In the last hours I changed my mind, and I'm definitely convinced that Sony didn't spend enough resources in security; all the other successful hacks against other sites belonging to Sony speak clear. They're inexcusable.
I didn't change my mind on the roles though; the criminals are the hackers. Sony is a negligent victim. Users will probably pay more than anyone else in the end.
I agree, with the possibility that Sony is criminally negligent. It doesn't excuse the hackers, and I'm not saying they "Sony is definitely guilty", but it's definitely a possibility. I'm just glad I didn't trust Sony with any personal data in the first place. They used to be awesome, now not so much.
It's rather telling that a company as large as Sony would need to bring in a third party in order to diagnose or secure their network. Any company that large, and handling that type of data, should have that kind of personnel in-house and on payroll BEFORE a breach, not after.
And you can say that because you know Sony's organizational chart or out of prejudice?
Moreover, now that the breach has been done, what should Sony do if not consulting specialists about the matter?
Perhaps you forget where you are posting? This is Slashdot, and many of us work in the tech industry, in places much smaller then Sony. Yet many of us work on securing our own networks. The more sensitive the data your company possesses, the more money and time is spent on security. Considering the data that Sony needed to protect, and that Sony didn't have that level of specialists already, shows that security just wasn't a priority to them. Bringing in specialists after the hack is the obvious move, but it doesn't excuse their lack of specialists before it.
Sony shouldn't have been poking the hacker beehive when they didn't have their network secured.
So for fear of the criminals, they should have kept letting the hackers download games for free from their developers' network, and disrupt their honest gamers by playing against the rules in their gamers' network? This is called mafia. Do you think game publishers and players would have accepted that?
It's not a matter of accepting it, it's a matter of securing your own borders before you go to war. Sony was so intent on stopping the information that geohotz had released (which they didn't). Yet they didn't show the same level of attention to their own servers/network (as evidenced by the fact that they needed a third party to get their network secured, and that they chose to bring this third party in AFTER a breach).
You brought it up as fear. If there was any fear, you're talking about being paralyzed by it. They should have been motivated by it. Either way, I think Sony was fearless and recklessly so, to detriment of their consumers.
Is there such a thing as a bus powered Firewire drive?
No? Then it's Firewire that's the gruel and it's the vanishingly small number of Firewire fanboys that are the ones with no taste.
Lacie has been making firewire bus powered drives for years. Mind you, I'm not one of those fanboys, the only thing I've purchased with firewire was a motherboard about 5 years ago, and I've never plugged anything into it. I agree that USB is the better option, but try to make a more informed argument please.
You changed the subject.. the subject is Sony probably lost my info.
No. The subject is your speculation about the cause of the "loss of your info". What's certain: hackers. What you speculate: Sony's incompetence. We'll see.
It's rather telling that a company as large as Sony would need to bring in a third party in order to diagnose or secure their network. Any company that large, and handling that type of data, should have that kind of personnel in-house and on payroll BEFORE a breach, not after. Incompetence or negligence goes hand in hand with that, especially when you consider how brazenly they have been prodding the hackers as of late.
Sony shouldn't have been poking the hacker beehive when they didn't have their network secured.
Sony is responsible for protecting that information. They failed.
So if somebody breaks in my home then "I failed", if somebody robs my bank "I failed", if somebody kidnaps my children "I failed"? I don't think so, that's why we have laws that punish theft, robbery, kidnapping, and hacking secured networks.
Of course people have all the rights to suspect that Sony was negligent, and that's what the lawsuits which have been filed will ascertain.
Congratulations! You have now missed the point TWICE. Learn how to read a sentence in context. The point wasn't lawsuits the point was: "Why would anyone trust them with updated information in the future?" Look what the next sentence was:
Why would anyone trust them with updated information in the future?
For the same reason most people trust Microsoft, Google, Apple and every other company whose software has been cracked before.
When has Microsoft, Google, or Apple had their paying subscriber database cracked? When have they had a comparable system's passwords exposed? Are you trying to compare the cracking of an OS or consumer software to a multi-million user database that supports credit-card transactions?
Ah, because they distracted with shiny games and stuff.
