Slashdot Mirror

Well actually... since google has almost perfect uptime

False. Gmail Outage Marks Sixth Downtime in Eight Months

Unless of course you are committing crimes as a corporation and need to be able to delete large chunks of emails in a hurry before the federal investigators get ahold of it... then I would have to agree that google is a bad choice.

Company trade secrets, financial information, etc should *never* be hosted on a 3rd party site. Emails, right or wrong, will have that information...or at least internal emails will. Of course, once you go to gmail there's no such thing as internal email.

I think he got it and was asking for the tries per second on the hash, as in 10, 10000, etc.

The answer is: I don't know. But I can estimate it:

To go over the entire space of one single password with 8 characters by brute-force, considering 64 valid ASCII symbols (could be more, could be less, depending on the system) it should take 64^8, or 281,474,976,710,656.

It should be equivalent to a 48-bit key. For that password to be the equivalent to a 128-bit key, it should take some 22 characters in length.

Since not every password is at the end of the spectrum of the attacker's attempts, I suppose it would be safe to say that it would take half of that, in average. Or 140,737,488,355,328.

If the attacker is concentrating on only one single password, he'd need to be able to make some 27,148,425 attempts per second.

This guy seems to be able to make 1,400,000,000 of them with a PS3, so he'd take about 28 hours.

With a single PlayStation 3.

He says that PS3s are specifically good at that, so maybe that's the best bet. Except for clusters of PS3s.

So, an 8-character password in a system with 64 valid ASCII possible symbols would be the equivalent of a 48-bit key. To have the equivalent of a 128-bit key we'd need a 23-character password. I guess that's why they call it a passphrase...

In that case, the PS3 guy would take 3,853,672,525,287,862,210,347 years. A little extreme.

So how long should the password be in a system with a 2-month change policy to be safe at least from the PS3 guy?

Answer: a 54-bit key, or... 9 characters! Not that bad already...

In any case, as I said in the end of my first post, I don't get into the merit of the theory. I just question why the "specialists" always seem to analyze the question from unrelated perspectives such as "if you change your password every two months, then the maximum time an attacker will have to use the password (as in the attacker already has it from day 0) is 2 months" instead of "the maximum time an attacker will have to discover and use the password is 2 months".

You know, like the kind of analysis that I, non-specialist, just did.

- Project Natal
- Office 2007 (the Office Ribbon): http://www.pcworld.com/article/128176/the_20_most_innovative_products_of_the_year.html
- ClearType
- Halo

This is the first time Google has ever actually attempted to wield power.

Huh?

Net Neutrality, Spectrum Auction, Defining the mobile platform, and battling Microsoft all immediately come to mind as times that Google has attempted to wield power.

I'm sure we could come up with others if we thought about it.

Why do we have to worry so much about all Windows software running on Linux?

Windows software doesn't run on the average Mac either - and that hasn't stopped Apple from selling lots and lots of laptops. The US PC market share is over 10% already. Laptops I know is higher but can't get a current figure, in 2007 it was already over 17%. Not bad at all, and they still don't run Windows software.

So obviously running Windows software is not necessary any more. Just make sure you have your own set of software - and that it works well, that's more than good enough. Forget about Windows, just like Windows doesn't run Linux or OS-X applications.

This review mentions it: http://www.pcworld.com/article/209906/firefox_4_beta_for_mobile_still_rough_around_the_edges.html

It sounds as though it can be obtained and installed through the addon system.

Theoretically, yes. But why? OS X Server can be virtualized now. If you want to run OS X server to manage your Mac network, run it in a VM.

But if a company is trying to do it right...

permits OS X Server to run in a virtual machine (VM) as long as each VM is stocked with a different license and the physical system is Apple-made

source

From January, The comment is here.

Google is selling this phone because it advances the technology and their phone partners wouldn't sell it. Expect them to sell an Android + Snapdragon slate for the same reasons.... I doubt Google even wants to sell phones - I think they just want to get the new good technologies adopted so that people can get used to Internet everywhere quicker. This serves their bottom line because when most people use the Internet they use Google services, which Google sells ads on. You can't very well sell Internet ads to be viewed by people who aren't close to a browser. [me]

It links to this interesting article where the CEO of Asus was backing away from the Android smartbook they had recently pulled in mid-computex.

