This is the problem with Blogs. It looks like journalism, but it isn't. You saying, a journalist would provide a counter point from Microsoft? Because glaring logical gaps are nothing new for journalism. One could say instead:
"This is the problem with television news. It looks like journalism, but it isn't", which I think is your point.
I was really talking about how a publicly owned municipal power was able to keep the lights on without raising prices at a time when no one else could. But I get the connection; fix the private sector so that it isn't a distant second to the public, in this instance.
That's an interesting statement you made, but your idea only works in three situations.
(1) You don't purchase stock, so you don't have to worry about it. No 401k, no IRA, no problems.
(2) You only purchase stock from a very small number of very small corporations where you can show up every day and keep an eye on everyone. That way you can stop Bob from stupidly getting his laptop stolen with unencrypted customer information on it. Then you won't lose your house and go to jail with him.
(3) You only purchase stock from very large companies where your personal liability is so low that you don't care what they do. Like today, except that only the megacorps survive.
During the Enron/California rate hikes, PG&E and SCE customers saw their bills double or triple, on top of the now-infamous "rolling blackouts". Los Angeles District of Water and Power (DWP) customers, on the other hand, did not.
There are also many non-Linksys products from Cisco that are built on a Linux kernel, mostly in their voice/messaging/video/presence application servers.
Intel CPUs are not common at all in Cisco routers, if they were ever used at all. Other than their server-based products, as far as I know they only used Intel CPUs in the PIX, and that series is end-of-sale. Most of the routers use Motorola CPUs.
I happen to have a Cisco ISR router open on the floor next to me while I'm typing this, and no Intel silicon is in sight.
So this is a whole hardware server module that you stuff into a switch? Why? A lot of Cisco's new stuff runs on a Linux kernel. Their call control server (CallManager or Unified Communications Manager, they changed the name last year and it hasn't stuck well) has run on a modified version of Red Hat since version 5.0 and they still OEM servers from HP and IBM for the hardware to run it on. It would be interesting if they could run integrate those servers into a redundant switch architecture instead, and reduce Cisco's dependencies on OEM manufacturers at the same time. I've not actually heard anything of the sort, but it makes some sense to me.
Also, Cisco has already been running OS on blades for many years, but it's been closed to third-party developers until this announcement. Their original Network Analysis Module ran on a NT kernel of all things.
This topic is preliminary documentation and is subject to change in future documentation releases. Sincerely, The Ministry of Truth There, fixed that for them.
Every time I visit my parents. They just got the paving extended to just short of their driveway a few months ago, very exciting stuff in their neighborhood. There's nothing past their house for at least fifty or more miles, so it's dirt from there on. They don't bother washing their cars much.
I get that Apple is successful in the market that they currently compete in. I think that's great. I'm considering an Apple notebook for my next corporate laptop. I work for a Fortune 500 technology manufacturer (with a market cap larger than Apple's), and I think it's great that our IT is willing to support Apple laptops (ok, it's a bit tougher to get approval, but it can be done).
But that doesn't translate into world domination, or even that Apple is on track for world domination. You can't simply say that the other 97% doesn't matter because Apple doesn't choose to compete in that space. That's a ridiculous assertion. I'm certain Apple wants as much of that market as they can possibly capture, and if they are choosing not to compete it is because they cannot realize a return on investment in reasonable amount of time. Sticking to what you do well is a smart move.
I guess what I'm saying is that I find it absurd that the explanation that Apple is not successful in the worldwide market simply because they choose not to compete. That's their competition's bread and butter, and they're still a bit player until they figure out how to start accelerating in other areas.
I like Apple. I own several of their products, and so does my wife. I just don't like irrational thinking.
I had similar problems with DSLExtreme here in SoCal, using wire leased from Verizon. Great all day until about 6:00PM, then severe packet loss until about 10:00PM. After three months of phone calls, service visits, etc. I just gave up and got a SOHO plan with the local cable provider, Cox, which has been great. But more expensive.
While the Foundation series is a good read (I'm reading one of them again right now), I can't think of anything with more potential to be mind-numbingly boring as a movie or TV series.
The purpose of a police force isn't to bust people, it's to prevent crime. A common misconception. The purpose of a police force is to apprehend criminals. Prevention is just a byproduct of not wanting to be busted. Erosion of personal liberties are all in the name of prevention, not prosecution. It's a subtle but important point. Pass it on.
A women, who was a colleague, once sat on my lap and fed me my dinner... at a company function. Yet she had absolutely no sexual intention of any kind. Seven years after that event I finally got a date, and we're now married, so I was able to ask about the incident. She told me she didn't really know what she was thinking about, that she didn't find me particularly interesting at the time, and she didn't understand why her behavior was "taken out of context".
