That's not the point he's trying to make. He's pointing out that even if the products are better, not catering to a demographic that wants lower prices, and is probably willing to accept lower quality, means you allow competitors to gain a foothold.
I'm still waiting for the IPod bubble to burst. Been waiting quite a while now...
People were muttering about video game addiction in the late 70's too and there's been a ton of research on it since then.
I can't seem to find much actual "research" on it though. Sure, there's a lot of newspaper reports about fat kids playing MMORPGs to the point of having no real life, and lots of articles with anecdotes and hearsay.
What we need is actual quantitative results in terms of changes in the brain, body chemistry, behaviour, routine, sleep patterns, social activities etc.
In TFA it mentions examples that have (or probably have) been used in the past to demonise computer games - the Chinese kid who killed for game money and that special American family who's son murdered his parents for taking Halo 3 away from him. The article (thankfully) mentions the probable underlying mental illnesses that contribute to these sorts of crimes, whereas the Jack Thompsons of the world see games as the cause of crime, rather than as a changeable variable that could have been television, film, a newspaper, food, a car, a curfew, and so on.
I'm extremely pleased to see increasing research in games and their effect on our minds. It would be naive to suggets that they don't have any affect on us at all, and I for one am interested in seeing some (hopefully) independent research with meaningful results.
It costs a lot more than you'd think. Somewhere between $70,000 per mile in suburbia, up to $250,000 a mile in a city cente (Source)
Other sites quote different prices, but they're always in the region of 10's of thousands of dollars per mile for rural areas, up to hundreds of thousands of dollars for cities.
So it's not economically desirable to run more cable I'm afraid.
Oh and here is a benchmark test performed by Lifehacker showing Vista as being faster to reach the desktop from a boot menu than XP, and it being faster from boot to the login prompt. Not conclusive by any means, but perhaps we can trade meaningless examples for a few hours? Your turn, find a site slating Vista for it's boot times, and I'll come back with one praising Vista.
Yes, most people boot once or twice a day and don't constantly reboot.
Almost tripling the time it takes for my machine to boot up makes a big difference in use. 10-12 seconds boot time is so close to the time it takes to turn on the TV
XP never booted to a usable state after 10 seconds for me, nor for anyone I've ever known, nor for any of the dozens of computers I've used at my place of work. Nice that yours does though. And how is 10-12 seconds so much more like a TV than 30 seconds? My TV comes on in about a second. XP is ten times slower at best if we believe the random figure quoted here.
that my computer becomes like an appliance. I turn it on, open a document, print it, and turn it off. It feels just like turning on the TV, setting the DVR to record something, and turning it off.
Suspend is your friend. If you want rapid on/off* transitions then don't switch it completely off. Hibernate, or use the low power suspend mode.
*Yes I'm aware that "suspend" is not "off". Close enough for me.
Do you really think a consumer in this day and age would settle for their TV taking almost half a minute to "boot up" in order for them to set their DVR to record a show before they leave for work?
Very good point, if it weren't for the fact that A TV and a computer are completely different, and comparing startup times for them is like comparing an aeroplane with a car.
Seconds matter to most people, and if my computer behaves like an appliance rather than a slow booting PC, I can change my habits of use to use less power, so the boot time definitely makes a difference.
Yes it makes a difference, but not to the degree that the hyperbole regarding boot times would indicate. If the most severe criticism of Vista turns out to be boot times then I think the whole Vista/XP debate has been blown out of all proportion.
This is an extremely interesting development. One potential explanation is a DDoS attack from infected machines. Another option is simple coincidence and a technical problem with their hosting server.
It has bugs, of course. My implication was that it doesn't have noticeably more than any other operating system I've ever used (including Linux) and that none of the bugs I've found have been very significant. If I close Left4Dead and I get a video display error messsage that wouldn't appear on XP, I can live with it.
Bugs != serious problems in every instance. A small bug can often be ignored, bypassed or simply fixed with a little intelligence and computing experience. But yes, you're right, I shoudl have qualified "problems" with the adjective "serious".
Here, you've earned yourself a cookie for spotting my mistake. Enjoy.
