Atari 5200 did well off its name for a while. After that, it had to survive on its own merits and did poorly.
The 5200 never really did all that well. Mostly because Atari wouldn't support it.
My thoughts?
1995 Sega: "The Sega Saturn is going to be the most advanced gaming machine of our time! At only $399, it will be a value. On top of that, we're releasing it six months early!" Sony: "$299"
(The Sega empire fell.)
2006 Sony: "The PS3 is going to be the most advanced gaming machine of our time! At only $599, it will be a value. On top of that, we're releasing it ahead of Nintendo's offerings!" Nintendo: "$249"
(Will Sony's empire fall? Tune in to the next exciting episode of Slashdot for the thrilling conclusion!)
Beneath it, above it, outside of it, however you want to describe it. Yes, the malicious rootkit would be the host, and the regular OS would be the client.:)
I guess this 'expert' doesn't realize that virtualization in hardware has been with us since the 80386 first came around.
Virtual 8088 mode was not comparable. The 8088 virtual machine was entirely controlled by the 80386 software, and was not able to affect the 80386 in any dangerous fashion. The best one could have done was build an 80386 program to "rootkit" an 8088 Operating System. Considering that the OSes of the day (e.g. DOS) didn't have security to begin with, I'm not sure what you would have gained.
Modern virtualization allows for a machine on top of a machine. So I could, in theory, place a controlling bit of kit above your Operating System where it can't see it, can't modify it, and can't realize that it's being toyed with by a rootkit overlord.
Of course, the Blue Pill may work a bit different. I haven't studied it. But there is at least a potential for abuse here.
Sorry we couldn't think up any worthwhile questions!
I realize you're being sarcastic, but there were some better questions asked. (By "better", I mean more pointed.) They simply weren't chosen by either the Slashdot staff and/or the agreement they had with Mr. Hachamovitch. It probably doesn't matter, though, because he would have dodged those as well.
For example, I imagine that the response to my own question would have been, "This is something our customers have not been demanding, so time constraints pushed it back to the next major release." An altogether true response, though completely unhelpful in getting inside the process they used to chose their features.
FWIW, I'm thankful to him that he did take the time to do the interview. Whether or not it's directly helpful, it still provides a lot of insight into Microsoft and their practices.
According to TFA they actually exploit the fact that the foil is NOT as rigid as current platters to actually decrease head crashes.
Indeed. The idea is that it will be able to "give" a little to prevent crashes, while still being strong/rigid enough not to shear off from gyroscopic forces. If one platter were to actually fold into another (or worse, the casing) at >10,000 RPM, then lots of bad things would happen to the poor drive.
first of all, while they do not break, glass/metal platters do stop working after a head strike.
This is true. However, my specific concern was in the foil bending. We've already got fairly good technology to prevent head crashes on a rigid disk. The question is one of seemingly flimsy foil bending toward a destructive end. According to TFA, they're going to use very rigid materials like Titanium or Stainless Steel to prevent it from being too flexible.
Secondly, the quote you chose - while stating that they believe it is more restantant to shock - misses the all important "how".
No, not really. It is sufficient for my comment that they made a claim directly in opposition of the commonly held beliefs about floppy platters. The "how" can be perfectly reasonable and yet still be *wrong*. It's of interest for those who wish to understand more about the technology, but it's no guarantee that the technology will work.
I hope you can see both these things as constructive criticism!
No, I do not. If you wish to add more info, be my guest. There's nothing wrong with building on each other's comments. Just don't insinuate that I'm wrong and/or missing a key piece of information when neither assertion is correct.
I don't follow your point. I said that my first concern would be that the technology would be prone to breakage. My next point, however, was that TFA is claiming that the disks would be more reliable than current disks. I said that it is a bold claim, and that I hope it works out for them.
How you got from there to "you should have read the whole article" is beyond me. I'm not going to quote every point they make just to say that they're claiming greater reliability.
I'm not sure. Did I mention that they'll use the strength of Titanium or Stainless Steel to ensure rigidity similar to that of thicker aluminum or glass platters?
it sstill must be strong enough not to shear itself off the spindle....
*ahem*
According to TFA, they'd use extremely strong materials like Stainless Steel or Titanium to ensure the rigidity of the disks. They claim that this would be just as shock resistant as a Flash drive, but with faster seek time. (i.e. the lighter weight would mean less inertia to fight against)
I should read the FA, but what's to stop his platters from flopping all over the place?
