Re: Yet another . . .
> developed only to the point that it could be released
So, like pretty much every software project ever then?
1588 posts • joined 12 Apr 2007
When I looked at Android Wear devices I was disappointed to see that the functionally available when paired to an iPhone was severely limited when compared to use with an Android phone. Will the change to Wear OS change this? Will it play nicer with iOS? Or will it be allowed (by Apple) to play nicer with iOS?
This is why we can't have nice things. But knowing that people are going to do this sort of thing, then obviously we should design in defences against it. Even though the engineering involved is going to make the system 5 to 10x more expensive to deploy.
It still rather sticks in the throat that the ones who'll be doing this defensive engineering are probably the same one who would otherwise attack the system. It's like a protection racket run by nerds.
Force a firmware update of several gigabytes of geofence data before every flight! That'll learn 'em.
(Seriously, it might be simpler to require drone pilots to submit a flight plan for every flight. Like real pilots do.)
> Outsourcers blamed for cocking up programmes at one in three big firms
Which could be (mis?)interpreted as meaning that the other two in three cock-ups were due to the firms' own in-house staff, and therefore be an argument for outsourcing, since apparently outsourcers may be only half as incompetent as in-house staff.
I'm not saying it is so, just that the language is imprecise enough to allow this possible interpretation.
> Yet they have given G4S another contract.
Are there other companies bidding for this work?
Could a tag be replaced with a ruggedised, non-removable Apple Watch? This, at least, should already have most of the call-home technology required to keep track of the wearer 24/7. Add a requirement to keep it charged and they should hardly ever be able to leave their homes.
I'm not saying all projects on Indiegogo are deliberate scams, but their failure to require at least a working prototype does encourage the more, ahem, naive projects to get launched there. And the ability to collect any backing received, rather than requiring a fixed (planned) target to be reached, also works in the interest of the more, shall we say, speculative ideas.
Kickstarter does a better job of keeping their project starters honest, in my experience.
You're right. Read the report (PDF linked in the article) and you'll find they merely* managed to get the accelerometer to output a g-graph with a curve that vaguely resembled the word "WALNUT". There was no takeover or execution of injected code. Just manipulation of accelerometer output.
* Fair play, there was a lot of difficult maths and clever fine tuning to find resonant frequencies of the accelerometers involved.
Having been burnt by the Jolla Tablet project on Indiegogo, I think I'll sit this one out.
I've had less bad experiences with Kickstarter. Is that just luck? Or is there some intrinsic difference between the crowdfunding platforms that makes one more likely to deliver than the other? (And I mean "deliver products to the funder" rather than "deliver cash to the fundee".)
> the isle of Tobermory, where the CBBC show "Ballamory" was filmed
Indeed. Even Oxford Dictionaries accept this usage. I quote: "Some people object to the use of plural pronouns in this type of situation on the grounds that it’s ungrammatical. In fact, the use of plural pronouns to refer back to a singular subject isn’t new: it represents a revival of a practice dating from the 16th century. It’s increasingly common in current English and is now widely accepted both in speech and in writing."
> we need paying jobs for people to do ....
Do we though? Should humans really doing jobs that can be done by a machine? Isn't there something better, more creative, more human, that the humans could do? Or are you saying that the humans need to be kept occupied in some unnecessary employment to keep them off the streets? To keep them out of trouble?
Be a bit more positive. We survived the industrial revolution, with increased wealth, health and wellbeing. I suspect we'll survive the information revolution too. Even if we're just being kept as pets by the machines.
> I know plenty of people who have bought HP kit, eg printers, that HP does worse by sabotaging post sale, but that is, somehow, not fraud.
I am one of those people who was burned by that bit of trickery by HP, which is why I have never bought anything by HP since. And will never by anything from them again. Ever.
I hope Mr Hussain gets away with ripping off HP, in the same way that HP got away with ripping off their customers.
Crash and burn HP.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020