True, but unlike most tech pundits, at least Bill Gates is smart enough to recognize that there is a difference between the iPad and a netbook insofar as intended use. Most of Mr. Gates' adoring legions among the tech punditry (including the most highly respected of the bunch) haven't even made that mental leap just yet.
Personally, I'm happier with a notebook - but my missus is the user type the iPad was aimed at. In spite of hating my Mac desktop, she's positively dying to get her hands on an iPad. It's this factor that Mssr. Gates and Microsoft will have to convince (and she uses but hates her netbook now, so, err...)
A jailbroken iPhone requires modifying the OS, something that invalidates the existing iPhone security model entirely and completely.
Let me break it down: If I modify any OS (on any device) in a fundamental way that, by design, disables built-in security measures and opens it to attacks, then I would obviously be at fault. If the OS maker explicitly allows a buggy and exploit-ridden app into the OS, then the OS maker is at fault.
(For the record, I do not own an iPhone, and am still using a Blackberry, so no Stockholm Syndrome here).
You do realize that there's a huge diff between doing something that voids your warranty (jailbreaking), and the company including (or providing) a potentially dangerous application, right?
So such things as security, quality control, and the like don't mean squat on a consumer device, in your opinion? Note that the iPhone is not a computer - it just pretends to be one on occasion.
Seriously - with all the active exploits out there that use Flash as a way into an operating system, I can very easily see a Flash bug being exploited to bust right through the iPhone's 'walled garden' setup (what with it's default root password and all...)
Actually, the rumors of the time had a nearly-new French radar tagging the jet, which is not an unlikely situation if the range was close enough.
Sound-wise, the F-117 is quiet enough that with both engines running on the tarmac, you could walk up to it with just your hands over your ears, and still be comfortable with the sound level (OTOH, a typical jet like the F-16 requires foam ear plugs and over-ear mufflers together - even then you're going to have to put up with a bit of irritation from the noise).
* I should have clarified: I believe things have taken a step back in stealth and strategic purpose, not in dogfighting or other capabilities (where the F-22 is obviously very superior).
* Yep, you're going to have a hard time getting a basic AIM-9 or similar infrared A/A missile to lock onto the tail of an F-22 from a distance. OTOH, I believe that a ground-based SAM will have a somewhat easier time of things, since they rely on radar, not heat... and no amount of stealth will be immune to radar at a close-enough range. I am also willing to wager that the first decent F-15 pilot who realizes that his 20mm gun still works just fine, well, he won't have to care as much if his missiles can get a lock or not.;)
* Your comment "One F22 can take out a squadron of F15s" isn't quite accurate, IMHO. A typical US Air Force squadron (IIRC) consists of 12-24 aircraft, depending. Even 12 would be a bit too much of a stretch, since the F-22 can only carry 8 missiles max, and only 480 rounds in its 20mm gun (meaning that's probably only a last resort)... not enough to do the job, I daresay.
Sibling has a fair point when it comes to simplifying tasks - a typical fighter cockpit has anywhere from 500 to 1,000 or more switches, knobs, levers, instruments, and controls. While most of them are obviously not necessary in a fight, there are still enough that you do need to pay attention to in order to get the job done. This tends to make one's job tough, to be charitable about it. If you can simplify the tasks, you can give the pilot an edge.
I also agree w/ Sibling in that the F-22 does earn its keep, considering what it is capable of. It was built for air superiority, and as a direct F-15 replacement. OTOH, I'd like to contend that there is still a place in combat for something that isn't a super-pricey dogfighter, and something that isn't a massive strategic bomber (e.g. the B-2). This is where the F-117 originally fit in, and proved admirably during Desert Storm. At this time, there's nothing really out there coming up that fills the bill, save for existing but aging jets that are becoming harder and more expensive to maintain as time goes on (e.g. the A-10, F-117, etc). Right now, I believe the F-16 (and even F-15) is being pressed into that role (which wasn't it's original design role, IIRC). Something that could combine F-16 and F-117 would be hella nice, I believe...
Disclosure: I was an avionics tech on the original Stealth Fighter, the F-117A, back in the late 80's-early '90s. (37th TFW, Tonopah Test Range).
