Funny, I thought the ending was perfect. How the hell else would you have the series ended? Happily Ever After? Maybe Roland settles down with a nice lady and has a couple kids and an SUV?
To actually implement an exploit, just being able to write to a system directory isn't sufficient, and being able to do so doesn't indicate a security issue. As is the case with this exploit, you need to be able to replace system binaries with infected versions, hence my question.
The easiest way to take away their power is to completely overhaul the tax code./i.
No, the easiest way to take away their power is to finally shed the delusion that money == speech. Campaign finance should be tightly regulated by a neutral third party so that institutionalized bribery can finally be eliminated.
'course, this is about as likely to happen as your ridiculous flat tax idea...
The problem is that there is no such thing as a 'PC virus',
That's bullshit, and I think you know it.
Anyone whose ever seen an Apple commercial knows that when they refer to a "PC", they mean a Windows-powered x86 computer. Hell, even someone who hasn't seen one of those commercials would assume that "PC" means Windows-powered x86 computer, as that term is historically derived from "IBM PC".
If you don't understand this, the only thing I can assume is that you're either being deliberately obtuse, or you're an idiot.
But... I'm confused... Mac OSX *doesn't* get PC viruses (and yes, any idiot on the street will know what they mean by "PC", given that distinction has been outlined in Apple ad campaigns for *years*). And that's a perfectly valid marketing tool, given that the vast majority of viruses out their target Windows on the PC.
Most of the world still thinks that Flash is a necessary part of the web.
And yet people are buying iPhones and iPads in the millions.
But you're right, and Apple is wrong.
Huh.
I'm not the one that's dellusional.
I would tend to dispute that...
Your pet product is only superior if you restrict the domain of operation enough. Most people aren't cool with those limits.
I once again refer to those millions of people who quite clearly disagree with you.
You know, I think I understand your problem: you're utterly incapable of even comprehending the idea that other people don't agree with you or share your exact same needs, requirements, or values. You should work on that.
Even most iPad owners are not cool with those limits.
Oh good! So you've talked to "most iPad owners"! So, I assume you collected all this data and have published it somewhere so we can all review your findings and bask in your warm glowing warming glow?
The lack of Flash on the iPad is a manifestation of Apple's disrespect for the property rights of consumers.
What?
People bought the thing knowing full well what they were getting in to. The consumers have all the rights they should expect to have. It's not like Apple has been nefariously concealing their actions from an unsuspecting populace.
Seriously, you need to calm down and gain a little perspective, you're sounding a little unhinged.
The fact that you equate a fundamental human rights issue, specifically the violation of freedom speech and freedom of religion in the name of xenophobic racism, with the lack of Flash on the iPad, speaks volumes regarding your perspective on this issue. Seriously, wow.
The problem is your examples are poor. Let's take them in order:
1. Apple doesn't have their market leader position over there like they do on the iPad.
Well, given Apple entered the market very late in the game, what do you expect? Furthermore, in the luxury smartphone market (which is their specific niche), Apple is doing *very* well, so I think your comment downplays their success.
2. What about desktops and laptops? Choice definitely exists over there, and is Apple winning that contest?
Huh? This example has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the topic at hand: both platforms are open, and the current situation is a product of history. Seriously, why'd you even bring this up? Or were you just struggling for examples, and this was the best you could do?
Now, it appears your supposition is that, given two devices that have equivalent functionality at an equivalent price point, the open one will beat out the closed one. That, to a consumer, openness is a product differentiator.
And my response is that it's not. It's just that simple.
All consumers care about is "Does this device do what I need it to do?". Now, openness can play into this. For example, if Flash were a key piece of functionality (and I don't believe it is), then an open device allowing Flash might beat a closed device disallowing it. But that's only a side-effect of openness. From a consumers perspective, the question is still "Does this device do what I need it to do?".
Furthermore, if the answer is "No", and consumers start turning away from Apple for other devices, all Apple need to do is fill that need, and voila, the playing field is leveled again. Because, again, consumers don't care about openness. They care about whether or not the device does what they need. As long as Apple fills that need, and does it at a price point that people are willing to pay, that's all that matters.