"Currently, I still don't see a clear market for smartbooks," said Jerry Shen, CEO of Asustek Computer, during an investors' conference in Taipei.

So he pulls the Linux Snapdragon smartbook and shows up a few days later at an investors conference - just before the W7 launch - flanked by reps from Microsoft and Intel - probably glancing cautiously from one to the other hoping nothing bad happens to his precious W7 netbooks (little does he know...). And he gives a carefully prepared speech about how Intel and Microsoft are going to crush their enemies, see them driven before them, hear the lamentation of their women...

And now world & dog sees Microsoft as a fading power, Apple mobile platforms - and mobile platforms in general - as the next generation of user interface, and suddenly now he sees a future in it again. Intel is driving as hard as they can to be the thing that gives people what they want. Microsoft? Let's just say the KIN didn't work out and WP7 has a steeper hill to climb than it might have. What a difference a year makes.

I love my Samsung Epic Android phone, but obviously I know I would not have any such thing if both Apple and Google had not dared to bring us change, each in their own way.

That article was about Google's Nexus 1 phones. Remember that Google shopped its candybar phone to every phone vendor and they wouldn't take it, so Google made it, sold a grip of them, and ushered in all this sweet tech we enjoy today. If they had not done so when they did, we'd not have seen the first good big-screen Android platforms until after WP7 launched, if ever. And now those phones are selling 20M units a quarter in the US alone, giving 44% market share, driving every phone vendor that builds it into profitability or record profitability, giving US non-AT&T networks a phone to sell that isn't absolutely pathetic, and putting money in the pockets of a vast economy of app developers and advertising buyers (and of course, Google).

The message is pretty clear. If Google gives you a reference platform, Run With It! Refusing is not going to keep them from bringing new tech to market. They don't want the manufacturing and retail money because they want to leave that business to their partners. It's a messy customer service business with low leverage. It's not their strong point. But if their partners won't give us progress, they aren't averse to bringing it directly and reaping a few billion in hardware revenue along the way. Microsoft and Intel used to be able to prevent progress, to prevent "cannabilization" of their established markets. But now those days are done. Vendors used to be able to hold off the releases with "tomorrow, tommorow" and "any day now". Any more? No. That's not going to fly. We'll have progress now whether the established hardware vendors are ready to give it or not. There will be no stalling any more.

/this is me agreeing with you.

Are we Yanks setting ourselves up for disaster? on Thursday October 28, @06:30PM theindustrialphreak Comments: 0 Submitted by theindustrialphreak on Thursday October 28, @06:30PM theindustrialphreak writes "The question exactly are we setting ourselves up for intellectual property theft and plausible IT disaster (Industrial/political espionage/Terrorism) by outsourcing hardware/software level solutions as well as complete system builds to potential hostile foreign country's/city states? Remember during the cold war their were several DoD security threats based of malicious firmware injected into the micro-controllers inside printers not to mention several recent incarnations via bogus network hardware. Can we really trust FC based out of a society that has proven time and time again to violate basic human rights, and recently put rare earth element export embargo's on our allied nations? article about hardware http://www.pcworld.com/article/195791/us_agencies_crack_down_on_counterfeit_networking_hardware.html http://onlyhardwareblog.com/2010/10/building-backdoors-into-computer-chips/"

The Android Invasion Cometh; Is Resistance Futile?

Look both options have their benefits. But I happen to agree with a recent survey that finds developers think Android is the long term solution while iOS is basically the immediate choice because of its dominance it has enjoyed with being the first. Given that the obvious is already happening, it's just going to take two or three years for developers to really unseat anything else in favor over Android. I was never given a chance to tinker or code for iOS so of course I'm biased towards the one technology out there that is actually trying to empower me without restrictions.

In the end, that sort of empowerment is going to trump any sort of assured device capability or graphical power that Apple can offer me. You may have a different opinion (BWJones did) but I simply cannot see how Apple will retain their lead in this fight.

Resistance is never futile. You could stick to your guns and enjoy immediate sales then moderate sales then fewer and fewer sales. Or you could enjoy moderate sales and then increasingly more and more sales. You might have to do more development if you want to target both TVs and handhelds (inputs get tricky) but I think investing in only iOS at this point is not a prudent decision.