According to TFA, they'd use extremely strong materials like Stainless Steel or Titanium to ensure the rigidity of the disks. They claim that this would be just as shock resistant as a Flash drive, but with faster seek time. (i.e. the lighter weight would mean less inertia to fight against)
...would be the shock resistence of the material. Glass and metal platters aren't going to fold over or have the head rip through them because you hit a nasty pothole. In reading the article, however, I found this statement:
Our 10-gigabyte 0.85-inch drive can spin up, read or write data, then shut down again, all in less time than it takes to perform the same task using flash while being just as resistant to shock damage and more resistant to heat.
That's quite a bold claim! If his claims are accurate, then we may be looking at the future of hard disk drives. Micro-disk drives would become the latest hotness, and Flash would disappear entirely from our memory. IF the technology works, that is.
Time and speculative investors will tell if it's really everything it's cracked up to be. I certainly hope it is, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Go back to my first post in this topic, and start reading again. From the beginning, I've been clear that this is the latest of Sony's customer abuses, and that it is the catalyst that has caused (and I quote) "the movement to boycott Sony [to be] stronger than ever."
But none of that makes any sense in context. Either there is something wrong with their actions towards Lik-Sang or there isn't.
This isn't just about Lik-Sang. It's about a long string of abuses that Sony has perpetrated. The great-grandparent poster suggested that I was being inconsistent for not boycotting Nintendo for similar (though he does not accept that the situation was different) behavior. My response is intended to point out that the Lik-Sang issue is merely one more reason, and that I am tired of providing Sony with slack. Thus it is not at all inconsistent to NOT boycott Nintendo, even if you fail to accept the difference between the two situations.
You really sound like you're frothing at the mouth here.
No foaming. Just a LOT of raw anger toward Sony as a company.
When was the last time any console shipped with a second controller in the box?
The Wii is advertised as a family/multiplayer system. As a result, consumers were hoping for either an extra controller or (at least) affordable controllers. Consumers got neither out of Nintendo. It hasn't generated any ill-will toward Nintendo (at least, none that I'm aware of), but it did cool some of the excitement about the system. I'd imagine that some of the consumers will wait on their Wii purchase for a little while longer than they were originally planning.
If you're gonna decry one company for doing something you should at least have the good sense and the balls to decry any other company that did the exact same thing.
Ok, let's say that your argument holds up for a minute. (It doesn't, but we'll pretend, just for your sake.) Then let me ask you:
- Is Nintendo Guilty of distributing Rootkits? - Is Nintendo Guilty of a massive coverup to hide the fact that they did not recall exploding batteries they knew about? - Is Nintendo Guilty of arrogently telling its customers to "get a second job"? - Is Nintendo Guilty of trading on their previous name for quality to produce overpriced, sub-standard electronics? - Is Nintendo Guilty of giving consumers with defective LCD screens a "will not replace" runaround? - Is Nintendo Guilty of forcing new firmware upgrades on existing equipment just to lock out the homebrew community? - Is Nintendo Guilty of ignoring their warranty of fitness on CCD parts they produced?
I could go on and on and on about absuses in recent history that Sony is guilty of. Are you going to tell me that I should boycott Nintendo over the one issue when I'm boycotting Sony for a long string of abuses, with this latest one being the trigger that has pushed me over the edge?
That's inconsistency. Why shouldn't Nintendo get at least part of the slack that Sony has had to date?
Lik-Sang sold grey imports and was subject European rules governing such things.
Yes, they are subject to those laws. Of course, they never had a chance to defend themselves. I repeat:
SONY FILED A LAWSUIT IN NEARLY EVERY EUROPEAN UNION MEMBER COUNTRY
Did you get that? Probably not. Let me say it a few more times:
SONY FILED A LAWSUIT IN NEARLY EVERY EUROPEAN UNION MEMBER COUNTRY SONY FILED A LAWSUIT IN NEARLY EVERY EUROPEAN UNION MEMBER COUNTRY SONY FILED A LAWSUIT IN NEARLY EVERY EUROPEAN UNION MEMBER COUNTRY SONY FILED A LAWSUIT IN NEARLY EVERY EUROPEAN UNION MEMBER COUNTRY SONY FILED A LAWSUIT IN NEARLY EVERY EUROPEAN UNION MEMBER COUNTRY SONY FILED A LAWSUIT IN NEARLY EVERY EUROPEAN UNION MEMBER COUNTRY
Did you get it that time?
Sony was entirely within their rights and the law to bring suit.
