Slashdot Mirror

What? Get The Facts(tm), dude.

Oh, wait...

fail troll. Have you even read on the subject? A qucik search on Google says: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/igeneration/micro-usb-to-be-universal-eu-phone-charger/1964 and http://www.gizmag.com/standard-micro-usb-charger-europe/12108/

"There’s one other interesting thing to note here. The manufacturers include all the biggies – Nokia, Sony Ericsson, Motorola, LG, NEC and so on – that control about 90% of the European market. But, surprisingly, Apple has also agreed to incorporate the micro-USB port into the iPhone. It’ll be interesting to see how the company reconciles its dock connector with the new standard. And, ultimately, whether this European strategy has a knock-on effect for the rest of the world."

"As of yet, the agreement is undertaken by such names as Nokia, Sony Ericsson, Motorola, Research in Motion who make the BlackBerry (which most BlackBerry devices already have this port - did RIM see this coming?), Samsung, and even Apple which make the iPhone. What is surprising about the last company is that this may cause the end and death of the almighty Dock connector. However, there is no legal reason why these companies can go ahead with using other ports. The agreement undertaken by these companies is not legally binding and only voluntary. On the other hand, this port agreement could open up different levels of possibility, as the micro-USB port is not only a charging port but can also be used as a data connector."

I'm not smoking anything. I'm just describing my personal experience, as well as that of various people who've sat down and meaured this. See for example:

http://cybernetnews.com/browser-comparison-internet-explorer-firefox-chrome-safari-opera/ (search for "memory usage tests" in the page).

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/browser-memory-usage-the-good-the-bad-and-the-down-right-ugly/2024

http://www.favbrowser.com/browser-memory-ram-usage-firefox-35-rc-safari-4-opera-10-beta-google-chrome-30-dev/ (ignore the Chrome bit, because they were adding up memory used by processes that actually have some memory mappings shared)

http://lifehacker.com/5457242/browser-speed-tests-firefox-36-chrome-4-opera-105-and-extensions (seach for "memory use, no extensions" and "Memory use with extensions") as well as the other tests lifehacker has done (e.g. follow the "last batch of browser tests" from that page)

So you tell me, what am I smoking and how did I get the rest of the world to smoke it too?

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/mac-versus-windows-vulnerability-stats-for-2007/758

Granted more Extremely High for Vista but the 200 odd of OSX I believe trumps that.

As for the iPad it's WIP - so much of it doesn't work the way it could. Safari is seriously limited with its lacking of features on big brand websites the fact companies have to create "iPad friendly sites" is becoming more apparent therefore it's going to take time to bring iPad into the fold. Google Apps are a perfect example of how half assed the iPad is.

The problems for iPad go on but i wont entertain them and make this post too long winded. I'm an iPad owner and i only use it with 3g when I'm travelling. Its thin and easy to carry but holds less for what its worth. It's not worthwhile at home except for when i want to surf the web on the cann. Its lack of web browsing features means I'm forced to use the desktop or laptop.

Re - iPhone 4, its a _PHONE_ replacing their crap camera with a slightly less crap camera isn't a great selling point. If that really matters to you go right a head and buy one. Most people would opt up and buy a camera from a camera store.

Improved screens, great, a small screen which is too small to view websites is now improved, great. iPhones are terrible for web viewing and you can't "really" surf the web on one of them, only for quick referencing and finding out stuff on the fly. The retina concept will probably stop long term use of straining your eyes to try and view tiny renderings of websites and prevent people from going blind but thats it but IMHO the iPhone isn't a web surfing tool anyway. Get an iPad then go back to the use the iPhone, trust me you'll never use the iPhone to view another website ever again.

Someone already did bring Flash to jailbroken iPhones. The SDK agreement places no restrictions on Safari. As demonstrated in my link above, Safari is more than capable of playing Flash on its own, if someone wants to implement it.

You don't see more of it because you don't get told, and you don't look.

Then there are the snit fits peers have to indulge in.