Except they really do not. The *next* generation is *supposed* to do behaviour monitoring instead of definition files, but the current generation does not.
No "behaviour monitoring" is necesary if the scanner recognises the code being exectued is a virus. And most modern scanners do have behaviour monitoring in the form of intelligent heuristics that can (sometimes) detect threats that aren't defined in a virus definition file.
Also, conficker disables most AV Scanners, making the point moot.
Only if it's allowed to execute, which it shouldn't be if a good real-time scanner with an up-to-date DAT file is present on the system.
I always have to laugh when people discuss the "poor" boot time Vista has comapred to XP. Let's say it takes 20 seconds more to boot, and assume (incorrectly in my experience) that XP is fully ready to go after its 10-12 second boot time. You lose 20 seconds a day. Wow.
I've seen people argue about this by adding it up over a whole year and stating that "I lose this much time a year". Big whoop. Do something useful during those 20 seconds rather than staring at the screen.
True, but it's a lot less worrying than being able to remotely disable saftey systems, or remotely shut-down a reactor. People are stupid, but you'd hope there are checks in place to verify instructions sent via an e-mail are real.
It's not the computing world's fault MS dropped the ball on Vista but, as usual, they're making it your problem.
People are always bashing Vista at every opportunity, but it's never caused me any problems, never crashed, has support for all the devices I wish to use and pretty much checks all the boxes I want from an operating system. I'm speaking as a software developer, before I get mercilessly flamed as being some kind of computing retard.
Now XP, before I upgraded, would crash semi-regularly and had at least as many bugs as Vista does. I think at least some of the people critcising Vista are sheeple expressing a popular opinion without much foundation. "What's that?" you cry, "People regurgitating supposed facts without verification on/.? Surely not..."
TFA also said "Intelligence officials worry about cyber attackers taking control of electrical facilities, a nuclear power plant or financial networks via the Internet."
You have to wonder at what point someone thought it would be a good idea to directly connect hardware responsible for the safe operation of a nuclear power plant to the Internet. Or do they mean "taking control" in terms of something slightly less sinister, like vandalising the plant's public web page and internal e-mail system?
Too late, the patent's been granted. Or can a patent be revoked? I didn't think they could.
Whatever tiny tweak they've made (looks like it being "transparent to the user" from posts above) seems to have been enough to get the patent approved and now results in yet another patent troll scenario.
Well yeah, but it's still a very general concept that's been patented. I have nothing against patents; I just object to this kind. Personally I feel it's an abuse of the patent system, just like these moronic patent troll companies that do nothing except file patents (no development or practical invention) and expect free money when their idea becomes practical or mainstream.
While doing a bit of looking around for another post in this thread I found what's basically an idiot's guide to detecting conficker. It uses pictures to show you if you have it.
This tickled my funny bone for some reason; you have to love the lets-use-pictures approach!
Oh, sorry, I must have misunderstood when you wrote "you'd have thought that they'd have come up with a specific fix", and it was utterly stupid of me to link to a page with a specific fix.
Now I invite you to navigate to the page you linked to - where's the big red button marked 'Worried newbie? Click here to download/do online scan now'.
For those unable to read, comprehend and follow instructions there are two big blue buttons that say "Get help now". Sorry they're not red.
Links to that button should be all over the net.
They're not. Why?
Put "remove conficker" into Google and you're about three clicks away from a number of downloadable removal tools. Sorry, but anyone that can't be bothered to read a little and wants a bloody great red button to do everything for them probably shouldn't be using a computer at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Imaging that. Charging more for a better product!
That's not the point he's trying to make. He's pointing out that even if the products are better, not catering to a demographic that wants lower prices, and is probably willing to accept lower quality, means you allow competitors to gain a foothold.
I'm still waiting for the IPod bubble to burst. Been waiting quite a while now...
People were muttering about video game addiction in the late 70's too and there's been a ton of research on it since then.
I can't seem to find much actual "research" on it though. Sure, there's a lot of newspaper reports about fat kids playing MMORPGs to the point of having no real life, and lots of articles with anecdotes and hearsay.
