I am very sorry to hear about what happened to your father. But he wasn't killed by texting, he was killed by negligence. In fact, if the drivers head was in her lap, he was actually killed by this law. I'm old enough to remember a time when texting while driving wasn't illegal and we were free to text with the phone on the steering wheel so as to keep a better view of the road. The unfortunate reality is that trying to hide texting while driving is exponentially more dangerous than simply texting while driving. The increase of "crotch watching" is a direct result of this law, and I directly blame this law for your father's death.
You'd need a law enforcing that on all smartphones or no one would buy whatever brand pioneered it. Then of course people will just use custom or cracked operating systems to disable the feature or tamper with the GPS module - so you'll need another suite of laws to prosecute counterfeit devices and manufacturers. We'll need social campaigns to dissuade the use of these devices, organise stings against manufacturers and cracker networks, build a bureaucracy to define, audit, and enforce standards on the phone companys, etc. Oh, how the nanny state expands. Not quite as "done" as was anticipated was it? It would be humorous to watch this legislate-every-problem mentality destroy society if it wasn't so sad, and if my kids didn't have to live in the resultant mess.
Pointless law. In Canada we now have a ridiculous campaign called "crotches kill" directly due to the institution of this law. While proponents of this law gleefully distribute the statistics about how much texting and driving causes accidents, I would love to see the statistics about how many accidents are caused by trying to text secretly as a direct result of this law.
I used to be a field technician and would use my phone while driving every day. I didn't cause any accidents because I did it openly without fear at 12 o'clock on my steering wheel. Now I find myself trying to very discreetly answer something important in a way that requires my eyes to be off the road. Much more dangerous. This is a nanny state law that has backfired in their faces. How about ticketing someone for using their phones dangerously rather than just using their phones at all? An added benefit is that no new law is needed - we can just use the existing careless driving laws we already have. Too common sense? The fine for using your phone while driving in my area had balooned to something like $250. It keeps going up as a result of the rate of offences not going down. It reminds me of a redneck corning a dog and relentlessly beating it with a stick for barking. Oh well. Maybe my kids generation will be able to pull the head out of the ass.
A great choice. What Linux has lacked in the past is certainly automation and, as you pointed out, ease of administration. Microsoft spent a lot of money and time making their products highly powerful and automated with minimal training required for administration. As you also noted, Linux is a much stronger, more stable and scalable platform. So what Linux lacks, seems to be Microsoft's strengths and vice versa. A company like the Microsoft of the 90s, with a primary focus on the enterprise, and the foresight to recognise the current and long term benefits of an open source platform could certainly do very well; in my opinion. A company clamoring for the crumbs of the consumer pie, trying to climb up from single digit market share is doomed to fail.
An unfortunate trend. Not away from Microsoft, but away from internal infrastructure. I think you'll find this type of thinking is cyclical. You outsource (which is all the cloud is) discover the problems associated, insource, discover problems, get amnesia, outsource, etc. The cloud is a trend. If you invest too much into it you'll be sorry when the ideology reverses course. Regardless, what Microsoft is, is a software company. The location of the machine running the software is a minor detail. The major detail (What I'm taking about) is how the software is designed. Business favors highly scalable, automated, stable, secure, low overhead, long support cycles, etc. These are all problems for consumer grade products because consumers prioritize differently (think fashion and status). I maintain there's still a massive opportunity for an evolved platform that prioritizes enterprise concerns rather than those of the consumer. Microsoft et al. are missing a big opportunity by not seeing the forest for the trees.
What's your problem? You can just uninstall and blacklist these two updates. They're in a large list referenced by 10 digit kb numbers, shouldn't take you more than an hour to find. Then Microsoft will release more updates, I think the count is up to about 7 now, but you can just disable them all the same way. Oh, also they've simply downloaded Win 10 install files onto your computer already, but don't worry you can track all the files down and manually remove them. If it's too late and Win 10 already got in you might be worried about the innocent data collection? That's ok there's like 5 registry keys you can disable that probably shuts it all off. See, it's easy.
Almost none of what you said addressed any of my points or even made a lot of sense. It was a nice rant though. Wait, anonymous coward... Balmer, is that you?
You feel like you own your computer again with a Mac? Ironic. Perhaps you should read the EULA. I'm not sure what you're implying by invoking your career, but being a "scientist" doesn't make you immune from making bad emotional decisions. An Apple computer is a pretty bad objective decision when it comes to price, functionality, model choices, etc. Interesting that you and your colleagues primary consideration is "we just like it better" while simultaneously trying to defend against my claim that Apple computers are fashion accessories and emotional decisions.
An utterly moronic strategy. Move everything to mobile interfaces, the cloud, and a subscription model before you even have any product, application, or consumer support to do so. What could go wrong? Sounds like an MBA making decisions if I've ever seen it. I guess you only have to read my sig to know how I feel about this.
