No more ridiculous $70/month for 20gb or whatever the average is. The most you can get as a consumer is 500gb for something like $250/month, ridiculous.
Of course there is a limit both on capacity and overselling, but that was artificially increased through the monopoly. Now we should start getting fairer prices, and catching up with the rest of the world.
It comes from experience. I started out as a personal computer tech thirty years ago (before there even was an IBM PC), before the rise of malware (back then it was mostly boot-sector infectors and the occasional trojan.) In that time I've dealt with a lot of different hardware, lots of different operating systems... and it's always been Microsoft who's been at the bottom of the heap when it comes to network and filesystem security.
As much as I wish it were true, experience does not equate to having knowledge in an area.
Probably it wouldn't, but if you'd read my previous post again you'll see that I didn't make that claim. I just said that Microsoft needs to work harder, and that's a fact. The fact that they don't (because they have no real motivation to do so) is a major strike against Windows. We've all talked about the inherent evils of monopolies, well, this is one of them. When you reach 90+% market penetration, and have managed to keep all other desktop operating systems from reaching anything resembling a competitive status, you don't have to do squat when it comes to security. Too many other people to blame for it. Yes, they put out a lot of patches and fixes, and that's good so far as it goes, but when you get right down to it, the rate of infection of Windows boxes is still ungodly. Microsoft still has some work ahead of them.
No. Microsoft have done a great amount of work securing their OS. I haven't got an infection in years, the people who do get infected because of user stupidity and clicking yes to in stall dangerous software, something that affects every OS. Saying that Microsoft have not made any major improvements and still have a long way to go is just spreading FUD, because as of the moment they are the most secure desktop OS around.
Maybe you don't know as much about Unix security methodology as you do about Windows', but honestly the Unix-derived OSes would be a much harder target than Windows. The underlying philosophy is very different from Windows: remember, Unix started out in life as a network operating system.
I'm well versed in both. Unix has a horrible security methodology left over from its days from implicitly trusting everyone on the network. Windows NT Has *ALWAYS* been more secure than most versions of Linux, not per code quality but design. Recently, it has been much better by having less vulnerabilities also. Honestly, I am much happier to have a Microsoft OS at 90% of the market instead of Linux or OS X, both of which have atrocious security.
Sorry, but you couldn't. Your claims come from either ignorance or zealotry.
There is absolutely nothing particular insecure about Windows, and for the last 5 years or so they have been excellent towards security, certainly more proactive than OS X or Linux. The fact that their OS is a target for attacks says nothing about the OS security. It is just one more example of a dancing pigs problem in action.
FWIW, I'm not anti-linux. I don't have an alliance to anyone platform. I just get tired of people denying that Linux would have the same problems if it were as popular, when it would probably have more.
I can't believe the scare tactics that are being used, as well as the fact there was no good reason to take this guys domain. What kinds of bullshit powers are these where people don't have a chance to defend their property, when it isn't even being user to solicit illegal activity as per caselaw?
No, you couldnt. Linux is horribly insecure when compared to Windows, they don't even have a proper disclosure policy treating security bugs the same as normal bugs. Recall that recent root exploit that went ignored for 2 weeks? Yeah.
Seriously, let's hear this brilliant idea that a number of geeks on Slashdot seem to have as to how to design an OS that is perfectly secure against Malware and so on, yet still gives the user full administrative control over their system. So show us a framework or example of some kind where users have the full control they must over personally owned systems, yet the system is 100% secure over bad code.
Cool. So your point is that if Linux and Mac get popular while Windows remains popular, security as a whole for the computing landscape will be improved due to a more heterogeneous environment. It's quite possible.
You also realize then that the argument that if Linux or Mac had 90% of market share, that they would be exploited just as often, if not more so is correct?
That's just idiocy. Linux has more vulnerabilities per quater all in all, but simply isn't popular enough for malware authors to target. Windows has been decently secure for a very long time, and this vulnerability is no worse than the recent kernel vulnerability, that was know about for *weeks* and went unpatched.
There really are not to many RTS games that really require any sort of strategy. It all boils down to having units that can exploit a weakness in your opponents, and to choose a quantity or quality attack. RTS' are not more strategic than Counter-Strike.
