That's pocket change compared to how much the company can lose over a screw up like this.
Emphasis mine. Look, every major antivirus producer has made a similar mistake to this. Sometimes, it takes the whole operating system down with it (Symantec anyone?). Whether you agree or disagree, it's clear there are business incentives for a fast workflow process -- and as the old saying goes "Do it fast, do it right, do it cheap -- pick any two." It's obvious which ones the antivirus industry as a whole has chosen. Rather than argue over whether or not they're right, I'm pointing out why they're making those choices. Businesses aren't willing to pay a premium to avoid mistakes like this. The cost of the occasional screwup like this is less than the cost required to do all the testing and lab work that many here on slashdot seem to support.
It's a business decision they've made, right or wrong.
He's confusing Facebook The Application with Facebook the communication / social network.
To quote TFA, "If people can collaborate on tagging a photo, he added, they could easily do the same with a product or business problem." He is making the "When all you have is a hammer" error in thinking. There's already software out there that does this -- many companies have 'sharepoints'. And every company I've worked for has had its executive board listen to guys like this, talking about how social networking is "the future", and they rush forward to impliment all these things.
And so every department has a sharepoint... and they're all good-looking but totally desolate web pages. And why is that? Because people don't work the same way they play. It's an incredibly obvious statement, but apparently one that needs to be repeated periodically. People share things on Facebook because there aren't many disincentives. In a business environment, you're looking over your shoulder constantly to make sure that your coworkers, your manager, other departments, your bosses' boss, etc., all don't find something to get upset with you about. Most people do what they're told and little more for this reason. Nobody is going to want to 'collaborate' on someone else's problem. It's a recipe for political disaster in the workplace.
Bottom line: Social networking in business hasn't been successful because of politics. That's not going to change anytime soon. Businesses are already looking at ways of limiting the amount of communication and how easily it can be copied and replicated as it is, due to legal liability. They're in no hurry to bring in another technology that's going to encourage their workers to say things that could cost them down the line.
This is a classic case of not thoroughly testing code and making sure you have enough variations of test machines to ensure as little pain to clients as possible.
Antivirus engines and definitions change daily, weekly at the most. Where do you suppose this "thorough testing" of code is supposed to happen? It costs time and money, and while you're busy doing that testing, the support lines are being flooded with "We've been infected by something your software doesn't protect against! What are we paying you for, anyway?" As a bonus, your competitors, who didn't decide to setup a massive lab with dozens of employees in it, testing all the typical configurations of a half dozen operating systems and the couple hundred most popular software packages of each... they already released a patch.
Now, a software patch that causes the application to stomp on its own dick is amusing (and difficult to forgive), but demanding a massive expenditure of time and money is almost as unforgiveable. It's easy to demand best practices and ample safety margins: It's quite another thing to deliver it in a business environment. Most people in the industry, including the people at Sophos I'm sure, do the best they can with what they're given. It's pretty much the work creed of anyone in this industry -- few have the time and resources to do it right, they have to settle for 'good enough'.
As a matter of interest, the right to enter the private property of the museum is granted pursuant to a license -- a contract
Yes, and if you violate the "contract", they can ask you to leave. And if you stay, then they can charge you with trespass. This is no different than walking into a grocery store and scanning the items on the shelves for prices or taking pictures there either -- they don't want you to do it. Some places even have signs prohibiting "electronic devices" or photographs. But all they can do is ask you to leave, and forbid you from returning.
Nothing says "I have a big penis!" like a Ragnarok.
Nothing says "I have a bigger dick" than a 16 client multiboxing setup. -_- Eve is one of the most multiboxing-friendly MMOs there is; woe to the player who runs a single client full screen.
Wish I had mod points for you. I know quite a few farmers personally (including an uncle) and you are exactly right.
I grew up in the country. I would hope I learned a bit more than what manure smells like in the spring during that time.:) I moved to the big city though when I turned 18. The country is a fine place to take a stroll, but there's not much to do there. And it is perpetually about 20 years behind where anything going on in the city is. Gas pumps are still manual, people still write checks for groceries, and teenage drivers go down the middle of the road... not because they're new to driving, but because that is, in fact, the proper location for your vehicle to be. Well, if your vehicle is a John Deere that is... which is probably what you drove before you got handed the keys to the family car. Yes, most people in the country know what a computer is... they simply don't have much use for one. That alone will probably scare thousands of geeks that read this comment... but it's true. It is not the same world you live in, guys.