Back then, stealth was achieved by a combination of architecture (the angles), materials, and flying the thing under certain profiles (that is, you avoid flying too close to enemy radar installations, fly at night, etc). The whole idea was to be a literal hole in the sky, or at least make enemy radars less effective - enough to get in, do your job, and get out. The results have been somewhat mixed - during our whole Desert Storm tour, not a single F-117 got so much as a paint chip, let alone a bullet hole - sand and heat was a bigger danger to the things than lead. OTOH, one was shot down over Bosnia during the late 1990's.
When it comes to stealth? You either fly quietly, or you get noticed by enemy A/A and fighters. Modern stealth tech has taken a step back from the looks of it, and appears to have cast aside the whole idea of sneaking around, which IMHO was the whole point to stealth in the first place. Also, the F-117A was, in essence, a small tactical bomber - it has no dogfighting ability to speak of (no guns, and A/A missiles would be damned clumsy to use from one - doing that would make you even less aerodynamic than you already are, and carrying even one air-to-air missile would eat half of your bomb load). Old-school, we snuck around, making sure that the only time you noticed one of our jets was from the explosion its bombs made on your property. The Russian jet and the F-22 take a different tack - they only want to make it a little bit harder for an already-flying missile to find them, without sacrificing speed and maneuverability too much. But - if you load either one with a full bomb load, those round bombs will happily give your position away to the first radar dish that you come even partially close to.
So use them only for air superiority, you say... cool - but the whole point of air superiority is to own the sky, and noticeably so.;) Any other role besides those two (e.g. ground support), and you face the same big risk as any other aircraft - that of being taken down by the first piece of dumb lead to fly in your direction.
Long story short, stealth is useful in limited circumstances at best, and even at this time doesn't really justify its expense and R&D outside of those circumstances.
Explain to me how getting a degree is any different?
You don't have to blow an obscene amount of money and years of your life just to get the same entry-level job?
Eventually, even certs are fairly worthless. They'll prove you had a verifiable start, but I'm very sure that my old MCP in Exchange 5.5 wasn't what my current employer was looking at when they hired me on.
I haven't had to bother with any sort of Microsoft certification since I got (courtesy of a way-previous employer) the Windows 2000 MCSE knocked-out... in 2001. I still have an ancient Exchange 5.5 MCP loafing around in my file cabinet at home, though I just finished building an enterprise-grade Exchange 2007 infrastructure from scratch. When it comes to *nix? I usually just ask them for a sandboxed shell prompt and/or ask them where their test is so I can get it out of the way. (most competent employers do exactly that for *nix-oriented positions).
There comes a point in your career where your resume, work history, and previous employers say a hell of a lot more about what you're capable of than a piece of paper ever will (and considering the mass of cheat mills / brain-dumps / whatever out there, it'll probably give you a better edge than simply saying 'I gots my Em-See-Ess-Ayy' ever will).
If it ever gets back to having to get a cert to get a new job? Then something would really have to shift radically out there, IMHO. Most jobs nowadays are contract-to-hire, which means they honestly don't care what bits of paper you have, since they'll find out in short order what you're competent at during the contract period.
...don't worry, the free market will save the universe (by making it so damned expensive to live here that corporations will arise and find us other universes to exploit, naturally...)
...given the not-quite-set-in-concrete nature of theoretical physics, string theory, and especially M-theory (...don't like this universe? we got more!), I don't think I'm going to sell the house and walk around in animal skins just yet.
(definitely not saying that entropy itself doesn't exist - that much has been proven. OTOH, I suspect there's a whole lot more going on out there/here/everywhere that we simply do not know about yet, eh?)
Besides, the universe had damned well better not die - at least not until I get my flying car, copy of Duke Nuken' Forever (running on HURD), and an army of Linux fembots with a penchant for evil, damnit!
Err, what if I, as a corporation, blew out a spam that effectively incorporated a template unique to that which my largest competitor uses in their newsletters or customer communiques (or at least close enough to get my competitor blacklisted far and wide)?
(it would take a shedload of doing, but certainly not impossible, and if it could be done, would make for one hell of a cheap and easy DoS).
Heuristics is great and all, but go too deeply, and I can see it opening up a small but pretty scary can of worms.
I don't "cheer" for any of 'em, especially if it involves twisting facts to do it, as you have done. OSX is still based on NeXTStep, and it in turn was designed around the Mach kernel, which in turn was designed as a replacement for BSD's kernel. Long story short, BSD was incidental to the story at best.
Certainly OSX' core, Darwin, is open-source licensed. OTOH, NeXT/Apple built the vast majority of it, not the "movement". If you can prove otherwise, please do so.