And the occasional stupidity.

Go check out the Internet Taffic Report from time to time. Today it looks like there was significant event. Wonder what happened.....?

Now don't get me started on PMTUD. How do I explain to a user that it is not 'our' network that is the cause, we have MILLIONS of users working just fine, but everyone in their office can't get on because we broke something just to annoy them? And of course, since they can see the same error a different, unrelated site, it MUST BE US. Yeah. I'm the designated PMTUD expert on the team now, because I let their ISP talk itself into the solution. And I can read packet captures. Yay me, think I'm going off decaf for a few days...

The Internet is not perfect.

How can you compare desktop or UI software to stock exchange software ?

Ok, I suppose you are new here, so here is the whole story:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/did-microsoft-tech-play-a-part-in-london-stock-exchange-meltdown/1578
http://blogs.computerworld.com/london_stock_exchange_to_abandon_failed_windows_platform

When a program crashes and you cannot work for the next 7 hours, I bet that you'll be VERY pissed (especially when these 7 hours cost a lot more than choosing a better solution).
The development was done by Accenture and Microsoft, so it's difficult to find better developers for this kind software on .NET.
And Accenture is ex-Arthur Andersen, does Enron ring a bell ?

.. out of which 0.1% is developing malware?
Or even better, of which 40-60% are malwared and target MS.com?
That would imply that those 1-2 billion concurrent user all use a Windows computer.

Please share your references used with us

Windows has an 85% market share (conservative estimate) It's general common knowledge sourced in a great many places.

As for infection rates? Here is a simple graphic. Again a search will turn up more info.
http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/apwg_pandasecurity_crimeware2.jpg
from: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/report-48-of-22-million-scanned-computers-infected-with-malware/5365

It shows of 22 million scanned computers, 48% were infected.

I don't think my statements were unreasonable in their assumptions. It would be like me saying the US population is somewhere over 300 million. I'm not a research paper, and this isn't a journal where sources are always given.

.. out of which 0.1% is developing malware?
Or even better, of which 40-60% are malwared and target MS.com?
That would imply that those 1-2 billion concurrent user all use a Windows computer.

Please share your references used with us

Windows has an 85% market share (conservative estimate) It's general common knowledge sourced in a great many places.

As for infection rates? Here is a simple graphic. Again a search will turn up more info.
http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/apwg_pandasecurity_crimeware2.jpg
from: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/report-48-of-22-million-scanned-computers-infected-with-malware/5365

It shows of 22 million scanned computers, 48% were infected.

I don't think my statements were unreasonable in their assumptions. It would be like me saying the US population is somewhere over 300 million. I'm not a research paper, and this isn't a journal where sources are always given.

http://www.zdnet.com/news/intels-light-peak-to-cut-the-cables/346181

"In addition, Intel said it's working on bundling the optical fiber with copper wire so Light Peak can be used to power devices plugged into the PC, he said."

Not definitive, but it sounds like they very well might do power as well.

Earlier today in "Google testing voice calling in Gmail", u235meltdown brought up a very good point about how this creates a problem for Google defending itself against AT&T who says Google Voice should have Common Carrier status. This destroys Google's arguments.

Does it? Does Google provide the connectivity?

Earlier today in "Google testing voice calling in Gmail", u235meltdown brought up a very good point about how this creates a problem for Google defending itself against AT&T who says Google Voice should have Common Carrier status. This destroys Google's arguments.

So what happens now that two of the 3 points they used to defend themselves against ATT are gone?

That's what GNU/Linux's repository concept does - it takes the task of risk assessment and gives it to people who are trained at for the job so by definition they do it better.

Sure they do.

What if it was intentionally uploaded by the copyright holders themselves, or by those they authorized to do so?

http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2010/03/broadcast-yourself.html
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/google-viacom-wanted-to-buy-youtube-uploaded-its-own-clips/32061

quote:
      For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there. It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site. It deliberately "roughed up" the videos to make them look stolen or leaked. It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko's to upload clips from computers that couldn't be traced to Viacom. And in an effort to promote its own shows, as a matter of company policy Viacom routinely left up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinary users. Executives as high up as the president of Comedy Central and the head of MTV Networks felt "very strongly" that clips from shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report should remain on YouTube.