How do you know the ripples are from the start of the universe, and how do you tell the time of them? Truly curious..., thankyou in advance for any explanation....
That story has nothing to do with this story, or asimovs' essay cited in GP's post. In fact, from that story there is absolutely no reason to assume that there was more than one big bang as per the commonly held theory. Certainly nothing to even imply multiple big bangs. A great story though.
The guys tone seems to be that he knows best and that his view is commonly held, and that the people arguing are only doing so for the sole purpose of arguing.
I don't think that's true at all, and while a company certainly has no obligation to assure free speech to all customers of its service, I would expect it to at least be considered, especially when the arguments have a lot of merit.
I mean, if his point is that they won't allow things commonly found horribly offensive then he should have simply stated that, without diminishing the people making the argument. All in all, he comes across like a tool.
Chip and PIN is horrible, and most people in the UK only think it is more secure cause their banks tell them it is. It isn't, it in fact shifts liability from the bank to the consumer -- it's horrible. However, due to a great advertising campaign, most brits will be very skeptical of any non CHip+PIN card thinking it horribly outdated and insecure. In Australia, we can't swipe without entering a PIN or signing, the same as in most sane countries.
The US desperately needs a revamp of their banking system where no authentication is needed when you have a card, but Chip+Pin is not the way to go.
Idiot. If Linux was to take the place of Windows, most people would not install via a repository, as most of what they install would be proprietary. They would have EXACTLY the same problems.
It is TRIVIAL to install a virus on Linux, there just isn't enough marketshare to make it worthwhile.
Slashdot Mirror
That deal is upload and download, so still only 500gb download. worse it is split up between peak and offpeak.
No more ridiculous $70/month for 20gb or whatever the average is. The most you can get as a consumer is 500gb for something like $250/month, ridiculous.
Of course there is a limit both on capacity and overselling, but that was artificially increased through the monopoly. Now we should start getting fairer prices, and catching up with the rest of the world.
It comes from experience. I started out as a personal computer tech thirty years ago (before there even was an IBM PC), before the rise of malware (back then it was mostly boot-sector infectors and the occasional trojan.) In that time I've dealt with a lot of different hardware, lots of different operating systems ... and it's always been Microsoft who's been at the bottom of the heap when it comes to network and filesystem security.
As much as I wish it were true, experience does not equate to having knowledge in an area.
Probably it wouldn't, but if you'd read my previous post again you'll see that I didn't make that claim. I just said that Microsoft needs to work harder, and that's a fact. The fact that they don't (because they have no real motivation to do so) is a major strike against Windows. We've all talked about the inherent evils of monopolies, well, this is one of them. When you reach 90+% market penetration, and have managed to keep all other desktop operating systems from reaching anything resembling a competitive status, you don't have to do squat when it comes to security. Too many other people to blame for it. Yes, they put out a lot of patches and fixes, and that's good so far as it goes, but when you get right down to it, the rate of infection of Windows boxes is still ungodly. Microsoft still has some work ahead of them.
No. Microsoft have done a great amount of work securing their OS. I haven't got an infection in years, the people who do get infected because of user stupidity and clicking yes to in stall dangerous software, something that affects every OS. Saying that Microsoft have not made any major improvements and still have a long way to go is just spreading FUD, because as of the moment they are the most secure desktop OS around.
Maybe you don't know as much about Unix security methodology as you do about Windows', but honestly the Unix-derived OSes would be a much harder target than Windows. The underlying philosophy is very different from Windows: remember, Unix started out in life as a network operating system.
I'm well versed in both. Unix has a horrible security methodology left over from its days from implicitly trusting everyone on the network. Windows NT Has *ALWAYS* been more secure than most versions of Linux, not per code quality but design. Recently, it has been much better by having less vulnerabilities also. Honestly, I am much happier to have a Microsoft OS at 90% of the market instead of Linux or OS X, both of which have atrocious security.
Sorry, but you couldn't. Your claims come from either ignorance or zealotry.
