Apple's market share is 66% for all personal computers sold in stores for more than $1,000. In addition, Apple's market share as been increasing as sales of PCs as a whole have been dropping.
Are you serious? Those are sales figures (sold new at retail stores in first quarter 2008 for over $1000), not usage figures. You're not talking about what's being used in the market, just what was sold during the first quarter - OF 2008! - and even then you're only considering retail stores and $1000+ computers, where the average PC cost is $650. So not only are your sales figures irrelevant to a discussion about usage share, but they're cherrypicked to such a ridiculous level that they're not even relevant as overall sales figures. That's like saying a large percentage of the cars on the road are Cadillacs because, in June of 2010, they sold the most domestic cars that cost more than $40k. Most cars cost less than that new, many cars aren't bought from domestic dealerships, and most of the cars on the road aren't new or weren't bought new in that time period. Likewise, most computers don't cost that much, many of them aren't bought from retail stores, and there are more computers out there than what was bought new in the first quarter of 2008.
The GP's point was that Mac's desktop OS market share is less than 10%. And that's not only true, but it's generous - as of 5/2012, they've got about 6.5%. Like it was mentioned earlier, less than Vista.
There's a long, long way to go there, outside of casual browsing. The role of PEDs right now is more or less about remote access to or portable copies of data stored elsewhere. They're media and communication devices, but not workstations or storage devices. Sure, there may come in time in the future where they're much more capable of heavy processing and multitasking, but not in the immediate future, and certainly not already - which is what your post was claiming. These devices are nigh useless for much more than simple apps, browsing the internet, syncing email and entertaining yourself. Especially in enterprise, they're just tools for accessing or carrying around work you've done on an actual computer. Even laptops didn't kill desktops. There's a long way to go, and there's a lot more to it than just having more processing power and memory.
Now the war is in full swing between Google and Apple, which have trampled the laptop and desktop markets
Portable devices have more or less supplemented laptops and desktops, they really haven't made any big dent towards replacing them, let alone "trample" them. They've taken more away from the mobile phone market than desktop computing.
You know (U)EFI has been replacing BIOS slowly but increasingly for over a decade now, right? And that Linux was the first OS to support it? Anyone saying their solution is not to buy UEFI computers or motherboards probably already has one and doesn't know it.
I'd also say that there's probably a lot more people who install Linux on OEM computers than you seem to think.
Aside from limited options and general gaudiness, that does nothing to help you when you're taking the card out of the wallet at the checkout or an ATM. It's nice and all, but if you were able to opt-out of an unrequested "upgrade" to this feature like the GP's saying, you wouldn't have to waste money on cheap, ugly RFID-blocking wallets in the first place. That's a bandaid fix for a broken system that, in this case, wasn't even asked for.
Oh, there are plenty of ways to get into debt without having credit. Personal debts, student loans, bills, unpaid taxes, medical bills (even if you have insurance, deductibles for things like even minor outpatient surgery are often 4-digits), fines, etc., etc. The only debts you can avoid by not having credit are loans/mortgages and credit card debt.
But even ignoring all of that, going into debt your way is the result of using credit irresponsibly. You might have needed credit as a factor, but it wasn't the direct and inherent cause of going into debt any more than you smashing your own thumb with a hammer was caused by the fact that you owned one. It's misuse and carelessness.
It'd be interesting, but trivial. They're just the networks, not the lenders or servicers - they're going to have little to nothing to do with business practice complaints and banks' policies. Most of those banks deal in both. It'd be like looking at customer service complaints of PC manufacturers and wanting to know how it broke down between Intel and AMD processors.
I've never understood the reasoning with why closing a 0 balance credit card should lower a credit score.
...It's like saying paying off a mortgage should lower your credit score.
Because [that part of it] is about how much unused credit you've got, how low your debt:credit ratio is. They're looking at how you use revolving credit, not how fast you pay off a debt like a mortgage.
Simplifying is one thing, but miscrediting (or, in this case, mis-blaming) a person/organization is another. Saying FunnyJunk is suing The Oatmeal isn't the same thing as saying something that makes it clear Carreon is suing The Oatmeal personally. Maybe "Lawyer Sues The Oatmeal Over FunnyJunk Threat Reactions". You don't want to misstate who the story is about or who took what action.