I'm the last guy you can accuse of being a Microsoft fanboy, but let's be fair on at least one aspect: it is helpful if the patches do their job (closing the hole) without breaking functionality (especially with enterprise software, where Microsoft counts its biggest customers).
I agree perfectly that it is a fundamental flaw in proprietary software to have potentially exploitable vulns that only, say, Microsoft and maybe the script kiddies know about. I further agree that failing to disclose them prevents users from implementing some sort of work-around (depending on severity, blocking certain script actions at the proxy, implementing certain GPO actions to mitigate damage, etc). OTOH, most of Microsoft's customer base wouldn't even know what a work-around is (aside from just using a different browser, which is probably not what you'll see Microsoft recommending).
The nasty stuff is lurking in there, certainly. Whether the bad guys know about it and can actually use it is another matter. I personally subscribe to the philosophy of full disclosure - it is better that everyone using the product know about flaws in it, if only to protect themselves. OTOH, I can see and appreciate (though not quite agree to) the opposite tack of limiting fields of research for the bad guys, as evidenced by the bad guys' habit (among others) of sifting through patches to find the flaws... where I part ways is in knowing that the patch-sifting is only one of many tools in which to find vulns. Whether it is the most popular method or not, I do not know.
Seriously - we all know this. Every class-action against a tech company usually results in (at absolute best) a hundred bucks or so to each class-action participant, while the lawyer(s) leading the charge get to go buy a new yacht/house/jaguar/whatever with their take.
As said below, never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. (Insert lame joke about MSFT being full of stupidity here).
Given the back-story on the whole Danger data loss affair, stupidity is the FIRST thing I'd ascribe to Microsoft these days...
Slashdot Mirror
True, but unlike most tech pundits, at least Bill Gates is smart enough to recognize that there is a difference between the iPad and a netbook insofar as intended use. Most of Mr. Gates' adoring legions among the tech punditry (including the most highly respected of the bunch) haven't even made that mental leap just yet.
Personally, I'm happier with a notebook - but my missus is the user type the iPad was aimed at. In spite of hating my Mac desktop, she's positively dying to get her hands on an iPad. It's this factor that Mssr. Gates and Microsoft will have to convince (and she uses but hates her netbook now, so, err...)
Agreed. If your ass spills over into the seat next to you, then for frig's sake buy that seat too.
Sorry, but relativism won't save your argument. ;)
A jailbroken iPhone requires modifying the OS, something that invalidates the existing iPhone security model entirely and completely.
Let me break it down: If I modify any OS (on any device) in a fundamental way that, by design, disables built-in security measures and opens it to attacks, then I would obviously be at fault. If the OS maker explicitly allows a buggy and exploit-ridden app into the OS, then the OS maker is at fault.
(For the record, I do not own an iPhone, and am still using a Blackberry, so no Stockholm Syndrome here).
You do realize that there's a huge diff between doing something that voids your warranty (jailbreaking), and the company including (or providing) a potentially dangerous application, right?
So such things as security, quality control, and the like don't mean squat on a consumer device, in your opinion? Note that the iPhone is not a computer - it just pretends to be one on occasion.
...security.
Seriously - with all the active exploits out there that use Flash as a way into an operating system, I can very easily see a Flash bug being exploited to bust right through the iPhone's 'walled garden' setup (what with it's default root password and all...)
...parent post needs to be modded insightful and informative more than funny.
Think about it for a minute...
Actually, the rumors of the time had a nearly-new French radar tagging the jet, which is not an unlikely situation if the range was close enough.
Sound-wise, the F-117 is quiet enough that with both engines running on the tarmac, you could walk up to it with just your hands over your ears, and still be comfortable with the sound level (OTOH, a typical jet like the F-16 requires foam ear plugs and over-ear mufflers together - even then you're going to have to put up with a bit of irritation from the noise).
Minor bits:
* I should have clarified: I believe things have taken a step back in stealth and strategic purpose, not in dogfighting or other capabilities (where the F-22 is obviously very superior).