"A lot further ahead! Better computer security, fewer viral plagues, faster software, more open standards, better interoperability, cheaper software and support." - by kawabago (551139) on Monday October 25, @04:51PM (#34017484)

LMAO, wtf? Are you stoned?? Do you think that Linux is "immune" to malwares &/or other forms of attack?? Take a peek @ Linux variants such as Android which is ALREADY under attack. Take a look at the gall Apple had in their PC vs. Mac Commercials, trying to make it sound as if "Mac's can't be attacked by viruses & the like"... which is, of course, COMPLETE BULLSHIT and the attacks on MacOS X began to increase the larger the market share it gained.

Facts, are facts.

The ONLY reason Windows is SO attacked is simple: MORE FOLKS USE IT (95% of the world's PC's &/or Servers use it approximately, if not more over time, right?)! Criminals on PC's are just like criminals in the real world. Let's use pickpockets - they don't go to where just 1 person is, they attack THE CROWD because more pickings are possible where "the masses" are (just like how pickpockets tend to operate in street crowds, subways, bus or train stations, etc.).

Security by obscurity is *NIX variants' best pal, for now... & yes, I am a user of Linux myself (& have been since 1994 in fact, & up into the turn of the centuries, & moreso even now lately (KUbuntu 10.10 user in 64-bit) but I won't try to b.s. people here reading either with what I call "Pro-*NIX 'FUD' & disinformation/misinformation spreading bullshit!

I mean, are you trying to tell us for instance, that Linux is "IMMUNE TO JAVASCRIPT ATTACKS"? Most of the attacks out there today come not from the OS itself (lol, though Linux DID have a major security hole in it last week -> http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/205867/linux_kernel_exploit_gives_hackers_a_back_door.html?tk=hp_new), but via webbrowsers &/or HTML email programs that use JAVASCRIPT!

Anyone can see SECUNIA.COM &/or SecurityFocus.com in fact on that note...

---

"Microsoft is just a drain on the economy that we can't afford in this economic climate, just ask the London Stock Exchange." - by kawabago (551139) on Monday October 25, @04:51PM (#34017484)

Both NASDAQ & LSE used Windows for the systems of trade data dissemination. LSE couldn't get their accenture implementation to stay afloat... funny, but NASDAQ did. It's still using MDDS (based on SQLServer 2005 + Windows Server 2003) to run their official trade data dissemination system @ NASDAQ.

The failure of Accenture & LSE is not MS, because the same type of system is working at NASDAQ... no, the failure lies with the system architects, coders, & networking maintenance crew + DBA's imo, rather.

APK

P.S.=> Whoever "modded you up" is quite clearly, a dolt... They'd have to be, since they're clearly NOT aware of the things I just wrote vs. your "information'... apk

WP7 about 2-3 years behind the competition. It's only saving grace is it's different and the OS upgrades are supplied by Microsoft.

Courier was concept art, just an idea. The fact it was seen to be cool and got killed just shows how badly run Microsoft are. They're almost as bad as car companies who draw up amazing looking concept cars only to have them made ugly by consulting the great unwashed on what they want.

Forget the imminent Microsoft tablets, they're just PCs in a small form factor running an OS with a small veneer of touch usability. Instant on? nope, fast bootup? nope, long standby time? nope. They've been around since 2001 and there's been as many sold as Apple has sold iPads (which were only released this year).

iPad works because all of the applications it runs have been designed for a touch screen OS. There is no windows or icons to drag, no start menu, no filemanager, no double tapping the screen, no reset button and best of all, no silly plastic stylus to lose.

If you want a touch screen computer, at least buy one that an OS designed for touch screen. Even the former head of the tablet project at Microsoft couldn't get people on side for the project, it's why there's no touch screen version of Office.

HP and Microsoft shares fell following their tablet announcement, which shows how (un)impressive it was:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/186172/why_the_microsofthp_tablet_is_a_big_disappointment.html

There's only so many times you can rehash the same old rubbish.

I'm very much opposed to buying a device where the manufacturer can alter my library at will. It's mine, dammit.

I think it would be naive to have an online device you don't have source code to that regularly interacts with an online store, and ever have any confidence the manufacturer can't do anything they like, at will... once they authenticate the message with the proper debug or backdoor codes.