So until someone can *significantly* meet or beat Apple on either price point or user experience, I believe Apple will continue to dominate. And given the choice between a clumsy open device running Windows or Android, or Apple's closed device with its slick, polished experience, Apple will win every time, unless the former is *substantially* cheaper than the latter, because in the end open vs closed is a non-debate to users. The question is simple price vs user experience. That's it. End of story.
A REAL COMPUTER does anything that anyone can imagine. A glorified iPod does only what Apple allows.
It's amazing that anyone actually defends this nonsense.
It's hilariously delusional of you to think that anyone but a geek actually gives a shit about this distinction.
For most people, an iDevice does exactly what they need. They can access the data they care about, run apps that do what they want, and in short, it fills a need they have. They don't give a crap about some idealistic vision about open hardware. They don't care to hack the device or code for it. All they care about is that it works for them.
Well, these things work for them. They don't work for you. Fine. But you're not the target market, you never were the target market, and you will never be the target market. And appealing to *you* isn't the key to the success of the tablet. Appealing to the masses is, and they're doing a fine job at that.
Is it possible they would be interested in Flash content?
Evidentally not, given people are buying iDevices despite its absence. Furthermore, it's hardly the linchpin that'll lead to the tablet sweeping away all competition and taking over the world.
Or does MS need to vet all software before you can install it now, too?
My point is, for the average user, *it doesn't matter*. From their perspective, the iPlatform and Windows are no different. Well, except it's actually easier to install an iPlatform app, as there's a single location where all apps are located (ironically, Linux accels in this area, too).
I challenge you to demonstrate the capabilities of your crystal ball: would the comparison come out the same way if the alternative existed?
If the iPad still offered the better user experience? Absolutely.
See, you seem to be *completely* missing my point.
Given two devices, one open and one closed, guess which one would win? The one that provides a better *user experience*. "Open" and "closed" don't even factor into the equation. Which is my entire fucking point. Your average consume doesn't give a shit that they can't develop software for their little toy. All they care about is that the thing provides a silky smooth, easy-to-use experience, that it allows them to consume content they're interested in, and that it works reliably and well. That's it.
"Open" versus "closed" is an argument for the geeks. But the geeks aren't the target market for the iPad, and won't be the determining factor in the success or failure of the tablet market.
A proper open tablet could pretty much wipe out netbooks.
Yeah, I'm calling bullshit.
I know this isn't a popular opinion here on Slashdot, but guess what? *Most people don't give a shit about "open" or "closed" hardware*. Hell, they probably don't even realize the iPlatform is a closed ecosystem, as that's only evident if you try to develop for the thing.
No, this idiotic meme that "if only they'd open the hardware, they'd destroy everyone!", no matter what "they" is (PS3, NDS, iPlatform, etc), needs to stop. It's so hilariously naive it just makes you look stupid.
So you are too stupid to understand the difference.
Very well. Just don't blame the Slashdot community if they aren't as stupid as you, and can thus see why "windows" and "Sony rootkit" are not, in fact, the same kind of evil.
Wrecking machines without the user's consent - bad "Wrecking" machines when the user knows full well what they're getting in to, and chooses to install the software anyway - meh
Do you understand the difference now, or do I need to use smaller words?
Incorporation might be a good idea for all I know, but it's strictly speaking unnecessary for the tax issues. Sole proprietorship businesses are entitled to the same business expense tax deductions as corporations.
Who said anything about deductions? The tax *rate* for corporations is lower than that of sole proprietors.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny, I thought the ending was perfect. How the hell else would you have the series ended? Happily Ever After? Maybe Roland settles down with a nice lady and has a couple kids and an SUV?
The OP phrased his question poorly.
To actually implement an exploit, just being able to write to a system directory isn't sufficient, and being able to do so doesn't indicate a security issue. As is the case with this exploit, you need to be able to replace system binaries with infected versions, hence my question.
The easiest way to take away their power is to completely overhaul the tax code./i.
No, the easiest way to take away their power is to finally shed the delusion that money == speech. Campaign finance should be tightly regulated by a neutral third party so that institutionalized bribery can finally be eliminated.
'course, this is about as likely to happen as your ridiculous flat tax idea...
The problem is that there is no such thing as a 'PC virus',
That's bullshit, and I think you know it.
Anyone whose ever seen an Apple commercial knows that when they refer to a "PC", they mean a Windows-powered x86 computer. Hell, even someone who hasn't seen one of those commercials would assume that "PC" means Windows-powered x86 computer, as that term is historically derived from "IBM PC".