Like most farm equipment, not cheap, especially new. Think loan. Big. Loan. I know you're looking for a more exact number, but there isn't one. They're usually custom built systems; sold one at a time. The larger the capacity, the lower the individual component cost.
Cost of maintenance per year? Do they have ongoing problems?
Like any customized solution, the answer is "it depends". It depends on how big the herd is, how many stations it has, etc. And as far as ongoing problems... well, it's automated. It makes the job easier, but you still have to watch it. You can't just set one up and walk away. These are live animals. Sometimes they do things that aren't predictable.
Also, any different between the major makers? Delaval, Lely, GEA?
Same as the difference between a Dell and a Compaq. Some of the parts are interchangeable, some aren't. Some pride themselves on service, some on cost. Some cater to very large farms, others to medium sized. Some have blue hoses, and others clear. Farm equipment is purpose built... tell me about the purpose, and I can tell you what equipment would be best. Like, for example, you'll notice I didn't say automatic milking machines cater to small farms. That would be because the equipment costs more than the savings in labor. A lot more.
Farmers don't need iPads. They need to have the government stop screwing up the markets and inadvertently creating monopolies like Monsanto. They created genetically altered seeds that, when they blow into neighboring fields, they sue those farmers, forcing them into bankrupcy, and thus getting a cheap new addition to their mega farm.
The other problems caused by government is they're endangering the food supply -- look it up online, we're about one drought away from a food shortage right now, the corn supply is down to about 6 months now, the lowest its been since the 50s. Part of it is because 40% of our corn gets turned into ethanol (a non-viable alternative to gas, used presently as an additive, at a premium), instead of food. Part of it is because the mega farms don't do proper crop rotation, but instead follow the market -- leading to diminishing yields and land overuse. And part of it is, ironically -- subsidies. The government steps in and says that there are certain price floors and ceilings for farming... and since eventually every farmer has a bad harvest, and they can't pay their mortage or whatever, they go bankrupt. It's inevitable; Just a matter of time. And then their land is bought up by the next door mega farm.
The consolidation of the agricultural industry is going to screw us; and iPads are not going to help. Not in the slightest. What's even more funny... not many younger people want to work on a farm. A lot of family farms are closing up because the kids moved away. Not much money in it... So you're asking people in their 50s and 60s "Hey, wanna use an iPad to do something you've been doing for the past, uhh... forever?" No. They don't. They're worried about making the next mortgage payment and repairing the roof of the barn. an iPad is not high on the list, and it offers no real benefit in productivity or return on investment. It's a convenience, nothing more.
Throw a camera in someone's face (which makes them nervous and puts them off-kilter) and tell them you're showing them the new iPhone (or anything else you want) and you're likely to get enough people who believe you to provide amusing comments allowing you to make a humorous highlight reel.
Well, with a large enough sample size, anything that would normally be improbable becomes probable. That's statistics, not human nature.
You even backed it up with your "If that doesn't say something about the mindset of Apple's userbase, I don't know what does."
Apple users are somehow more vulnerable to marketing than non-apple users. At least one company thinks so. There's any number of articles out there detailing the "cult of personality" surrounding the late Steve Jobs, and I don't know why I have to lay it out for you that Apple became big because of marketing. In technical specifications, Apple products are usually inferior to other offerings in the market, and they cost more. You can argue it in circles all you want -- but there really is something different in the mindset of people who exhibit brand loyalty to Apple.
Almost every major browser in use has had a vulnerability. Those that haven't are vulnerable because of commonly-used plugins. It's not just IE9, it's browsers in general... it's the repeated and systemic perversion and added complexity of trying to turn the web into the end-all and be-all of the internet. When it was created, the uses for it were not as complicated as they are now.
It's the complexity of the web that is its vulnerability -- I honestly don't think there's a way to write a truly-secure web browser because everything from the protocols up have been shoehorned into things they were never designed to do. The entire thing needs to be jettisoned -- html, css, xml, http, ssl, everything. We need to start over from scratch, and build a new set of protocols and specifications, not just continually band-aid over existing ones. And this time, security needs to be a design consideration from the start, not evolved in.