Just because their competition hasn't informed you of their ability to modify downloaded content, does not mean they lack the ability.

It doesn't effect me at all unless they actually use those codes, however.

Amazon DID abuse the capability they have, which they apologized for, the deletion violated even their own ToS, it was against their own rules, and illegal. They got sued over this. Amazon promised to change their systems so that they do not do this.

In Amazon's settlement, they Promised never to do it again, unless ordered by a court or regulatory body, if doing so is necessary to protect consumers from malicious code, if the consumer agrees for any reason to have the e-book removed, or if the consumer fails to pay.

So at least Amazon is legally bound by specific conditions regarding when they can do this.

Their (few) competitors have made no such promises and very likely do have the capability.

For example, for iPhone-based readers for one... we know that Apple is capable of killing the entire eBook reading app, and we know Google has similar control over devices using the Android app store.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/164659/mozilla_to_finetune_firefox_for_multicore_cpus.html

I ask this question with utmost sincerity. Folks Over here believe it is indeed dead. I am afraid I agree with them. I hear so little about desktop Linux these days. It's all about iOS, Android and RIM. The future does not appear to be on track to change anytime soon. Now tell me I am wrong and why.

Xbox is a money loser for MS. They may make some money on the titles and licensing and Xbox Live, but they're in a big hole for the hardware. Financially, Xbox is not successful.

2005 called. It wants its statistics back.

The Gaming division has been making a profit since 2008. While the article doesn't say how much of that is on the hardware, I seem to recall seeing another article (that I can't find now), from either late 2007 or early 2008, that stated MS was finally making money off of each 360 sold.

Then again, as long as suckers keep paying money for Xbox Live subscriptions, even if the hardware was still losing money, its infrastructure would be making it back. That is, now that the models that had the ludicrously high failure rate are off the market.

As soon as we get a free, stable, and useful free desktop OS...Windows is done. Ubuntu perhaps?
According to PCWorld, the Linux Desktop is dead(?)

Autocomplete is basically the only part that's left.

Pic: http://i.technet.microsoft.com/Dd361929.ch08_09(en-us,TechNet.10).gif

Article: http://www.pcworld.com/article/4699/microsoft_offers_cyber_wallet_for_online_purchases.html

I'm not saying it's better than Roboform--it wasn't, which is why nobody used it. I'm saying that Microsoft has tried to integrate password storage into the OS.

would not have already realized that it is a hybrid.

I mean WTF did they think it ran on... Magic?
Well if they claimed that, then they would have a lawsuit from Apple to deal with, I mean Apple claims that their iPad is Magic.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/190134/apple_ipad_will_beat_netbooks_with_magic.html

No the missing piece that everyone conveniently forgets is AT&T. They have a deal with Apple that makes the iPhone exclusive to them until 2012. Until that deal is canceled or altered, there is no chance Verizon will get an iPhone in 2011. Even Verizon says that any Verizon iPhone announcement will come from Apple not from them.

Before anyone quips about how they heard it on the internet about the Verizon iPhone 2011 from a reliable source, I suggest that they trace back to the original source of the information. Almost always the source is an "analyst" not connected to Verizon, Apple, or AT&T. Most often, the source is an analyst whose livelihood relies on people paying attention to their predictions. I think it's just another example of if something is repeated enough times, people believe it's a fact. Ever since the original iPhone in 2007, there has been a rumor that there will be a Verizon iPhone next year. The year comes and goes and it gets repeated again.

There are a couple testing files and sites that exist for testing antiviruses that might be of interest. The one that I've used to ensure anti-virus software was functioning was EICAR which is a simple text file that virus definitions recognize but which does not actively do anything. This is useful for demonstrating that software is working, what a virus response looks like and how to remove a virus if it is found. Since it does nothing, it is only useful as a test and doesn't really get into how to deal with a fully compromised system.

An alternative is Spycar which will perform actions targeted in demonstrating browser exploits. It wouldn't be available in a non-internet lab, but you might be able to adapt the links there by putting the files up on an intranet.

http://www.spycar.org/Spycar.html referenced at http://www.pcworld.com/article/125138/put_your_antispyware_apps_to_the_test.html

http://www.eicar.org/anti_virus_test_file.htm referenced in a variety of places, including http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/news/articles/2003/01/eicar.html

Removal scenarios vary according to how messed up a machine is by an infection. I usually use Trinity Rescue Kit as a first test for computers I don't trust or know have virus issues.