Related but nonetheless separate issues. Conflict A was that FunnyJunk had Carreon inform The Oatmeal that they were threatening to sue. Conflict B is that Carreon is suing Inman because he believes The Oatmeal incited attacks against him personally (defamation, hacking) for his involvement in Conflict A.
To make the GP clearer, this development has nothing to do with FunnyJunk suing anyone.
GP's statement does apply more to plaintiffs than defandants, who are more likely to be awarded costs if they win. Really, that doesn't go overlooked or ignored.
Never keep sensitive data that you don't need, overwrite it, then delete.
Also, you should burn all the clothes you haven't worn in over a week (you obviously don't need that many clothes), not have a junk drawer, and while you're at it, delete any data on your system with an access time older than 3 months. Also, delete sarcasm.sys...
I think he's (badly) trying to say that you shouldn't repurpose media that was used for sensitivie info without sanitizing it.
... but if you think about it it actually make sense. The fact that the terms are inaccurate is immaterial. She could have told them [a realistic explanation]. Would they have understood any more?
... She's telling a colleague, who wouldn't understand anyway, a bunch of buzzwords and jargon to dissuade them from getting too involved in something which will only confuse them, and distract them from their own involvement in the situation.
If Finance ask you about backups, do you tell them about cron jobs and the difference between differential and full backups? No, you tell them it's daily and hosted off site...
Oversimplifying or glossing over things is perfectly fine, deliberate misinformation is reprehensible and only causes future problems. The level of detail you go into should vary for the target audience, but never the accuracy. Obviously, talking about a TV show - where everything from law and medicine to the operation of cars is usually completely flawed - is one thing, but I'd definitely never defend the idea of deliberately miseducating people IRL just because you don't think they'd understand. That's how people were taught the improper terms and processes they'll misuse in the future. For example, the layman could probably understand something like "I used a specialized software package to exploit a security hole that let me get into their system and then take it over."
So what you're implying is that if you would visit China and criticize the Chinese government, you ought to get extradited from another country to China "for questioning" if the Chinese authority want you? And you wouldn't consider this harrassment or try to fight against it?
Objectively, provided there's enough evidence to make somebody a suspect, yes, they should absolutely, positively be questioned during a legitimate criminal investigation. That's the whole point of whistleblowing, that position or power doesn't mean you shouldn't be held accountable for wrongdoing. Stop trying to make an emotional appeal against reason, your argument here is "you shouldn't face questioning for a crime if you think it's just because they're 'harassing' you". "But what if it was you?" isn't a point, it's a fallacy.
You do realize that what Assange could be accused for in Sweden does not count as rape or any other crime in all other countries of Europe, the US, and in fact in practically all countries of the world? That the reason he is being wanted for questioning is because he would very likely not be extradited to Sweden if he was wanted for the actual "crime", since sleeping without condome is not generally punishable by UK law?
Are you actually arguing that you shouldn't be held accountable for a crime committed in one country, if it isn't illegal in others? That's ridiculous. So is the idea that they're only extraditing him because it's for questioning and not yet prosecution, the fact that they're willing to obviously speaks volumes in disagreement. That doesn't make any sense, at all. They know what the case is about, there's zero reason to believe they'd extradite someone for investigation but not prosecution, it would be completely ass-backwards. If they thought the case was serious enough and strong enough to extradite him for questioning, then there's no doubting whatosever that they'd do it for an indictment.
There are numerous other oddities in this case. Did you know that Assange was...
Yes, yes, a thousand times, yes. People know this stuff. Some of your reasoning is kind of flawed, though.
While Interpol's involvement was questionable, your wikipedia cut-and-paste of what they "normally do" is not the limitation of what they can do. The operative part of that summary is that it started with "primarily works on", or in your copy, "normally works on". Do you really think "rape" investigations go international often enough to make that list? They assist in international criminal investigations. This is a criminal investigation into someone who's travelled to another country. It's uncommon and seems beneath them, but it isn't against any rules and it doesn't defy logic. The questionable part is that they're forbidden from getting involved in political crimes, but as much as the conspiracy theorists might argue that's why this criminal investigation exists, it's not directly and explicitly relevant - even if it is the motivation behind pusuing the crime, that doesn't mean the crime didn't occur.