Viacom's efforts to disguise its promotional use of YouTube worked so well that even its own employees could not keep track of everything it was posting or leaving up on the site. As a result, on countless occasions Viacom demanded the removal of clips that it had uploaded to YouTube, only to return later to sheepishly ask for their reinstatement. In fact, some of the very clips that Viacom is suing us over were actually uploaded by Viacom itself.

> The mistake of equating all open source technology with Linux was "really very early on,"
> Paoli says. "That was really a long time ago," he says. "We understand our mistake."

So... Microsoft's new tune is "We Love Open Source...Except GPL Licensed Open Source"

> Microsoft hasn't ... rescinded its declaration that Linux violates its patents...
> [Microsoft's] earlier battle stance was a mistake. Microsoft wants the world to
> understand, whatever its issues with Linux, it no longer has any gripe toward open source.

Except GPL Licensed Open Source

> Microsoft has released some technology under its own open source license (the
> "Microsoft Public License"), such as IronRuby, which integrates .Net code with
> the Ruby programming language.

"Signs are pointing to Microsoft backing away from IronRuby..."

ZDNet, "What's next for Microsoft's IronRuby?" by Mary Jo Foley

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/whats-next-for-microsofts-ironruby/7034

From the article:
'According to a now former IronRuby developer, Jimmy Schementi, Microsoft
has just one developer left on that project (who is committed to it half-time).
Schementi recently quit Microsoft when his manager asked him "what else would
you want to work on other than Ruby," he blogged.'

Summary: Microsoft says "We Love Open Source..."

  - except Linux...well, any GPL Licensing, really
  - and we still maintain they violate MS patents...a bunch of em.
      Really, you can take our word for it
  - and we'll still extort license fees under threat of enforcing these
      patents we refuse to enumerate
  - and we love open standards and open technologies, and want to
      work with them...as long as we can make a proprietary DotNet version...

And Microsoft will stand by its commitment to open source, unless its
absolutely convenient.

Hurray for Microsoft! Hip, Hip, Phhhffffttt!

1) http://blogs.pcmag.com/securitywatch/2010/08/unpatched_vulnerability_in_all.php
2) http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/microsoft-warns-of-serious-unpatched-windows-7-flaw/6474
3) http://blogs.pcmag.com/securitywatch/2010/08/unpatched_vulnerability_in_all.php
4) http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9176944/Microsoft_warns_of_bug_in_64_bit_Windows_7?source=rss_security
5) http://isc.sans.edu/diary.html?storyid=8023
6) http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10170962-83.html
7) http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/17-year-old-unpatched-windows-vulnerability-discovered-20100120/
8) http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/03/exploits-of-unpatched-ie6-ie7-flaw-on-the-rise.ars
9) http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/Several-known-vulnerabilities-to-remain-unpatched-on-forthcoming-Microsoft-patch-day-947191.html
10) http://www.myce.com/news/microsoft-confirms-windows-shortcut-zero-day-exploit-32107/?utm_source=myce&utm_medium=frontpage&utm_campaign=related_posts

There, 10 vulnerabilities, which either took Microsoft months after visibility to patch, or still aren't patched.

Now, STFU.

Perhaps not, but most people are still using XP, hardly anybody has moved to Vista or Windows 7.

http://www.zdnet.com/news/windows-7-now-fastest-selling-windows-os/417718

That article and the article it's referencing are from April - I suspect MS has sold a few more copies of 7 since then.

+1 Amen. The idea that WikiLeaks would be capable of determining what would endanger the armed forces, and what wouldn't, is absurd. You should also keep in mind that this miscreant wants to be paid $700,000 for this "harm minimization review". I say, each of the affected nations should take turns hanging his ass, and the last country in line gets to finish the job.