I can give you another example of people whose rationality is distracted by emotion: we don't know *anything* about how the servers were hacked, in fact we don't even know what happened exactly, yet some of us already know that the fault is all of Sony.
Who claim's that it is entirely Sony's fault? Either way, as Sony did fail in their protection of their customer (regardless of degree of fault), it is up to Sony to make appropriate recompense for that failure. It is also up to Sony to regain the trust of their customers, and developers for that matter.
Also, that personal information could be used for identity theft.
You think identity theft is based off a credit card number? It's based off the personal information. The credit card is just one small way to abuse the hacked data. Even if the credit card data was not obtained, the personal information can be worth much more.
My name and address are publicly available in the phone book. My email address is scattered all over the internet. My date of birth is public. Is it so easy for people to harm me by knowing them?
Your ignorance of identity theft techniques is not for me to resolve, and it's much too large of a subject to explain over Slashdot. I have already twice pointed you to one good source of information. There are many others out there, and if you're going to try to argue the point, perhaps you should educate yourself, even if it is simply so you don't embarrass yourself.
If you think theres no compelling difference between the CPU-bound USB 3.0 and what is essentially an external PCIe connector, you need to go back and do some more research. LightPeak/Thunderbolt is just plain better than USB3.0; downsides do include lack of backwards compatibility, and that may prove to be its biggest obstacle, but to argue that "USB3.0 is good enough" is just wrong.
As for price, USB3.0 has been out for about a year now, with Thunderbolt only having rolled off the shelves-- and this, only in Apples computers so far-- a few months ago. Right now, on newegg, im only seeing USB3.0 on highend multi-hundred-dollar motherboards, so it seems to be a wash in that regard.
Its way too early to tell, and anyone saying otherwise is full of it.
You see, only what you want to see: USB 3.0 Motherboards starting at $69 The expansion cards for USB 3.0 start at $29. USB 3.0 consumer devices were released about a year and a half ago.
Apparently you belong to those who "need to go back and do some more research".
You make blanket claims of thunderbolt > USB3.0 but offer no specifics to support this argument. Finishing your post with "anyone saying otherwise is full of it" is just bait for someone like me to come and blow holes in your fail of a thought. Care to try again?
You don't think it had anything to do with all that personal information?
No, because that information has been stolen from them, using criminal methods, so for what we know by now, they're the victim. Until a lawsuit will prove otherwise. In that case, Sony will possibly go bankrupt because I suspect the compensation would be much higher.
Sony is responsible for protecting that information. They failed. Why would anyone trust them with updated information in the future? Ah, because they distracted with shiny games and stuff.
Also, that personal information could be used for identity theft. That's what the credit protection is supposed to guard against, and that's specifically why Sony is offering it.
As well, them giving a year of credit protection is worthless.
I clearly remember many comments on Slashdot which invoked credit protection before Sony declared they would be offering it.
This comment was based on the timeframe being limited to a year, not the offer of credit protection itself. Reading the 3-5 year recommendation in the sentence that followed should have made this clear to you.
3-5 years would be more appropriate.
Yes, but then why not 6-7? Criminals can wait. The truth is that the only solution to sleep well is to change the credit card number, which should be doable in 1 year. Again, I attribute the hassle of doing so to the hackers who performed the attack.
You think identity theft is based off a credit card number? It's based off the personal information. The credit card is just one small way to abuse the hacked data. Even if the credit card data was not obtained, the personal information can be worth much more. As well, I based the 3-5 number off the recommendation of the aforementioned Abagnale presentation. It's not like he's inexperienced in these matters.
What is it with you PC snobs anyway? When a PC exclusive title comes out, you don't see scores of console gamers spamming the game's message boards complaining that it isn't coming to consoles (and there are *WAY* more PC exclusives than console exclusives). And yet every time a console exclusive comes out, you see scores of "When is this coming to the PC?", "The PC is so superior to consoles", "How could you bastards NOT release this on the PC?", "WAAAAAAHHH, I'M GONNA TELL MOMMY!!" posts on every one of the game's message boards.
Christ, get over yourselves. Developers don't owe you jack (if you want to blame someone, blame all the PC pirates, not the studio). And, believe it or not, your shit DOES stink.