What we need is actual quantitative results in terms of changes in the brain, body chemistry, behaviour, routine, sleep patterns, social activities etc.
In TFA it mentions examples that have (or probably have) been used in the past to demonise computer games - the Chinese kid who killed for game money and that special American family who's son murdered his parents for taking Halo 3 away from him. The article (thankfully) mentions the probable underlying mental illnesses that contribute to these sorts of crimes, whereas the Jack Thompsons of the world see games as the cause of crime, rather than as a changeable variable that could have been television, film, a newspaper, food, a car, a curfew, and so on.
I'm extremely pleased to see increasing research in games and their effect on our minds. It would be naive to suggets that they don't have any affect on us at all, and I for one am interested in seeing some (hopefully) independent research with meaningful results.
Johnny Cabs!
We have much to learn from Total Recall.
It costs a lot more than you'd think. Somewhere between $70,000 per mile in suburbia, up to $250,000 a mile in a city cente (Source) Other sites quote different prices, but they're always in the region of 10's of thousands of dollars per mile for rural areas, up to hundreds of thousands of dollars for cities. So it's not economically desirable to run more cable I'm afraid.
It's good that this provides you with entertainment, it must get very boring over there when you can't play any games ;)
Even though I'm joking, let the "Troll" modding begin.
Hmmm, could be the case. I posted a link to it in another article a couple of days ago. Could I have brought down the Conficker Working Group page?
Oh my god, am I behind Conficker?
Oh and here is a benchmark test performed by Lifehacker showing Vista as being faster to reach the desktop from a boot menu than XP, and it being faster from boot to the login prompt. Not conclusive by any means, but perhaps we can trade meaningless examples for a few hours? Your turn, find a site slating Vista for it's boot times, and I'll come back with one praising Vista.
It'll be fun...
"Do something else"?
Yes, most people boot once or twice a day and don't constantly reboot.
Almost tripling the time it takes for my machine to boot up makes a big difference in use. 10-12 seconds boot time is so close to the time it takes to turn on the TV
XP never booted to a usable state after 10 seconds for me, nor for anyone I've ever known, nor for any of the dozens of computers I've used at my place of work. Nice that yours does though. And how is 10-12 seconds so much more like a TV than 30 seconds? My TV comes on in about a second. XP is ten times slower at best if we believe the random figure quoted here.
that my computer becomes like an appliance. I turn it on, open a document, print it, and turn it off. It feels just like turning on the TV, setting the DVR to record something, and turning it off.
Suspend is your friend. If you want rapid on/off* transitions then don't switch it completely off. Hibernate, or use the low power suspend mode. *Yes I'm aware that "suspend" is not "off". Close enough for me.
Do you really think a consumer in this day and age would settle for their TV taking almost half a minute to "boot up" in order for them to set their DVR to record a show before they leave for work?
Very good point, if it weren't for the fact that A TV and a computer are completely different, and comparing startup times for them is like comparing an aeroplane with a car.
Seconds matter to most people, and if my computer behaves like an appliance rather than a slow booting PC, I can change my habits of use to use less power, so the boot time definitely makes a difference.
Yes it makes a difference, but not to the degree that the hyperbole regarding boot times would indicate. If the most severe criticism of Vista turns out to be boot times then I think the whole Vista/XP debate has been blown out of all proportion.
This is an extremely interesting development. One potential explanation is a DDoS attack from infected machines. Another option is simple coincidence and a technical problem with their hosting server.
I suspect the former, but hope it's the latter.
It has bugs, of course. My implication was that it doesn't have noticeably more than any other operating system I've ever used (including Linux) and that none of the bugs I've found have been very significant. If I close Left4Dead and I get a video display error messsage that wouldn't appear on XP, I can live with it.
Bugs != serious problems in every instance. A small bug can often be ignored, bypassed or simply fixed with a little intelligence and computing experience. But yes, you're right, I shoudl have qualified "problems" with the adjective "serious".
Here, you've earned yourself a cookie for spotting my mistake. Enjoy.
Except they really do not. The *next* generation is *supposed* to do behaviour monitoring instead of definition files, but the current generation does not.