Anyone with an understanding of information systems' security will tell you -- security needs to be built in from the start or it doesn't matter how much effort you put in later, you're going to be chasing down problems forever. Start with a secure and vetted design and it's a lot more likely to perform. Of course, real security would mean that governments, corporations, and other interested parties wouldn't be able to snoop on what you're doing -- anything sent in the clear can be screwed with. Oh... and it wouldn't be as convenient as it is today; You'd have to think about what you were doing, instead of blithering about and when you get "hacked" blaming everyone but yourself.
Real security would mean no more excuses... from anyone. That's why you won't exactly be seeing a parade down main street anytime soon congratulating people on making computers more secure; Responsibility? Not on MY internet!
See what I did there. I used a comedian's skit where he puts a camera in someone's face and airs the best reactions to make a point. Interesting that, wouldn't you say? Might even relate to the point you're trying to make.
Yes, I see what you did there. You missed the point. Wooshed it, you could even say. All this furvor over Apple's next product (whatever it is) is marketing. Perception equals reality for most people. They think the phone is faster because they're told it's faster, not because it is. It's like the difference between Coke and Pepsi. People insist they can tell the difference in taste, but when you take "Brown fizzy substance A" and "brown fizzy substance B" in a double-blind test, not many can.
My point was that people who buy Apple products buy them because of brand identity, not the fact that it's "as fast as the cray-2 supercomputer" or any one of a hundred other statements. But they don't believe it's because of marketing -- they believe it's because it's better, faster, whatever. They have internalized an external message to the point where they can no longer distinguish it from their own perceptions and feelings. And it's not just Apple products', it's the result of marketing in general. Nobody believes it affects them, but it does. It really, really does.
And it doesn't take a comedian to make that point... but it helps.
I just laugh. Remember that new screw hoax? They said "they just make it too easy."
Jimmy Kimmel recently went out on the street with an iPhone 4S and passed it off as the new iPhone 5 and asked people what they thought of it. Not one of them realized it was the old iPhone 4S. If that doesn't say something about the mindset of Apple's userbase, I don't know what does.
'If OpenStack isn't an alternative to VMware, then what the hell is it?' Renski says."
A: A tool.
IT professionals, well, experienced ones anyway, don't care what the name is on the tin, as long as it does what it says on the tin. If it does its job well, it will succeed. If it does not, well... there are alternatives.
If I'm understanding this correctly, what they're saying is that the average american does as well at reasoning problems as the average chinese person. Well, that's sorta obvious: Racial, cultural, and geographical differences in populations haven't shown to influence intelligence. But the conclusions they reach are total crap -- I could change the wording and say that "Why Nigeria's school 'lag' has never mattered," and make similar comparisons and reach similar conclusions, but few people are going to say that Nigeria's educational system couldn't use a big upgrade.
I can replot this data and reach a far less politically correct conclusion: The "lag" is based on economic averages, not most common realities. We have a massive wealth inequity problem in this country, but you'd never know it by simply averaging all the numbers together. Cut off the top and bottom 10% (the edge cases), and suddenly your data looks a helluva lot different. The helluva lot different conclusion is... we suck.
Yes, if only we could prove there is an infinite number of oprimes rather than just believing, presumably from some famous named conjecture. I'm sure any such proof would require extremely deep and difficult mathematics and not be something that is used in textbooks as a first example of mathematical proof as copied straight out of Euclid.
I'm sensing a high level of sarcasm here. I can prove that the angles of the three sides of a triangle add up to 180 degrees. I cannot prove that parallel lines never cross. That's the difference between something proven, and something posited. A conjecture is one step below even that: It's something that all the data points to being true, but it can't be derived directly from mathematical laws. In other words, it's a really good guess.
You forgot something: Bitcoin supply decreases exponentially over time.
They're based on prime numbers, which become increasingly rare as the numbers increase. While it's believed the number of prime numbers themselves are infinite (it's not easy proving anything in mathematics with the word 'infinite' in it), the amount of processing power required to find them with existing algorithms is not; There is a practical upper limit to the number of prime numbers the human race can ever find. This is a problem unique to bitcoin as a currency -- every other kind of currency can be mass-produced, or is tied to a natural material of limited abundance (ie, gold).