Were they? Were they REALLY within their rights to FILE A LAWSUIT IN NEARLY EVERY EUROPEAN UNION MEMBER COUNTRY?!? Sony exploited the looseness of the EU consolidation to pull a nasty, underhanded, disgusting legal tactic that was intended to make it too expensive to fight.
The specifics of the action and the judgement can be read here.
1. Sony won by default. Lik-Sang didn't show up, they disolved their company due to LAWSUITS IN NEARLY EVERY EUROPEAN UNION MEMBER COUNTRY.
2. I will repeat, I DO NOT CARE whether Sony's lawsuit would have been upheld or not. Had Sony handled this properly, Lik-Sang may have had to stop the imports of Sony Consoles, plus pay Sony damages. Instead, SONY FILED A LAWSUIT IN NEARLY EVERY EUROPEAN UNION MEMBER COUNTRY IN ORDER TO PUT LIK-SANG OUT OF BUSINESS. Then they had the gall to turn around and claim that they had nothing to do with it.
I've got two words to describe my feelings about their long string of abuses: BOYCOTT SONY!!!
Or are you one of those morons who thinks that slashdot has that much of a sway over the consumer market?
No, I'm one of those "morons" who thinks that the LOUD calls for a boycott showing up on every gaming news and technology site carrying the story, is a pretty good indication that the customers have had ENOUGH. I may have led the charge for a boycott here, but that doesn't explain who led the charge over on digg. Or on NeoWin. Or on Kotaku. Or on Eurogamer. Or on Engadget. Or on MacRumors. Or on JoyStik. Or on GameSpot. Or on Ars Technica. Or on GameFaqs.
Basically, go to ANY forum that carried the Lik-Sang story, and you will be hit smack in the face with talk of boycotts. Like it or not, more and more people are deciding to boycott Sony. The Rootkit fiasco already cost Sony a lot of goodwill, but this latest smack in the face is pushing most of us over the edge.
1. That Lik-Sang is gone. They sold ModChips which were illegal. (Whether you and I believe they should be or not.) The Lik-Sang that Sony sued is a reputable dealer of imported goods, and the ONLY distributor of popular products like the TopGun LCD Light Gun.
2. Sony's lawsuit was only a minor issue. Their tactics were what pissed everyone off. They filed a suit against Lik-Sang in nearly every country in the European Union. Such tactics could only have one outcome: Lik-Sang will close down business to avoid having to fight dozens of costly lawsuits.
So no, I don't particularly care that Nintendo once sued Lik-Sang. I wouldn't even care that Sony sued Lik-Sang to stop the PS3 imports to Europe. I *do* care that Sony forced Lik-Sang out of business thus preventing them from selling hundreds of perfectly legal products for which many of them they are the only distributor.
Nintendo is garnering a great deal of good will (though the one controller in the package is a little bit of a setback) while Sony continues to tick off its customers. With Sony's latest move against Lik-Sang, the movement to boycott Sony is stronger than ever. So even after Sony can no longer claim the PS3 launch as a major cost, their profits are liable to keep dropping. Which will only cause them to make another stupid move (perhaps incarcerate their customers?) which will draw even MORE boycotts. Their profits will drop, and the investors will start getting nervous. And then....
Well, he're hoping for a bright future with the current lot of executives FIRED.
When I was in a similar place to the submitter, I started by reading the usual recommended programming books and doing small projects to learn new languages, but what had a more positive impact was starting a CS or SE Master's program
I think you're missing the point of my post. The submitter claims to already have a CompSci degree. Which means that the items listed should be redundant. If they aren't (which they probably aren't), it says a lot about what he got out of his education. Whether that is his fault or the school's is a matter for debate.
The conclusion one might come to is that there is just as much (if not more) value in simply learning the topic on your own. Doing this allows you to work at your own pace, provides you with motivation to learn, and allows you to cover topics that a poor school might fail to teach properly.
Learn different programming languages. Study algorithms. Study complexity theory. Study math. Learn cryptography, etc. Read Knuth's Art of Computer Programming.
Funny. That sounds an awful lot like a CompSci degree.
In the first link, they're self-signed certs that trigger the "Stop the World, something's wrong!" message. If consumers are ignoring this already, I'm afraid that a "green bar" isn't going to be much more effective.
The second link is more problematic, but the solution is simple. If a cert authority can't do proper due dillegence, then remove them from the browser's trusted list until they correct their procedures. They're obviously not trustworthy. Giving Verisign an artificial monopoly on something they should already be doing is not the way to solve the problem!