Yeah, it's PEBKAC syndrome. some PS3/360 owner does something stupid like putting their console on thick shag carpet, covering it with a blanket, or blocking the vents by putting it right against a solid surface because it makes too much noise and it overheats. Then they blame the game: "The game bricked my 360", or "this new firmware bricked my PS3".
Normally I'd be agreeing with you, but I was playing Fable 3 recently on my 360 Elite and it's overheated a few times. I took apart the outer shell and gave it a good air-canning, and it over-heated less frequently (hours instead of about 30 minutes). This 360 sits upright on wood, close to the ground (as cool air resides close to the ground), and has good clearance above and around it. It's the only game I've played that causes over-heating in my 360. Mass Effect 2 and NHL 2011 run without issue for days at a time. DAYS.
On the other hand a friend of mine put his 360 into this tight space that is only open at the front. It sits on top of his audio receiver. He wonders why it overheats when he plays pac-man. *face-palm*.
Acknowledge the problem, fix it (or replace it in this case with a superior model), and give compensation.
No nonsense customer service, and it gives gives them good PR.
They're not doing anything good. That's the minimum they can do for bricking their users' consoles. Hadn't they done that, they would get sued, lose, and then they'd have to pay both a new console and the lawsuit costs.
Compare that to Sony...
...who only gave away 3 high rated games, one or two months of free premium service, a year of credit card protection, and other junk I can't remember for 3 weeks of downtime of a free service. Those bastards.
For just 3 weeks of downtime of a free service? You don't think it had anything to do with all that personal information? or because they aren't absolutely sure that the credit card data wasn't compromised? Nice attempt to spin this, but you're comparing apples to oranges here.
As well, them giving a year of credit protection is worthless. 3-5 years would be more appropriate. The data from ID theft often isn't used immediately. Frank Abagnale Jr. has made an informative presentation about that subject, and given it at a few colleges in the U.S. It's a good watch if you can find it.
Shouldn't front-line support people actually know if it's actual bad malware or not? If it is, this is remarkably stupid to neither confirm nor deny that it even exists. That seems like it came from marketing, not tech support. sigh.
OSX by its roots (BSD) means it doesn't get the kind of malware that plagues all those M$ Windows computers.
Security by association? Many windows holes aren't a direct attack on the kernel either. Most expose vulnerabilities in network services or commonly used apps..
He's referring to XP Service Pack 1 and before, and most likely the blaster worm. Before MS got their crap together. Real techies know to stay away from any new OS until the second major round of patches come through. That applies equally to Windows and OSX.
To be fair, I have never had any malware with OSX and I'm certain I will not. OSX by its roots (BSD) means it doesn't get the kind of malware that plagues all those M$ Windows computers. I feel safe with OSX and have no need for antivirus. If you give our your root password to a random program, well, you're stupid. But if you use Windows you get infected just by connecting to the internet. I've never had such experience with my Mac.
None, but this is not the issue of the court. The court has to determine the damage caused and award restitution accordingly.
No city services were ever affected, but officials said they could have been crippled if power had somehow been shut off.
They're not not compensating for damages here, as there were no damages. They're penalizing based on IF. IF this had happened we would have damages. IF that had happened we would have been screwed.
"IF" didn't happen, and they have the passwords. Why isn't the city being held responsible for not obtaining the passwords long ago? Any organization that allows a single employee to hold the only access (be it key, password, whatever) to a mission critical device is just begging for trouble.
No, I'm just not stupid enough to think that Apple bringing improvements to Lion from iOS means that they are going to turn Mac OS X into iOS. The mere notion is absurd.
Apple has made a lucrative business out of doing what many people view as absurd. Why would they stop now?
You are seeing parallels where they don't exist. That's one of the biggest problem with being a nerd. You can often see connections that other people miss, but you have a hard time discerning real connections from imaginary ones.
It's not the being a nerd part, it's the working in an organization with close ties to Apple that gives a different perspective.
Beginning with whoever broke into Sony's networks and systems? That part of the story doesn't seem to excite the geek so much.
In the geek mind, Sony's security was so lax that ANYONE could have broken in. Blaming Sony is easy in this case, they had been trusted with all this data that would obviously be a big target. Despite this, they failed to properly secure that data. If hacker group "a" hadn't stolen the data, hacker groups "b, c, d, etc" would have. Sony's history with security makes this viewpoint rather easy to adopt.
