You say that, and then immediately follow with this:
there is no other country which is attacking everything everywhere this aggressively
So either you're contradicting what you just said, you're attempting to imply that the mountains, rivers, fields and rocks of China are attacking other countries or you're drawing no distinction between the people living in China and the 'country' of China. And why would any given person in China be 'China'? Could I fairly categorize all Americans as bone-headed uneducated sloths with 150 TV channels who love their cousins and enjoy a good roadkill stew?.. all because some Americans are like that?
I'm not saying the government there is doing it, but I do know that there is no other country which is attacking everything everywhere this aggressively
I'm not saying that you're contradicting yourself, but you're contradicting yourself.
I mean honestly, what century are we in? Who pays for internet content anymore? Who wants the content created and distributed by the media cartels? The cartels are becoming less and less relevant and Intel is really swinging at shit in the dirt with this device.
Even if Intel manages the impossible and talks the media cartels into playing nicely with it, who would want to care about 'Intel Inside' set top boxes? Especially with cameras and microphones in them (that's some stupid and scary shit). Every ISP has a cheap, viable, simple alternative.. it's a flooded market and Intel isn't even near entering it yet.
This isn't a problem you can just 'throw money at' and make it work. If you gave these boxes away, people wouldn't pay the subscription. The cameras are the only thing which makes this device different and (possibly) interesting to a small market. Sure, every parent in the world is going to be suspicious and just about anyone who walks around their house naked or sleeps on the couch won't want one.. but there are some people who would really love having a plug-in box with video chat on the television (and perhaps some interactive games). That's the only thing which is going to make this device work.. and it sounds like that's not what Intel installed the camera for!
The whole project screams as a great idea for 1965 and a scary implementation of big brother idiocy from a company flailing and panicing about what? ONLY being the largest chip manufacturer in the world?
Mr Hugger, find yourself a new job while the getting is good!
WTF? Isn't it common sense to fully charge an electric car before embarking on a journey to test the car's range?
It would be common sense if the reporter wasn't biased. But there's no chance that the NYT is biased right? After all, there aren't other external entities which fund their business model that would have an outside influence is there?
After all, the NYT gets all of it's funding from subscriptions... right???
The government isn't popular enough, so Gillard ordered a market research report into technology. When she got the results, she picked up an iPad and strolled around the parliament with it for a fortnight. Now she turned to page 2 of the report and launched a very obvious but practically useless 'public questioning'.
Adobe is going to hear more bitching from their paying customers.. and will probably release the 'Australian Edition' of the software with a free clip-on fuzzy Koala, Apple is going to justify itself with shipping costs and Microsoft is going to re-design it's software pricing for Australian businessees to make it appear cheaper but actually be even more outrageously expensive
Julia Gillard is going to win the next election because Joe Hockey will take over leadership from Tony Abbott and G comes before H.
The BBC reports that Sony, the creators of the MiniDisc audio format,... now belongs to a bygone era.
:)
But more seriously, the era of proprietry formats and manufacturer specific devices is over. If you make your own 'special' device, it's going to be more expensive than the competition. Some modern device manufacturers counter this by creating a device eco-system or brand which makes the device better for the user for one or more reasons.
Sony has never quite grasped that you can't beat, cajole, bribe or force people to do what you want. It's possible to encourage, enthrall and excite.. but it's not possible to control a global electronics market. Despite which, this 20 year demonstration of near complete failure still won't help Sony to adapt to modern markets. It's sad that the few heads at the top of Sony are slowly destroying what was once the most exciting designer of high quality electronic goods.
What would the WSJ have to gain by giving the Chinese a bad name?
Wider readership? Front page of/.? 'Proof' that their expose on Chinese officials was right? Carrying favour with the US 'Cyber Security' peeps / government.. and probably about 2000 other things.. it all depends how carefully you look at the situation
All of this means that these attacks are vastly under-reported, and when companies do report it is usually genuine
I didn't say that the attack wasn't genuine, and have no doubt that they're vastly under-reported. But you've also got to look at the context of the attack and the relevance to the current position of the organisation. This wasn't a random attack.. that's very key here. Reporting the attack is a response to the direct nature of the attack (ie. taking the moral highground) as well as a defence against the attack continuing.
China’s Ministry of National Defense said, “Chinese laws prohibit any action including hacking that damages Internet security.” It added that “to accuse the Chinese military of launching cyberattacks without solid proof is unprofessional and baseless.”
Couldn't agree more. There's no evidence, just accusations without any basis. Yet another example of the US media making sensationalist claims which deride the leadership of China and rail public opinion against them.
Personally, if I were a government looking to contend with another government, my best weapon would be a false flag faceless cyber attack against a large news media organisation which could be widely publicised and blamed on my enemy without any evidence. That would not only rail public opinion against the 'other' government, but justify my expanded spending on 'Cyber Security'.