What this means, practically speaking, is if the currency were ever widely-adopted, due to limited supply, the price will become so high that most people won't be able to afford them in any quantity, if at all. It also means that microtransactions aren't possible: You can "break" a $20 bill. You can't break a bitcoin. So as it becomes more popular, fewer and fewer items can be purchased -- it becomes a currency for only high-value transactions, and only affordable by the rich. And that presupposes that vendors are going to want to participate in the system when they have to round their goods and services to the nearest thousand dollars.
.. why was this modded down? This is exactly right.
Asked and answered, your honor. My posts have seen a lot of 'retroactive modding' from angry group-think moderators lately because I've been posting my own analysis of current events, not the populist view. Remember that the moderation system on slashdot essentially comes down to "+1 agree" and "-1 disagree". The words are just there as flavor text.
First, thanks. I wasn't going to respond to the OP because he arrogantly went about labelling me a "non techy" for sporting an opinion different than his own. Second, my original post in this thread has been floating in the +0 category for most of the time it was front page... I'm not sure "party line moderation" is as prevalent as you suspect.
I think Windows 8 is shaping up to be like Vista: An attempt to coerce consumers into buying into a walled garden. PC hardware and software manufacturers have been looking jealously at Apple's profit margin and smacking their lips, wondering how to lock in their own slice of the pie. Vista had a bunch of DRM and other features that were friendly to manufacturers but bad for consumers. I am not convinced Microsoft is even trying to make Windows 8 successful -- I think they know it's going to fail, but they're using it to set the stage for its successor, which will do away with many, but not all, of the bad features of Windows 8.
It's a marketing ploy commonly used elsewhere, but not on such a broad scale. It's like this:
Would you buy this memory card for $100?
Hell no!
Well, how about $30?
Oh, well, that sounds more reasonable.
...It only cost $5 to produce and distribute. It's a negotiating tactic -- you shock them first, then back off to appear more reasonable, but still wind up bilking them for more than they'd pay straight across. It's psychology. I think Windows 8 and it's peripheral products -- like this one, are about psychology. It's conditioning the consumer to accept vendor lock-in. Windows 8 is being thrown under a bus so Windows 9 can be shoved down your throat.
Yes, I'm one of those people that believe in doing everything by the book and within the law first, and only expanding outside those restrictions when all other avenues of recourse have failed. It's called being socially responsible, a concept you are apparently unfamiliar with.
The model of the web as an OS has been passed around since the turn of the century. The dot com bubble tried it. Oracle has tried it, repeatedly. Microsoft tried it. Every attempt so far has failed, and it was by people with far more resources than the Firefox team. I could type out a long list of reasons why this is, but what's the point? History tells us that no matter how promising it looks, and how pretty it is, it's destined for the scrap heap.
No, it's because we have some of the very best technology and great minds to advise companies all over the world.
I couldn't find a single piece of electronics gear in my house with the words "Made in the USA" stamped on the bottom. And as far as the "great minds to advise[sic] companies", since our educational standards are falling like a rock, and China has more honor students than we have students, let me go out on a limb and suggest that the advice they're offering is business, not engineering. Deny it all you want, but the reality is right there for anyone to see. I'm not an "alarmist" -- I can hop a plane and fly to Japan where they have state of the art cell phones that make ours look like antiques. The iPhone 5 launch there will be met with a yawn, just like every other release. I can hop another plane to Britain and walk into the dingiest apartment in the suburbs and buy internet access 10x faster than what they have here, and in some markets at a lower place. I can hop another plane to pretty much any other country on the planet and get medication at a fraction of the price it's sold for here.
In virtually every market, in every scientific and engineering discipline, I do not need to look very hard to find people not just competing with America, but beating the snot out of it. The only thing we're good at is business -- we're litigators, we're service providers, we're the world's police force. But do not fucking sit there and tell me that we are innovators. Innovation died a long time ago in this country, and that's a fact you need to square with, instead of living off the fumes of the burned out husk of the American Dream.
Slashdot Mirror
That's pocket change compared to how much the company can lose over a screw up like this.