TRK: http://trinityhome.org/

I use MalwareBytes from http://www.malwarebytes.org/ in some cases and found it to be more effective than many of the other solutions, even in the free version.

Are you serious? Some very few examples:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/159887/rejected_10_iphone_apps_that_didnt_make_apples_app_store.html

http://www.macgasm.net/2010/04/30/apple-seals-fate-of-canadian-game-isealclub-rejected-from-app-store/

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/01/18/apple-rejects-yoot-saitos-iphone-game-dev-staff-considered-sea/

Not to mention all the rejections of games that used the Unity framework.

This won't last long. RIM bought Documents to go not too long ago. http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/205025/rim_buys_documents_to_go_but_microsoft_missed_out.html

This feature has stirred up lots of debate. With the uncertainty of XMarks they may be trying to capitalize on the panic.

I do think their recent acquisition of QNX combined with their copying the looks of WebOS are strategically wise, but so was the hype on the original "Storm" but their hardware implementation was a faceplant (Storm 2 is much better).

I wish them luck... if the Android tablets continue to be cripped by the contract required for Market access issue, they may make some headway... will be a bonus for them if Microsoft continues to stumble on the mobile front (WP7 looks promising, but MS is late to the game).

It has already begun. Do you really think they're going to stop with just PC games?

Seriously, you must be new here. Flash is a proprietary closed-source hunk of binary that we're stuck with. This is the reason most people on Slashdot hate it. We can't fix it, and it has regular unfixable problems on every platform I've used it on. It's so bad that most browsers have had to re-engineer their plug-in system to prevent Flash from taking down the browser. Not to mention the regular and horrible security holes, the fact that it bypasses browser cookie policy with it's LSOs (newsflash: not in HTML5.)

Yes, HTML5 might eventually become an advertisers dream but that's what AdBlock is for. At least it will be free, open and standards based. The day that the Flash plug-in is not needed will be a great day. I can't imagine why anyone would champion it. All it is is one less Adobe product you have to buy as a developer.

(Someone pointed this out in another /. thread.)

Ellison: The Last Samurai in Woodside

Oracle CEO Larry Ellison, spent more than $200 million to build a 16th century Japanese emperor's countryside home in Woodside. Yet such a home suffers from "significant functional obsolescence," according to an Ellison filing — that is, not too many rich folks would buy it — and so Ellison was granted a $3 million tax break. The local school district will reportedly lose some $330,000 in tax revenue. Whack! Take that kiddies.

It's reported elsewhere. HP is a big company. They don't need everything to run the same OS.

That would be fine (it being reported elsewhere), if the /. posting was about that article. However, the article quoted doesn't say it's android. The title should reflect what the article is about not what may be available information from some other source (unless that source is included in the posting).

HP is a big company. They don't need everything to run the same OS.

What's really interesting about your link is the title of the article: HP's New Printer Tablet Stays Away From Android Market Why has Google still not taken on the iPad directly, given the iPad's huge success for Apple? HP is a huge presence, they could market the Android-based tablet + printer without the need for the carriers, but they're still denied the goodness of the Android Market... why?

It's reported elsewhere. HP is a big company. They don't need everything to run the same OS.

To understand how they got from 1996 to where they are today you need to remember that, flow of funds aside, it was actually NeXT that acquired Apple. Apple didn't pick up an operating system - NeXT acquired a hardware distribution channel.

To understand how Apple got from 1996 to today isn't because of NeXT (OSX was their first OS to use it, in 2001, 5 years after 1996). Apple got to today because of Microsoft. In the middle of 1997, Apple and Microsoft finished an agreement. Microsoft bought $150 million worth of non-voting shares in Apple, agreed to make and update Microsoft Office for Mac (a big deal at the time), as well as cross-licensing of existing patents. All this from Microsoft allowed Apple the ability to bring itself out of the red and be still alive for when they finally released OSX in 2001. All the things that are involved with NeXT didn't happen until 2001 so declaring that Apple's entire road to recovery was because of NeXT isn't correct because they wouldn't have lived long enough to utilize any of that technology.