If I was really lucky, the unemployed US computer geeks on/. might evren pick up the story and start attacking (morally and perhaps directly) the Chinese authorities. Not only would 'Cyber Security' become even more of a well known issue, but controlling the internet (ie. SOPA) could be put back on the cards AND my opponent would be under attack without me having to raise a finger or accept any blame.
'Cyber Security' is the new 'Terrorism'. Take the red pill.
Hahahahaha. This isn't software libre that geeks cling onto, it's something real. For the average person, a device that too hard to use, runs out of battery life or breaks all of the time is disempowering, not empowering.
Having a functional, usable smartphone in your pocket gives you more freedom and empowerment than having a dumb telephone. That's liberation. Yes, it's loaded with Apple's software and it's manufactured by Apple.. but when Joe Sixpack can load and use 500,000 different applications(!), he's empowered by Apple. It's Apple's walled garden, but Joe doesn't care.. Joe just wants his stuff to be useful, and I don't blame him.
Create me an unwalled garden that accomplishes the same thing and I'll embrace it. Otherwise, quit criticising Apple for the wall, and start being appreciative of the garden. I know you won't believe me when I say it.. but, it's not all bad:)
Microsoft has lost mindshare with teenagers who are all turning to Apple products, so they're going to try to indoctrinate students at an earlier age.
That's all this is about. MS thinks that programming childrens minds at a young age to 'Windows' that they'll be able to keep the sinking ship afloat. What they're missing is a workable operating system. It doesn't matter how early you program someone with something terrible, it's still terrible.
It works for Apple because the products provide more utility than they take from you. Apple products are liberating, Microsoft products are painstaking. Address that first, worry about selling the products when there's something worth selling.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not saying the government there is doing it
You say that, and then immediately follow with this:
there is no other country which is attacking everything everywhere this aggressively
So either you're contradicting what you just said, you're attempting to imply that the mountains, rivers, fields and rocks of China are attacking other countries or you're drawing no distinction between the people living in China and the 'country' of China. And why would any given person in China be 'China'? Could I fairly categorize all Americans as bone-headed uneducated sloths with 150 TV channels who love their cousins and enjoy a good roadkill stew? .. all because some Americans are like that?
I'm not saying the government there is doing it, but I do know that there is no other country which is attacking everything everywhere this aggressively
I'm not saying that you're contradicting yourself, but you're contradicting yourself.
The problem is, you can't just always be reactive
You're so wrong. In fact, I will predict right now that Microsoft will continue to always be reactive.
I wasn't even aware there was a fake honey underworld
And you're still not. UNDERSTAND?!?
.. is that the more damage done by near earth objects, the more we'll spend trying to save ourselves from them.
Is it just me or does that seem like the wrong way of approaching this issue?
I don't use linux but it'd be cool.
Sounds like you've got a project to do.
It was horrible knowing you.
I mean honestly, what century are we in? Who pays for internet content anymore? Who wants the content created and distributed by the media cartels? The cartels are becoming less and less relevant and Intel is really swinging at shit in the dirt with this device.
.. it's a flooded market and Intel isn't even near entering it yet.
.. but there are some people who would really love having a plug-in box with video chat on the television (and perhaps some interactive games). That's the only thing which is going to make this device work .. and it sounds like that's not what Intel installed the camera for!
Even if Intel manages the impossible and talks the media cartels into playing nicely with it, who would want to care about 'Intel Inside' set top boxes? Especially with cameras and microphones in them (that's some stupid and scary shit). Every ISP has a cheap, viable, simple alternative
This isn't a problem you can just 'throw money at' and make it work. If you gave these boxes away, people wouldn't pay the subscription. The cameras are the only thing which makes this device different and (possibly) interesting to a small market. Sure, every parent in the world is going to be suspicious and just about anyone who walks around their house naked or sleeps on the couch won't want one
The whole project screams as a great idea for 1965 and a scary implementation of big brother idiocy from a company flailing and panicing about what? ONLY being the largest chip manufacturer in the world?
Mr Hugger, find yourself a new job while the getting is good!
WTF? Isn't it common sense to fully charge an electric car before embarking on a journey to test the car's range?
It would be common sense if the reporter wasn't biased. But there's no chance that the NYT is biased right? After all, there aren't other external entities which fund their business model that would have an outside influence is there?
... right???
After all, the NYT gets all of it's funding from subscriptions
get it through your thick un-American socialist sculls?
A winning team
The government isn't popular enough, so Gillard ordered a market research report into technology. When she got the results, she picked up an iPad and strolled around the parliament with it for a fortnight. Now she turned to page 2 of the report and launched a very obvious but practically useless 'public questioning'.
.. and will probably release the 'Australian Edition' of the software with a free clip-on fuzzy Koala, Apple is going to justify itself with shipping costs and Microsoft is going to re-design it's software pricing for Australian businessees to make it appear cheaper but actually be even more outrageously expensive
Adobe is going to hear more bitching from their paying customers
Julia Gillard is going to win the next election because Joe Hockey will take over leadership from Tony Abbott and G comes before H.
