This has been a long-standing "argument" that on quick-glance was accepted by most as true without thinking about it.
[NOTE: I'm addressing more of the historical argument here. Haven't looked at this in a long time. So don't know about the current state, nor do I really care. Computers have changed quite a lot (how many manufacturers still stand? SEE: Next paragraph) and I think Apple has too. So this is more informational to counter the presumptive "truth" that has been perpetuated.]
People would point to the sticker price of a Mac and compare it to a Gateway/e-Machines/Compaq/Etc, and use that as proof that Macs were overpriced.
But that ignored a few key issues.
Anytime a friend tried to make that argument, I would take their choice of new PC to purchase and find the comparable Mac (as best as could be found). Sure enough, the Mac had the higher price point... until... one started looking at what one actually got for their money.
Keep in mind that a lot of things came standard on Macs LOOOOOONG before they were on PCs. Ethernet? On board. (Ignoring things like the fact that networking was included in Macs going back to... the SE? Plus?? Okay, it was AppleTalk, but every single Mac had networking back long before most people knew what a network was.) Sound, in and/or out? On board. (every PC user I knew had to buy SoundBlaster cards. I don't even know if any sound cards were made back then for Macs, outside of specialty/pro set-ups, as there was no need for them.) Etc. Etc.
Just two examples. And old examples, but I deliberately picked those as two things that we cannot imagine NOT getting in a computer today. (Didn't want to get mired in a discussion about some of the newer tech that may or may not stand the test of time.)
There was a lot of technology in Mac users hands long before it was common enough to hit a critical threshold of usefulness for PC users. This not only made the Macs more useful, but opened up a whole host of options to users.
And adding these things to your PC added to the cost, and more often than not, by the time they are brought to parity, the PC wound up costing more.
Which leads to a second point: Quality.
The PC world was fighting itself in a race to the bottom. PC users wanted cheap. And they usually got it in both senses of the word.
Going back to the ethernet example, I remember trying to get one of my Windows boxes set up on the house LAN with all of the other computers. (I had Macs, Windows, and BSD machines, but I'm only comparing the first two, as they are more "consumer".) I went down to the PC Club and got myself a cheap NIC. And then spent WAAAAAY too many hours trying to get it to work. It was a challenge but back then I didn't really think about the cost of my time as "the game was afoot!"
And then, cheap hardware was cheap, but no one really factored in failure or intermittent problems after purchase or even just set-up issues/conflicts as part of the cost of ownership.
But even buying more expensive hardware wasn't guaranteed to work better or not fail. And, of course, this just makes the "cheap PC" less of a bargain and drives the total price even higher.
Macs (in general) used higher quality parts, and those were just included in the price.
So, the "more expensive" Mac, in just about every case, wound up being less expensive than a PC.
Now I mentioned this was more of an historical disabusement of something that was oft just accepted as truth without question. I'd be pressed to think of the last time I did a comparison like this.
Fact is, the world of consumer computers has changed quite a lot. The computer has just become a commodity. Most are used our of the box as is. People buy a computer like it is a toaster... an IoT toaster with 800 features and its own twitter account. I think, outside of servers, very few even come with expansion slots. (Computers. But also toasters.) Most people are content with everything built-in to their laptop, and might have room for a bit m
ProTip: Electrical tape will cover better, although require additional reapplications.;)
Maybe there is a solvent for the injected ink?
The wristband company did make the logo awfully big on the the black bands (but not the others). That being said, using MS money for things like camp infrastructure (or soup!) isn't a bad thing if it helps us all.
So, it isn't a kids's camp per se (although should be family friendly), but ToorCamp has been around for several years. In fact, the first one was keynoted by Emmanuel Goldstein, who runs HOPE where Tobais was interviewed. The camp is attended by InfoSec/Hacker types, so the emphasis is on security, including the physical security that Tobias is fond of. I'm going at it looks like it will be awesome.
It's happening in a few weeks in Washington state, so if you are in the Pacific Northwest, you should go!
I'm sure "(white|blue)-hat hacker" in this case is redefined to mean "anyone who cooperates with Microsoft when finding security vulnerabilities".
As I pointed out above, the term blue hat is just a name for an internal conference. All of the engineering staff I met did not call themselves anything other than employees. Not even the security people there. (Although the ones I know in hacker circles might call themselves black/white/grey hat, but then again, they probably don't care enough to use those labels.)
This is just a publicity stunt, a pretense that Microsoft is taking security research seriously.
Well, I really doubt this is a publicity stunt. There was only one reporter there. I talked to him for a while and am in the article. If it was a stunt, there would be a lot more press there. Instead, they have kept this thing relatively quiet.