There is absolutely nothing particular insecure about Windows, and for the last 5 years or so they have been excellent towards security, certainly more proactive than OS X or Linux. The fact that their OS is a target for attacks says nothing about the OS security. It is just one more example of a dancing pigs problem in action.
FWIW, I'm not anti-linux. I don't have an alliance to anyone platform. I just get tired of people denying that Linux would have the same problems if it were as popular, when it would probably have more.
I can't believe the scare tactics that are being used, as well as the fact there was no good reason to take this guys domain. What kinds of bullshit powers are these where people don't have a chance to defend their property, when it isn't even being user to solicit illegal activity as per caselaw?
You really should be modded troll, unless the above is simply due to ignorance.
No, you couldnt. Linux is horribly insecure when compared to Windows, they don't even have a proper disclosure policy treating security bugs the same as normal bugs. Recall that recent root exploit that went ignored for 2 weeks? Yeah.
Seriously, let's hear this brilliant idea that a number of geeks on Slashdot seem to have as to how to design an OS that is perfectly secure against Malware and so on, yet still gives the user full administrative control over their system. So show us a framework or example of some kind where users have the full control they must over personally owned systems, yet the system is 100% secure over bad code.
Mandatory Access Controls. Not 100%, but close.
Cool. So your point is that if Linux and Mac get popular while Windows remains popular, security as a whole for the computing landscape will be improved due to a more heterogeneous environment. It's quite possible.
You also realize then that the argument that if Linux or Mac had 90% of market share, that they would be exploited just as often, if not more so is correct?
That's just idiocy. Linux has more vulnerabilities per quater all in all, but simply isn't popular enough for malware authors to target. Windows has been decently secure for a very long time, and this vulnerability is no worse than the recent kernel vulnerability, that was know about for *weeks* and went unpatched.
You're the one coming across like an asshole. Games are shitty these days, and that's just a fact.
That's recently. In the old days, it was mainly story that sold games. Deus Ex. Half-Life. FEAR. Etc.
There really are not to many RTS games that really require any sort of strategy. It all boils down to having units that can exploit a weakness in your opponents, and to choose a quantity or quality attack. RTS' are not more strategic than Counter-Strike.
How do you know the ripples are from the start of the universe, and how do you tell the time of them? Truly curious..., thankyou in advance for any explanation....
How would you know it was milliseconds and not minutes? Would time even existed in any meaningful state then?
That story has nothing to do with this story, or asimovs' essay cited in GP's post. In fact, from that story there is absolutely no reason to assume that there was more than one big bang as per the commonly held theory. Certainly nothing to even imply multiple big bangs. A great story though.
American already only refers to people from the US. North American would refer to people from the continent, so USian is just redundant and retarded.
The problem is his dismissive attitude of the other side as simply being contrarians.
Americans. Not USians. Americans. Retard.
The guys tone seems to be that he knows best and that his view is commonly held, and that the people arguing are only doing so for the sole purpose of arguing.
I don't think that's true at all, and while a company certainly has no obligation to assure free speech to all customers of its service, I would expect it to at least be considered, especially when the arguments have a lot of merit.
I mean, if his point is that they won't allow things commonly found horribly offensive then he should have simply stated that, without diminishing the people making the argument. All in all, he comes across like a tool.
Chip and PIN is horrible, and most people in the UK only think it is more secure cause their banks tell them it is. It isn't, it in fact shifts liability from the bank to the consumer -- it's horrible. However, due to a great advertising campaign, most brits will be very skeptical of any non CHip+PIN card thinking it horribly outdated and insecure. In Australia, we can't swipe without entering a PIN or signing, the same as in most sane countries.
The US desperately needs a revamp of their banking system where no authentication is needed when you have a card, but Chip+Pin is not the way to go.
Hey, you have a phone call, the 50's miss you wand want to know if you'll be home in time for supper?
Can you expand on that? I thought the O-1 visa was extremely limited?
Chip and PIN is horible. It offers no increase in security, and a huge increase in liability.
Idiot. If Linux was to take the place of Windows, most people would not install via a repository, as most of what they install would be proprietary. They would have EXACTLY the same problems.
It is TRIVIAL to install a virus on Linux, there just isn't enough marketshare to make it worthwhile.