A large number of malware sites will walk you through side loading and bypassing your security to install their app which may be a compromised game or app like a Trojan. Not having this access is the only way to deal with this.
No it isn't. Just like random scammers leading people to give them money doesn't mean everyone should be banned from having a bank account or a credit card.
Some minimal level of responsibility of action from a users side isn't unreasonable. Being locked out from your own hardware because there are a few uneducated users out there is absurd.
Not to mention that now there are actually viruses and exploits out there that install themselves through security holes on users devices and the users can't remove them because they're locked out!
Care to provide some examples of iOS Viruses and exploits that install themselves and are un-removable due to restricted user experience? I have never seen any of those before.
neat bug, although only the iPhone 4 and earlier would be unpatchable for it, and those devices are pretty much stuffed from a security standpoint anyway as they're vulnerable to the old DFU mode jailbreaks...
I was kind of thinking more of examples of malware where people were actually using the lockdown of the OS to stop users removing it, but hey I said exploits and that's an exploit.
On the other hand: Have you ever heard of examples of malware which told the use to root their phone?
I think CyanogenMods solution, where root access has to be enabled in the Developer Settings, which have to be enabled by tapping the Android version number 6 times, is the perfect solution: My mum would stop immediately doing such a complicated thing if she wanted to install something.
I'm not sure I've seen one that told users to enable root, but from what I've seen of the android malware scene large parts of it rely on users installing software from non-Google sources and their lack of ability in discerning a good app. from malware. (one example of many http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/11/new-type-of-auto-roo...)
That seems to me to illustrate the point of a locked down environment fairly well...
Yes, actually. My ex, sister, and nephew all got bit. Wan't American netflix on your phone, do x, y and z. Want to play games free, just follow these simple steps. You're not seeing it because you probably have a good BS detector and google/research first. But they very much exist.
This is literally the dumbest thing I've read on vice.com. And I just read an article about a girl that drank a bottle of marijuana personal lubricant.
Not an American, but it really comes down to fear, and the illusion of safety; the TSA is a perfect example. A gun doesn't keep you or your family safe, but it gives you the illusion of safety. Government surveillance is the same, since the rhetoric is that it will keep America safe from terrorists, yet like the TSA and guns, when we look at the data, all of these provide no tangible benefit, and often great harm.
Calling it an illusion implies that air travel is not safe, when in fact it is very safe. However, people did not feel safe, so the government constructed an agency (perhaps deliberately, perhaps not) to provide security theater and help people feel safe.
In general, American citizens today are safe from terrorism. If anything, the greatest danger comes not from terrorists themselves but from the American peoples' unjustified fear of terrorism. We could use some more security theater.
This is either sarcasm, or, the most perverse and backwards logic for government sanctioned security programs that I've ever seen.
The ostensible reason that the government has created the TSA and its ilk is for actual security. Claiming that it's been created to intentionally achieve security theater is quite a extraordinary claim to be making. Furthermore, the origin of danger does not come along a single axis running between "terrorism" and "people's fear of terrorism". The government programs themselves can have negative impacts (c.f. any discussion on the TSA, NSA, border controls), which you are conveniently ignoring.
Firstly, I said "perhaps deliberately, perhaps not" because I am not claiming that they intentionally wanted to provide security theater. I don't think that motive is relevant. I'm replying to a specific statement to explain that there is a benefit, even though it is intangible. Of course there are other bad effects, like inconvenience to travellers, and other good effects, like providing stable jobs to otherwise unemployably stupid Americans who live in or near airport-bearing cities.
In retrospect, I should have mentioned that last bit instead as a tangible benefit, but I only just now thought of it.
If you look at other countries, when guns are banned there is a shift from guns to other methods of killing ,but not a significant decline in homicides.
I wouldn't recommend an oil that dried or goes rancid, this is an opportunity to create a substrate for bacteria. Mineral oil would seem like a better choice, and since it doesn't dry, you won't accidentally make the situation worse.
Perhaps not, but I have lost power for a week during a blizzard and it was nice to have a fire-place (redundancy). Disregarding the power-loss scenerio, if my any part of my HVAC system fails, I have space-heaters.
tcdent didn't say redundancy for a thermostat. For example, a fireplace and some wood is redundancy that covers both thermostat failures and power failures. If you live in dangerous weather as mentioned in the original comment, it would be stupid not to have a Plan B.
Redundancy is already built into many home heating systems. My heat pump has a backup furnace for emergency heat (which is also used if it's too cold outside for the heat pump to work efficiently.)
So the hardware is solid enough -- it's just up to the thermostat to not drop the ball.
Sure, at least for traditional two-wire thermostats that turn on when the circuit is closed: connect them in parallel.