The thing that struck me was watching the employees. I know most of the talks, but most of this was new stuff to them. (I did talk to a few people there that do hit a few of the Cons (BlackHat, DefCon, Shmoocon, ToorCon, etc.) but that was a few and these people were more interested in security to begin with.) The questions they asked at the end of each talk was great -- It showed that they were paying attention and that their interest was captured. Rather than putting their heads in the sand, they actively pursued the topics. And quite a few of them expressed interest in attending the Security/Hacker Cons after hearing what they heard that day.
Now, if you want to talk about a PR stunt, try having MFST sponsor the beer at a hacker conference. That is unabashed. So was the drinking.
"Blue Hat" is just a cute name for an internal training/conference at Microsoft. Very few of us from the "Community" (Which seems to be the polite way to say "hacker") were invited, and most of them (not myself) are speakers. Outside of "community" members, it is only MSFT staff there.
So, no one really thinks of themselves as "Blue Hats" (or at least, god I hope not!).
Heh... when I got the invitation, I was a tad suspicious.
Told my family where I was going, and when I was to return. If I failed to check in, I pointed to woods around Redmond where they were to look for my body.
Yeah he's got a lot of gadgets, and does a pretty good job, efficency-wise, of transporting them. (I always take a look at what he's got with him this time, to see what good ideas he's got.) But all of those gadgets add up...
I roomed with Cory for a little bit, and I'll tell you right now, with that many geeks around, the mains outlet real estate becomes quite valuable. (I think I had no less than 10 items that needed recharging and Cory, even with USB chargers, must have had way more than I.) So it was a first-come-first-serve battle for recharging.
Kinda like an Oklahoma style land grab for power outlets.
Thankfully, he carries a mini surge protector that at least gives you a few more places to plug in.
Since I've seen him do that, I've taken to carrying one in my bag when travellling, and it makes a big difference. Hotels never have enough outlets. And I guess a multiple outlet surge protector really isn't a "gadget" per se, but everything else in the bag can be made useless quite quickly without it...
Given all of that, I can be into a system in about 5 seconds.
That is presuming best case (profile hardware, use hardware targeted exploit (not all WEP implementation is same), collect 4 data packets, user only using 40 bit encryption, bam! you are in).
Yeah, I understand with 104bit (or in rare exception 128bit+IV) will take a while longer, depending on traffic. (Certainly not 24 hours, but also register that all it takes is a neighbor that has to do nothing but set up a machine and forget about it until it has collected enough. In some of these higher density apartment blocks, that means several HUNDRED threats.)
But, a lot of this discussion is on home users, not your average computer geek, and I suspect that most users if they do any of the above list, will do 2, 3 and 4, but, path of least resistance being what it is, will only do 40bit.
Even if they also do 1 and 5, then that only adds a few more seconds here.
The point is that the above list, although an impediment, is usually only a few seconds of deterrent. Which really amounts to none whatsoever.
Your chance of winning the lottery is exactly the same if they change the winning numbers, or if they don't change them.
If that is the case, then why do you think they bother doing new number draws every week in a lottery? Why not draw the numbers once, and just keep that winning number for weeks until someone finally guesses it?
Heh... you put a label like that on something and the first thing I think of is
hmmmm... this must do something really interesting to the computer or disk to have a warning like that...
Next step would be to see if I could induce what the intent behind the restriction would be. If I couldn't reason it out, then I might be tempted to try to dupe the disc and put it in another computer (*Always* mount a scratch monkey.)
In fact, putting an admonition involving tech in front of a geek is like putting something bright and shinny in front of some people.
but on the other hand you just found a way to physically "tar pit" a geek for a better part of an hour....
with a bunch of spaces (due to lamenss filter = %20) to separate the contents of the subject line from the random characters that are used to avoid some filters. If they stick in enough spaces, it usually will push the junk random characters out of the viewer's sight in order to disguise the Spam a bit.
When the whole Verizon merger/creation-thing happend, both the A-carrier and the B-Carrier were companies that were to be merged into Verizon (GTE was on the A-side and the local land-line provider was usually granted the B-side, which in this case was a division of PacBell.).
As FCC regs are that no one company can own both A & B (to "prevent monopoly" and "encourage competition"), they had to sell off the A-side.
TDMA is (was for a while) much more of an East Coast thing. [They did early deployment tests of TDMA in Los Angeles and it sucked so hard, it set back the adoption of digital for a few years, by which time better standards came out.] It also helps that Qualcomm is here on this coast (in san Diego).