Definitely sounds like a racket to me. If you get the green bar by paying Verisign 150%, how does that differ from today's security certificates? Other than having to pay more money, and only being able to be verified by Verisign, that is. (Doesn't sound racket-y at all. Or was that rickety?) While they make it sound like the Green Bar is an excellent method of knowing that Amazon is really Amazon, I think it's actually a reverse attempt. By getting Amazon to use this spiffy new green bar, Verisign is attempting to legitimize their new technology in the eyes of the consumer. Little will actually change for the consumer, as he already knows when he's surfing Amazon.
The only place it would supposedly help is with Phishing. But since Phishing sites can't get certificates anyway, what does this help? If the lock isn't good enough, just change the URL Bar green for every VERIFIED certificate received. That will have the EXACT same effect.
Slashdot Mirror
The 5200 never really did all that well. Mostly because Atari wouldn't support it.
My thoughts?
1995
Sega: "The Sega Saturn is going to be the most advanced gaming machine of our time! At only $399, it will be a value. On top of that, we're releasing it six months early!"
Sony: "$299"
(The Sega empire fell.)
2006
Sony: "The PS3 is going to be the most advanced gaming machine of our time! At only $599, it will be a value. On top of that, we're releasing it ahead of Nintendo's offerings!"
Nintendo: "$249"
(Will Sony's empire fall? Tune in to the next exciting episode of Slashdot for the thrilling conclusion!)
Beneath it, above it, outside of it, however you want to describe it. Yes, the malicious rootkit would be the host, and the regular OS would be the client.
Virtual 8088 mode was not comparable. The 8088 virtual machine was entirely controlled by the 80386 software, and was not able to affect the 80386 in any dangerous fashion. The best one could have done was build an 80386 program to "rootkit" an 8088 Operating System. Considering that the OSes of the day (e.g. DOS) didn't have security to begin with, I'm not sure what you would have gained.
Modern virtualization allows for a machine on top of a machine. So I could, in theory, place a controlling bit of kit above your Operating System where it can't see it, can't modify it, and can't realize that it's being toyed with by a rootkit overlord.
Of course, the Blue Pill may work a bit different. I haven't studied it. But there is at least a potential for abuse here.
I realize you're being sarcastic, but there were some better questions asked. (By "better", I mean more pointed.) They simply weren't chosen by either the Slashdot staff and/or the agreement they had with Mr. Hachamovitch. It probably doesn't matter, though, because he would have dodged those as well.
For example, I imagine that the response to my own question would have been, "This is something our customers have not been demanding, so time constraints pushed it back to the next major release." An altogether true response, though completely unhelpful in getting inside the process they used to chose their features.
FWIW, I'm thankful to him that he did take the time to do the interview. Whether or not it's directly helpful, it still provides a lot of insight into Microsoft and their practices.
Indeed. The idea is that it will be able to "give" a little to prevent crashes, while still being strong/rigid enough not to shear off from gyroscopic forces. If one platter were to actually fold into another (or worse, the casing) at >10,000 RPM, then lots of bad things would happen to the poor drive.
This is true. However, my specific concern was in the foil bending. We've already got fairly good technology to prevent head crashes on a rigid disk. The question is one of seemingly flimsy foil bending toward a destructive end. According to TFA, they're going to use very rigid materials like Titanium or Stainless Steel to prevent it from being too flexible.
No, not really. It is sufficient for my comment that they made a claim directly in opposition of the commonly held beliefs about floppy platters. The "how" can be perfectly reasonable and yet still be *wrong*. It's of interest for those who wish to understand more about the technology, but it's no guarantee that the technology will work.
No, I do not. If you wish to add more info, be my guest. There's nothing wrong with building on each other's comments. Just don't insinuate that I'm wrong and/or missing a key piece of information when neither assertion is correct.
I don't follow your point. I said that my first concern would be that the technology would be prone to breakage. My next point, however, was that TFA is claiming that the disks would be more reliable than current disks. I said that it is a bold claim, and that I hope it works out for them.
How you got from there to "you should have read the whole article" is beyond me. I'm not going to quote every point they make just to say that they're claiming greater reliability.
I'm not sure. Did I mention that they'll use the strength of Titanium or Stainless Steel to ensure rigidity similar to that of thicker aluminum or glass platters?
*snap*
I knew I forget something.
