, and most of the devices come through gray markets where regulation doesn't really exist.
"Jeez. Just how long will it be, and how much pain do we have to go through, before the companies that make any kind of coded kit, from toasters to PCs, realize that the first action in any code is to make it secure? It seems probably never in the case of when, and not even when the pain kills the patient in the case of what has to happen."
In most spheres, security doesn't sell because it gets in the way of getting the job done, which is the first and foremost requirement of ANYTHING. You buy things to get jobs done; if not, you're throwing money away. Security first can ONLY come if a Machiavellian Prince with some scruples takes over the world and demands it with extreme penalties for noncompliance. Otherwise, sovereignty, competition, and overall human stupidity will ensure it'll never happen.
So what happens when you're caught between Scylla and Charybdis: you CAN'T update because it'll break, but you MUST update because it's already broken, and you're obligated to use the device for legal, contractual, or practical (as in it's the ONLY one that'll work with your setup) reasons?
"Which is why some of us keep saying the solution is to make such security provisions mandatory. You want to sell your stuff here? This is what you have to do.
To some extent it levels the playing field - those costs are common to all products. And for manufacturers who can't afford that, maybe they're best kept out of the market. If they were selling cars would you consider it acceptable to omit bakes to enable them to compete on price?"
You ever thought about the Law of Unintended Consequences? Instead of keeping them out, you'll just move them to the lawless badlands of the gray and black markets. If people want them badly enough, they'll be provided in spite of God, Man, or the Devil. See Prohibition.
"Manufacturers passing the buck to non-technical customers are doing just that passing the buck for their poorly implemented products."
They're passing the buck because that's what customers want. At least with cars they run on government-run-and-regulated roads. But a router runs in the privacy of one's home, so how are you going to possibly enforce an Internet license?
Plus it doesn't help if the manufacturer is on razor-thin margins such that 2-3 cents per devices pivots it into unprofitable. And yes, many DO run on razor-thin margins as it's the ONLY way to compete. And that's against companies that have alternate revenue streams and can actually loss-lead.
"Newflash - there are already these things called "taxis" (maybe you've heard of them?) that you can hail that have been around since before the internal combustion engine was invented. Oddly it hasn't stopped people buying their own cars. Also the chances of anyone who's forked out a small fortune for a car just to let it become an unsupervised taxi where drunks can throw up with impunity or try and still the contents or fittings I suspect is pretty damn slim."
Newsflash #2, have your seen their fare schedules? Why do you think people avoid them unless they absolutely have to? Given how much we need door-to-door transit every day, all those taxi fares would add up to well over the car and then the annual costs associated with them. At least train and bus fare is much cheaper, but for it to be practical, you have to be pretty close to a stop or station.
The hope is that with automated cars, taxi fares can be reduced to make them less expensive than the ongoing costs of owning a car, convincing more people to give them up.
I was always taught the Right of Way means the right to travel across a specific area before others. Thus cars IN an intersection have the right of way over those coming to it, why straight-goers have right of way over turners, why emergency vehicles at work (sirens on) have right of way over other cars on the same road, and so on. Because it can apply at intersections, too, this applies both to cross traffic and to pedestrians. Pedestrians can be granted right of way under certain conditions, like during school hours or when a school bus, crossing guard, or police officer asserts.
"besides an AI will likely calculate the odds of stopping in time and decide to change lanes and slow down, avoiding the pedestrian entirely without compromising speed by much, bypassing the whole point., less they do something stupid, like change direction, into the lane the automated vehicle was moving into in too short of distance for it to avoid them, then they deserve the darwin award for being that dumb and dead."
Suppose it's a single-lane or the other lane's occupied? Or it's a human cordon where there's nowhere to divert (and these can stop human drivers)?
"Or maybe add a manual override -- and then we're back to where we are now."
The main problem is the Laws of Robotics. At their core, we don't want robots harming us through action or inaction. By that standard, they'll never win against trolls who abuse the Laws. Any robots that don't won't be in use for long because of our self-preservation instinct.
"For anyone that doesn't want to actually 'drive' their own car in preference to sitting back and letting it get to their destination, they may as well get on a tram,bus ,light railway system."
Except it doesn't work door to door, which is the big appeal of this system, and no taxis are too expensive for most people to use as a commute.
If it made a quality product, as you put it, no one would buy it because that's not what they want. A-B are no fools. Neither is MillerCoors. They make what the customers want; that's how they make money, and if Americans are more interested in light and cold "pale imitations," then that's what they'll get. If you want them to make "better beer," convince all those American drinkers to switch to craft beer.
I'm not. But they outnumber you. Plus I recall taste has little to do with the alcohol content, thus other popular "beers" among the party crowds are malt liquors, particularly in 40's. And let's not forget the cheap "bum wines" people drink when they just wanna get drunk quick, taste be damned.