Wrong. What you're taking about is what every tech company has been trying to do for almost a decade. Even if being "cool" wasn't arbitrary and near impossible to secure, that area of the market has already been defined and saturated. Microsoft's entire problem is they are scrambling for the crumbs of the consumer pie, not that they just aren't just doing it right.
There is a big area of the industry no one is paying attention to: the enterprise. It was determined long ago that the consumer was the new frontier because that market is now larger, but this is a typical short sighted business-guy approach. Apple and Google have the consumer, let it go. Stop developing Microsoft office for OSX, whoever's idea that was should be fired. MS office, and corporate directory integration with exchange, group policy, etc is their last fortress. Give me a phone that focuses on business applications with a high level of automated deployment and security using my other Microsoft tools, and I'll buy thousands of them tomorrow. Give me a worse implementation of the exact same consumer phone everyone else has and I'm not sure why you'd expect me to care.
The current state of things is exactly what Steve Jobs wisely exploited in 2007: an industry that is sleeping. The tech industry is sleeping on the massive potential that is a mobile platform designed for the enterprise. The next company to figure this out and do it well will be the next big thing.
CEO Satya Nadella's strategy is simple enough: grow Microsoft's revenues by forcing it's customers to adopt its paid subscription services.
You're not Apple, you're Microsoft. Stop assuming Apple's aggressive strategies will work for you. Apple's core customer base is interested in fashion accessories and status symbols; Children. Yours, at least used to be, enterprise. That's what the next CEO will have to understand if Microsoft hopes to stay relevant in this century.
So... Industry best practice is buying hardware you don't need simply because it does more things? I must have missed that course. The OP's argument is completely reasoned. We don't have enough information to make judgments here. There's no intrinsic requirement for everything to be behind firewall, or for every switch to cost 2 grand. So, a switch cost $10? I need more information to care.
Oh no, someone that knows what they're talking about using evidence based reasoning? Try using hyperbole and you'll get more attention and karma on this generation's slashdot and larger public consciousness.
I don't need to lookup words I know the definition of. What's astonishing is that you would attempt to criticise me without actually looking it up yourself first.
shill > a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.
This is hardly a "hack". Think for a second how iPhone encryption is designed. Your phone is likely encrypted with a weak numeric pin code. This is so trivial to brute force that phones have to have "kill switches" in place to limit the number of attempts. Encrypted data is not volatile, while a program that monitors your number of attempts to access it is. Therefore what's stopping you from mounting that non-volatile data outside of its natural container and brute forcing it? Well, the method used to encrypt the data. They would only need to find someone that knew this. Any number is security researchers and former Apple employees would probably qualify.
All they would need to find is someone with knowledge of the specific encryption algorithm used in iPhones. With that it should then be relatively simple to mount the data externally and brute force the password (probably a simple pin code). So more likely someone approached them who had that knowledge (perhaps a former Apple employee or just a dedicated reverse engineer) and said "Hey, know that problem you have? How about a million dollars? " Apple cost you this money. They knew very well it was this easy to do.
Hillary is far and away the worst choice in the entire race. She has a very public track record of lies, corruption, and elitism. She is closely followed by Ted Cruz for the same reasons. It's astonishing to me that more people simply don't pay attention to the past.
So a Bernie shill is complaining that Hillary's paid shills are playing dirtier? I care. This is a false choice you have people. While Hillary would certainly be measurably worse than Bernie just due to her track record, that measure is small due to the overall lack of power that position has. It always frustrates me when presidential candidates start prattling on about all the things they're going to do. What they should be bragging about is all the things they're going to beg congress to do, since the president has no legislative power. Vetos, executive orders, and military decisions - this is what you're voting for. On the Democratic side your choices are a liar/cheat/manipulator vs. SJW. The republicans have a liar/cheat/manipulator vs. an unpredictable amateur. The choice is rough this time. It's a good thing it all doesn't really matter.
No, no, Apple gave them the finger. Before you continue to have an opinion on this I'd suggest you read the full text of the court order. It's very easy to find online, it's short, and it's in plain English. It includes provisions in it that allow Apple to set up a secure lab for which the fbi only has remote access to, among other provisions. The order is very careful to make sure the fbi only has access to this one device. The permanent backdoor hyperbole was crafted by Apple and worked very well on a population that couldn't be bothered to actually research the facts. All indications are that Apple Inc is using our fears of losing or civil rights to run a public relations campaign. Conveniently close to when their new major version iPhone releases that will no doubt boast enhanced security.