I am a layman (not a mathematician) however there are several large points of suspicion that I can identify with this proof. First of all, its 102 pages long. Second of all, its a proof by contradiction, namely that certain known statistical behaviors of a formula are contradicted for the author's constructions if P=NP. So in reality, a proof like this requires not only examination of the particular proof in question, but of all other theorems and inferences that are relied upon to construct the contradiction as well. Given the already enormous length of the proof (102 pages), in addition to all related theorems and inferences (thousands of pages?) that must _also_ be correct, it will take a long time to 'verify'.

This is a good reason for computer checked proofs:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/emergingtech/computers-checking-mathematical-proofs/1087

Doesn't matter. Business code of conduct says if it might look bad in a headline, don't do it. HP is a fortune 10 company and in the middle of a pretty big turnaround. The last thing they need is (potential) clients questioning leadership.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/sustainability/hp-ousts-ceo-hurd-fails-the-headline-test/1126

Possibly

HP Slate had generated a lots of buzz when he showed it in the beginning of this year. I dont think Windows 7 makes a great sense for the the kind of device iPad is. I think MS just thinks people wants to use the same application that they use on PC on Slate or tablet devices. It may not be the case.
I think Apple caught MS with its pants down like it is said on this ZDNet blog .
MS just handed over a big chuck of their market share to Apple. It started with iPhone, now iPad and next people will think about buying Mac instead of PC. Seriously, MS needs to wake up and do a major make over if it needs to start selling to masses instead of just enterprises.

• "Apple Claims Jailbreaking will Destroy Cell Towers" - ZDNet
• "Apple: Jailbreaking encourages cell tower terrorism, 'catastrophic results'" - Engadget
• "Apple also claimed that jailbreaking would pave the way for hackers to alter the Exclusive Chip Identification number that identified the phone to the cell tower, which could enable calls to be made anonymously. Apple said “this would be desirable to drug dealers.”"Wired - Threat Level

Do I need to continue? Or is the reality distortion field still in effect?

It just works Think Different:lie

The reason there a legs in this story is that Apple deliberately launched a defective product and were going to charge the customer $30 to fix it.

Apple can treat fanboys in any shoddy manner they want but as they get a larger market share they will be exposed to people who live in the real world.

great QA

The article was created based on a Dell forum post, which suggests its a revision/replacement board, and that Dell found it, rather than someone outside. Getting parts that are compatible but not fully debugged happens, Apple,HP, and Asus have done it too.

Well if Sumatra doesn't do it for you I give my customers Foxit which has safe mode built in which halts executable code in PDFs by default, which is of course how they hit you with malware in the first place. Why Adobe decided executable code was just gravy for a document format, I'll never know. But that link will install any of the programs on their page with no toolbars, including Sumatra or Foxit, all automated. Great for setting up a PC for the first time. After version 6 Adobe became just too bloated for me to recommend to customers, but I've not gotten any complaints with Foxit.

From http://www.infoworld.com/d/mobilize/windows-phone-7-dont-bother-disaster-211?

From http://www.zdnet.com/blog/cell-phones/microsoft-windows-phone-7-technical-preview-a-definitive-guide/4286?pg=8&tag=mantle_skin;content

Gosh, I wonder who would win in a "which is the most stupid waste of bandwidth for a supposed technology journalism site" smack-down; ZDnet or InfoWorld? We may never know.

From http://www.zdnet.com/blog/cell-phones/microsoft-windows-phone-7-technical-preview-a-definitive-guide/4286?pg=8&tag=mantle_skin;content

Windows Phone 7 is a huge departure for the smartphone group at Microsoft and takes quite a radical approach to the way people use their phones. Unlike the iPhone, Google Android, and Palm webOS, WP7 is not focused on the application experience, but is centered on helping you interact with the people you want to and complete the tasks you need to complete with apps mainly working in the background or having other technologies (like Bing Search) do better at meeting your needs without more apps.