"Supermarkets tend to do their own deliveries to stores with all products on one truck and each truck doing multiple drops other than to the very largest superstores."
That may be true with groceries but alcohol is a controlled substance. Due to licensing issues (license to brew, license to deliver, license to sell, etc.), beer tends to be delivered from authorized (and licensed) distributors with chains of trust going all the way up to the original brewers. These brewers deliver to many different stores with different profiles: from the small mom-and-pop, to the typical C-store, to your average supermarket, to the big-box hypermarkets, and each load is different in both size and composition. One size can't fit all because of the demographics.
"That Yanks wouldn't know a good beer if it was tipped over their heads?"
Then explain the craft beer movement.
What this tells me is that Yanks are telling more robust brews to take a hike. They don't WANT a strong brew. They want something light while still giving them the relaxing effect of alcohol (thus they don't want water). Put it this way. This is beer to them and they'll keep it, thank you. If they want stronger beer, they'll buy stronger beer from the local craft brewer, but that's not their bottle of brew, so put a cap on it.
"There's such a thing as "too much choice". I want service providers to make a lot of choices on my behalf. I regard it as the height of laziness when they badger me for all these decisions that they should have been able to take for me."
Is it the height of laziness or the height of butt-covering and lawyer-evading?
As I recall, notifications can be disabled on a per-app basis on baseline Marshmallow. I know my S5, Note 4, and Iconia One 10 (all Marshmallow, the One has stock MM so it's not a TouchWiz thing, either) allow me to disable or prioritize most notifications on a per-app basis, and not just on/off, either.
PS. As for chucking the phone in two years, this may well become standard practice as hackers find hardware exploits like Rowhammer that no software can totally defend.
"Universal income aka everyone on benefits, may breed resentment among those working at those doing little, unless it is some form of workfare - 3rd sector jobs etc."
Not to mention with universal income the question becomes who do you tax to raise the money you need to pay everyone. By default, someone on the dole can't practically be taxed because it's circular. Who pays for Universal Income when it's--well--universal? And if you try to foist it on the rich, you risk defections since having wealth normally means having mobility as well. They can hide behind foreign sovereignty.
"Ah, yes. Currency hoarding. So the financial industry is just sitting on the cash and swimming around like Scrooge McDuck? #economicsfail"
No, resource hoarding, which they use some of the currency to acquire. The richest of the richest tend to own lots of real estate. Land is a tangible, inherently valuable, and perpetually scarce resource. You can probably find other such resources. Then what happens is that 99% of the population are scrambling for the 1% of volatile land still up for grabs. Or as I like to put it, twelve people stuck in the middle of a hot, arid desert with only one bottle of water. No matter how you slice it, it can't end well.
Put it this way. You can sell on an official copy (original media or an authorized download), NOT an unofficial copy (backup). Downloaded copies are assumed to be from digital distribution or so on, so a physical medium is not assumed, which is why this is allowed. Otherwise, you need your originals (or if they're screwed, a replacement set which the seller MUST provide for you). You sell this unofficial copy, you sell the license that goes with it, meaning any unofficial copies are void and must be erased/destroyed as per the license (this line of reasoning was what nailed Vernor of Vernor v. Autodesk on appeal--the copies he sold off had been voided because they were part of a lease agreement and were meant to be returned because an update had been delivered to the original client).
But the only solution is to MAKE it cheap...or they'll just ignore you.. And don't count on regulation when there's a booming gray market and a country out there with their own sovereignty who could care less about you.
kingoroot doesn't provide custom ROMs, which is what he's looking for.
The problem he has is that these cheapo Android phones have no user community behind them. WIthout them, custom ROMs jus don't happen. I happen to own two cheap Chinese Android devices, neither of which have strong user support and thus are stuck on their crappy stock configurations.
If you want to put a custom ROM onto your device, don't go for a Chinese Cheapo. It may be more expensive, but bona fide devices at least have enough people using AND customizing them to make them worthwhile.
Except that's not in the 14th Amendment itself but rather a controversial majority ruling of Lochner v. New York, based on the Amendment's Due Process clause. Note, though, that this ruling was made in 1905, attitudes have changed, and to some degree the stuff that was struck down in the ruling now applies: probably because they're on the federal rather than state level. Contracts CAN be limited by law if they're shown to be unfair or otherwise in violation. Such conditions give rise to the legal term "null and void". As for Interstate commerce, that usually only gets applied when the parties to the business are based in multiple states such that the actual business being conducted crosses state lines. Something like a hotel, a person-to-person rather than business-to-business thing, usually wouldn't be considered interstate.