Emphasis mine. Look, every major antivirus producer has made a similar mistake to this. Sometimes, it takes the whole operating system down with it (Symantec anyone?). Whether you agree or disagree, it's clear there are business incentives for a fast workflow process -- and as the old saying goes "Do it fast, do it right, do it cheap -- pick any two." It's obvious which ones the antivirus industry as a whole has chosen. Rather than argue over whether or not they're right, I'm pointing out why they're making those choices. Businesses aren't willing to pay a premium to avoid mistakes like this. The cost of the occasional screwup like this is less than the cost required to do all the testing and lab work that many here on slashdot seem to support.
It's a business decision they've made, right or wrong.
He's confusing Facebook The Application with Facebook the communication / social network.
To quote TFA, "If people can collaborate on tagging a photo, he added, they could easily do the same with a product or business problem." He is making the "When all you have is a hammer" error in thinking. There's already software out there that does this -- many companies have 'sharepoints'. And every company I've worked for has had its executive board listen to guys like this, talking about how social networking is "the future", and they rush forward to impliment all these things.
And so every department has a sharepoint... and they're all good-looking but totally desolate web pages. And why is that? Because people don't work the same way they play. It's an incredibly obvious statement, but apparently one that needs to be repeated periodically. People share things on Facebook because there aren't many disincentives. In a business environment, you're looking over your shoulder constantly to make sure that your coworkers, your manager, other departments, your bosses' boss, etc., all don't find something to get upset with you about. Most people do what they're told and little more for this reason. Nobody is going to want to 'collaborate' on someone else's problem. It's a recipe for political disaster in the workplace.
Bottom line: Social networking in business hasn't been successful because of politics. That's not going to change anytime soon. Businesses are already looking at ways of limiting the amount of communication and how easily it can be copied and replicated as it is, due to legal liability. They're in no hurry to bring in another technology that's going to encourage their workers to say things that could cost them down the line.
This is a classic case of not thoroughly testing code and making sure you have enough variations of test machines to ensure as little pain to clients as possible.
Antivirus engines and definitions change daily, weekly at the most. Where do you suppose this "thorough testing" of code is supposed to happen? It costs time and money, and while you're busy doing that testing, the support lines are being flooded with "We've been infected by something your software doesn't protect against! What are we paying you for, anyway?" As a bonus, your competitors, who didn't decide to setup a massive lab with dozens of employees in it, testing all the typical configurations of a half dozen operating systems and the couple hundred most popular software packages of each... they already released a patch.
Now, a software patch that causes the application to stomp on its own dick is amusing (and difficult to forgive), but demanding a massive expenditure of time and money is almost as unforgiveable. It's easy to demand best practices and ample safety margins: It's quite another thing to deliver it in a business environment. Most people in the industry, including the people at Sophos I'm sure, do the best they can with what they're given. It's pretty much the work creed of anyone in this industry -- few have the time and resources to do it right, they have to settle for 'good enough'.
And sometimes, good enough breaks.
As a matter of interest, the right to enter the private property of the museum is granted pursuant to a license -- a contract
Yes, and if you violate the "contract", they can ask you to leave. And if you stay, then they can charge you with trespass. This is no different than walking into a grocery store and scanning the items on the shelves for prices or taking pictures there either -- they don't want you to do it. Some places even have signs prohibiting "electronic devices" or photographs. But all they can do is ask you to leave, and forbid you from returning.
Nothing says "I have a big penis!" like a Ragnarok.
Nothing says "I have a bigger dick" than a 16 client multiboxing setup. -_- Eve is one of the most multiboxing-friendly MMOs there is; woe to the player who runs a single client full screen.
Wish I had mod points for you. I know quite a few farmers personally (including an uncle) and you are exactly right.
I grew up in the country. I would hope I learned a bit more than what manure smells like in the spring during that time. :) I moved to the big city though when I turned 18. The country is a fine place to take a stroll, but there's not much to do there. And it is perpetually about 20 years behind where anything going on in the city is. Gas pumps are still manual, people still write checks for groceries, and teenage drivers go down the middle of the road... not because they're new to driving, but because that is, in fact, the proper location for your vehicle to be. Well, if your vehicle is a John Deere that is... which is probably what you drove before you got handed the keys to the family car. Yes, most people in the country know what a computer is... they simply don't have much use for one. That alone will probably scare thousands of geeks that read this comment... but it's true. It is not the same world you live in, guys.
Anyway, what's the cost of these things?