Slashdot Mirror
I am very sorry to hear about what happened to your father. But he wasn't killed by texting, he was killed by negligence. In fact, if the drivers head was in her lap, he was actually killed by this law. I'm old enough to remember a time when texting while driving wasn't illegal and we were free to text with the phone on the steering wheel so as to keep a better view of the road. The unfortunate reality is that trying to hide texting while driving is exponentially more dangerous than simply texting while driving. The increase of "crotch watching" is a direct result of this law, and I directly blame this law for your father's death.
if GPS.speed>5 then SMS.disable=true
Done.
You'd need a law enforcing that on all smartphones or no one would buy whatever brand pioneered it. Then of course people will just use custom or cracked operating systems to disable the feature or tamper with the GPS module - so you'll need another suite of laws to prosecute counterfeit devices and manufacturers. We'll need social campaigns to dissuade the use of these devices, organise stings against manufacturers and cracker networks, build a bureaucracy to define, audit, and enforce standards on the phone companys, etc. Oh, how the nanny state expands. Not quite as "done" as was anticipated was it? It would be humorous to watch this legislate-every-problem mentality destroy society if it wasn't so sad, and if my kids didn't have to live in the resultant mess.
Pointless law. In Canada we now have a ridiculous campaign called "crotches kill" directly due to the institution of this law. While proponents of this law gleefully distribute the statistics about how much texting and driving causes accidents, I would love to see the statistics about how many accidents are caused by trying to text secretly as a direct result of this law.
I used to be a field technician and would use my phone while driving every day. I didn't cause any accidents because I did it openly without fear at 12 o'clock on my steering wheel. Now I find myself trying to very discreetly answer something important in a way that requires my eyes to be off the road. Much more dangerous. This is a nanny state law that has backfired in their faces. How about ticketing someone for using their phones dangerously rather than just using their phones at all? An added benefit is that no new law is needed - we can just use the existing careless driving laws we already have. Too common sense? The fine for using your phone while driving in my area had balooned to something like $250. It keeps going up as a result of the rate of offences not going down. It reminds me of a redneck corning a dog and relentlessly beating it with a stick for barking. Oh well. Maybe my kids generation will be able to pull the head out of the ass.
That wouldn't be nearly as effective click bait would it? I wouldn't sell all your oil and gas stock just yet.
Red-white-and-blue hat.
U-S-A! U-S-A!
So Linux then?
A great choice. What Linux has lacked in the past is certainly automation and, as you pointed out, ease of administration. Microsoft spent a lot of money and time making their products highly powerful and automated with minimal training required for administration. As you also noted, Linux is a much stronger, more stable and scalable platform. So what Linux lacks, seems to be Microsoft's strengths and vice versa. A company like the Microsoft of the 90s, with a primary focus on the enterprise, and the foresight to recognise the current and long term benefits of an open source platform could certainly do very well; in my opinion. A company clamoring for the crumbs of the consumer pie, trying to climb up from single digit market share is doomed to fail.
An unfortunate trend. Not away from Microsoft, but away from internal infrastructure. I think you'll find this type of thinking is cyclical. You outsource (which is all the cloud is) discover the problems associated, insource, discover problems, get amnesia, outsource, etc. The cloud is a trend. If you invest too much into it you'll be sorry when the ideology reverses course. Regardless, what Microsoft is, is a software company. The location of the machine running the software is a minor detail. The major detail (What I'm taking about) is how the software is designed. Business favors highly scalable, automated, stable, secure, low overhead, long support cycles, etc. These are all problems for consumer grade products because consumers prioritize differently (think fashion and status). I maintain there's still a massive opportunity for an evolved platform that prioritizes enterprise concerns rather than those of the consumer. Microsoft et al. are missing a big opportunity by not seeing the forest for the trees.
What's your problem? You can just uninstall and blacklist these two updates. They're in a large list referenced by 10 digit kb numbers, shouldn't take you more than an hour to find. Then Microsoft will release more updates, I think the count is up to about 7 now, but you can just disable them all the same way. Oh, also they've simply downloaded Win 10 install files onto your computer already, but don't worry you can track all the files down and manually remove them. If it's too late and Win 10 already got in you might be worried about the innocent data collection? That's ok there's like 5 registry keys you can disable that probably shuts it all off. See, it's easy.
- MS fanboy
Almost none of what you said addressed any of my points or even made a lot of sense. It was a nice rant though. Wait, anonymous coward... Balmer, is that you?
You feel like you own your computer again with a Mac? Ironic. Perhaps you should read the EULA. I'm not sure what you're implying by invoking your career, but being a "scientist" doesn't make you immune from making bad emotional decisions. An Apple computer is a pretty bad objective decision when it comes to price, functionality, model choices, etc. Interesting that you and your colleagues primary consideration is "we just like it better" while simultaneously trying to defend against my claim that Apple computers are fashion accessories and emotional decisions.
An utterly moronic strategy. Move everything to mobile interfaces, the cloud, and a subscription model before you even have any product, application, or consumer support to do so. What could go wrong? Sounds like an MBA making decisions if I've ever seen it. I guess you only have to read my sig to know how I feel about this.