*ahem*
According to TFA, they'd use extremely strong materials like Stainless Steel or Titanium to ensure the rigidity of the disks. They claim that this would be just as shock resistant as a Flash drive, but with faster seek time. (i.e. the lighter weight would mean less inertia to fight against)
According to TFA, they'd use extremely strong materials like Stainless Steel or Titanium to ensure the rigidity of the disks. They claim that this would be just as shock resistant as a Flash drive, but with faster seek time. (i.e. the lighter weight would mean less inertia to fight against)
That's quite a bold claim! If his claims are accurate, then we may be looking at the future of hard disk drives. Micro-disk drives would become the latest hotness, and Flash would disappear entirely from our memory. IF the technology works, that is.
Time and speculative investors will tell if it's really everything it's cracked up to be. I certainly hope it is, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Go back to my first post in this topic, and start reading again. From the beginning, I've been clear that this is the latest of Sony's customer abuses, and that it is the catalyst that has caused (and I quote) "the movement to boycott Sony [to be] stronger than ever."
This isn't just about Lik-Sang. It's about a long string of abuses that Sony has perpetrated. The great-grandparent poster suggested that I was being inconsistent for not boycotting Nintendo for similar (though he does not accept that the situation was different) behavior. My response is intended to point out that the Lik-Sang issue is merely one more reason, and that I am tired of providing Sony with slack. Thus it is not at all inconsistent to NOT boycott Nintendo, even if you fail to accept the difference between the two situations.
No foaming. Just a LOT of raw anger toward Sony as a company.
The Wii is advertised as a family/multiplayer system. As a result, consumers were hoping for either an extra controller or (at least) affordable controllers. Consumers got neither out of Nintendo. It hasn't generated any ill-will toward Nintendo (at least, none that I'm aware of), but it did cool some of the excitement about the system. I'd imagine that some of the consumers will wait on their Wii purchase for a little while longer than they were originally planning.
Ok, let's say that your argument holds up for a minute. (It doesn't, but we'll pretend, just for your sake.) Then let me ask you:
- Is Nintendo Guilty of distributing Rootkits?
- Is Nintendo Guilty of a massive coverup to hide the fact that they did not recall exploding batteries they knew about?
- Is Nintendo Guilty of arrogently telling its customers to "get a second job"?
- Is Nintendo Guilty of trading on their previous name for quality to produce overpriced, sub-standard electronics?
- Is Nintendo Guilty of giving consumers with defective LCD screens a "will not replace" runaround?
- Is Nintendo Guilty of forcing new firmware upgrades on existing equipment just to lock out the homebrew community?
- Is Nintendo Guilty of ignoring their warranty of fitness on CCD parts they produced?
I could go on and on and on about absuses in recent history that Sony is guilty of. Are you going to tell me that I should boycott Nintendo over the one issue when I'm boycotting Sony for a long string of abuses, with this latest one being the trigger that has pushed me over the edge?
That's inconsistency. Why shouldn't Nintendo get at least part of the slack that Sony has had to date?
Yes, they are subject to those laws. Of course, they never had a chance to defend themselves. I repeat:
SONY FILED A LAWSUIT IN NEARLY EVERY EUROPEAN UNION MEMBER COUNTRY
Did you get that? Probably not. Let me say it a few more times:
SONY FILED A LAWSUIT IN NEARLY EVERY EUROPEAN UNION MEMBER COUNTRY
SONY FILED A LAWSUIT IN NEARLY EVERY EUROPEAN UNION MEMBER COUNTRY
SONY FILED A LAWSUIT IN NEARLY EVERY EUROPEAN UNION MEMBER COUNTRY
SONY FILED A LAWSUIT IN NEARLY EVERY EUROPEAN UNION MEMBER COUNTRY
SONY FILED A LAWSUIT IN NEARLY EVERY EUROPEAN UNION MEMBER COUNTRY
SONY FILED A LAWSUIT IN NEARLY EVERY EUROPEAN UNION MEMBER COUNTRY
Did you get it that time?
Were they? Were they REALLY within their rights to FILE A LAWSUIT IN NEARLY EVERY EUROPEAN UNION MEMBER COUNTRY?!? Sony exploited the looseness of the EU consolidation to pull a nasty, underhanded, disgusting legal tactic that was intended to make it too expensive to fight.
1. Sony won by default. Lik-Sang didn't show up, they disolved their company due to LAWSUITS IN NEARLY EVERY EUROPEAN UNION MEMBER COUNTRY.