It WAS Sony's house that was broken into, so dealing with the thief/hacker(s) is Sony's responsibility. Dealing with the lost data may not be Sony's responsibility, but failure to make some attempt at pacifying the masses would likely alienate their user base. So they will walk the line between cost and effect, just like any other business.
I was pointing out the iOS functionality that they are starting to put into the Mac OSX.
Exactly. Features that are being *added* to *Mac OS X*. You've not demonstrated what this has to do with the topic at hand.
I apologize, I didn't realize you were incapable of seeing the parallels, and drawing a conclusion. The question was "Exactly which iOS device is SUPPOSED to be a computer? " I highlighted the "features" that are being added to the new version of Mac OS X, as the direction in which they are heading. They are obviously iOS mainstays.
Having seen the direction Apple tends to go with these things, and the hush-hush manner in which they do so, one would not be mad to conclude that Apple is very likely to bring the same walls and lockdowns to their computer segment.
With those walls and lockdowns, it would effectively be the iOS under a different name, enough so for this thread of discussion.
I notice your posts are completely devoid of content or relevance. If what I've written is so wrong, it should be easy to rebut it. But clearly it's not so easy. When you simply resort to some lame ad hominem, you really show how much confidence you have in your argument.
If you think your tale of "reactionary nerds" is content or relevant, I feel sorry for you. I'm not going to be dragged into a flamewar over your perspective of Apple vs the world.
They were in there over a year before Apple announced iBooks. The oldest reference I could find was a march 2009 macworld highlighting three ebook readers for the iphone os. Either way, Samalie is way off base. =D
Yeah, holy shit, Apple is making Mac OS X better in their next version! Is that what you mean by "where it's headed"? Because the "it" the OP was referring to was iOS, and the "it" you mentioned is Mac OS X. Two distinct, but related, its.
I was pointing out the iOS functionality that they are starting to put into the Mac OSX.
And this whole thread is moronic anyway.
Then you are a moron for participating in it.
The iPad is a computer, it's just not a PC. The PC is just one type of computer. For all their talk of "openness" and "choice", nerds sure are an overly conservative bunch who seem to think there is only One True way to do something. They derided the PC when it came out, then the GUI, then the iPod, then the iPhone, then the iPad...
Notice a trend here? In each one of these, Apple was at the forefront, and in each one of these, the reactionary nerds were on the losing side.
Psst, your "I heart Steve Jobs" tattoo is showing.
The problem is when the gatekeeper decides to enter the selling ebooks market
I'm sorry, what idiot didn't see that one coming?
You knew back in late 2008 to early 2009 that Apple was developing a tablet??? That they were developing the iBook app?? Well then you should have known well enough to invest all your money into Apple, made a tidy profit, and then proceeded to do something else in life other then make snarky remarks on Slashdot. Yet here you are.
The 30% is ONLY on purchases made through the app itself. But they cannot offer it at a lower price if you buy directly from their website or wherever else.
And if you are selling the ebooks on your website, you HAVE to offer them through the app, and the price has to be the same regardless of it being on your website or in the iOS app. With the option to purchase right there in the app, it all but ensures purchases where Apple takes all the profit. I like how you put that ONLY in there, as if it matters. You don't expect me to believe that Joe Schmoe is going to go to the website, set up an account, give out your credit card details, and buy your book there, when there's a glossy button that only requires my password to purchase the book for the same price?
And where do you get that "negotiating lower prices for itself" from by the way? Is this the same kind of whining Border et al directed at the cheaper books at Amazon?
Apple and Amazon are being investigated over anti-trust issues for those "deals" with book publishers. I'd say it's more then "whining".
Slashdot Mirror
It's a new piece of malware, as far as definitions go. It will be blocked next month when Apple updates the definitions.
FTFY
In the last hours I changed my mind, and I'm definitely convinced that Sony didn't spend enough resources in security; all the other successful hacks against other sites belonging to Sony speak clear. They're inexcusable. I didn't change my mind on the roles though; the criminals are the hackers. Sony is a negligent victim. Users will probably pay more than anyone else in the end.