The current experience is amazingly stable and fluid and I am quite impressed with what they have done. It has taken some time and they were pretty much out of competing for customers for most of this year, but it looks like they will come out firing with all they have this coming holiday season.

No, Charlie Miller talks about much larger payouts from MS. He said, "I was shocked when I saw someone sign up to go after IE 8. You can get paid a lot more than $5,000 for one of those bugs. I’ve talked to a lot of smart, knowledgeable people and no one knows exactly how he did it. He could easily get $50,000 for that vulnerability. I’d say $50,000 is a low-end price point." here.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/government/microsoft-turns-over-all-win7-and-server-source-code-to-russias-new-kgb/9191 So they already have the source code for W7, they probably need someone inside of msft so that bugs they find in the code will get fixed...

Check out vtiger

SugarCRM has been guilty of decepting customers with their "open source" claims in the past. They originally released under a modified Mozilla public license (the Sugar Public License), with requirements that derivatives remove any and all SugarCRM branding. A few enterprising folks forked it to form vtiger, which supposedly led to SugarCRM threatening to file suit for actually exercising their rights outlined under the license, and the CEO publicly lambasting the vtiger folks for actually taking SugarCRM up on their offer extended by the original SPL.

http://forums.vtiger.com/viewtopic.php?t=11
http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/rich-tehrani/crm/sugarcrm-vs-vtiger.html
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=188554&cid=15541264
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/is-sugarcrm-open-source/867

I've posted previously about sugar vs. vtiger before:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=223770&cid=18118754 (which drew out anti-F/OSS zealots and folks who didn't bother to read the licenses fully and obviously did not compare it to the previous SPL as it was originally written and released)

Now, the SugarCRM folks may have updated their licensing to remove the restrictions about moving to the free/community edition after having used the "enterprise" edition but honestly those folks were so scummy when they threw a fit after folks actually exercised their rights to create a derivative project that I can't be bothered to check.

Does vtiger functionality stack up well against SugarCRM's enterprise version? Not exactly. However, reverse is also true; vtiger offers some bells and whistles you don't get with Sugar - but in any event, vtiger does not use a license to try to restrict using your own data in another product.

Don't get me wrong: SugarCRM is a pretty good product, but I don't like to use products made by companies which engage in deceptive practices, even when some of the product editions may be "free."

You're joking right? Apple just patched the iPhone against almost 70 publicly reported security vulnerabilities that were up to a year old. The list included a huge range of code execution, origin bypass, and privacy disclosure bugs in Safari alone. And any moron watching the WebKit commit logs in the last year had a PoC and exploit roadmap for those particular vulnerabilities. Why do you think the iPhone got hacked at pwn2own this year, and why do you think so many large corporations refuse to support the iPhone in their enterprise?

So, I'm not getting your smug superiority here when we're talking about intentionally installing a malicious extension in Chrome versus getting owned just for using an iPhone.

People bought them, but they regretted it and demanded their money back. Now Apple is re-selling them again and counting each one as a new sale even though its the same batch of iPads being sold and being counted as multiple sales.

You mentioned issues that could apply to any current OS. Really, just substitute Linux/distributions/Ubuntu with Windows/versions/XP and it applies just as well.

I don't see much interface inconsitency between apps these days either.

And lastly, none of the desktop environments look modern and cool.

Now I'm convinced the last distro you tried was CentOS from 6 years ago. KDE4 is at the bleeding edge of desktop eye candy. Ubuntu Lucid just got a major visual overhaul to entice Mac users. Even in older/other distros, Gnome with the eye candy cranked up and a good theme can look as nice as Win7/OSX. Meego's desktop is full of "modern and cool"-looking stuff too.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/ratbags-take-windows-7-actually-kde-4-to-the-street-video/12694

So it is highly unlikely that you had a bit flipped on a disk. Would require some amazing circumstances to happen.

Single bit errors happened 10% of the time at CERN. And if we discount a one-off problem with WD drive firmware that caused 80% of errors, this would shoot up to 50%.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/data-corruption-is-worse-than-you-know/191

Given all the OS swings that the OLPC project has gone through, maybe they should be thinking of Android, too.

