Are you for real? Your attempt at a well formed response goes out the window when you accuse me of trolling from the get-go.
I'd say given his sound rebuttal and clear ability to formulate and communicate a thought, yes, he's for real. And you yourself called yourself a troll, he's just showing you why you ARE a troll.
This may be news to you, but simply disagreeing with the majority zealot opinion is not trolling.
Providing facts that are as dubious as "commonly accepted" without citation is the definition of a troll.
Now, you ask for citations, and I'm not going to go searching to provide them, but I will be happy to explain to you where you can find them.
Classic logical fallacy. You are basically arguing, "oh yeah? YOU prove it!" when being asked to prove it. Stuff of 3rd grade logic.
Well now, there are actually quite a lot of studies supporting this, and a quick look on Google will show this.
So now I'm starting to understand how a troll doesn't realize they are a troll. Hint, Google is not research.
an OS with the largest market share is the most targeted
Speaking of Google, you should type in "tautology". And the car that has the largest market share is also the most driven...
If you want, I will find you studies and peer reviewed papers and we can debate them, although I feel that would be a waste of time on my part going by your response thus far.
God yes. Please. This is where you are different than us. We actually like to base our observations on fact. I'm pretty sure "hellfire" is also a fan of knowledge and not conjecture.
In fact there is NO direct causal link, and you are abusing the statement without facts and citations. That said, I would agree that I think there is causal link
Having trouble making up your mind?
God, what are you, nine? It's one thing to have an opinion or a suspicion about something, it's something entirely different to state something as fact.
Nothing wrong with my citation here. The article you reference is the same article I was referring to. If you read the comments...
Well that clears it up. You obviously have no idea how to conduct research if you think citing user comments is valid
I don't think you understand what a citation is, do you? When I said people bashing MS for poor security are living in the past, that is an OPINION. Given that MS have had a pretty stellar security track record for the last 5 years...
Neither do you, obviously, or you would have cited Microsofts steller record over the past 5 years, but you didn't.
and certainly NOT worse than their competitors, I stand by my opinion. I can back mine up with evidence and the citations you so obsessively seek, can you?
Then just fucking do it already. You can't keep saying it's your opinion so you don't need to cite it, but you can if you want me to...then not cite anything. That is why we keep calling you a troll. And I think you are probably in the 8th grade, given your logic capabilities.
Why spend time developing an exploit that will target at an extreme maximum 10% of the market, when you can spend the same time and effort and target 80% of the market? Given an equal amount of work, would you not choose the option that yeilds a significantly larger ROI?
The same reason tens (hundreds?) of thousands of developers spend 100% of their time and effort targeting less than 10% of the market by writing legitimate stuff for OSX and iOS?
Regardless of percentage, there are reckoned to be c. 94 million OS X users. Is that still not enough? As we all know, Mac users are computer illiterates with far more money than sense. Surely this sector would seem ideal for targeting by malware writers?
Assuming the reason for the lack of malware is NOT the inherent robustness of the OS; and it's NOT the market share: then what IS it?
THIS!
Further, if 5-10% market share is good enough for legitimate software developers to code for OSX, why isn't that good enough for malware authors?
If I'm not mistaken, OS X users generally aren't the enemy of Windows. Windows zealots bring the fight to them, not the other way around. It appears to be a confidence issue, or a lack of confidence issue, on the part of Windows ops.
Excellent comments. For example, as an OSX user, I cannot recall the last time I've called out somebody's sexual preference for using Windows.
That is overly simplistic, Fox News style approach to logic. Yeah, it seems like common sense, but without actual scientific evidence that this is true, it's conjecture on the part of basement dwellers everywhere.
Why would anyone write legitimate software for less than 10% of the market (yet they do)?
I would throw my conjecture out there too and say given Windows open architecture, it's easier to write crap for it. But I don't have anything to back it up except for making a shallow, sarcastic comment like, "gee, I don't know..." Equally snarky would be, "people who are dispicable enough to write malware probably know Windows, because they generally have made bad choices in life", but I won't say that.