2. I will repeat, I DO NOT CARE whether Sony's lawsuit would have been upheld or not. Had Sony handled this properly, Lik-Sang may have had to stop the imports of Sony Consoles, plus pay Sony damages. Instead, SONY FILED A LAWSUIT IN NEARLY EVERY EUROPEAN UNION MEMBER COUNTRY IN ORDER TO PUT LIK-SANG OUT OF BUSINESS. Then they had the gall to turn around and claim that they had nothing to do with it.
I've got two words to describe my feelings about their long string of abuses: BOYCOTT SONY!!!
Can I hear an AMEN out there?
No, I'm one of those "morons" who thinks that the LOUD calls for a boycott showing up on every gaming news and technology site carrying the story, is a pretty good indication that the customers have had ENOUGH. I may have led the charge for a boycott here, but that doesn't explain who led the charge over on digg. Or on NeoWin. Or on Kotaku. Or on Eurogamer. Or on Engadget. Or on MacRumors. Or on JoyStik. Or on GameSpot. Or on Ars Technica. Or on GameFaqs.
Basically, go to ANY forum that carried the Lik-Sang story, and you will be hit smack in the face with talk of boycotts. Like it or not, more and more people are deciding to boycott Sony. The Rootkit fiasco already cost Sony a lot of goodwill, but this latest smack in the face is pushing most of us over the edge.
Here we go again.
1. That Lik-Sang is gone. They sold ModChips which were illegal. (Whether you and I believe they should be or not.) The Lik-Sang that Sony sued is a reputable dealer of imported goods, and the ONLY distributor of popular products like the TopGun LCD Light Gun.
2. Sony's lawsuit was only a minor issue. Their tactics were what pissed everyone off. They filed a suit against Lik-Sang in nearly every country in the European Union. Such tactics could only have one outcome: Lik-Sang will close down business to avoid having to fight dozens of costly lawsuits.
So no, I don't particularly care that Nintendo once sued Lik-Sang. I wouldn't even care that Sony sued Lik-Sang to stop the PS3 imports to Europe. I *do* care that Sony forced Lik-Sang out of business thus preventing them from selling hundreds of perfectly legal products for which many of them they are the only distributor.
Nintendo is garnering a great deal of good will (though the one controller in the package is a little bit of a setback) while Sony continues to tick off its customers. With Sony's latest move against Lik-Sang, the movement to boycott Sony is stronger than ever. So even after Sony can no longer claim the PS3 launch as a major cost, their profits are liable to keep dropping. Which will only cause them to make another stupid move (perhaps incarcerate their customers?) which will draw even MORE boycotts. Their profits will drop, and the investors will start getting nervous. And then....
Well, he're hoping for a bright future with the current lot of executives FIRED.
Burma Shave!
I think you're missing the point of my post. The submitter claims to already have a CompSci degree. Which means that the items listed should be redundant. If they aren't (which they probably aren't), it says a lot about what he got out of his education. Whether that is his fault or the school's is a matter for debate.
The conclusion one might come to is that there is just as much (if not more) value in simply learning the topic on your own. Doing this allows you to work at your own pace, provides you with motivation to learn, and allows you to cover topics that a poor school might fail to teach properly.
Never stop learning. Words to live by.
Funny. That sounds an awful lot like a CompSci degree.
.
.
.
.
Just saying.
In the first link, they're self-signed certs that trigger the "Stop the World, something's wrong!" message. If consumers are ignoring this already, I'm afraid that a "green bar" isn't going to be much more effective.
The second link is more problematic, but the solution is simple. If a cert authority can't do proper due dillegence, then remove them from the browser's trusted list until they correct their procedures. They're obviously not trustworthy. Giving Verisign an artificial monopoly on something they should already be doing is not the way to solve the problem!
1. That a commitment to Linux, not their own distro.
2. The story was already posted here.
Now go troll somewhere else.
Definitely sounds like a racket to me. If you get the green bar by paying Verisign 150%, how does that differ from today's security certificates? Other than having to pay more money, and only being able to be verified by Verisign, that is. (Doesn't sound racket-y at all. Or was that rickety?) While they make it sound like the Green Bar is an excellent method of knowing that Amazon is really Amazon, I think it's actually a reverse attempt. By getting Amazon to use this spiffy new green bar, Verisign is attempting to legitimize their new technology in the eyes of the consumer. Little will actually change for the consumer, as he already knows when he's surfing Amazon.
The only place it would supposedly help is with Phishing. But since Phishing sites can't get certificates anyway, what does this help? If the lock isn't good enough, just change the URL Bar green for every VERIFIED certificate received. That will have the EXACT same effect.
Thanks! I figured there was probably a price difference, but I wasn't able find it at the time.