Funny you should mention that. According to Negroponte, XO-3 will most likely use Adroid. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/education/one-laptop-per-child-android-meet-dr-negroponte/3976

• 5 versions of the .Net Framework and Visual Studio
• 2 generations and 6+ versions of the Xbox gaming system
• 4 generations of the Zune music player
• 2 major desktop, 2 major server, and 4 Mobile/Embedded Operating Systems Updates

Not to mention large investments in online search, software as a service, and cloud computing. With the exception of their Online Services Division (MSN, Bing, Hotmail, advertising) Microsoft makes significant income from each of their product divisions and has more than twice the income that Apple does. Many of their business products are doing very well, and Sharepoint recently became their latest billion dollar sales product.

I will admit that Apple's products are more popular than Microsofts, but that is because they are tailored to the consumer market. Most business uses Microsoft because it costs less and makes users more productive. I personally think that the Zune HD and Windows 7 are great consumer products, and the Windows Phone 7 is designed to compete with the iPhone as opposed to the Palm OS for Windows Mobile, so it will be interesting to see how the next 10 years progresses.

Then the templates are implemented twice: in terms of pointers on unmanaged platforms (PC, Mac, Apple iOS, Android NDK) and in terms of C++/CLI handles on .NET platforms (WP7, 360).

From a Windows Mobile 7 Q&A

Q: What development languages are supported on Windows Phone 7?

A: Right now, the only development language supported is C#. Developers are also interested in Visual Basic, C++ and other .Net apps, Kindel acknowledged, and Microsoft may add support for these over time. But Microsoft's development strategy for its new mobile platform is if you're doing XAML programming, use Silverlight. If you're doing an interactive or 3D game, go with XNA. The version of Silverlight supported is a superset of Silverlight 3 (not Silverlight 4, which is going to be released to the Web in final form in April.)

Just because you can drop in a bigger engine, all-wheel-drive transmission, new suspension, and turbocharge a Honda Civic does not make these actions "features" of the car; it's not even close.

Sure, you can modify anything, but isn't the rating of a piece of hardware only considered regarding how it is when it is shipped to the customer?

Regarding jailbreaking and going to jail; I figure that if Apple had a monopolistic hold on its markets (say smart phones), it would definitely try to prosecute some people to make a point. The last thing they want at the moment is to have people being outwardly unhappy with their hardware as well as receiving negative press regarding their products (especially since image is a large factor of their business model). This might sway people to buy competitor's products.
On a side note, if you're going to reply to this thread saying something like "iPhone already has a smartphone monopoly," there are many sources saying they're not quite there at the moment, so check your facts instead of stating hype or personal belief.

And if your Linux you're always the victim of unsuspecting FUD clouding everyone's judgment.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/linux-infection-proves-windows-malware-monopoly-is-over/2206?tag=mantle_skin;content

This article is hardly what I'd consider a fair call.

While I think it's atrocious that Windows has to have a third-party layer akin to the FDA to keep users from getting waylaid by malicious code, I'm a little surprised that you think Avast is better than NOD32 or Kaspersky. The most recent AV-Comparatives report is rather unflattering to Avast. I'm personally a NOD32 (ESET) fan.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/ondret/avc_report26.pdf

Any operating system needs some sort of code checking layer if it wants to stop users from installing malware. This is nothing special for Windows, and the security model in Win7 is just as good as OSX and other OSs (actually, as the winner of the Pwn2Own competition and other security experts point out, its in many respects better, se below).

The self-spreading silent virues of many years ago are no longer the major threat on Windows either. A huge for-profit malware industry using social engineering and targeting the biggest market is.

Hacker: Windows More Secure Than Mac OS X:

It is of the opinion of Charlie Miller, a well known Mac security guru, that even Snow Leopard, the latest version of Mac OS X, isn't as safe as Windows.