So, ATT comes along buys the GTE business in SD, which is CDMA. But they have substantial investment in older TDMA systems in the rest of the country. So they let the SD users keep their CDMA for a year or so. This kinda sucked as the second you left SD you were usually dropped down to analog, as the only digital option was TDMA.
After the dust settled, they then started to shift users over to their TDMA network and ditched the CDMA portions.
So now I have a crappy TDMA connection. I *really* can tell the difference between it and the CDMA network. CDMA was just so much clearer, cleaner, and had better reception.
TDMA sucks.
But, alas, I am waiting for number portablity to go into effect later this year. (I have a really good number I have had for years. Don't want to loose it.) If they delay number portability again, I'm going to be pissed.
As far as CDMA vs. GSM is concerned, I'm still not decided. The latest Rev of CDMA looks promising and a lot less limiting than GSM, but I guess time will tell...
Now I know why my damn cable company keeps adding all of those freakin' shopping channels to its line-up all the time, wasting my time removing and moving channels around!
Why can't you leave it tuned to something interesting -- like porn.
The reviewer mentioned _Cookwise: The Hows and Whys of Successful Cooking_ but failed to mention that a lot of Alton's show is from Shirley O. Corriher's book. It is a fantastic text that is more of a chemistry lab book than a cooking book. (I would rather be taught why something works than just presented with a generic formula.)
But also, Harold McGee's books need mentioning here. Try _On Food and Cooking: The Science and Lore of the Kitchen_. He has much better depth, and is probably the expert on things like breads.
And of course any geek worth his (coarse kosher) salt would have read _The Physiology of Taste_ by Brillat-Savarin.
You miss my point entirely. There can be 1x10^20 more programs for the Windows base, and that don't mean jack if most users won't use them.
Most users (and ditch the myopic/. self-indulgent perspective -- we here are *NOT* most users) are "afriad" of their machines. They don't want to "break them" (all your Aunt Tillie needs is one corruption of her machine by installing some corrupt or bad software and she will swear off installing new apps (althought the same lesson never seems to get through about opening exe's attached to email)). Up until a few years ago, the only app most WIndows user knew were spreadsheets and word processors. (Uh,... and minesweeper and solitare.;) NOw that the internet is big, people are learning about email, browsers, and whatnot and are getting less afraid of "breaking their machines."
And, Granted: Windows is getting easier to use, but that still doesn't make it as easy as a Mac.
But, OTOH, the one thing I didn't mention is that Mac users as a whole tend to be creative minds, while PC users aren't. (Windows users tend to be more along the lines of office drones -- keeping in mind that the computer is no longer the exclusive domain of the geek, and in fact the number of general business users SIGNIFICANTLY outnumber the geeks.) Creative people would be more inclined to experiment, thus that would tend to skew the data a bit.
So I think the broader usage of apps is in (large) part due to the ease of use and also affected by the fact that creative types tend to gravitate to the machine.
It is my understanding that the announcement and sale of the 5GB drives by Toshiba was restricted, by an agreement with Apple, until after the release of the first iPod.
For 90% of users, the PC is the better option because it is more versatile.
Uh,... 90% of computer users know how to do 4-5 things:
1. Turn the computer on.
2. Open up a word processor, browser or email package.
3. Type a letter/document/email.
4. Browse.
5. Shut the machine off.
"versatile" doesn't matter one lick to these people.
If they have a machine that encourages them to use it by making the process easier, then they have in effect a more versatile machine.
Previous studies have been conducted that show that Mac users tend to use a much broader range of software than their Windows counterparts. This is, in part, due to an easier to use system encouraging more exploration.
Slashdot Mirror
This has been a long-standing "argument" that on quick-glance was accepted by most as true without thinking about it.
[NOTE: I'm addressing more of the historical argument here. Haven't looked at this in a long time. So don't know about the current state, nor do I really care. Computers have changed quite a lot (how many manufacturers still stand? SEE: Next paragraph) and I think Apple has too. So this is more informational to counter the presumptive "truth" that has been perpetuated.]
People would point to the sticker price of a Mac and compare it to a Gateway/e-Machines/Compaq/Etc, and use that as proof that Macs were overpriced.
But that ignored a few key issues.
Anytime a friend tried to make that argument, I would take their choice of new PC to purchase and find the comparable Mac (as best as could be found). Sure enough, the Mac had the higher price point... until... one started looking at what one actually got for their money.
Keep in mind that a lot of things came standard on Macs LOOOOOONG before they were on PCs. Ethernet? On board. (Ignoring things like the fact that networking was included in Macs going back to... the SE? Plus?? Okay, it was AppleTalk, but every single Mac had networking back long before most people knew what a network was.) Sound, in and/or out? On board. (every PC user I knew had to buy SoundBlaster cards. I don't even know if any sound cards were made back then for Macs, outside of specialty/pro set-ups, as there was no need for them.) Etc. Etc.