And it certainly isn't any surprise that a prosecutor who didn't want to prosecute would be replaced with one who did.
As for the video conferencing, while it may be questionable that the prosecutor didn't want to compromise, it's much more questionable that a suspect would refuse to come back for questioning. It's also difficult, if not outright stupid, to question a suspect when they're outside of your jurisdiction, let alone in another country with different laws, rights and legal processes.
You really don't get how the legal process works at all, do you? You don't charge somebody until the investigation is over. People who are extradited fall into two camps - those who are suspects in an uncharged crime that's still under investigation and are wanted for questioning, and those who have already been charged because the prosecutors feel they already have enough evidence to win the case. Neither is abnormal. The only dichotomy between those two "points" is the false one you've created, based on your lack of education on basic legal procedure.
As for having already been questioned, no one is ignoring that. Because it isn't abnormal to bring a suspect back in for questioning during an ongoing investigation. Just like the fact that you think people are ignoring that he hasn't charged yet, this isn't something that anyone has missed, it's something you clearly don't seem to realize doesn't matter. You don't know anything that everybody else doesn't. Yes, he asked before he left, but there's zero expectation there that he would absolutely never have to speak to them again.
Though it is funny to see you complain about indicting or trying people in absentee, yet claim his extradition is an evil conspiracy because he hasn't been indicted in absentee. That's what "being charged" is, being indicted for a crime. These two (and more) specific terms can apply specifically to different levels/types of crimes, but they're the same step in the process. They're what you do when you've completed your investigation and want to take the suspect to trial. Not while the investigation is incomplete.
As for the rest of your drivel, baseless assumptions and logical fallacies, thanks for making it clear how irrational you are on this subject. "Police state apologist bullshit"? I "must be a fan of... assassination lists"? Dispute what people say, not your crazy assumptions about what ideologies you baselessly attribute to them.
Did I do so on Chinese soil? Is there evidence of that? It there an active investigation into it? Is it up to snuff with our extradition treaty with China? Because that would be the process. You don't charge somebody with a crime until you're done investigating it and are ready to put them on trial. It's pretty basic legal procedure, somebody is virtually always going to be wanted for questioning before charges are actually pressed against them. It's sad to see so many people trying be proactive about the law and freedom, yet fail to understand basic fundamental concepts like that. Being charged is not part of an investigation, it's the result of successful investigation.
Cue the authoritarian douchebags who are hoping that no one will notice that the guy hasn't even been charged yet.
Cue the conspiracy theorists who don't realize you don't have to be. You can be extradited for questioning, you don't often charge somebody before you've questioned them.
What kind of "security" would be circumvented by installing a different web brower?
The kind that uses security templates and group policy to control browser settings and preferences? You know, basic enterprise IT administration tools.
Especially when IE, especially 6, is by far the most-exploited/exploitable browser still in common usage
Policies that restrict the use of browsers to IE6 (or 7) are, if not anal, misguided at best and harmful at worst.
Even looking the entire way up this comment tree, no one mentions IE6. I'm not even talking about IE7 in particular, just the general concept that not letting your employees install whatever web browser they want isn't "anal", it's common sense and standard practice. But playing along, you'll find that there are settings and restrictions that address the vastly overwhelming amount of those vulnerabilities, which is why it's handy to use the aforementioned security controls to keep your users from being able to do the dumb things that cause problems, like run unsigned code, install software willy-nilly, etc. Most of those vulnerabilities get exploited because Joe Schmoe doesn't know or care how to address them, not because they're impossible to mitigate.
... Not wanting users to install their own software, at their own discretion, for their own personal use on a business's computer, likely circumventing security and network management/usage policies is "anal"?
Slashdot Mirror
Apple's market share is 66% for all personal computers sold in stores for more than $1,000. In addition, Apple's market share as been increasing as sales of PCs as a whole have been dropping.