* Yep, you're going to have a hard time getting a basic AIM-9 or similar infrared A/A missile to lock onto the tail of an F-22 from a distance. OTOH, I believe that a ground-based SAM will have a somewhat easier time of things, since they rely on radar, not heat... and no amount of stealth will be immune to radar at a close-enough range. I am also willing to wager that the first decent F-15 pilot who realizes that his 20mm gun still works just fine, well, he won't have to care as much if his missiles can get a lock or not. ;)
* Your comment "One F22 can take out a squadron of F15s" isn't quite accurate, IMHO. A typical US Air Force squadron (IIRC) consists of 12-24 aircraft, depending. Even 12 would be a bit too much of a stretch, since the F-22 can only carry 8 missiles max, and only 480 rounds in its 20mm gun (meaning that's probably only a last resort)... not enough to do the job, I daresay.
Sibling has a fair point when it comes to simplifying tasks - a typical fighter cockpit has anywhere from 500 to 1,000 or more switches, knobs, levers, instruments, and controls. While most of them are obviously not necessary in a fight, there are still enough that you do need to pay attention to in order to get the job done. This tends to make one's job tough, to be charitable about it. If you can simplify the tasks, you can give the pilot an edge.
I also agree w/ Sibling in that the F-22 does earn its keep, considering what it is capable of. It was built for air superiority, and as a direct F-15 replacement. OTOH, I'd like to contend that there is still a place in combat for something that isn't a super-pricey dogfighter, and something that isn't a massive strategic bomber (e.g. the B-2). This is where the F-117 originally fit in, and proved admirably during Desert Storm. At this time, there's nothing really out there coming up that fills the bill, save for existing but aging jets that are becoming harder and more expensive to maintain as time goes on (e.g. the A-10, F-117, etc). Right now, I believe the F-16 (and even F-15) is being pressed into that role (which wasn't it's original design role, IIRC). Something that could combine F-16 and F-117 would be hella nice, I believe...
Disclosure: I was an avionics tech on the original Stealth Fighter, the F-117A, back in the late 80's-early '90s. (37th TFW, Tonopah Test Range).
Back then, stealth was achieved by a combination of architecture (the angles), materials, and flying the thing under certain profiles (that is, you avoid flying too close to enemy radar installations, fly at night, etc). The whole idea was to be a literal hole in the sky, or at least make enemy radars less effective - enough to get in, do your job, and get out. The results have been somewhat mixed - during our whole Desert Storm tour, not a single F-117 got so much as a paint chip, let alone a bullet hole - sand and heat was a bigger danger to the things than lead. OTOH, one was shot down over Bosnia during the late 1990's.
When it comes to stealth? You either fly quietly, or you get noticed by enemy A/A and fighters. Modern stealth tech has taken a step back from the looks of it, and appears to have cast aside the whole idea of sneaking around, which IMHO was the whole point to stealth in the first place. Also, the F-117A was, in essence, a small tactical bomber - it has no dogfighting ability to speak of (no guns, and A/A missiles would be damned clumsy to use from one - doing that would make you even less aerodynamic than you already are, and carrying even one air-to-air missile would eat half of your bomb load). Old-school, we snuck around, making sure that the only time you noticed one of our jets was from the explosion its bombs made on your property. The Russian jet and the F-22 take a different tack - they only want to make it a little bit harder for an already-flying missile to find them, without sacrificing speed and maneuverability too much. But - if you load either one with a full bomb load, those round bombs will happily give your position away to the first radar dish that you come even partially close to.
So use them only for air superiority, you say... cool - but the whole point of air superiority is to own the sky, and noticeably so. ;) Any other role besides those two (e.g. ground support), and you face the same big risk as any other aircraft - that of being taken down by the first piece of dumb lead to fly in your direction.
Long story short, stealth is useful in limited circumstances at best, and even at this time doesn't really justify its expense and R&D outside of those circumstances.
Explain to me how getting a degree is any different?
You don't have to blow an obscene amount of money and years of your life just to get the same entry-level job?
Eventually, even certs are fairly worthless. They'll prove you had a verifiable start, but I'm very sure that my old MCP in Exchange 5.5 wasn't what my current employer was looking at when they hired me on.
Agreed, with one small caveat:
I haven't had to bother with any sort of Microsoft certification since I got (courtesy of a way-previous employer) the Windows 2000 MCSE knocked-out... in 2001. I still have an ancient Exchange 5.5 MCP loafing around in my file cabinet at home, though I just finished building an enterprise-grade Exchange 2007 infrastructure from scratch. When it comes to *nix? I usually just ask them for a sandboxed shell prompt and/or ask them where their test is so I can get it out of the way. (most competent employers do exactly that for *nix-oriented positions).