I agree, with the possibility that Sony is criminally negligent. It doesn't excuse the hackers, and I'm not saying they "Sony is definitely guilty", but it's definitely a possibility. I'm just glad I didn't trust Sony with any personal data in the first place. They used to be awesome, now not so much.
WOW! We agreed on something! =D
It's rather telling that a company as large as Sony would need to bring in a third party in order to diagnose or secure their network. Any company that large, and handling that type of data, should have that kind of personnel in-house and on payroll BEFORE a breach, not after.
And you can say that because you know Sony's organizational chart or out of prejudice?
Moreover, now that the breach has been done, what should Sony do if not consulting specialists about the matter?
Perhaps you forget where you are posting? This is Slashdot, and many of us work in the tech industry, in places much smaller then Sony. Yet many of us work on securing our own networks. The more sensitive the data your company possesses, the more money and time is spent on security.
Considering the data that Sony needed to protect, and that Sony didn't have that level of specialists already, shows that security just wasn't a priority to them. Bringing in specialists after the hack is the obvious move, but it doesn't excuse their lack of specialists before it.
Sony shouldn't have been poking the hacker beehive when they didn't have their network secured.
So for fear of the criminals, they should have kept letting the hackers download games for free from their developers' network, and disrupt their honest gamers by playing against the rules in their gamers' network? This is called mafia. Do you think game publishers and players would have accepted that?
It's not a matter of accepting it, it's a matter of securing your own borders before you go to war. Sony was so intent on stopping the information that geohotz had released (which they didn't). Yet they didn't show the same level of attention to their own servers/network (as evidenced by the fact that they needed a third party to get their network secured, and that they chose to bring this third party in AFTER a breach).
You brought it up as fear. If there was any fear, you're talking about being paralyzed by it. They should have been motivated by it. Either way, I think Sony was fearless and recklessly so, to detriment of their consumers.
Is there such a thing as a bus powered Firewire drive?
No? Then it's Firewire that's the gruel and it's the vanishingly small number of Firewire fanboys that are the ones with no taste.
Lacie has been making firewire bus powered drives for years. Mind you, I'm not one of those fanboys, the only thing I've purchased with firewire was a motherboard about 5 years ago, and I've never plugged anything into it. I agree that USB is the better option, but try to make a more informed argument please.
You changed the subject.. the subject is Sony probably lost my info.
No. The subject is your speculation about the cause of the "loss of your info". What's certain: hackers. What you speculate: Sony's incompetence. We'll see.
It's rather telling that a company as large as Sony would need to bring in a third party in order to diagnose or secure their network. Any company that large, and handling that type of data, should have that kind of personnel in-house and on payroll BEFORE a breach, not after. Incompetence or negligence goes hand in hand with that, especially when you consider how brazenly they have been prodding the hackers as of late.
Sony shouldn't have been poking the hacker beehive when they didn't have their network secured.
Sony is responsible for protecting that information. They failed.
So if somebody breaks in my home then "I failed", if somebody robs my bank "I failed", if somebody kidnaps my children "I failed"? I don't think so, that's why we have laws that punish theft, robbery, kidnapping, and hacking secured networks. Of course people have all the rights to suspect that Sony was negligent, and that's what the lawsuits which have been filed will ascertain.
Congratulations! You have now missed the point TWICE. Learn how to read a sentence in context. The point wasn't lawsuits the point was: "Why would anyone trust them with updated information in the future?" Look what the next sentence was:
Why would anyone trust them with updated information in the future?
For the same reason most people trust Microsoft, Google, Apple and every other company whose software has been cracked before.
When has Microsoft, Google, or Apple had their paying subscriber database cracked? When have they had a comparable system's passwords exposed? Are you trying to compare the cracking of an OS or consumer software to a multi-million user database that supports credit-card transactions?
Ah, because they distracted with shiny games and stuff.
I can give you another example of people whose rationality is distracted by emotion: we don't know *anything* about how the servers were hacked, in fact we don't even know what happened exactly, yet some of us already know that the fault is all of Sony.
Who claim's that it is entirely Sony's fault? Either way, as Sony did fail in their protection of their customer (regardless of degree of fault), it is up to Sony to make appropriate recompense for that failure. It is also up to Sony to regain the trust of their customers, and developers for that matter.