Well at least your self-evaluation skills are good. Your logic and factual knowledge...not so much.
In sweeping broad-brush generalizations, Apple, as a culture, is far more commited to security than Microsoft has ever been, right down to the dreaded walled-garden approach to, well, everything the make.
This isn't about market share because OSXs market share hasn't significantly increased over the past several years. It's about 5% world wide and 9% in North America...right where it has been for a while now.
I don't think I'm trying to prove anything, so I guess that makes me not a moron.
If you think Linux doesn't suffer from mainstream adaptation because of its inherent (or in some cases, perceived) complexity, then you need to step outside of your wolrd-view (basement).
I'm not a Microsoft user, nor are my friends. I'm not sure what kind of logical fallacy "calling somebody a name as an insult, but the name doesn't fit" is, but you just made it.
Seriously, it is your job as a studio exec to get the ratings and the money, so why wouldn't you look at what people watch and try and follow that?
Because SyFy fills a niche audience. If they just looked at what people watched and chased ratings, there would be no SyFy channel. We'd have nothing but Ke$ha TV and the 24-hour Bieber News. Thankfully some people are not all about the bottom line and we can have less popular lineups like SyFy, SPEED, FoxSoccer, etc.
I'm talking out of my ass if the mainstream understood a single piece of his post, but they don't, so I'm not, so Linux is relegated to people who are interested in discussing the nuances of LPR/LPD, IPP, PCL etc. etc.
You are probably right. I just thought it was funny they used an obscure sports game for the graphic and then didn't even bother to include sports games.
The problem with environmental stances like your is that they are overstated, chicken little "the sky is falling" scenarios. We're "screwed" because some oil spilled in the Gulf (when larger spills occur every year in other places on the globe, but we are only screwed when it's close to us?). Wake me up when we are truly "screwed".
I had a teacher in the mid 1970s (3rd or 4th grade) who was a staunch envirnomentalist. We were taught that crude oil would be gone by the year 2000, yet there's no end in site, even today in 2011. We were told acid rain would ruin our crops and nuclear energy would poison our water and air. With rare exception, none of this stuff came true, and even when it did, the catastrophes were mostly overstated (Chernobyl being a notable outlier).
So until our reckless actions cause serious environmental damage that makes us "screwed", most normal people will put environmental issue further down the list of important things to worry about. Of course, depending on where you live on the globe, YMMV. I happen to live near what is considered one of the worst environmental areas of the US (Houston, TX), and it's not half as bad as my 6 months in Cairo, so our environmental laws and oversight (while not perfect) are doing SOMETHING right.
Is it really that hard to set your information to "friends only" or even "friends of friends"? Unless you hang out with lot of lawyers (I have a couple in my friends list), how much information can they actually gleen from "This person only shares certain information with friends".
I have jury duty on March 10. We'll see how well that goes for them.
Starcraft is not one bit influential. It took the RTS method of gathering resources faster than your opponent to no new levels. The rock-paper-scissors race design is indeed not new. I can't think of ANYTHING Starcraft did that hadn't already been done in WarcraftII or Age of Empires.
Slashdot Mirror
but that many is a sure indication he's been downloading dodgy software, games, or serial cracks, probably via BitTorrent.
Does it really matter? I don't think "Use Windows 7 because it's really secure if you avoid dodgy BitTorrent sites!" has a very good ring to it.
I mean, if that's what I use my computer for, I certainly don't want it to be vulnerable by default.
Are you for real? Your attempt at a well formed response goes out the window when you accuse me of trolling from the get-go.
I'd say given his sound rebuttal and clear ability to formulate and communicate a thought, yes, he's for real. And you yourself called yourself a troll, he's just showing you why you ARE a troll.
This may be news to you, but simply disagreeing with the majority zealot opinion is not trolling.