Like most farm equipment, not cheap, especially new. Think loan. Big. Loan. I know you're looking for a more exact number, but there isn't one. They're usually custom built systems; sold one at a time. The larger the capacity, the lower the individual component cost.
Cost of maintenance per year? Do they have ongoing problems?
Like any customized solution, the answer is "it depends". It depends on how big the herd is, how many stations it has, etc. And as far as ongoing problems... well, it's automated. It makes the job easier, but you still have to watch it. You can't just set one up and walk away. These are live animals. Sometimes they do things that aren't predictable.
Also, any different between the major makers? Delaval, Lely, GEA?
Same as the difference between a Dell and a Compaq. Some of the parts are interchangeable, some aren't. Some pride themselves on service, some on cost. Some cater to very large farms, others to medium sized. Some have blue hoses, and others clear. Farm equipment is purpose built... tell me about the purpose, and I can tell you what equipment would be best. Like, for example, you'll notice I didn't say automatic milking machines cater to small farms. That would be because the equipment costs more than the savings in labor. A lot more.
Farmers don't need iPads. They need to have the government stop screwing up the markets and inadvertently creating monopolies like Monsanto. They created genetically altered seeds that, when they blow into neighboring fields, they sue those farmers, forcing them into bankrupcy, and thus getting a cheap new addition to their mega farm.
The other problems caused by government is they're endangering the food supply -- look it up online, we're about one drought away from a food shortage right now, the corn supply is down to about 6 months now, the lowest its been since the 50s. Part of it is because 40% of our corn gets turned into ethanol (a non-viable alternative to gas, used presently as an additive, at a premium), instead of food. Part of it is because the mega farms don't do proper crop rotation, but instead follow the market -- leading to diminishing yields and land overuse. And part of it is, ironically -- subsidies. The government steps in and says that there are certain price floors and ceilings for farming... and since eventually every farmer has a bad harvest, and they can't pay their mortage or whatever, they go bankrupt. It's inevitable; Just a matter of time. And then their land is bought up by the next door mega farm.
The consolidation of the agricultural industry is going to screw us; and iPads are not going to help. Not in the slightest. What's even more funny... not many younger people want to work on a farm. A lot of family farms are closing up because the kids moved away. Not much money in it... So you're asking people in their 50s and 60s "Hey, wanna use an iPad to do something you've been doing for the past, uhh... forever?" No. They don't. They're worried about making the next mortgage payment and repairing the roof of the barn. an iPad is not high on the list, and it offers no real benefit in productivity or return on investment. It's a convenience, nothing more.
Throw a camera in someone's face (which makes them nervous and puts them off-kilter) and tell them you're showing them the new iPhone (or anything else you want) and you're likely to get enough people who believe you to provide amusing comments allowing you to make a humorous highlight reel.
Well, with a large enough sample size, anything that would normally be improbable becomes probable. That's statistics, not human nature.
You even backed it up with your "If that doesn't say something about the mindset of Apple's userbase, I don't know what does."
Apple users are somehow more vulnerable to marketing than non-apple users. At least one company thinks so. There's any number of articles out there detailing the "cult of personality" surrounding the late Steve Jobs, and I don't know why I have to lay it out for you that Apple became big because of marketing. In technical specifications, Apple products are usually inferior to other offerings in the market, and they cost more. You can argue it in circles all you want -- but there really is something different in the mindset of people who exhibit brand loyalty to Apple.
I thought that it was a cup of tea, not a donut, that led to FTL travel...
It wasn't tea. It was rather something sortof but not entirely unlike, tea.
I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you.
Almost every major browser in use has had a vulnerability. Those that haven't are vulnerable because of commonly-used plugins. It's not just IE9, it's browsers in general... it's the repeated and systemic perversion and added complexity of trying to turn the web into the end-all and be-all of the internet. When it was created, the uses for it were not as complicated as they are now.
It's the complexity of the web that is its vulnerability -- I honestly don't think there's a way to write a truly-secure web browser because everything from the protocols up have been shoehorned into things they were never designed to do. The entire thing needs to be jettisoned -- html, css, xml, http, ssl, everything. We need to start over from scratch, and build a new set of protocols and specifications, not just continually band-aid over existing ones. And this time, security needs to be a design consideration from the start, not evolved in.