There comes a point in your career where your resume, work history, and previous employers say a hell of a lot more about what you're capable of than a piece of paper ever will (and considering the mass of cheat mills / brain-dumps / whatever out there, it'll probably give you a better edge than simply saying 'I gots my Em-See-Ess-Ayy' ever will).
If it ever gets back to having to get a cert to get a new job? Then something would really have to shift radically out there, IMHO. Most jobs nowadays are contract-to-hire, which means they honestly don't care what bits of paper you have, since they'll find out in short order what you're competent at during the contract period.
...don't worry, the free market will save the universe (by making it so damned expensive to live here that corporations will arise and find us other universes to exploit, naturally...)
...given the not-quite-set-in-concrete nature of theoretical physics, string theory, and especially M-theory (...don't like this universe? we got more!), I don't think I'm going to sell the house and walk around in animal skins just yet.
(definitely not saying that entropy itself doesn't exist - that much has been proven. OTOH, I suspect there's a whole lot more going on out there/here/everywhere that we simply do not know about yet, eh?)
Besides, the universe had damned well better not die - at least not until I get my flying car, copy of Duke Nuken' Forever (running on HURD), and an army of Linux fembots with a penchant for evil, damnit!
Err, what if I, as a corporation, blew out a spam that effectively incorporated a template unique to that which my largest competitor uses in their newsletters or customer communiques (or at least close enough to get my competitor blacklisted far and wide)?
(it would take a shedload of doing, but certainly not impossible, and if it could be done, would make for one hell of a cheap and easy DoS).
Heuristics is great and all, but go too deeply, and I can see it opening up a small but pretty scary can of worms.
I don't "cheer" for any of 'em, especially if it involves twisting facts to do it, as you have done. OSX is still based on NeXTStep, and it in turn was designed around the Mach kernel, which in turn was designed as a replacement for BSD's kernel. Long story short, BSD was incidental to the story at best.
Certainly OSX' core, Darwin, is open-source licensed. OTOH, NeXT/Apple built the vast majority of it, not the "movement". If you can prove otherwise, please do so.
Why to you think so? They probably port Microsoft Office to Mac.
No.. they just created what runs on the them, that's all..
Meh.
Err, not entirely... OSX came primarily out of NeXTStep.
...waitaminute - what about the gay folks who work for Microsoft? I'm sure they're not Mac users.
I'm the last guy you can accuse of being a Microsoft fanboy, but let's be fair on at least one aspect: it is helpful if the patches do their job (closing the hole) without breaking functionality (especially with enterprise software, where Microsoft counts its biggest customers).
I agree perfectly that it is a fundamental flaw in proprietary software to have potentially exploitable vulns that only, say, Microsoft and maybe the script kiddies know about. I further agree that failing to disclose them prevents users from implementing some sort of work-around (depending on severity, blocking certain script actions at the proxy, implementing certain GPO actions to mitigate damage, etc). OTOH, most of Microsoft's customer base wouldn't even know what a work-around is (aside from just using a different browser, which is probably not what you'll see Microsoft recommending).
The nasty stuff is lurking in there, certainly. Whether the bad guys know about it and can actually use it is another matter. I personally subscribe to the philosophy of full disclosure - it is better that everyone using the product know about flaws in it, if only to protect themselves. OTOH, I can see and appreciate (though not quite agree to) the opposite tack of limiting fields of research for the bad guys, as evidenced by the bad guys' habit (among others) of sifting through patches to find the flaws... where I part ways is in knowing that the patch-sifting is only one of many tools in which to find vulns. Whether it is the most popular method or not, I do not know.
Seriously - we all know this. Every class-action against a tech company usually results in (at absolute best) a hundred bucks or so to each class-action participant, while the lawyer(s) leading the charge get to go buy a new yacht/house/jaguar/whatever with their take.
Agreed - he made a fair point.
Fair point on the former, but the latter could be managed to an extent via GPO - you just have to roll your own policies to do it.
So, really, the Perl guys deserve to be on the receiving end of some shitty code for once.
So, err, it's .NET versus Perl (okay, PHP) then in a battle over whose customer base can mis-use whose code the worst on the public Internet?
Fuck this - I'm going back to BBS.
As said below, never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. (Insert lame joke about MSFT being full of stupidity here).
Given the back-story on the whole Danger data loss affair, stupidity is the FIRST thing I'd ascribe to Microsoft these days...