Are you serious? Those are sales figures (sold new at retail stores in first quarter 2008 for over $1000), not usage figures. You're not talking about what's being used in the market, just what was sold during the first quarter - OF 2008! - and even then you're only considering retail stores and $1000+ computers, where the average PC cost is $650. So not only are your sales figures irrelevant to a discussion about usage share, but they're cherrypicked to such a ridiculous level that they're not even relevant as overall sales figures. That's like saying a large percentage of the cars on the road are Cadillacs because, in June of 2010, they sold the most domestic cars that cost more than $40k. Most cars cost less than that new, many cars aren't bought from domestic dealerships, and most of the cars on the road aren't new or weren't bought new in that time period. Likewise, most computers don't cost that much, many of them aren't bought from retail stores, and there are more computers out there than what was bought new in the first quarter of 2008.
The GP's point was that Mac's desktop OS market share is less than 10%. And that's not only true, but it's generous - as of 5/2012, they've got about 6.5%. Like it was mentioned earlier, less than Vista.
There's a long, long way to go there, outside of casual browsing. The role of PEDs right now is more or less about remote access to or portable copies of data stored elsewhere. They're media and communication devices, but not workstations or storage devices. Sure, there may come in time in the future where they're much more capable of heavy processing and multitasking, but not in the immediate future, and certainly not already - which is what your post was claiming. These devices are nigh useless for much more than simple apps, browsing the internet, syncing email and entertaining yourself. Especially in enterprise, they're just tools for accessing or carrying around work you've done on an actual computer. Even laptops didn't kill desktops. There's a long way to go, and there's a lot more to it than just having more processing power and memory.
Now the war is in full swing between Google and Apple, which have trampled the laptop and desktop markets
Portable devices have more or less supplemented laptops and desktops, they really haven't made any big dent towards replacing them, let alone "trample" them. They've taken more away from the mobile phone market than desktop computing.
You know (U)EFI has been replacing BIOS slowly but increasingly for over a decade now, right? And that Linux was the first OS to support it? Anyone saying their solution is not to buy UEFI computers or motherboards probably already has one and doesn't know it.
I'd also say that there's probably a lot more people who install Linux on OEM computers than you seem to think.
Aside from limited options and general gaudiness, that does nothing to help you when you're taking the card out of the wallet at the checkout or an ATM. It's nice and all, but if you were able to opt-out of an unrequested "upgrade" to this feature like the GP's saying, you wouldn't have to waste money on cheap, ugly RFID-blocking wallets in the first place. That's a bandaid fix for a broken system that, in this case, wasn't even asked for.
Survival of the phattest?
How much of that "baseline of actual data" is actually about reasoning skills? This isn't a test of knowledge or aptitude.
That'd never work - people and companies would have to focus on one.
Oh, there are plenty of ways to get into debt without having credit. Personal debts, student loans, bills, unpaid taxes, medical bills (even if you have insurance, deductibles for things like even minor outpatient surgery are often 4-digits), fines, etc., etc. The only debts you can avoid by not having credit are loans/mortgages and credit card debt.
But even ignoring all of that, going into debt your way is the result of using credit irresponsibly. You might have needed credit as a factor, but it wasn't the direct and inherent cause of going into debt any more than you smashing your own thumb with a hammer was caused by the fact that you owned one. It's misuse and carelessness.
It'd be interesting, but trivial. They're just the networks, not the lenders or servicers - they're going to have little to nothing to do with business practice complaints and banks' policies. Most of those banks deal in both. It'd be like looking at customer service complaints of PC manufacturers and wanting to know how it broke down between Intel and AMD processors.
False dichotomy. Credit isn't debt, it's the amount of debt they would trust you with. You don't have to be in debt to have credit.
I've never understood the reasoning with why closing a 0 balance credit card should lower a credit score.
...It's like saying paying off a mortgage should lower your credit score.
Because [that part of it] is about how much unused credit you've got, how low your debt:credit ratio is. They're looking at how you use revolving credit, not how fast you pay off a debt like a mortgage.
President Romney? Time-traveler, are you?
Yeah, he went back to 2004.