Winner mocks OS X hacking contest:

Why Safari? Why didn’t you go after IE or Safari?

It’s really simple. Safari on the Mac is easier to exploit. The things that Windows do to make it harder (for an exploit to work), Macs don’t do. Hacking into Macs is so much easier. You don’t have to jump through hoops and deal with all the anti-exploit mitigations you’d find in Windows.

It’s more about the operating system than the (target) program. Firefox on Mac is pretty easy too. The underlying OS doesn’t have anti-exploit stuff built into it.

Or maybe not

Overall, while technically the number of "pixels" for the new iPhone doesn't match what's on the retina itself, PRACTICALLY SPEAKING they probably tested what people could actually discriminate and those are the numbers they got.

There are many reasons why the number of receptors on the retina does not equal actual resolution:

-Convergence: cells in the retina converge and inhibit one another. You lose resolution there.

-Center-surround properties: those retinal ganglion cells inhibit one another. This increases contrast but you lose info.

-The layer of cells that overlies the photoreceptors causes chromatic aberration, mostly for blue-violet light. Subsequently, there are little to no blue cones in the center of the eye because of this.

-The eye is constantly moving to prevent photoreceptor cells from bleaching. You lose visual acuity here, but don't notice because the brain fills it in.

-There is more convergence of cells as visual information proceeds to the back of the brain, and then back up again for higher level processing

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/iphone-4-does-not-have-a-resolution-higher-than-the-retina-or-does-it/8586

they usually create innovations independently then pay protection money to the trolls

Actually it works both ways.

While their primary function is not as a patent troll Apple, Microsoft and Amazon have in turn played the role of the frivilous patent litigant with the biggest difference being in their objective of halting the "Progress of Science and useful Arts" to the betterment of their bottom line.

Yes, just like they had to pay Major League Baseball, the American Presidential Inaugural Committee, and the 2008 DNC to use Silverlight*.

Makes me wonder why Microsoft don't just throw that money at legislators to pass a law which requires Americans to use Microsoft Software. Makes a lot more sense given America's political climate.

* Fortunately, MLB realized the folley of their ways and dropped Silverlight shortly afterward. The other two examples were only one-time events...but to be fair, there were plenty of ways to view the latter two in Flash as well.

You would think...

Up until a few months ago, the site ZDNet had a bug in their comments that allowed the first person who made a comment under a story or blog to change the headline displayed over the comments section by modifying the querystring.

For example under a story called "Flaw found in Internet Explorer" the link to post a comment would look like this....

http://zdnet.com/blogs?foo=4343?title=Flaw+Found+in+Internet+Explorer

The first person to post a comment could change the querystring like so...

http://zdnet.com/blogs?foo=4343?title=Microsft+gives+up+advises+edveryone+to+use+Firefox+instead

And the "new" title would appear over the comments section for the world to see. I had fun with it a few times - never anything dirty or offensive and I even reported the bug to them multiple time, but they left it unfixed for years. Someone with ill intentions could have put something vulgar up for all of their readers to see.

You would think...

Up until a few months ago, the site ZDNet had a bug in their comments that allowed the first person who made a comment under a story or blog to change the headline displayed over the comments section by modifying the querystring.

For example under a story called "Flaw found in Internet Explorer" the link to post a comment would look like this....

http://zdnet.com/blogs?foo=4343?title=Flaw+Found+in+Internet+Explorer

The first person to post a comment could change the querystring like so...

http://zdnet.com/blogs?foo=4343?title=Microsft+gives+up+advises+edveryone+to+use+Firefox+instead

And the "new" title would appear over the comments section for the world to see. I had fun with it a few times - never anything dirty or offensive and I even reported the bug to them multiple time, but they left it unfixed for years. Someone with ill intentions could have put something vulgar up for all of their readers to see.