Apple couldn't use the DMCA against Psystar because OS X isn't DRMed/copy protected

Walk over to Groklaw and check the court rulings. And of course it is copy protected; it won't run on a non-Apple computer unless you do some clever things like changing EFI to simulate a chip containing a 64 bit code that is missing on your non-Apple motherboard.

Or just check this: http://www.pcworld.com/article/182218/apple_wins_court_victory_over_mac_clone_maker_psystar.html

One of my favorite things about Flash is that it's easy to block and control.

To coin a phrase, "that is not entirely accurate". It is well documented (2009 Study) that "Private Browsing" does not actually protect you, (blog post) that the Flash cookies + Javascript code simply store the Flash cookies in a location that is not monitored and/or controlled.

Linux using Symlinks to redirect the Flash stuff to a (/tmp) directory that gets automatically erased every time you reboot your PC is a great option. See (Banish flash cookies forever under linux. Since Mac OS X is based on BSD Linux, you should be able to do the same thing with that operating system. With Windows, you could always count on DOS to allow you to erase junk also, however with Windows 7 I honestly have no idea if it is even possible. As many of the articles pointed out, vendors will tell you that you are safe and browsing privately, but the reality is often something else. At best they only do a partial job with Flash. At worst they do nothing. Adobe blames the browsers API, which is interesting. I am not buying that at all. As for browsers, Internet Explorer and Google Chrome do not allow you to control Flash junk 100%, allowing for only a false sense of security. Since Google has partnered with Adobe, this is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. See the comparison link below to see how those browsers stacked up based on Privacy.

With Firefox + NoScript + Linux you can at least control the Flash stuff after a reboot of your PC. However between reboots, Flash can track your activity on the web. Since there are over a 100 web browsers to choose from, surely a few of them will allow you to successfully control your Privacy and not just pay lip service to it.

Don't settle for security by obscurity or as this blog post (with examples) showed privacy settings that do not work 100%. A quote from that post, "Still, the private browsing features in Chrome and Firefox are a complete false sense of privacy and security". Why settle....

Another options might be MPlayer or gnash, the point is you do NOT have to use Flash if you do not want too. HTML5 should be another positive development to diminish Flash.

I was annoyed that Google Chrome would let me only block the website cookie, not all the related tracking cookies from 3rd parties that are not named the same as the website. Even if you are not concerned about your privacy, you have to hate your Internet browsing experience slowing to a crawl because a website you are spending a second at wants to set 20 to 30 Flash cookies on your PC. This quote from the comments of the Linux article to banish flash cookies mentioned above, sums it up nicely...

(The real danger in all this is cross-site tracking via third-party web beacons, whether that is stored by browser cookies, Flash Local Storage, browser Local Storage, or IP-address tracking. This article at The Inquirer, for instance, wants to notify DoubleClick, Scorecard Research, Quantserve,

It has 512MB of RAM (compared to iPad's 256MB)

http://www.skyhookwireless.com/whoweare/management.php
"... and Allen & Company." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tenet
"... February 2008 to become the managing director of the secretive investment bank Allen & Company."
NSA/Google http://www.pcworld.com/article/188581/the_googlensa_alliance_questions_and_answers.html

We believe that the benchmarks used in Kraken are better in terms of reflecting realistic workloads

Or just better in terms of reflecting where their product is strongest?

Isn't it just a little bit suspicious when the browser people release a benchmark that scores their own browser as the fastest? Intel's benchmark in 2002 was known to have emphasized performance traits specific to Intel chips.

Try again:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/13806/compaq_prosignia_150_amd_k62475.html

The Compaq Prosigna with an AMD K6-II @ 475 MHz and 64 MB of RAM listed at $2299 in November 1999. Even if you discounted the software and 32 MB of RAM (which was actually not that expensive by 1999) we're not even in the sub-$1000 range.

The X41 from IBM did this in 2005 also.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/120592/ibm_turns_its_thinkpad_into_a_tablet_pc.html

We have a couple of these at the office still. They were horribly slow and horribly expensive... a great idea that came way too early for the technology and it never sold well. We'll see if Dell does any better.

Yeah, Dell too!

Actually I think Larry Ellison is more worried right now.

By the way 60K preorders, for comparison, is about 1/4th the total sales of Modern Warfare 2 on the PC

Not saying you're wrong but do you have a cite for that? I'm curious on the figures.