Simplifying is one thing, but miscrediting (or, in this case, mis-blaming) a person/organization is another. Saying FunnyJunk is suing The Oatmeal isn't the same thing as saying something that makes it clear Carreon is suing The Oatmeal personally. Maybe "Lawyer Sues The Oatmeal Over FunnyJunk Threat Reactions". You don't want to misstate who the story is about or who took what action.
Related but nonetheless separate issues. Conflict A was that FunnyJunk had Carreon inform The Oatmeal that they were threatening to sue. Conflict B is that Carreon is suing Inman because he believes The Oatmeal incited attacks against him personally (defamation, hacking) for his involvement in Conflict A.
To make the GP clearer, this development has nothing to do with FunnyJunk suing anyone.
GP's statement does apply more to plaintiffs than defandants, who are more likely to be awarded costs if they win. Really, that doesn't go overlooked or ignored.
Never keep sensitive data that you don't need, overwrite it, then delete.
Also, you should burn all the clothes you haven't worn in over a week (you obviously don't need that many clothes), not have a junk drawer, and while you're at it, delete any data on your system with an access time older than 3 months. Also, delete sarcasm.sys ...
I think he's (badly) trying to say that you shouldn't repurpose media that was used for sensitivie info without sanitizing it.
(A little old to be called "script kiddies", BTW.)
It has nothing to do with age, it's about the skill level required to do what they do.
... but if you think about it it actually make sense. The fact that the terms are inaccurate is immaterial. She could have told them [a realistic explanation]. Would they have understood any more?
... She's telling a colleague, who wouldn't understand anyway, a bunch of buzzwords and jargon to dissuade them from getting too involved in something which will only confuse them, and distract them from their own involvement in the situation.
If Finance ask you about backups, do you tell them about cron jobs and the difference between differential and full backups? No, you tell them it's daily and hosted off site...
Oversimplifying or glossing over things is perfectly fine, deliberate misinformation is reprehensible and only causes future problems. The level of detail you go into should vary for the target audience, but never the accuracy. Obviously, talking about a TV show - where everything from law and medicine to the operation of cars is usually completely flawed - is one thing, but I'd definitely never defend the idea of deliberately miseducating people IRL just because you don't think they'd understand. That's how people were taught the improper terms and processes they'll misuse in the future. For example, the layman could probably understand something like "I used a specialized software package to exploit a security hole that let me get into their system and then take it over."
So what you're implying is that if you would visit China and criticize the Chinese government, you ought to get extradited from another country to China "for questioning" if the Chinese authority want you? And you wouldn't consider this harrassment or try to fight against it?
Objectively, provided there's enough evidence to make somebody a suspect, yes, they should absolutely, positively be questioned during a legitimate criminal investigation. That's the whole point of whistleblowing, that position or power doesn't mean you shouldn't be held accountable for wrongdoing. Stop trying to make an emotional appeal against reason, your argument here is "you shouldn't face questioning for a crime if you think it's just because they're 'harassing' you". "But what if it was you?" isn't a point, it's a fallacy.
You do realize that what Assange could be accused for in Sweden does not count as rape or any other crime in all other countries of Europe, the US, and in fact in practically all countries of the world? That the reason he is being wanted for questioning is because he would very likely not be extradited to Sweden if he was wanted for the actual "crime", since sleeping without condome is not generally punishable by UK law?
Are you actually arguing that you shouldn't be held accountable for a crime committed in one country, if it isn't illegal in others? That's ridiculous. So is the idea that they're only extraditing him because it's for questioning and not yet prosecution, the fact that they're willing to obviously speaks volumes in disagreement. That doesn't make any sense, at all. They know what the case is about, there's zero reason to believe they'd extradite someone for investigation but not prosecution, it would be completely ass-backwards. If they thought the case was serious enough and strong enough to extradite him for questioning, then there's no doubting whatosever that they'd do it for an indictment.
There are numerous other oddities in this case. Did you know that Assange was...
Yes, yes, a thousand times, yes. People know this stuff. Some of your reasoning is kind of flawed, though.
