Password Complexity, Good or bad?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
You can totally describe an unfinished road that way. A working service with a brief interruption.
Not compared to what happened. For an apples to apples comparison, the road would have had to been working and then stopped. Their service was working, and then stopped, and then turned back on.
But an unfinished road is working, and then stops, and then starts again. You just have to get over the hump.
Just like the television service, parts of it worked, parts of it didn't. The one dimension is physical and the other is time, but the end result is the same - it doesn't deliver on what was expected. It works, stops, then works again. It's the stops bit that is in question.
Ah, but the part it isn't finished to wasn't working previously because it was never there. The traffic was the important aspect in the comparison. The traffic couldn't get to where it was going. If the road never went there to begin with, then it couldn't have stopped working because there was no road there anyway.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
Well, I don't know about the area I'm in now, but if you got a $20 antenna, it covered all of the local stuff for that area. They had their own local TV antenna stuff for the city.
Where I grew up I was lucky, like 20-24 OTA channels in the 70s and 80s. But just down the road from me... zip. Nada. Lots of people where I'm from had no television till cable came in sometime recently enough that I don't know when it was because I was gone.
It's regional, but there are definitely big areas with no options.
Being flat helped a lot I assume.
-
@johnhooks said:
Ah, but the part it isn't finished to wasn't working previously because it was never there. The traffic was the important aspect in the comparison. The traffic couldn't get to where it was going. If the road never went there to begin with, then it couldn't have stopped working because there was no road there anyway.
Traffic could not get where it was going, the people could not watch the show that they wanted.
The traffic could successfully drive somewhere else and the people were successfully able to watch something else at a different time.
Seems the same to me. Both work for something other than the intended purpose.
-
http://i.imgur.com/oZ9O0JR.jpg
I'll just leave this here...
-
We are getting you up to the all time popular list!!
-
Just made it, actually!
-
I made the mistake of going to sleep, come back to find a debate about a Florida person who loses 30 minutes of TV, I'm like...how did we get from post 1 to that?
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
I made the mistake of going to sleep, come back to find a debate about a Florida person who loses 30 minutes of TV, I'm like...how did we get from post 1 to that?
The magic of the mangoes.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Breffni-Potter said:
I made the mistake of going to sleep, come back to find a debate about a Florida person who loses 30 minutes of TV, I'm like...how did we get from post 1 to that?
The magic of the mangoes.
Squirrel!
-
@scottalanmiller said:
The point of the whole discussion around .001% loss of service is....
If the change in work requirements force me to...
- Always carry my phone
- Always keep my phone charged
- Buy specific types of phones or be on specific carriers
- Modify my phone plans
- Take calls or texts at times that I am not working
- Protect my phone in a different way that before
- Buy more batteries, chargers, etc.
- Not travel to where my phone doesn't work
Or things like that, what is a .001% of the time thing can have big impacts.
It's like the US government in the 1930s. Sure, they only let cyanide into .01% of the alcohol going into food products. What's the big deal?
Are we mixing two conversations? one about service availability and one about 2FA?
As for your list of requirements, You only need to keep your phone around yourself when you do want to log in.. if you're not attempting to log in, then you don't care if your phone rings or not.. if you don't answer and respond correctly, the logon won't happen.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
Losses are pretty easy to show... it's the amount paid. If you pay $100 and don't get to watch the television that you paid for, it is the amount of the service that is in dispute.
Which is exactly what I said. Their loss was around $0.07. They paid for the whole month. Whether they only watch 30 minutes or 720 hours worth of TV, they paid for the whole month.
This is just simply untrue. You cannot know what they were paying for. You cannot personally determine the histogram of value to the customer. The idea that the value is flat is simply absurd. We know that it is not.
We are in IT. No one should be more aware of this than us. Downtime at night is trivial, downtime during the day is big. The value is not flat.
Television at 3am is often trivial, television on Thursday night at 9PM is big. The value is not flat, you can't even begin to suggest that it would be flat.
The only case, ever, where you could suggest that they lost $.07 is in the one situation where you are assuming that the customer actively watching television 24/7 for the entire month. If you are not assuming that, i don't see how the $.07 can even be suggested.
But of course the seller most definitely can determine value in the service contract.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
@scottalanmiller said:
This is just simply untrue. You cannot know what they were paying for. You cannot personally determine the histogram of value to the customer. The idea that the value is flat is simply absurd. We know that it is not.
No, that is what they paid for. Until you can purchase minutes of cable TV at a time, you paid for the whole block. You may not use it all, but you paid for the whole thing.
Okay, the did they receive the whole thing? No.
So paid for X. Did not receive X. Should they have to pay at all?
If you look at it as "they paid for the whole thing", then they are owed all their money back as they didn't get the product purchased.
The crazy court shows my wife watches says yes, they should have to pay for what they did receive. Half the work complete, get half the pay.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
The point of the whole discussion around .001% loss of service is....
If the change in work requirements force me to...
- Always carry my phone
- Always keep my phone charged
- Buy specific types of phones or be on specific carriers
- Modify my phone plans
- Take calls or texts at times that I am not working
- Protect my phone in a different way that before
- Buy more batteries, chargers, etc.
- Not travel to where my phone doesn't work
Or things like that, what is a .001% of the time thing can have big impacts.
It's like the US government in the 1930s. Sure, they only let cyanide into .01% of the alcohol going into food products. What's the big deal?
Are we mixing two conversations? one about service availability and one about 2FA?
As for your list of requirements, You only need to keep your phone around yourself when you do want to log in.. if you're not attempting to log in, then you don't care if your phone rings or not.. if you don't answer and respond correctly, the logon won't happen.
Okay, I can accept that.
-
@Dashrender said:
But of course the seller most definitely can determine value in the service contract.
The seller can limit the recourse, but does not determine the value.
-
@Dashrender said:
The crazy court shows my wife watches says yes, they should have to pay for what they did receive. Half the work complete, get half the pay.
That's if we are talking employment. Not providing the deliverable is pretty big.