Just two examples. And old examples, but I deliberately picked those as two things that we cannot imagine NOT getting in a computer today. (Didn't want to get mired in a discussion about some of the newer tech that may or may not stand the test of time.)
There was a lot of technology in Mac users hands long before it was common enough to hit a critical threshold of usefulness for PC users. This not only made the Macs more useful, but opened up a whole host of options to users.
And adding these things to your PC added to the cost, and more often than not, by the time they are brought to parity, the PC wound up costing more.
Which leads to a second point: Quality.
The PC world was fighting itself in a race to the bottom. PC users wanted cheap. And they usually got it in both senses of the word.
Going back to the ethernet example, I remember trying to get one of my Windows boxes set up on the house LAN with all of the other computers. (I had Macs, Windows, and BSD machines, but I'm only comparing the first two, as they are more "consumer".) I went down to the PC Club and got myself a cheap NIC. And then spent WAAAAAY too many hours trying to get it to work. It was a challenge but back then I didn't really think about the cost of my time as "the game was afoot!"
And then, cheap hardware was cheap, but no one really factored in failure or intermittent problems after purchase or even just set-up issues/conflicts as part of the cost of ownership.
But even buying more expensive hardware wasn't guaranteed to work better or not fail. And, of course, this just makes the "cheap PC" less of a bargain and drives the total price even higher.
Macs (in general) used higher quality parts, and those were just included in the price.
So, the "more expensive" Mac, in just about every case, wound up being less expensive than a PC.
Now I mentioned this was more of an historical disabusement of something that was oft just accepted as truth without question. I'd be pressed to think of the last time I did a comparison like this.
Fact is, the world of consumer computers has changed quite a lot. The computer has just become a commodity. Most are used our of the box as is. People buy a computer like it is a toaster... an IoT toaster with 800 features and its own twitter account. I think, outside of servers, very few even come with expansion slots. (Computers. But also toasters.) Most people are content with everything built-in to their laptop, and might have room for a bit m
*CONTIGUOUS* United States.
There.
I fixed it.
ProTip: Electrical tape will cover better, although require additional reapplications. ;)
Maybe there is a solvent for the injected ink?
The wristband company did make the logo awfully big on the the black bands (but not the others). That being said, using MS money for things like camp infrastructure (or soup!) isn't a bad thing if it helps us all.
So, it isn't a kids's camp per se (although should be family friendly), but ToorCamp has been around for several years. In fact, the first one was keynoted by Emmanuel Goldstein, who runs HOPE where Tobais was interviewed. The camp is attended by InfoSec/Hacker types, so the emphasis is on security, including the physical security that Tobias is fond of. I'm going at it looks like it will be awesome.
It's happening in a few weeks in Washington state, so if you are in the Pacific Northwest, you should go!
Middle of July, same thing happened to me. Maxtor SB300SO SATA drive. The motor IC burned in almost the exact same spot as the one in the article.
I had the case open at the time, and the PCB was facing downward. Booted the machine, saw the sparks and the smoke.
As I pointed out above, the term blue hat is just a name for an internal conference. All of the engineering staff I met did not call themselves anything other than employees. Not even the security people there. (Although the ones I know in hacker circles might call themselves black/white/grey hat, but then again, they probably don't care enough to use those labels.)
This is just a publicity stunt, a pretense that Microsoft is taking security research seriously.
Well, I really doubt this is a publicity stunt. There was only one reporter there. I talked to him for a while and am in the article. If it was a stunt, there would be a lot more press there. Instead, they have kept this thing relatively quiet.
The thing that struck me was watching the employees. I know most of the talks, but most of this was new stuff to them. (I did talk to a few people there that do hit a few of the Cons (BlackHat, DefCon, Shmoocon, ToorCon, etc.) but that was a few and these people were more interested in security to begin with.) The questions they asked at the end of each talk was great -- It showed that they were paying attention and that their interest was captured. Rather than putting their heads in the sand, they actively pursued the topics. And quite a few of them expressed interest in attending the Security/Hacker Cons after hearing what they heard that day.
Now, if you want to talk about a PR stunt, try having MFST sponsor the beer at a hacker conference.
That is unabashed.
So was the drinking.
"Blue Hat" is just a cute name for an internal training/conference at Microsoft. Very few of us from the "Community" (Which seems to be the polite way to say "hacker") were invited, and most of them (not myself) are speakers. Outside of "community" members, it is only MSFT staff there. So, no one really thinks of themselves as "Blue Hats" (or at least, god I hope not!).