Providing facts that are as dubious as "commonly accepted" without citation is the definition of a troll.
Now, you ask for citations, and I'm not going to go searching to provide them, but I will be happy to explain to you where you can find them.
Classic logical fallacy. You are basically arguing, "oh yeah? YOU prove it!" when being asked to prove it. Stuff of 3rd grade logic.
Well now, there are actually quite a lot of studies supporting this, and a quick look on Google will show this.
So now I'm starting to understand how a troll doesn't realize they are a troll. Hint, Google is not research.
an OS with the largest market share is the most targeted
Speaking of Google, you should type in "tautology". And the car that has the largest market share is also the most driven...
If you want, I will find you studies and peer reviewed papers and we can debate them, although I feel that would be a waste of time on my part going by your response thus far.
God yes. Please. This is where you are different than us. We actually like to base our observations on fact. I'm pretty sure "hellfire" is also a fan of knowledge and not conjecture.
In fact there is NO direct causal link, and you are abusing the statement without facts and citations. That said, I would agree that I think there is causal link
Having trouble making up your mind?
God, what are you, nine? It's one thing to have an opinion or a suspicion about something, it's something entirely different to state something as fact.
Nothing wrong with my citation here. The article you reference is the same article I was referring to. If you read the comments ...
Well that clears it up. You obviously have no idea how to conduct research if you think citing user comments is valid
I don't think you understand what a citation is, do you? When I said people bashing MS for poor security are living in the past, that is an OPINION. Given that MS have had a pretty stellar security track record for the last 5 years...
Neither do you, obviously, or you would have cited Microsofts steller record over the past 5 years, but you didn't.
and certainly NOT worse than their competitors, I stand by my opinion. I can back mine up with evidence and the citations you so obsessively seek, can you?
Then just fucking do it already. You can't keep saying it's your opinion so you don't need to cite it, but you can if you want me to...then not cite anything. That is why we keep calling you a troll. And I think you are probably in the 8th grade, given your logic capabilities.
Why spend time developing an exploit that will target at an extreme maximum 10% of the market, when you can spend the same time and effort and target 80% of the market? Given an equal amount of work, would you not choose the option that yeilds a significantly larger ROI?
The same reason tens (hundreds?) of thousands of developers spend 100% of their time and effort targeting less than 10% of the market by writing legitimate stuff for OSX and iOS?
Regardless of percentage, there are reckoned to be c. 94 million OS X users. Is that still not enough? As we all know, Mac users are computer illiterates with far more money than sense. Surely this sector would seem ideal for targeting by malware writers?
Assuming the reason for the lack of malware is NOT the inherent robustness of the OS; and it's NOT the market share: then what IS it?
THIS!
Further, if 5-10% market share is good enough for legitimate software developers to code for OSX, why isn't that good enough for malware authors?
nor do they evolve in the biological sense.
Malware authors do not evolve biologically. They can't actually be expected to shower, can they?
If I'm not mistaken, OS X users generally aren't the enemy of Windows. Windows zealots bring the fight to them, not the other way around. It appears to be a confidence issue, or a lack of confidence issue, on the part of Windows ops.
Excellent comments. For example, as an OSX user, I cannot recall the last time I've called out somebody's sexual preference for using Windows.
That is overly simplistic, Fox News style approach to logic. Yeah, it seems like common sense, but without actual scientific evidence that this is true, it's conjecture on the part of basement dwellers everywhere.
Why would anyone write legitimate software for less than 10% of the market (yet they do)?
I would throw my conjecture out there too and say given Windows open architecture, it's easier to write crap for it. But I don't have anything to back it up except for making a shallow, sarcastic comment like, "gee, I don't know..." Equally snarky would be, "people who are dispicable enough to write malware probably know Windows, because they generally have made bad choices in life", but I won't say that.
Now I'm just waiting to be modded troll....
Well at least your self-evaluation skills are good. Your logic and factual knowledge...not so much.