Kim Dotcom might pay well, but I'm sure he knows as well as anyone else that crime is where the money is
Certainly right. There's probably even huge amounts of money to be made by suing USDOJ trolls for slander.
a standard marketing technique?
No, it's an exceptional marketing technique. Microsoft were amazed by the slashdot front page which exceeded their expectations!
then slashdot's standards have really fallen
Since when?
The BBC reports that Sony, the creators of the MiniDisc audio format, ... now belongs to a bygone era.
But more seriously, the era of proprietry formats and manufacturer specific devices is over. If you make your own 'special' device, it's going to be more expensive than the competition. Some modern device manufacturers counter this by creating a device eco-system or brand which makes the device better for the user for one or more reasons.
Sony has never quite grasped that you can't beat, cajole, bribe or force people to do what you want. It's possible to encourage, enthrall and excite
What would the WSJ have to gain by giving the Chinese a bad name?
Wider readership? Front page of /.? 'Proof' that their expose on Chinese officials was right? Carrying favour with the US 'Cyber Security' peeps / government .. and probably about 2000 other things .. it all depends how carefully you look at the situation
All of this means that these attacks are vastly under-reported, and when companies do report it is usually genuine
I didn't say that the attack wasn't genuine, and have no doubt that they're vastly under-reported. But you've also got to look at the context of the attack and the relevance to the current position of the organisation. This wasn't a random attack .. that's very key here. Reporting the attack is a response to the direct nature of the attack (ie. taking the moral highground) as well as a defence against the attack continuing.
China’s Ministry of National Defense said, “Chinese laws prohibit any action including hacking that damages Internet security.” It added that “to accuse the Chinese military of launching cyberattacks without solid proof is unprofessional and baseless.”
Couldn't agree more. There's no evidence, just accusations without any basis. Yet another example of the US media making sensationalist claims which deride the leadership of China and rail public opinion against them.
/. might evren pick up the story and start attacking (morally and perhaps directly) the Chinese authorities. Not only would 'Cyber Security' become even more of a well known issue, but controlling the internet (ie. SOPA) could be put back on the cards AND my opponent would be under attack without me having to raise a finger or accept any blame.
Personally, if I were a government looking to contend with another government, my best weapon would be a false flag faceless cyber attack against a large news media organisation which could be widely publicised and blamed on my enemy without any evidence. That would not only rail public opinion against the 'other' government, but justify my expanded spending on 'Cyber Security'.
If I was really lucky, the unemployed US computer geeks on
'Cyber Security' is the new 'Terrorism'. Take the red pill.
We really have completely lost touch with reality, haven't we?
Welcome back
Slashdot.org readers hate microsoft no matter what. Its sad really how willfully ignorant zealots can be.
That's because Slashdot.org readers have the sad tendency to generalise everything
Damn, I wish you didn't post that anonymously .. you could be the love of my life!
Apple is as liberating as handcuffs
Hahahahaha. This isn't software libre that geeks cling onto, it's something real. For the average person, a device that too hard to use, runs out of battery life or breaks all of the time is disempowering, not empowering.
.. but when Joe Sixpack can load and use 500,000 different applications(!), he's empowered by Apple. It's Apple's walled garden, but Joe doesn't care .. Joe just wants his stuff to be useful, and I don't blame him.
.. but, it's not all bad :)
Having a functional, usable smartphone in your pocket gives you more freedom and empowerment than having a dumb telephone. That's liberation. Yes, it's loaded with Apple's software and it's manufactured by Apple
Create me an unwalled garden that accomplishes the same thing and I'll embrace it. Otherwise, quit criticising Apple for the wall, and start being appreciative of the garden. I know you won't believe me when I say it
Microsoft is not hurting.
Apple desktop market share: ~7%
Apple market value: 429 billion
Microsoft desktop market share: ~90%
Microsoft market value: 233 billion
You're right, hurting isn't the right word. Probably the right way to look at it is 'not succeeding as well as possible'. I think Ballmer would agree.
Being locked into a walled garden is liberating? I say this as a person with a macbook air, not running OSX though.
Hahaha, congratulations on your purchase. I hope that your macbook air serves you well into the future xD
Microsoft has lost mindshare with teenagers who are all turning to Apple products, so they're going to try to indoctrinate students at an earlier age.
That's all this is about. MS thinks that programming childrens minds at a young age to 'Windows' that they'll be able to keep the sinking ship afloat. What they're missing is a workable operating system. It doesn't matter how early you program someone with something terrible, it's still terrible.
It works for Apple because the products provide more utility than they take from you. Apple products are liberating, Microsoft products are painstaking. Address that first, worry about selling the products when there's something worth selling.
They killed Youtube. No amount of PR campaigns will win me back after killing the last free voice people like us had.
Look on the bright side, you can still troll /.