Anyone with an understanding of information systems' security will tell you -- security needs to be built in from the start or it doesn't matter how much effort you put in later, you're going to be chasing down problems forever. Start with a secure and vetted design and it's a lot more likely to perform. Of course, real security would mean that governments, corporations, and other interested parties wouldn't be able to snoop on what you're doing -- anything sent in the clear can be screwed with. Oh... and it wouldn't be as convenient as it is today; You'd have to think about what you were doing, instead of blithering about and when you get "hacked" blaming everyone but yourself.
Real security would mean no more excuses... from anyone. That's why you won't exactly be seeing a parade down main street anytime soon congratulating people on making computers more secure; Responsibility? Not on MY internet!
See what I did there. I used a comedian's skit where he puts a camera in someone's face and airs the best reactions to make a point. Interesting that, wouldn't you say? Might even relate to the point you're trying to make.
Yes, I see what you did there. You missed the point. Wooshed it, you could even say. All this furvor over Apple's next product (whatever it is) is marketing. Perception equals reality for most people. They think the phone is faster because they're told it's faster, not because it is. It's like the difference between Coke and Pepsi. People insist they can tell the difference in taste, but when you take "Brown fizzy substance A" and "brown fizzy substance B" in a double-blind test, not many can.
My point was that people who buy Apple products buy them because of brand identity, not the fact that it's "as fast as the cray-2 supercomputer" or any one of a hundred other statements. But they don't believe it's because of marketing -- they believe it's because it's better, faster, whatever. They have internalized an external message to the point where they can no longer distinguish it from their own perceptions and feelings. And it's not just Apple products', it's the result of marketing in general. Nobody believes it affects them, but it does. It really, really does.
And it doesn't take a comedian to make that point... but it helps.
I just laugh. Remember that new screw hoax? They said "they just make it too easy."
Jimmy Kimmel recently went out on the street with an iPhone 4S and passed it off as the new iPhone 5 and asked people what they thought of it. Not one of them realized it was the old iPhone 4S. If that doesn't say something about the mindset of Apple's userbase, I don't know what does.
'If OpenStack isn't an alternative to VMware, then what the hell is it?' Renski says."
A: A tool.
IT professionals, well, experienced ones anyway, don't care what the name is on the tin, as long as it does what it says on the tin. If it does its job well, it will succeed. If it does not, well... there are alternatives.
If I'm understanding this correctly, what they're saying is that the average american does as well at reasoning problems as the average chinese person. Well, that's sorta obvious: Racial, cultural, and geographical differences in populations haven't shown to influence intelligence. But the conclusions they reach are total crap -- I could change the wording and say that "Why Nigeria's school 'lag' has never mattered," and make similar comparisons and reach similar conclusions, but few people are going to say that Nigeria's educational system couldn't use a big upgrade.
I can replot this data and reach a far less politically correct conclusion: The "lag" is based on economic averages, not most common realities. We have a massive wealth inequity problem in this country, but you'd never know it by simply averaging all the numbers together. Cut off the top and bottom 10% (the edge cases), and suddenly your data looks a helluva lot different. The helluva lot different conclusion is... we suck.
Yes, if only we could prove there is an infinite number of oprimes rather than just believing, presumably from some famous named conjecture. I'm sure any such proof would require extremely deep and difficult mathematics and not be something that is used in textbooks as a first example of mathematical proof as copied straight out of Euclid.
I'm sensing a high level of sarcasm here. I can prove that the angles of the three sides of a triangle add up to 180 degrees. I cannot prove that parallel lines never cross. That's the difference between something proven, and something posited. A conjecture is one step below even that: It's something that all the data points to being true, but it can't be derived directly from mathematical laws. In other words, it's a really good guess.
You forgot something: Bitcoin supply decreases exponentially over time.
They're based on prime numbers, which become increasingly rare as the numbers increase. While it's believed the number of prime numbers themselves are infinite (it's not easy proving anything in mathematics with the word 'infinite' in it), the amount of processing power required to find them with existing algorithms is not; There is a practical upper limit to the number of prime numbers the human race can ever find. This is a problem unique to bitcoin as a currency -- every other kind of currency can be mass-produced, or is tied to a natural material of limited abundance (ie, gold).