The Nest is so obviously a product designed in warm California—not anywhere that sees truly hard winter. If it were designed well, it would fail safe (furnace on). I'd rather have a hefty heating bill from my furnace running 24/7 than have all of the pipes in my house freeze and break. If I ever install a Nest or other smart thermostat, it will be in parallel to the bimetallic-strip-and-mercury-switch from forty years ago.
I'm pretty sure the fail safe for a furnace should not be on and blasting. In a well insulated house (well, not CA either) you could easily get the temperature into dangerous areas with a constantly on furnace, and you don't want that happening when asleep.
The risk is the boiler remaining off when you are not around; that's the condition where massive property damage would occur (pipes freezing). If you're present, presumably you would notice a failed-safe boiler running often and address the issue. The boiler controller would preserve the safety of the system itself even if the thermostat calls for heat constantly.
In the event the house is too hot, you could open windows, leave, or if it is above freezing outside simply turn off the boiler directly. If it gets too hot while you're asleep, it's not "dangerous": you would wake up sweating. Granted, infants or the infirm may have issues, but in general they face a multitude of dangers that need special consideration or supervision.
What Nest should have really done is include an old-school analog control mechanism as the fail safe (reed switch, magnet, and a bimetallic strip?) that would maintain a safe baseline (say, 50ºF) if the "smart" controller fails.
I don't think it would be as simple as a high heating bill. A residential furnace is certainly not made to run 24/7. No big deal if you're at work but if you're out of town for a while...
The thermostat doesn't actually control the plant directly. It requests heat or AC by closing a connection. The HVAC controller responds to those requests as it is able to as per its programmed parameters.
You're absolutely right that furnaces aren't designed to run 24/7. But your thermostat can request heat 24/7 and unless the furnace control board is broken, it'll the cycle the system as necessary to keep up with the requests.
Most people never learn this because the systems are designed for peak needs and most days don't get anywhere near peak.
> But your thermostat can request heat 24/7 and unless the furnace control board is broken, it'll the cycle the system as necessary to keep up with the requests.
I have a hot water boiler. Even when constantly calling for heat, I can hear the element relays click on and off to avoid over-pressuring. The recirculation pump stays on the whole time.
(I'm agreeing with you; just pointing out that my system does cut out under normal operation, while calling for heat.)
I'm curious why the nest can't do exactly that. Have a simple microcontroller running a thermostat, with hard low, soft low, hard high, soft high. Then let the brain twiddle the soft low/high all it likes. If the brain goes missing, the micro just carries on brainless with the previous settings. If the brain really screws the pooch, at least the hard low can kick in somewhere before pipes burst.
It seems like a safety-net would be high-school easy, and at least let them claim they've learnt from their mistakes.
Having just been back in the scene this past week, this is disturbingly accurate. I'm 41.
I'm surprised by the number of women that are still on the site from the last time I went through this 5 years ago.
I have a large profile, with a ton of hooks for conversation, and yet the number of girls I talk to on there either don't want to or can't be bothered to ask a question. And unfortunately, the one that does, I have no attraction to.
Being 41 is also problematic. There is a change that happens to a lot of the women around this time. They seem to shift from something that is attractive, to suddenly looking like a mom. The haircut, the face, the body. For the life of me, I can't seem to make myself attracted to this Mom look. Which means looking for partners much younger.
It's also been strange, you'll message a girl, and ask a question. She'll respond with the answer, and that's it. Trying to keep that going ends up trying to share something about myself, and then ask another question. They answer the question again, and provide nothing to carry on the conversation. I get the feeling that these women want to be wooed, but that happens after we meet. At this stage, you're trying to find compatibility. You could be a dog, you could be a gay man who poses as a woman because he likes the compliments (read it on Reddit), a bot, etc... Interaction is the key.
Going by what you typed here, I can't help but think you might be going about it the wrong way. When you talk about not being attracted to the people who talk to you or are in your age range, are you going purely by looks? Maybe if you met up with them and talked over coffee or whatever you might start to develop attraction. It's entirely your prerogative if you want physical looks to limit your dating pool, but just seems like an unnecessary restriction to me.
Another plus of meeting up with potential dates is you do get to make conversation. Having a back-and-forth Q&A won't help you get to know someone. You get to learn facts about them, but you won't learn if this person is fun in conversation, if they can keep up with you or you can keep up with them, if you'll see them as an interesting conversation partner or boring, etc. I think at the messaging stage it's about trying to establish friendliness and familiarity, and of course of establishing basic facts about this person (although if that person was a dog, I would most definitely want to meet the dog!), with the goal of setting a meeting time. The face-to-face meeting is where you try to find compatibility. The face-to-face meeting will also let you confirm facts about their profile (bots can't meet in real life, and if a dog was chatting with you I would most definitely want to meet them!).