If you don't understand this, the only thing I can assume is that you're either being deliberately obtuse, or you're an idiot.
Okay, now try replacing, say /bin/sh, and tell me how that works out.
It's deceiving to the point of almost lying.
But... I'm confused... Mac OSX *doesn't* get PC viruses (and yes, any idiot on the street will know what they mean by "PC", given that distinction has been outlined in Apple ad campaigns for *years*). And that's a perfectly valid marketing tool, given that the vast majority of viruses out their target Windows on the PC.
So, what's the problem here, again?
Freedom of speech is a right. Freedom from being offended is not.
Freedom from having your speech taken off of a private organization's servers is also not.
Rackspace has every right to remove content from their servers that they feel violates their AUP. Don't like it? Find another hosting provider.
I wonder if Rackspace is this high and mighty about kicking pro terrorist and islamic jihad websites off their servers?
Somehow I doubt it.
Hey, I can make up random shit, too! Let's try it:
---
I wonder if WCMI92 stopped raping little girls.
Somehow I doubt it.
---
See, wasn't that fun?
Most of the world still thinks that Flash is a necessary part of the web.
And yet people are buying iPhones and iPads in the millions.
But you're right, and Apple is wrong.
Huh.
I'm not the one that's dellusional.
I would tend to dispute that...
Your pet product is only superior if you restrict the domain of operation enough. Most people aren't cool with those limits.
I once again refer to those millions of people who quite clearly disagree with you.
You know, I think I understand your problem: you're utterly incapable of even comprehending the idea that other people don't agree with you or share your exact same needs, requirements, or values. You should work on that.
Even most iPad owners are not cool with those limits.
Oh good! So you've talked to "most iPad owners"! So, I assume you collected all this data and have published it somewhere so we can all review your findings and bask in your warm glowing warming glow?
The lack of Flash on the iPad is a manifestation of Apple's disrespect for the property rights of consumers.
What?
People bought the thing knowing full well what they were getting in to. The consumers have all the rights they should expect to have. It's not like Apple has been nefariously concealing their actions from an unsuspecting populace.
Seriously, you need to calm down and gain a little perspective, you're sounding a little unhinged.
The fact that you equate a fundamental human rights issue, specifically the violation of freedom speech and freedom of religion in the name of xenophobic racism, with the lack of Flash on the iPad, speaks volumes regarding your perspective on this issue. Seriously, wow.
TBH, I'm not convinced "they" do.
Tell me, what Windows software do you think the average iPad user wishes they could run?
Wow, troll. Nice mods. Fucking retards.
How many times does it have to be repeated? "Moderating down" isn't a way to say "I disagree". Fucking idiots.
The problem is your examples are poor. Let's take them in order:
1. Apple doesn't have their market leader position over there like they do on the iPad.
Well, given Apple entered the market very late in the game, what do you expect? Furthermore, in the luxury smartphone market (which is their specific niche), Apple is doing *very* well, so I think your comment downplays their success.
2. What about desktops and laptops? Choice definitely exists over there, and is Apple winning that contest?
Huh? This example has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the topic at hand: both platforms are open, and the current situation is a product of history. Seriously, why'd you even bring this up? Or were you just struggling for examples, and this was the best you could do?
Now, it appears your supposition is that, given two devices that have equivalent functionality at an equivalent price point, the open one will beat out the closed one. That, to a consumer, openness is a product differentiator.
And my response is that it's not. It's just that simple.
All consumers care about is "Does this device do what I need it to do?". Now, openness can play into this. For example, if Flash were a key piece of functionality (and I don't believe it is), then an open device allowing Flash might beat a closed device disallowing it. But that's only a side-effect of openness. From a consumers perspective, the question is still "Does this device do what I need it to do?".
Furthermore, if the answer is "No", and consumers start turning away from Apple for other devices, all Apple need to do is fill that need, and voila, the playing field is leveled again. Because, again, consumers don't care about openness. They care about whether or not the device does what they need. As long as Apple fills that need, and does it at a price point that people are willing to pay, that's all that matters.