What this means, practically speaking, is if the currency were ever widely-adopted, due to limited supply, the price will become so high that most people won't be able to afford them in any quantity, if at all. It also means that microtransactions aren't possible: You can "break" a $20 bill. You can't break a bitcoin. So as it becomes more popular, fewer and fewer items can be purchased -- it becomes a currency for only high-value transactions, and only affordable by the rich. And that presupposes that vendors are going to want to participate in the system when they have to round their goods and services to the nearest thousand dollars.
.. why was this modded down? This is exactly right.
Asked and answered, your honor. My posts have seen a lot of 'retroactive modding' from angry group-think moderators lately because I've been posting my own analysis of current events, not the populist view. Remember that the moderation system on slashdot essentially comes down to "+1 agree" and "-1 disagree". The words are just there as flavor text.
First, thanks. I wasn't going to respond to the OP because he arrogantly went about labelling me a "non techy" for sporting an opinion different than his own. Second, my original post in this thread has been floating in the +0 category for most of the time it was front page... I'm not sure "party line moderation" is as prevalent as you suspect.
Which of these manufacturer-friendly features of Windows Vista were eliminated from Windows 7?
You mean these?
I think Windows 8 is shaping up to be like Vista: An attempt to coerce consumers into buying into a walled garden. PC hardware and software manufacturers have been looking jealously at Apple's profit margin and smacking their lips, wondering how to lock in their own slice of the pie. Vista had a bunch of DRM and other features that were friendly to manufacturers but bad for consumers. I am not convinced Microsoft is even trying to make Windows 8 successful -- I think they know it's going to fail, but they're using it to set the stage for its successor, which will do away with many, but not all, of the bad features of Windows 8.
It's a marketing ploy commonly used elsewhere, but not on such a broad scale. It's like this:
Would you buy this memory card for $100?
Hell no!
Well, how about $30?
Oh, well, that sounds more reasonable.
...It only cost $5 to produce and distribute. It's a negotiating tactic -- you shock them first, then back off to appear more reasonable, but still wind up bilking them for more than they'd pay straight across. It's psychology. I think Windows 8 and it's peripheral products -- like this one, are about psychology. It's conditioning the consumer to accept vendor lock-in. Windows 8 is being thrown under a bus so Windows 9 can be shoved down your throat.
Ah, you are one of "those" people
Yes, I'm one of those people that believe in doing everything by the book and within the law first, and only expanding outside those restrictions when all other avenues of recourse have failed. It's called being socially responsible, a concept you are apparently unfamiliar with.
You might want to read my post again. I was playing along with a joke that you yourself had started, so, basically, you just whooshed yourself.
No, I just played along with your joke of my joke, which apparently resulted in a black hole.
The model of the web as an OS has been passed around since the turn of the century. The dot com bubble tried it. Oracle has tried it, repeatedly. Microsoft tried it. Every attempt so far has failed, and it was by people with far more resources than the Firefox team. I could type out a long list of reasons why this is, but what's the point? History tells us that no matter how promising it looks, and how pretty it is, it's destined for the scrap heap.
No, it's because we have some of the very best technology and great minds to advise companies all over the world.
I couldn't find a single piece of electronics gear in my house with the words "Made in the USA" stamped on the bottom. And as far as the "great minds to advise[sic] companies", since our educational standards are falling like a rock, and China has more honor students than we have students, let me go out on a limb and suggest that the advice they're offering is business, not engineering. Deny it all you want, but the reality is right there for anyone to see. I'm not an "alarmist" -- I can hop a plane and fly to Japan where they have state of the art cell phones that make ours look like antiques. The iPhone 5 launch there will be met with a yawn, just like every other release. I can hop another plane to Britain and walk into the dingiest apartment in the suburbs and buy internet access 10x faster than what they have here, and in some markets at a lower place. I can hop another plane to pretty much any other country on the planet and get medication at a fraction of the price it's sold for here.
In virtually every market, in every scientific and engineering discipline, I do not need to look very hard to find people not just competing with America, but beating the snot out of it. The only thing we're good at is business -- we're litigators, we're service providers, we're the world's police force. But do not fucking sit there and tell me that we are innovators. Innovation died a long time ago in this country, and that's a fact you need to square with, instead of living off the fumes of the burned out husk of the American Dream.