The console versions had at least 2.2 million preorders in the USA: http://gamrfeed.vgchartz.com/story/5514/americas-preorder-charts-11th-oct-09/
With 10 million units sold in 12 days: http://gamrfeed.vgchartz.com/story/5953/modern-warfare-2-hits-10-million-units-sold/

So a tiny percentage of the sales are for the PC version? Perhaps people really didn't like the PC version of Modern Warfare 2 - I heard some complaints about it by PC gamers. Or perhaps PC gaming is going a different direction.

Because Starcraft 2 had 1.5 million copies sold in 48 hours. And I don't think there's a console version of that yet. http://www.pcworld.com/article/202460/starcraft_ii_sales_top_15_million_copies_in_48_hours.html

1.5 million units is a lot more than 60K. I don't think this indie game is targeted at console gamers.

But yeah maybe a bunch bought thousands of copies of this indie game with accounts/credit card numbers not belonging to them. So I'm curious to see which happened :).

Apple's App Store Guidelines Don't Change Anything

Falcon

Here's the story I was referencing: CIA Says Hackers Have Cut Power Grid.

The story refers to accounts of power grids outside of the US falling victim to cyber attacks (real "production" systems), and a lab demonstration of a successful software attack on a US power generator. The article is extremely short on details, of course, so I'm skeptical as to how severe the problem is in reality. But to assume a system is secure just because it ought to be secured, would be to go against most of what I've witnessed working as a software engineer.

Replying to self. Sorry, "updates" is old, since Dec '09
http://www.pcworld.com/article/204246/googles_realtime_search_update_does_what_twitter_wont.html

Who needs multiple cores when multi-tasking has been decreed irrelevant?

Or did I miss an update where multitasking was invented and gifted to the world by Apple?

Yep, apparently (well, kind of).

And now, every time someone rightly says that 4chan is nothing but a batch of juvenile asshats, they'll trot out this one story as a counterexample.

Well, this one and the ones where they tracked down animal abusers from Youtube videos. Further reading if you're interested.

Now I have to have Quicktime on my machine ... which I am not a fan of. And what's worse is that reviews are telling me that it's faster but with a crappier UI while at the same time Ping concerns me if it has my credit card information and is just a spam portal.

Even if it was a separate application, your credit card information is in apple's servers, not on iTunes itself.

Quicktime has always been required by iTunes though, since iTunes does not have any native playback. All playback of music is being handled by quicktime libraries.

So while I want iTunes to run faster, I definitely don't want anything to do with this "Ping" service

Good news: Ping is optional. It wont be active until you go into that Ping icon, turn it on and then create an account. You can't even do this by accident. So you can have the speed of iTunes 10 minus Ping.

My biggest problem is that support seems to wax and wane with actually moving songs/videos on and off an iPod with open source alternatives ... so that leaves me tied to the beast that is iTunes.

For what it's worth, yea, its inflated as an MP3 player, but iTunes stopped being about that long ago. iTunes is more of a store these days. There are bucketload of apps out there if what you want is just an MP3 player.

But there’s one piece of the Appleverse that I’ve always detested, and that’s the desktop version of iTunes. The ugly duckling of the iFamily, this program is hard to understand, hard to use, inelegant, and ill-behaved—in short, the very opposite of most other Apple products. I dread booting it up every day ...

Yeah, yesterday I bitched about this and have actively refused any upgrades to iTunes since 9 because I'm not sure if 10 is going to get better or worse.

Now I have to have Quicktime on my machine ... which I am not a fan of. And what's worse is that reviews are telling me that it's faster but with a crappier UI while at the same time Ping concerns me if it has my credit card information and is just a spam portal.

So while I want iTunes to run faster, I definitely don't want anything to do with this "Ping" service and if it's reminiscent of how they made me dependent on Quicktime (despite the fact that I have never used iTunes for anything video -- VLC kicks ass) I don't want auto-opted into something that I cannot get out of!

If you're looking for open source alternatives to iTunes: CDex, VLC and handbrake

My biggest problem is that support seems to wax and wane with actually moving songs/videos on and off an iPod with open source alternatives ... so that leaves me tied to the beast that is iTunes.

The iPods were shipping preinstalled with a virus for a while.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/127565/ipod_virus_fallout.html