Also, that personal information could be used for identity theft.
You think identity theft is based off a credit card number? It's based off the personal information. The credit card is just one small way to abuse the hacked data. Even if the credit card data was not obtained, the personal information can be worth much more.
My name and address are publicly available in the phone book. My email address is scattered all over the internet. My date of birth is public. Is it so easy for people to harm me by knowing them?
Your ignorance of identity theft techniques is not for me to resolve, and it's much too large of a subject to explain over Slashdot. I have already twice pointed you to one good source of information. There are many others out there, and if you're going to try to argue the point, perhaps you should educate yourself, even if it is simply so you don't embarrass yourself.
If you think theres no compelling difference between the CPU-bound USB 3.0 and what is essentially an external PCIe connector, you need to go back and do some more research. LightPeak /Thunderbolt is just plain better than USB3.0; downsides do include lack of backwards compatibility, and that may prove to be its biggest obstacle, but to argue that "USB3.0 is good enough" is just wrong.
As for price, USB3.0 has been out for about a year now, with Thunderbolt only having rolled off the shelves-- and this, only in Apples computers so far-- a few months ago. Right now, on newegg, im only seeing USB3.0 on highend multi-hundred-dollar motherboards, so it seems to be a wash in that regard.
Its way too early to tell, and anyone saying otherwise is full of it.
You see, only what you want to see: USB 3.0 Motherboards starting at $69
The expansion cards for USB 3.0 start at $29.
USB 3.0 consumer devices were released about a year and a half ago.
Apparently you belong to those who "need to go back and do some more research". You make blanket claims of thunderbolt > USB3.0 but offer no specifics to support this argument. Finishing your post with "anyone saying otherwise is full of it" is just bait for someone like me to come and blow holes in your fail of a thought. Care to try again?
I'm on slashdot, aren't I?
Yes, but raging against any other then Microsoft, Apple, or Sony is considered bad taste. =D
You don't think it had anything to do with all that personal information?
No, because that information has been stolen from them, using criminal methods, so for what we know by now, they're the victim. Until a lawsuit will prove otherwise. In that case, Sony will possibly go bankrupt because I suspect the compensation would be much higher.
Sony is responsible for protecting that information. They failed. Why would anyone trust them with updated information in the future? Ah, because they distracted with shiny games and stuff.
Also, that personal information could be used for identity theft. That's what the credit protection is supposed to guard against, and that's specifically why Sony is offering it.
As well, them giving a year of credit protection is worthless.
I clearly remember many comments on Slashdot which invoked credit protection before Sony declared they would be offering it.
This comment was based on the timeframe being limited to a year, not the offer of credit protection itself. Reading the 3-5 year recommendation in the sentence that followed should have made this clear to you.
3-5 years would be more appropriate.
Yes, but then why not 6-7? Criminals can wait. The truth is that the only solution to sleep well is to change the credit card number, which should be doable in 1 year. Again, I attribute the hassle of doing so to the hackers who performed the attack.
You think identity theft is based off a credit card number? It's based off the personal information. The credit card is just one small way to abuse the hacked data. Even if the credit card data was not obtained, the personal information can be worth much more. As well, I based the 3-5 number off the recommendation of the aforementioned Abagnale presentation. It's not like he's inexperienced in these matters.
...but this is how you do customer service.
Microsoft acknowledged the issue and promised that affected users would receive a new 360S console and a free year of Xbox Live to compensate.
Acknowledge the problem, fix it (or replace it in this case with a superior model), and give compensation.
No nonsense customer service, and it gives gives them good PR.
Compare that to Sony...
A superior model that doesn't work with the original xbox hard drive. That's an annoying little bit there...
What is it with you PC snobs anyway? When a PC exclusive title comes out, you don't see scores of console gamers spamming the game's message boards complaining that it isn't coming to consoles (and there are *WAY* more PC exclusives than console exclusives). And yet every time a console exclusive comes out, you see scores of "When is this coming to the PC?", "The PC is so superior to consoles", "How could you bastards NOT release this on the PC?", "WAAAAAAHHH, I'M GONNA TELL MOMMY!!" posts on every one of the game's message boards.