While Interpol's involvement was questionable, your wikipedia cut-and-paste of what they "normally do" is not the limitation of what they can do. The operative part of that summary is that it started with "primarily works on", or in your copy, "normally works on". Do you really think "rape" investigations go international often enough to make that list? They assist in international criminal investigations. This is a criminal investigation into someone who's travelled to another country. It's uncommon and seems beneath them, but it isn't against any rules and it doesn't defy logic. The questionable part is that they're forbidden from getting involved in political crimes, but as much as the conspiracy theorists might argue that's why this criminal investigation exists, it's not directly and explicitly relevant - even if it is the motivation behind pusuing the crime, that doesn't mean the crime didn't occur.
And it certainly isn't any surprise that a prosecutor who didn't want to prosecute would be replaced with one who did.
As for the video conferencing, while it may be questionable that the prosecutor didn't want to compromise, it's much more questionable that a suspect would refuse to come back for questioning. It's also difficult, if not outright stupid, to question a suspect when they're outside of your jurisdiction, let alone in another country with different laws, rights and legal processes.
You really don't get how the legal process works at all, do you? You don't charge somebody until the investigation is over. People who are extradited fall into two camps - those who are suspects in an uncharged crime that's still under investigation and are wanted for questioning, and those who have already been charged because the prosecutors feel they already have enough evidence to win the case. Neither is abnormal. The only dichotomy between those two "points" is the false one you've created, based on your lack of education on basic legal procedure.
As for having already been questioned, no one is ignoring that. Because it isn't abnormal to bring a suspect back in for questioning during an ongoing investigation. Just like the fact that you think people are ignoring that he hasn't charged yet, this isn't something that anyone has missed, it's something you clearly don't seem to realize doesn't matter. You don't know anything that everybody else doesn't. Yes, he asked before he left, but there's zero expectation there that he would absolutely never have to speak to them again.
Though it is funny to see you complain about indicting or trying people in absentee, yet claim his extradition is an evil conspiracy because he hasn't been indicted in absentee. That's what "being charged" is, being indicted for a crime. These two (and more) specific terms can apply specifically to different levels/types of crimes, but they're the same step in the process. They're what you do when you've completed your investigation and want to take the suspect to trial. Not while the investigation is incomplete.
As for the rest of your drivel, baseless assumptions and logical fallacies, thanks for making it clear how irrational you are on this subject. "Police state apologist bullshit"? I "must be a fan of... assassination lists"? Dispute what people say, not your crazy assumptions about what ideologies you baselessly attribute to them.
Did I do so on Chinese soil? Is there evidence of that? It there an active investigation into it? Is it up to snuff with our extradition treaty with China? Because that would be the process. You don't charge somebody with a crime until you're done investigating it and are ready to put them on trial. It's pretty basic legal procedure, somebody is virtually always going to be wanted for questioning before charges are actually pressed against them. It's sad to see so many people trying be proactive about the law and freedom, yet fail to understand basic fundamental concepts like that. Being charged is not part of an investigation, it's the result of successful investigation.
Cue the authoritarian douchebags who are hoping that no one will notice that the guy hasn't even been charged yet.
Cue the conspiracy theorists who don't realize you don't have to be. You can be extradited for questioning, you don't often charge somebody before you've questioned them.
likely circumventing security
What kind of "security" would be circumvented by installing a different web brower?
The kind that uses security templates and group policy to control browser settings and preferences? You know, basic enterprise IT administration tools.
Especially when IE, especially 6, is by far the most-exploited/exploitable browser still in common usage
Policies that restrict the use of browsers to IE6 (or 7) are, if not anal, misguided at best and harmful at worst.
Even looking the entire way up this comment tree, no one mentions IE6. I'm not even talking about IE7 in particular, just the general concept that not letting your employees install whatever web browser they want isn't "anal", it's common sense and standard practice. But playing along, you'll find that there are settings and restrictions that address the vastly overwhelming amount of those vulnerabilities, which is why it's handy to use the aforementioned security controls to keep your users from being able to do the dumb things that cause problems, like run unsigned code, install software willy-nilly, etc. Most of those vulnerabilities get exploited because Joe Schmoe doesn't know or care how to address them, not because they're impossible to mitigate.
... Not wanting users to install their own software, at their own discretion, for their own personal use on a business's computer, likely circumventing security and network management/usage policies is "anal"?