No "behaviour monitoring" is necesary if the scanner recognises the code being exectued is a virus. And most modern scanners do have behaviour monitoring in the form of intelligent heuristics that can (sometimes) detect threats that aren't defined in a virus definition file.
Also, conficker disables most AV Scanners, making the point moot.
Only if it's allowed to execute, which it shouldn't be if a good real-time scanner with an up-to-date DAT file is present on the system.
I always have to laugh when people discuss the "poor" boot time Vista has comapred to XP. Let's say it takes 20 seconds more to boot, and assume (incorrectly in my experience) that XP is fully ready to go after its 10-12 second boot time. You lose 20 seconds a day. Wow.
I've seen people argue about this by adding it up over a whole year and stating that "I lose this much time a year". Big whoop. Do something useful during those 20 seconds rather than staring at the screen.
The cat was sick. It was a MERCY KILLING!
Whoever modded this troll - I'm sorry, but you sir, are a moron.
True, but it's a lot less worrying than being able to remotely disable saftey systems, or remotely shut-down a reactor. People are stupid, but you'd hope there are checks in place to verify instructions sent via an e-mail are real.
It's not the computing world's fault MS dropped the ball on Vista but, as usual, they're making it your problem.
People are always bashing Vista at every opportunity, but it's never caused me any problems, never crashed, has support for all the devices I wish to use and pretty much checks all the boxes I want from an operating system. I'm speaking as a software developer, before I get mercilessly flamed as being some kind of computing retard.
/.? Surely not..."
Now XP, before I upgraded, would crash semi-regularly and had at least as many bugs as Vista does. I think at least some of the people critcising Vista are sheeple expressing a popular opinion without much foundation. "What's that?" you cry, "People regurgitating supposed facts without verification on
TFA also said "Intelligence officials worry about cyber attackers taking control of electrical facilities, a nuclear power plant or financial networks via the Internet."
You have to wonder at what point someone thought it would be a good idea to directly connect hardware responsible for the safe operation of a nuclear power plant to the Internet. Or do they mean "taking control" in terms of something slightly less sinister, like vandalising the plant's public web page and internal e-mail system?
See, the fact that the parent post is modded flamebait epitomises bad modding.
Shame on whoever considers this flaming. Get a dictionary.
Unless they're able to recognise the mailicous code in memory, as good virus scanners are.
Too late, the patent's been granted. Or can a patent be revoked? I didn't think they could.
Whatever tiny tweak they've made (looks like it being "transparent to the user" from posts above) seems to have been enough to get the patent approved and now results in yet another patent troll scenario.
Well yeah, but it's still a very general concept that's been patented. I have nothing against patents; I just object to this kind. Personally I feel it's an abuse of the patent system, just like these moronic patent troll companies that do nothing except file patents (no development or practical invention) and expect free money when their idea becomes practical or mainstream.
Yeah, I'm a grumpy old man...what of it...
Worse, it's a patent on a ridiculously general software concept.
I can't stand these kinds of patents, especially when they block progress and innovation.
Are any of the techniques you mentioned immune to a real-time virus scanner on a PC with up-to-date patches?
While doing a bit of looking around for another post in this thread I found what's basically an idiot's guide to detecting conficker. It uses pictures to show you if you have it.
This tickled my funny bone for some reason; you have to love the lets-use-pictures approach!
Thanks, I was actually aware of all that stuff.
Oh, sorry, I must have misunderstood when you wrote "you'd have thought that they'd have come up with a specific fix", and it was utterly stupid of me to link to a page with a specific fix.
Now I invite you to navigate to the page you linked to - where's the big red button marked 'Worried newbie? Click here to download/do online scan now'.
For those unable to read, comprehend and follow instructions there are two big blue buttons that say "Get help now". Sorry they're not red.
Links to that button should be all over the net. They're not. Why?
Put "remove conficker" into Google and you're about three clicks away from a number of downloadable removal tools. Sorry, but anyone that can't be bothered to read a little and wants a bloody great red button to do everything for them probably shouldn't be using a computer at all.