You want me to research your claims, some of which appear to be outlandish? If you didn't just make all this stuff up, you should be able to tell me where you got your information. JFGI isn't an answer. I guess that means we're pretty much done here.
I didn't say that Linux had more users than Mac (although it might, but I do not know). What I said that as Linux's popularity grew, so did the number known security vulnerabilities.
A rather timely posting here today: "MacBook Air First To Be Compromised In Hacking Contest"
My point is that Apple has security vulnerabilities that are as yet undiscovered, they just aren't popular enough for anyone to care about when it's more effective to target Microsoft.
I guess we're just agreeing to disagree. Nothing but mental masturbation left in this argument.
I'll start off by saying that I don't have any particular axe to grind. I don't love Microsoft, I don't hate Apple. A PC is just a tool, and if it does what I want it's a good tool. What I want might be different than what you want, so we'll use different tools and I'm fine with that. Competition and diversity are good things. I'm surprised I came off like some kind of Microsoft fanboi.
I was actually responding to the assertion that Apple's market share is no longer trivial, and provided some evidence to support my statement. Gartner is a fairly well-respected source of information in the IT world.
I'm not certain of what market Apple's products are available in. Are you saying that they only sell in the US? That would surprise me.
You've made a number of interesting claims. I'll summarize how I read them below.
1) Retail laptop sales a portion of total laptop sales, which in turn is a portion of the total worldwide PC market. I agree completely. I'd say that tends to support a position that most attacks are directed at the widest possible array of targets, which do not presently include Apple to a great extent, but maybe I'm not understanding you correctly.
2) You imply that spyware and viruses are not targeted at corporate servers. There are, of course, many examples that disprove this, among them Nimda and Code Red to name two that immediately come to mind. Excluding the server market, you seem to imply but don't outright state that Apple has 10-25% of the laptop market? I think this is simply exaggerated. Apple is growing, but not fast enough to have captured that much market share that quickly, even in the US alone. Maybe in three or four years if things keep going well for them.
3) The most interesting claim you make is that Apple users make more money than non-Apple users, thus making them prime targets for attacks, thus proving that they are more secure. There are a number of problems with this assertion.
There's no evidence that Apple users are more affluent. Perhaps that Apple's target market demographic is, but that isn't the same thing at all.
Still, let's assume a couple of your points, then. Let's assume Apple has, say, 20% market share, and those 20% of users, they have 20% more income than the rest. I'm not suggesting those numbers are in any way accurate, I think they're way too high, but I'm using them to make a point. It still wouldn't make financial sense to write something targeted at those users. This isn't statistical bullshit, just straight math.
You also make an assumption that keystroke loggers and the ilk are the majority of the attacks in the wild, aimed at stealing financial data from individual users, which is also incorrect. Zombies are far more prolific than anything else. Most people will never even know they've been attacked (which is the biggest part of the problem).
Lastly, there were a lot of Linux users who used to say the same thing, about ten or so years ago. I was one of them. As the popularity of Linux grew, the number of discovered vulnerabilities also grew, because they became more interesting targets with their popularity. You know what they say about those not learning from history being doomed to repeat it?
Are Cisco for (an obvious) example, supporting this censorship through hardware and/or software? Sadly, yes. As are Microsoft, Nortel, Websense and Sun, among others.
Pardon, but aren't existing precedents the reason why they are exposed to this type of litigation in the first place? A precedent doesn't prejudice future litigation against a particular party. It covers circumstances of law, not defendants.
The discovery would sure make interesting conversation around here, but I believe that writing large checks every time they screw up is more effective.
Besides, it's really unknown how often they do make this kind of mistake. Meaning, we don't know that given X number of lawsuits brought by the RIAA, Y are targeting the wrong defendant. Is it one in 100? One in 1,000? One in 10,000? I've no idea.
I think you just proved the point; the ACLU only defends the portions of the Constitution they agree with.
Regarding your 2nd Amendment interpretation, that's effectively what we have today. Small arms (semi-automatic or single-shot pistols, rifles and shotguns) are considered "covered" by the 2A. Nuclear arms, grenades, anti-aircraft, anti-tank weapons, etc. are not. Civilian law enforcement have different rights than the citizens, where they are permitted military-grade weapons (e.g. fully automatic weapons).
Clearly, we accept limitations of our Constitutional rights. Shouting "fire" in a public theater, for example, is not covered under the 1A.
The arguments about 2A are about defining those limitations. So while I get your point, that's where we're already at today, so what exactly needs to be changed? The 2A advocates are concerned about changes in the status quo.