In sweeping broad-brush generalizations, Apple, as a culture, is far more commited to security than Microsoft has ever been, right down to the dreaded walled-garden approach to, well, everything the make.
This isn't about market share because OSXs market share hasn't significantly increased over the past several years. It's about 5% world wide and 9% in North America...right where it has been for a while now.
Hint: he was modded +4 Funny for a reason.
I don't think I'm trying to prove anything, so I guess that makes me not a moron.
If you think Linux doesn't suffer from mainstream adaptation because of its inherent (or in some cases, perceived) complexity, then you need to step outside of your wolrd-view (basement).
I'm not a Microsoft user, nor are my friends. I'm not sure what kind of logical fallacy "calling somebody a name as an insult, but the name doesn't fit" is, but you just made it.
Even the science shows on PBS seem to be dumbing down - I mean, Come on Nova! WTF?!?
We have a science snob spotting! And here I thought slashdot was only for grammar nazis and beer snobs.
Seriously, it is your job as a studio exec to get the ratings and the money, so why wouldn't you look at what people watch and try and follow that?
Because SyFy fills a niche audience. If they just looked at what people watched and chased ratings, there would be no SyFy channel. We'd have nothing but Ke$ha TV and the 24-hour Bieber News. Thankfully some people are not all about the bottom line and we can have less popular lineups like SyFy, SPEED, FoxSoccer, etc.
I'm talking out of my ass if the mainstream understood a single piece of his post, but they don't, so I'm not, so Linux is relegated to people who are interested in discussing the nuances of LPR/LPD, IPP, PCL etc. etc.
You are probably right. I just thought it was funny they used an obscure sports game for the graphic and then didn't even bother to include sports games.
You can't honestly be comparing claiming the ownership of a human soul to be even remotely similar to the concept of copyright. Hyperbole much?
Everything should be free... eventually.
No disagreement here. That's why long after somebody is dead, and all their immediate children and relatives are all dead, copyright should expire.
No reason, eh? What if most of the planet is covered by water and thefefore most of the oil is under the seas?
The problem with environmental stances like your is that they are overstated, chicken little "the sky is falling" scenarios. We're "screwed" because some oil spilled in the Gulf (when larger spills occur every year in other places on the globe, but we are only screwed when it's close to us?). Wake me up when we are truly "screwed".
I had a teacher in the mid 1970s (3rd or 4th grade) who was a staunch envirnomentalist. We were taught that crude oil would be gone by the year 2000, yet there's no end in site, even today in 2011. We were told acid rain would ruin our crops and nuclear energy would poison our water and air. With rare exception, none of this stuff came true, and even when it did, the catastrophes were mostly overstated (Chernobyl being a notable outlier).
So until our reckless actions cause serious environmental damage that makes us "screwed", most normal people will put environmental issue further down the list of important things to worry about. Of course, depending on where you live on the globe, YMMV. I happen to live near what is considered one of the worst environmental areas of the US (Houston, TX), and it's not half as bad as my 6 months in Cairo, so our environmental laws and oversight (while not perfect) are doing SOMETHING right.
Suck baby suck?
Is it really that hard to set your information to "friends only" or even "friends of friends"? Unless you hang out with lot of lawyers (I have a couple in my friends list), how much information can they actually gleen from "This person only shares certain information with friends".
I have jury duty on March 10. We'll see how well that goes for them.
I agree with GTA. I actually find GTA2 and Vice City to be more fun than the GTA3 and 4. GTA has become MOTS (more of the same) to me.
I wasted a lot of (my mom's) quarters on Dragon's Lair.
Starcraft is not one bit influential. It took the RTS method of gathering resources faster than your opponent to no new levels. The rock-paper-scissors race design is indeed not new. I can't think of ANYTHING Starcraft did that hadn't already been done in WarcraftII or Age of Empires.
They ignored the sports game genre by featuring a prominent screen shot of FIFA World Cup.