Lovely thought, but that's not how humans are designed. And I never hear this from people that actually have an ugly partner. I'm 40, not 80, so sexual attraction is an important part of selecting a mate. I don't find many women unattractive, but 300lbs is at least 100lbs more than what I consider attractive.
Sounds like the girls are getting too much attention, and so are passively enjoying swatting flies more than enjoying the hunt for a match.
Actually answering questions takes a lot of effort when you're responding to 25 people in parallel. That you're even getting /any/ response is a testament to you, given that you're 41 and yet not looking for a "mom".
Anyway... As someone else suggested, it sounds like you need to get these girls out of the email-back-n-forth as fast as possible. e.g. "Hi, I see we have X in common. Want to meet up tomorrow for lunch?"
Definitely for some, and I have a dozen ignored messages to prove that. But the number of likes I get, and the fact that I'm responding to girls that actively "liked" my profile, makes me get a sense that it's something else.
> you'll message a girl, and ask a question. She'll respond with the answer, and that's it.
this. Most of the interactions I’ve had go something like… “I see you like [some author that we both like], have you read [an older book or something related]?”
“No.”
“…”
I’m left with the impression that we’re in the middle of a massive societal shift whose rules are still being written, and by the time it all gets sorted out we’ll be too old for it to matter.
Hell, in 2010 when I was still single I encountered this through text/IM and all that. Worse scenario is if you end up "dating" or there seems to be a budding interest in person, but online/SMS communication still goes like this followed by "why don't you ever talk to me?" I'm so glad I'm married now heh.
My experience of online dating taught me one thing: you have to actually meet someone in person before you ever really know what they're like. If you can just enjoy that -- the novelty of meeting a new person - then whatever happens, dating can still be an interesting and less-painful experience.
The best advice I ever got seems illogical and is barely workable. ("Love always happens when you're not looking for it.") But maybe dating is just something we do to fill the hours while we're waiting...
I think the advice is pretty sensible, even if counterintuitive. Love happens when you stop caring so much about looking for it. "We're both lonely" is probably the worst social object to build a relationship around. Just stop looking for it and go enjoy the rest of life with people (personally I do not subscribe to the view that relationships are the most important thing in life; while I like them, I also like a lot of other things). Start attending events, meetups, parties, where you can find people with a similar interest to one of your own, and - here's the actual hack - just make sure that the group contains people of appropriate age and gender. Before you know you'll find yourself gravitating towards someone :).
I'm surprised by the number of women that are still on the site from the last time I went through this 5 years ago.
Some sites have been known to retain profiles from members that have since quit...all as a marketing tactic.
If you were to actually respond to one, you'll get silence on your side but the now-gone user will get a "hey, someone is interested in you, come back!" teaser.
OKCupid shows you the last time they logged in, and I've checked with a dummy account and it's off by 10-15min at most. I've also chatted with a couple, so there is definitely a real person at the other end.
Actually, it's a great point. For the vast majority of us, coffee is coffee. I have an Aeropress that I use at work and Keurig's at home. I can't tell the difference. So tailor your configuration to the masses with options to configure if that user has "better taste buds".
It's funny, because on the one hand we have privacy advocates demanding simpler and plain language TOS's that aren't so draconian. On the other hand, if you don't have a draconian TOS's, you're going to get sued by a privacy advocate.
Or better, how about simple and honest business models? "Shutterfly is a photo printer, so they make money by charging people to print photos." No biometric database is needed.
Know that you're just giving an example. Points about simple and honest business model comment. Maybe this is considered simple now in terms of the Valley. The honest part, almost no one reads the TOS/EULA.
So I have tons of images associated with accounts. So, why can't I do a 'google' and image mine too? Aaaand, I can sell the results to whatever data company?
Suddenly, higher margins and fulfills corporate charter.
A business making high margins is always suspicious – because they need to get the money from /somewhere/, and if you’re a customer, then the company will only get those margins by charging you more than it is worth.
(By the way, too high margins are even illegal in some countries)
That's the special part of this: People who buy prints that they upload are a customer and a product.
Companies that buy the aggregate big data package of all individual customers are also customers.
A simple EULA boilerplate "we can do whatever we want with your images" is usually enough to disclaim liability or privacy... Because you chose to upload them out of your control.
Your comment seems to be missing the forest for the trees.
Privacy advocates aren't looking to let companies invade everyone's privacy as long as they do it right, the advocates want to stop it in the first place.
Have you considered that a company could use unintrusive technology, operate on private data only to the extent fundamental to delivering the product the customer has purchased and removing the surveillance clauses from their contracts of adhesion? I suspect privacy advocates might possibly leave them alone if they did that.
> Note that ReJit is NOT complete! See the issue tracker for a list of open issues.