Slashdot Mirror
"This is the problem with television news. It looks like journalism, but it isn't", which I think is your point.
It still doesn't make blogs any better, though.
There are OPIE (an implementation of S/KEY) clients for many handhelds, including my Nokia S60 phone. I've also ran one on a Palm Treo.
There is a collection of software, poorly maintained, I'm afraid, at http://www.eda.org/pub/tools.
You could also carry your private key on a USB fob, but that has its own challenges.
Someone's already thought of that:
http://pornfortheblind.org/
I was really talking about how a publicly owned municipal power was able to keep the lights on without raising prices at a time when no one else could. But I get the connection; fix the private sector so that it isn't a distant second to the public, in this instance.
That's an interesting statement you made, but your idea only works in three situations.
(1) You don't purchase stock, so you don't have to worry about it. No 401k, no IRA, no problems.
(2) You only purchase stock from a very small number of very small corporations where you can show up every day and keep an eye on everyone. That way you can stop Bob from stupidly getting his laptop stolen with unencrypted customer information on it. Then you won't lose your house and go to jail with him.
(3) You only purchase stock from very large companies where your personal liability is so low that you don't care what they do. Like today, except that only the megacorps survive.
These are not, of course, practical solutions.
During the Enron/California rate hikes, PG&E and SCE customers saw their bills double or triple, on top of the now-infamous "rolling blackouts". Los Angeles District of Water and Power (DWP) customers, on the other hand, did not.
There are also many non-Linksys products from Cisco that are built on a Linux kernel, mostly in their voice/messaging/video/presence application servers.
Intel CPUs are not common at all in Cisco routers, if they were ever used at all. Other than their server-based products, as far as I know they only used Intel CPUs in the PIX, and that series is end-of-sale. Most of the routers use Motorola CPUs.
I happen to have a Cisco ISR router open on the floor next to me while I'm typing this, and no Intel silicon is in sight.
Also, Cisco has already been running OS on blades for many years, but it's been closed to third-party developers until this announcement. Their original Network Analysis Module ran on a NT kernel of all things.
Every time I visit my parents. They just got the paving extended to just short of their driveway a few months ago, very exciting stuff in their neighborhood. There's nothing past their house for at least fifty or more miles, so it's dirt from there on. They don't bother washing their cars much.
I get that Apple is successful in the market that they currently compete in. I think that's great. I'm considering an Apple notebook for my next corporate laptop. I work for a Fortune 500 technology manufacturer (with a market cap larger than Apple's), and I think it's great that our IT is willing to support Apple laptops (ok, it's a bit tougher to get approval, but it can be done).
But that doesn't translate into world domination, or even that Apple is on track for world domination. You can't simply say that the other 97% doesn't matter because Apple doesn't choose to compete in that space. That's a ridiculous assertion. I'm certain Apple wants as much of that market as they can possibly capture, and if they are choosing not to compete it is because they cannot realize a return on investment in reasonable amount of time. Sticking to what you do well is a smart move.
I guess what I'm saying is that I find it absurd that the explanation that Apple is not successful in the worldwide market simply because they choose not to compete. That's their competition's bread and butter, and they're still a bit player until they figure out how to start accelerating in other areas.
I like Apple. I own several of their products, and so does my wife. I just don't like irrational thinking.
I had similar problems with DSLExtreme here in SoCal, using wire leased from Verizon. Great all day until about 6:00PM, then severe packet loss until about 10:00PM. After three months of phone calls, service visits, etc. I just gave up and got a SOHO plan with the local cable provider, Cox, which has been great. But more expensive.
While the Foundation series is a good read (I'm reading one of them again right now), I can't think of anything with more potential to be mind-numbingly boring as a movie or TV series.
All they need is just 97.1% more to replace everyone else...
A women, who was a colleague, once sat on my lap and fed me my dinner... at a company function. Yet she had absolutely no sexual intention of any kind. Seven years after that event I finally got a date, and we're now married, so I was able to ask about the incident. She told me she didn't really know what she was thinking about, that she didn't find me particularly interesting at the time, and she didn't understand why her behavior was "taken out of context".
Huh???
You want me to research your claims, some of which appear to be outlandish? If you didn't just make all this stuff up, you should be able to tell me where you got your information. JFGI isn't an answer. I guess that means we're pretty much done here.
I didn't say that Linux had more users than Mac (although it might, but I do not know). What I said that as Linux's popularity grew, so did the number known security vulnerabilities.
A rather timely posting here today: "MacBook Air First To Be Compromised In Hacking Contest"
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/28/0126221&from=rss
My point is that Apple has security vulnerabilities that are as yet undiscovered, they just aren't popular enough for anyone to care about when it's more effective to target Microsoft.