So until someone can *significantly* meet or beat Apple on either price point or user experience, I believe Apple will continue to dominate. And given the choice between a clumsy open device running Windows or Android, or Apple's closed device with its slick, polished experience, Apple will win every time, unless the former is *substantially* cheaper than the latter, because in the end open vs closed is a non-debate to users. The question is simple price vs user experience. That's it. End of story.
A REAL COMPUTER does anything that anyone can imagine. A glorified iPod does only what Apple allows.
It's amazing that anyone actually defends this nonsense.
It's hilariously delusional of you to think that anyone but a geek actually gives a shit about this distinction.
For most people, an iDevice does exactly what they need. They can access the data they care about, run apps that do what they want, and in short, it fills a need they have. They don't give a crap about some idealistic vision about open hardware. They don't care to hack the device or code for it. All they care about is that it works for them.
Well, these things work for them. They don't work for you. Fine. But you're not the target market, you never were the target market, and you will never be the target market. And appealing to *you* isn't the key to the success of the tablet. Appealing to the masses is, and they're doing a fine job at that.
Is it possible they would be interested in Flash content?
Evidentally not, given people are buying iDevices despite its absence. Furthermore, it's hardly the linchpin that'll lead to the tablet sweeping away all competition and taking over the world.
Or does MS need to vet all software before you can install it now, too?
My point is, for the average user, *it doesn't matter*. From their perspective, the iPlatform and Windows are no different. Well, except it's actually easier to install an iPlatform app, as there's a single location where all apps are located (ironically, Linux accels in this area, too).
I challenge you to demonstrate the capabilities of your crystal ball: would the comparison come out the same way if the alternative existed?
If the iPad still offered the better user experience? Absolutely.
See, you seem to be *completely* missing my point.
Given two devices, one open and one closed, guess which one would win? The one that provides a better *user experience*. "Open" and "closed" don't even factor into the equation. Which is my entire fucking point. Your average consume doesn't give a shit that they can't develop software for their little toy. All they care about is that the thing provides a silky smooth, easy-to-use experience, that it allows them to consume content they're interested in, and that it works reliably and well. That's it.
"Open" versus "closed" is an argument for the geeks. But the geeks aren't the target market for the iPad, and won't be the determining factor in the success or failure of the tablet market.
And thus you label yourself as being part of the 0.1% of the consumer population who gives a shit about "making random ... programs".
You are not the target market. You are not the yardstick by which to measure the success or failure of these devices.
Uh, what are those niches, exactly?
When the netbook came out, I heard that people wanted one for:
1) Web browsing.
2) Checking email.
Basically, as a lightweight alternative to dragging around a full sized laptop when you didn't really care if the keyboard was easy to use.
But wait! That sounds an awful lot like what I hear people use tablets like the iPad for.
So, what *exactly* are these two, somewhat overlapping niches you are referring to?
A proper open tablet could pretty much wipe out netbooks.
Yeah, I'm calling bullshit.
I know this isn't a popular opinion here on Slashdot, but guess what? *Most people don't give a shit about "open" or "closed" hardware*. Hell, they probably don't even realize the iPlatform is a closed ecosystem, as that's only evident if you try to develop for the thing.
No, this idiotic meme that "if only they'd open the hardware, they'd destroy everyone!", no matter what "they" is (PS3, NDS, iPlatform, etc), needs to stop. It's so hilariously naive it just makes you look stupid.
Where's the tool chain? Where's the Other OS enabler? Where's Linux?
Well, given this hack just came out, might it be reasonable to be a little fucking patient? It takes time to bring all that stuff together.
So you are too stupid to understand the difference.
Very well. Just don't blame the Slashdot community if they aren't as stupid as you, and can thus see why "windows" and "Sony rootkit" are not, in fact, the same kind of evil.
Apparently I do need to use smaller words:
Windows == thing is already broken, but the person is happy with it.
Rootkit == take thing person is happy with, and break it without asking first.
Does that makes sense now? Or are you *really* too stupid to understand the difference?
No:
Wrecking machines without the user's consent - bad
"Wrecking" machines when the user knows full well what they're getting in to, and chooses to install the software anyway - meh
Do you understand the difference now, or do I need to use smaller words?
Incorporation might be a good idea for all I know, but it's strictly speaking unnecessary for the tax issues. Sole proprietorship businesses are entitled to the same business expense tax deductions as corporations.
Who said anything about deductions? The tax *rate* for corporations is lower than that of sole proprietors.