Christ, get over yourselves. Developers don't owe you jack (if you want to blame someone, blame all the PC pirates, not the studio). And, believe it or not, your shit DOES stink.
Rage much?
Yeah, it's PEBKAC syndrome. some PS3/360 owner does something stupid like putting their console on thick shag carpet, covering it with a blanket, or blocking the vents by putting it right against a solid surface because it makes too much noise and it overheats. Then they blame the game: "The game bricked my 360", or "this new firmware bricked my PS3".
Normally I'd be agreeing with you, but I was playing Fable 3 recently on my 360 Elite and it's overheated a few times. I took apart the outer shell and gave it a good air-canning, and it over-heated less frequently (hours instead of about 30 minutes). This 360 sits upright on wood, close to the ground (as cool air resides close to the ground), and has good clearance above and around it. It's the only game I've played that causes over-heating in my 360. Mass Effect 2 and NHL 2011 run without issue for days at a time. DAYS.
On the other hand a friend of mine put his 360 into this tight space that is only open at the front. It sits on top of his audio receiver. He wonders why it overheats when he plays pac-man. *face-palm*.
Acknowledge the problem, fix it (or replace it in this case with a superior model), and give compensation.
No nonsense customer service, and it gives gives them good PR.
They're not doing anything good. That's the minimum they can do for bricking their users' consoles. Hadn't they done that, they would get sued, lose, and then they'd have to pay both a new console and the lawsuit costs.
Compare that to Sony...
...who only gave away 3 high rated games, one or two months of free premium service, a year of credit card protection, and other junk I can't remember for 3 weeks of downtime of a free service. Those bastards.
For just 3 weeks of downtime of a free service? You don't think it had anything to do with all that personal information? or because they aren't absolutely sure that the credit card data wasn't compromised? Nice attempt to spin this, but you're comparing apples to oranges here.
As well, them giving a year of credit protection is worthless. 3-5 years would be more appropriate. The data from ID theft often isn't used immediately. Frank Abagnale Jr. has made an informative presentation about that subject, and given it at a few colleges in the U.S. It's a good watch if you can find it.
Shouldn't front-line support people actually know if it's actual bad malware or not? If it is, this is remarkably stupid to neither confirm nor deny that it even exists. That seems like it came from marketing, not tech support. sigh.
You act like they're separate divisions. =D
OSX by its roots (BSD) means it doesn't get the kind of malware that plagues all those M$ Windows computers.
Security by association? Many windows holes aren't a direct attack on the kernel either. Most expose vulnerabilities in network services or commonly used apps..
Among those: Norton's Antivirus.
He's referring to XP Service Pack 1 and before, and most likely the blaster worm. Before MS got their crap together. Real techies know to stay away from any new OS until the second major round of patches come through. That applies equally to Windows and OSX.
To be fair, I have never had any malware with OSX and I'm certain I will not. OSX by its roots (BSD) means it doesn't get the kind of malware that plagues all those M$ Windows computers. I feel safe with OSX and have no need for antivirus. If you give our your root password to a random program, well, you're stupid. But if you use Windows you get infected just by connecting to the internet. I've never had such experience with my Mac.
...and the Steve was God, amen.
None, but this is not the issue of the court. The court has to determine the damage caused and award restitution accordingly.
No city services were ever affected, but officials said they could have been crippled if power had somehow been shut off.
They're not not compensating for damages here, as there were no damages. They're penalizing based on IF. IF this had happened we would have damages. IF that had happened we would have been screwed.
"IF" didn't happen, and they have the passwords. Why isn't the city being held responsible for not obtaining the passwords long ago? Any organization that allows a single employee to hold the only access (be it key, password, whatever) to a mission critical device is just begging for trouble.
No, I'm just not stupid enough to think that Apple bringing improvements to Lion from iOS means that they are going to turn Mac OS X into iOS. The mere notion is absurd.
Apple has made a lucrative business out of doing what many people view as absurd. Why would they stop now?
You are seeing parallels where they don't exist. That's one of the biggest problem with being a nerd. You can often see connections that other people miss, but you have a hard time discerning real connections from imaginary ones.