I guess we're just agreeing to disagree. Nothing but mental masturbation left in this argument.
I'll start off by saying that I don't have any particular axe to grind. I don't love Microsoft, I don't hate Apple. A PC is just a tool, and if it does what I want it's a good tool. What I want might be different than what you want, so we'll use different tools and I'm fine with that. Competition and diversity are good things. I'm surprised I came off like some kind of Microsoft fanboi.
I was actually responding to the assertion that Apple's market share is no longer trivial, and provided some evidence to support my statement. Gartner is a fairly well-respected source of information in the IT world.
I'm not certain of what market Apple's products are available in. Are you saying that they only sell in the US? That would surprise me.
You've made a number of interesting claims. I'll summarize how I read them below.
1) Retail laptop sales a portion of total laptop sales, which in turn is a portion of the total worldwide PC market. I agree completely. I'd say that tends to support a position that most attacks are directed at the widest possible array of targets, which do not presently include Apple to a great extent, but maybe I'm not understanding you correctly.
2) You imply that spyware and viruses are not targeted at corporate servers. There are, of course, many examples that disprove this, among them Nimda and Code Red to name two that immediately come to mind. Excluding the server market, you seem to imply but don't outright state that Apple has 10-25% of the laptop market? I think this is simply exaggerated. Apple is growing, but not fast enough to have captured that much market share that quickly, even in the US alone. Maybe in three or four years if things keep going well for them.
3) The most interesting claim you make is that Apple users make more money than non-Apple users, thus making them prime targets for attacks, thus proving that they are more secure. There are a number of problems with this assertion.
There's no evidence that Apple users are more affluent. Perhaps that Apple's target market demographic is, but that isn't the same thing at all.
Still, let's assume a couple of your points, then. Let's assume Apple has, say, 20% market share, and those 20% of users, they have 20% more income than the rest. I'm not suggesting those numbers are in any way accurate, I think they're way too high, but I'm using them to make a point. It still wouldn't make financial sense to write something targeted at those users. This isn't statistical bullshit, just straight math.
You also make an assumption that keystroke loggers and the ilk are the majority of the attacks in the wild, aimed at stealing financial data from individual users, which is also incorrect. Zombies are far more prolific than anything else. Most people will never even know they've been attacked (which is the biggest part of the problem).
Lastly, there were a lot of Linux users who used to say the same thing, about ten or so years ago. I was one of them. As the popularity of Linux grew, the number of discovered vulnerabilities also grew, because they became more interesting targets with their popularity. You know what they say about those not learning from history being doomed to repeat it?
http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?lang=e&id=50A38A55EB758C0C80256C72004773CD
You mean, like the USA?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ra_mcmar.htm
Keep in mind this was cira 1985.
"Apple did not rank in Gartner's top 5 worldwide PC vendors, No. 5 of which was Toshiba with a 4.4 percent share."
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/10/17/apples_u_s_mac_market_share_rises_to_8_1_percent_in_q3.html
Right when I saw the summary I predicted this comment.
Someone talking on the phone next to me is no worse than them watching hentai on their Neno with the volume turned up to deaf-before-50 level.
Yes, that has happened to me.
Pardon, but aren't existing precedents the reason why they are exposed to this type of litigation in the first place? A precedent doesn't prejudice future litigation against a particular party. It covers circumstances of law, not defendants.
The discovery would sure make interesting conversation around here, but I believe that writing large checks every time they screw up is more effective.
Besides, it's really unknown how often they do make this kind of mistake. Meaning, we don't know that given X number of lawsuits brought by the RIAA, Y are targeting the wrong defendant. Is it one in 100? One in 1,000? One in 10,000? I've no idea.
I think you just proved the point; the ACLU only defends the portions of the Constitution they agree with.
Regarding your 2nd Amendment interpretation, that's effectively what we have today. Small arms (semi-automatic or single-shot pistols, rifles and shotguns) are considered "covered" by the 2A. Nuclear arms, grenades, anti-aircraft, anti-tank weapons, etc. are not. Civilian law enforcement have different rights than the citizens, where they are permitted military-grade weapons (e.g. fully automatic weapons).
Clearly, we accept limitations of our Constitutional rights. Shouting "fire" in a public theater, for example, is not covered under the 1A.
The arguments about 2A are about defining those limitations. So while I get your point, that's where we're already at today, so what exactly needs to be changed? The 2A advocates are concerned about changes in the status quo.
Why bother? If they have to cough up a wad of cash every time they are wrong, would that not be more effective?