CKurt said:W3bbo said:*snip*
Well I can see why rentals. Rentals are better for the movie industry. That way people wills till buy the DVD box of a good series. But rentals should be longer. Rent something for a week or so. So if you watch an episode of something, you can tell your parents "You should really look at this it's really good." The way people used to do it with hardware rentals (what a word).
GoogleTV , I don't know. We need integration and able to select a movie in the following order.
- I want to watch Avatar tonight
- It's available from NetFlix, Amazon, Zune and Sony Bravia (each with there prices and resolution)
- Select my provider for this movie
- Watch it
Can't be that hard, can it? But no, everybody wants their device in the living room. And their software running on it. And their logo in the top right corner of the screen while selecting the movie. It's not wat consumers want.
magicalclick said:elmer said:*snip*
I don't have the link, it is a seminar. After I am home, I can try send you the info about it. The seminar is about hardware validation because at any stage of production, someone can inject virus/trogan in there. The case demonstrated in the seminar is an existing cell phone chip maker. The designer software was bad, thus, the solution generated from the desinger has malicious circuits in there. Which is activated with 5 distinctive phone number in sequence.
Well, my printer is probably not that elaborate, I am just paranoid.
Ok, now I know what you mean, and I think I've already read the article you are referring to:
However, there we are talking industrial (or government) espionage on rather a grand scale.
W3bbo said:spivonious said:*snip*
FWIW, in early June of 2009 I had a beard; a proper one. And I'm ashamed to say it's ginger.
Behold the horror:
I shaved it off the same day these photos were taken. This beard took about three months to get like that (I've got a few photos from March, April, and May showing it progressing). It only takes about a month for me to grow a 'regular beard', the extra months just give it a fuller body.
I'll probably delete these photos in a few days time, so enjoy it whilst it lasts.
I went the Yul Brynner look many years ago, and wouldn't consider otherwise now.
magicalclick said:elmer said:*snip*
Well, in the existing cellphone chip case I said earlier, there is no firmware, it is part of the circuts. The virus is injected before the design phase (imagine your VS is infected already). Only solution is to recall them. Of course, stuff like that is rare, I am just paranoid.
I have no idea what this is about - can you please provide a link, I'd be interested in reading more about it.
magicalclick said:figuerres said:*snip*
I don't know. They guy who implented the virus "builder" inside the cellphone chip designer software was able to tapwire the "pre"-infected cellphone by initiating 5 distinctive phone numbers in sequence. Why they do that? I don't know. All I know is there is so many stages where the virus/mods can be injected in design/3rd party chip/production/testing/packaging/retailer stages. And this real case is actually comes before all of them, before the design stage.
Yupe, stuff like this really freaks me out because they already happened. I know, I am super paranoid, just like when Prius has the electical break, I said hell no.
Anyway, for now, I just don't turn it off anymore. If I press off button, weird stuff happens. If I can change the time, I would so want to give it a try.
Even if you could develop a firmware "virus", flashing the firware on any piece of harware is not a trivial task, and not likley done without explicit user intervention and/or approval.
Cellphones that run an O/S (and sofware in general) are obviously at risk of malware, for all the usual security reasons.
What device-level software does your printer run ?
Sounds like a circuit-board is on its way out - possibly a flakey capacitor.
We have an old phone system here at work that's in a similar state... fine once up and running on the UPS, but can take many attempts of power-cycling to get it to initialise, and best to leave it to fully discharge all caps before trying... hopefully my ebay search will turn up a spare board before it totally dies.
W3bbo said:magicalclick said:*snip*
I've been using AdBlock before it was popular (since 2004); it was created in response to those annoying and distracting animated Flash adverts, for the sites that make it seem the site owner is trying to spite the user. It was also great because it sped up pages which blocked whilst waiting for some far-away adserver to give an inline response into the page.
Website owners shouldn't feel so high-and-mighty over people using AdBlock:
- Modern adsystems are pay-per-click, and viewcount doesn't come into it. The type of person who uses adblock is the same type that wouldn't click on the advert.
- It sounds like you're objective is to make money first, from advertising and using your content as a means to and end; as opposed to having the content first, and simply monetising it. One's got soul, the other is cold.
- Given there's no difference (from a website's perspective) between a browser with scripting disabled and a browser with adblock, why alienate your audience?
There are other, far more effective, ways to monetise a website without resorting to advertising (which I feel degrades a website anyway). If you've got a community site then offer "Gold" accounts; if it's a blog then offer access to a full-content RSS feed.
I figured thesdays, if a site has to have adverts on their homepage to stay alive, they're doing something wrong. "Advertising" was the hand-waving excuse of the early-2000s post-dotcom bust that people used to assuage their investors, but no. Take Digg.com, I understand it's still operating at a loss, its own community hates it for showing adverts as organic content, and has attracted the ire of other websites in the same business (e.g. Reddit) since it lots its tech-only soul and moved into mainstream interests as a means of attracting more visitors, but instead just led to the inevitable decline in quality. Compare with Fark.com which is a very similar site, yet has been making a healthy profit from the get-go.
Website owners shouldn't feel so high-and-mighty over people using AdBlock
Yes, it’s not the responsibility of the reader to provide the site owner with an income or to make an ad-based business plan work.
Ad-blocking is a fact of life, and any site owner whose business plan is dependant on block-able ads, is delusional.
If a site's survival is determined by the impact of Ad-blocking, then the site owner needs to revaluate the site's value and future.