It's not the being a nerd part, it's the working in an organization with close ties to Apple that gives a different perspective.
Someone needs to REALLY accept responsibility.
Beginning with whoever broke into Sony's networks and systems? That part of the story doesn't seem to excite the geek so much.
In the geek mind, Sony's security was so lax that ANYONE could have broken in. Blaming Sony is easy in this case, they had been trusted with all this data that would obviously be a big target. Despite this, they failed to properly secure that data. If hacker group "a" hadn't stolen the data, hacker groups "b, c, d, etc" would have. Sony's history with security makes this viewpoint rather easy to adopt.
It WAS Sony's house that was broken into, so dealing with the thief/hacker(s) is Sony's responsibility. Dealing with the lost data may not be Sony's responsibility, but failure to make some attempt at pacifying the masses would likely alienate their user base. So they will walk the line between cost and effect, just like any other business.
I was pointing out the iOS functionality that they are starting to put into the Mac OSX.
Exactly. Features that are being *added* to *Mac OS X*. You've not demonstrated what this has to do with the topic at hand.
I apologize, I didn't realize you were incapable of seeing the parallels, and drawing a conclusion. The question was "Exactly which iOS device is SUPPOSED to be a computer? " I highlighted the "features" that are being added to the new version of Mac OS X, as the direction in which they are heading. They are obviously iOS mainstays. Having seen the direction Apple tends to go with these things, and the hush-hush manner in which they do so, one would not be mad to conclude that Apple is very likely to bring the same walls and lockdowns to their computer segment.
With those walls and lockdowns, it would effectively be the iOS under a different name, enough so for this thread of discussion.
I notice your posts are completely devoid of content or relevance. If what I've written is so wrong, it should be easy to rebut it. But clearly it's not so easy. When you simply resort to some lame ad hominem, you really show how much confidence you have in your argument.
If you think your tale of "reactionary nerds" is content or relevant, I feel sorry for you. I'm not going to be dragged into a flamewar over your perspective of Apple vs the world.
They were in there over a year before Apple announced iBooks. The oldest reference I could find was a march 2009 macworld highlighting three ebook readers for the iphone os. Either way, Samalie is way off base. =D
Yeah, holy shit, Apple is making Mac OS X better in their next version! Is that what you mean by "where it's headed"? Because the "it" the OP was referring to was iOS, and the "it" you mentioned is Mac OS X. Two distinct, but related, its.
I was pointing out the iOS functionality that they are starting to put into the Mac OSX.
And this whole thread is moronic anyway.
Then you are a moron for participating in it.
The iPad is a computer, it's just not a PC. The PC is just one type of computer. For all their talk of "openness" and "choice", nerds sure are an overly conservative bunch who seem to think there is only One True way to do something. They derided the PC when it came out, then the GUI, then the iPod, then the iPhone, then the iPad...
Notice a trend here? In each one of these, Apple was at the forefront, and in each one of these, the reactionary nerds were on the losing side.
Psst, your "I heart Steve Jobs" tattoo is showing.
The problem is when the gatekeeper decides to enter the selling ebooks market
I'm sorry, what idiot didn't see that one coming?
You knew back in late 2008 to early 2009 that Apple was developing a tablet??? That they were developing the iBook app?? Well then you should have known well enough to invest all your money into Apple, made a tidy profit, and then proceeded to do something else in life other then make snarky remarks on Slashdot. Yet here you are.
The 30% is ONLY on purchases made through the app itself. But they cannot offer it at a lower price if you buy directly from their website or wherever else.
And if you are selling the ebooks on your website, you HAVE to offer them through the app, and the price has to be the same regardless of it being on your website or in the iOS app. With the option to purchase right there in the app, it all but ensures purchases where Apple takes all the profit.
I like how you put that ONLY in there, as if it matters. You don't expect me to believe that Joe Schmoe is going to go to the website, set up an account, give out your credit card details, and buy your book there, when there's a glossy button that only requires my password to purchase the book for the same price?
And where do you get that "negotiating lower prices for itself" from by the way? Is this the same kind of whining Border et al directed at the cheaper books at Amazon?
Apple and Amazon are being investigated over anti-trust issues for those "deals" with book publishers. I'd say it's more then "whining".