This is somewhat old hat. Companies that depend on urban transportation efficiency for a profit (FedEx and UPS) have long ago implemented systems that recommend routes to drivers. UPS for example uses technology to help reduce/eliminate left turns (usually involve sitting at an intersection idling and waiting, wasting gas and time): http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/ups-driving-cost-savings-by-eliminating-left-hand-turns/2190 (2005 article). True it hasn't been done on such a scale or for specifically this exact purpose, but data mining this informational ore vein isn't exactly new.

Off topic, but another slightly more shocking example of just how the drive of money has helped corporations know everything about us: How about being able to predict your marriage and divorce percentage to 90% accuracy? Better yet, how about doing that based on _what you buy_? Visa's got you all covered: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/visa-predicts-divorce/story?id=10320638 ;)

Things like this make me wonder what knowledge about society these companies know about us, and aren't letting ourselves know, simply to help them turn a better profit.

Thinking about drug companies is a scary thought.

Someone else can prove me wrong here, but I've never known a Mac to be susceptible to botnet infection, as only one example.

iBotnet. At least first try a basic google search....

Go for it. But as part of your answer, and without desperately researching (you seem fairly confident of your reasoning, so I assume you're knowledgeable on this topic!), please name 8 in-the-wild viruses (i.e. not trojans) written in the past 5 years which targeted post-Vista SP1 workstations/desktops in their default configuration and which were not ostensibly written for profit.

Another time. Right now, I'm really just talking about OSX though I may tangentially refer to other platforms.

Now, where to start? This is going to be mostly a logical argument since there are no real viruses for OSX, there really isn't any experimental data to pull from.

Let's start with Charlie Miller, the vaunted pwn2own OSX cracker. Mr. Miller wrote a book on hacking Macs (which should have read OSX) but is himself incapable of developing a remote exploit for OSX. I don't read a lot of treeware but if his previous writings contain similar fallacies perhaps his name already has a dissuading quality.

Now onto some arguments (mostly his since he seems to be the patron saint of anti-OSX FUDmeisters). The first one is that Macs running OSX are safer because few malware programs target them. This is true. Unfortunately the theory veers off course from here by assuming that this is because of OSX' lesser market share.

Now, the most obvious problem with this argument is that is is unprovable. It assumes the intentions and motivations of malware authors. Unless someone has spoke with every malware author on the planet there is no way to know with absolute certainty why these authors target Windows OS's.

Sure, we can guess but I find it curious that when left to do so, people choose market share over simple vulnerability counts. My sensibilities tell me that the sheer number of remotely exploitable vulnerabilities found for Windows versus those for OSX might be a more likely reason for Windows to be the more common target. But I would never state that as fact because I simply can't know the truth.

Although we can set aside this argument on the basis of its unprovability alone, I'll offer another in the form of an example: Apache vs. IIS.

Apache has roughly twice the market share of IIS, last I checked (and it used to have much more) yet as far as I can recall there has never been a devastating Apache exploit. Need I mention some of the immeasurable damage done to servers across the world as a result of IIS exploits? I'm sure you've heard of them but if not just Google "code red."

Before I move on, I'll reiterate one more small point about market share: OS 8, 9 etc. had even less market share yet they had their share of malware. If Mac-based OS's are a fruitless target why would these versions have any at all? You assume that motivational factors are the differentiator. I offer an alternative explanation: it's because they had inferior architectures.

Some people assume Snow Leopard lacks security features that are built in to Windows XP, Windows Vista and Windows 7 resulting in Macs being more vulnerable to attack.

Frankly, no it doesn't, that's faulty logic. An operating system can lack all of Windows' security features and still be more secure. Are we to conclude that the ways Microsoft devised to plug up the holes in its software are the only way to secure an operating system? They aren't.

This is like making a safe out of cardboard, lining the inside with glass, then disparaging metal safes because they don't have a layer of glass.

I'm not saying that ASLR, for example, isn't a good thing to have anyway but it's hardly reason to go around planting seeds of distrust is it?

Some also say they are much farther behind the rest of the industry because they got a late start.

A late start? Apple has been writing graphical operating systems for longer than Microsoft, and Windows has always