Wrong. What you're taking about is what every tech company has been trying to do for almost a decade. Even if being "cool" wasn't arbitrary and near impossible to secure, that area of the market has already been defined and saturated. Microsoft's entire problem is they are scrambling for the crumbs of the consumer pie, not that they just aren't just doing it right.
There is a big area of the industry no one is paying attention to: the enterprise. It was determined long ago that the consumer was the new frontier because that market is now larger, but this is a typical short sighted business-guy approach. Apple and Google have the consumer, let it go. Stop developing Microsoft office for OSX, whoever's idea that was should be fired. MS office, and corporate directory integration with exchange, group policy, etc is their last fortress. Give me a phone that focuses on business applications with a high level of automated deployment and security using my other Microsoft tools, and I'll buy thousands of them tomorrow. Give me a worse implementation of the exact same consumer phone everyone else has and I'm not sure why you'd expect me to care.
The current state of things is exactly what Steve Jobs wisely exploited in 2007: an industry that is sleeping. The tech industry is sleeping on the massive potential that is a mobile platform designed for the enterprise. The next company to figure this out and do it well will be the next big thing.
CEO Satya Nadella's strategy is simple enough: grow Microsoft's revenues by forcing it's customers to adopt its paid subscription services.
You're not Apple, you're Microsoft. Stop assuming Apple's aggressive strategies will work for you. Apple's core customer base is interested in fashion accessories and status symbols; Children. Yours, at least used to be, enterprise. That's what the next CEO will have to understand if Microsoft hopes to stay relevant in this century.
Hahaha, nice scramble. I'll just leave you alone now with the delusion that your pride is in tact.
So... Industry best practice is buying hardware you don't need simply because it does more things? I must have missed that course. The OP's argument is completely reasoned. We don't have enough information to make judgments here. There's no intrinsic requirement for everything to be behind firewall, or for every switch to cost 2 grand. So, a switch cost $10? I need more information to care.
Oh no, someone that knows what they're talking about using evidence based reasoning? Try using hyperbole and you'll get more attention and karma on this generation's slashdot and larger public consciousness.
I'm sorry, why is Wi-Fi intrinsically using NAT? You are barely more knowledgeable than the OP, and at least he has a humorous, sarcastic point.
Now if they could only make the scripts make sense.
shill > a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.
Source: dictionary.com
That took me 5 seconds.
This is hardly a "hack". Think for a second how iPhone encryption is designed. Your phone is likely encrypted with a weak numeric pin code. This is so trivial to brute force that phones have to have "kill switches" in place to limit the number of attempts. Encrypted data is not volatile, while a program that monitors your number of attempts to access it is. Therefore what's stopping you from mounting that non-volatile data outside of its natural container and brute forcing it? Well, the method used to encrypt the data. They would only need to find someone that knew this. Any number is security researchers and former Apple employees would probably qualify.
All they would need to find is someone with knowledge of the specific encryption algorithm used in iPhones. With that it should then be relatively simple to mount the data externally and brute force the password (probably a simple pin code). So more likely someone approached them who had that knowledge (perhaps a former Apple employee or just a dedicated reverse engineer) and said "Hey, know that problem you have? How about a million dollars? " Apple cost you this money. They knew very well it was this easy to do.
There fixed that for you
Hillary is far and away the worst choice in the entire race. She has a very public track record of lies, corruption, and elitism. She is closely followed by Ted Cruz for the same reasons. It's astonishing to me that more people simply don't pay attention to the past.
So a Bernie shill is complaining that Hillary's paid shills are playing dirtier? I care. This is a false choice you have people. While Hillary would certainly be measurably worse than Bernie just due to her track record, that measure is small due to the overall lack of power that position has. It always frustrates me when presidential candidates start prattling on about all the things they're going to do. What they should be bragging about is all the things they're going to beg congress to do, since the president has no legislative power. Vetos, executive orders, and military decisions - this is what you're voting for. On the Democratic side your choices are a liar/cheat/manipulator vs. SJW. The republicans have a liar/cheat/manipulator vs. an unpredictable amateur. The choice is rough this time. It's a good thing it all doesn't really matter.
No, no, Apple gave them the finger. Before you continue to have an opinion on this I'd suggest you read the full text of the court order. It's very easy to find online, it's short, and it's in plain English. It includes provisions in it that allow Apple to set up a secure lab for which the fbi only has remote access to, among other provisions. The order is very careful to make sure the fbi only has access to this one device. The permanent backdoor hyperbole was crafted by Apple and worked very well on a population that couldn't be bothered to actually research the facts. All indications are that Apple Inc is using our fears of losing or civil rights to run a public relations campaign. Conveniently close to when their new major version iPhone releases that will no doubt boast enhanced security.