Second BlueHat. Not second year. 1st one was earlier this year.
Heh... when I got the invitation, I was a tad suspicious.
Told my family where I was going, and when I was to return. If I failed to check in, I pointed to woods around Redmond where they were to look for my body.
I roomed with Cory for a little bit, and I'll tell you right now, with that many geeks around, the mains outlet real estate becomes quite valuable. (I think I had no less than 10 items that needed recharging and Cory, even with USB chargers, must have had way more than I.) So it was a first-come-first-serve battle for recharging.
Kinda like an Oklahoma style land grab for power outlets.
Thankfully, he carries a mini surge protector that at least gives you a few more places to plug in.
Since I've seen him do that, I've taken to carrying one in my bag when travellling, and it makes a big difference. Hotels never have enough outlets.
And I guess a multiple outlet surge protector really isn't a "gadget" per se, but everything else in the bag can be made useless quite quickly without it...
Given all of that, I can be into a system in about 5 seconds.
That is presuming best case (profile hardware, use hardware targeted exploit (not all WEP implementation is same), collect 4 data packets, user only using 40 bit encryption, bam! you are in).
Yeah, I understand with 104bit (or in rare exception 128bit+IV) will take a while longer, depending on traffic. (Certainly not 24 hours, but also register that all it takes is a neighbor that has to do nothing but set up a machine and forget about it until it has collected enough. In some of these higher density apartment blocks, that means several HUNDRED threats.)
But, a lot of this discussion is on home users, not your average computer geek, and I suspect that most users if they do any of the above list, will do 2, 3 and 4, but, path of least resistance being what it is, will only do 40bit.
Even if they also do 1 and 5, then that only adds a few more seconds here.
The point is that the above list, although an impediment, is usually only a few seconds of deterrent. Which really amounts to none whatsoever.
Far from "more trouble than you're worth."
If that is the case, then why do you think they bother doing new number draws every week in a lottery? Why not draw the numbers once, and just keep that winning number for weeks until someone finally guesses it?
But your other points are valid.
hmmmm... this must do something really interesting to the computer or disk to have a warning like that...
Next step would be to see if I could induce what the intent behind the restriction would be. If I couldn't reason it out, then I might be tempted to try to dupe the disc and put it in another computer (*Always* mount a scratch monkey.)
In fact, putting an admonition involving tech in front of a geek is like putting something bright and shinny in front of some people.
but on the other hand you just found a way to physically "tar pit" a geek for a better part of an hour....
Once of the best ones I have found is a series of spaces. Spammers will have a subject header like:
Buy my stuff %20 %20 %20 %20 %20 %20 %20 HXDHEWSEW
with a bunch of spaces (due to lamenss filter = %20) to separate the contents of the subject line from the random characters that are used to avoid some filters. If they stick in enough spaces, it usually will push the junk random characters out of the viewer's sight in order to disguise the Spam a bit.
You wanna maybe post the contents of said letter? Spread the love.
Or, spread the SPAM hate?
But remember to always mount a scratch fly!
And you must be in San Diego...
When the whole Verizon merger/creation-thing happend, both the A-carrier and the B-Carrier were companies that were to be merged into Verizon (GTE was on the A-side and the local land-line provider was usually granted the B-side, which in this case was a division of PacBell.).
As FCC regs are that no one company can own both A & B (to "prevent monopoly" and "encourage competition"), they had to sell off the A-side.
TDMA is (was for a while) much more of an East Coast thing. [They did early deployment tests of TDMA in Los Angeles and it sucked so hard, it set back the adoption of digital for a few years, by which time better standards came out.] It also helps that Qualcomm is here on this coast (in san Diego).
So, ATT comes along buys the GTE business in SD, which is CDMA. But they have substantial investment in older TDMA systems in the rest of the country. So they let the SD users keep their CDMA for a year or so. This kinda sucked as the second you left SD you were usually dropped down to analog, as the only digital option was TDMA.
After the dust settled, they then started to shift users over to their TDMA network and ditched the CDMA portions.
So now I have a crappy TDMA connection. I *really* can tell the difference between it and the CDMA network. CDMA was just so much clearer, cleaner, and had better reception.
TDMA sucks.
But, alas, I am waiting for number portablity to go into effect later this year. (I have a really good number I have had for years. Don't want to loose it.) If they delay number portability again, I'm going to be pissed.
As far as CDMA vs. GSM is concerned, I'm still not decided. The latest Rev of CDMA looks promising and a lot less limiting than GSM, but I guess time will tell...
Why can't you leave it tuned to something interesting -- like porn.
:P
The reviewer mentioned _Cookwise: The Hows and Whys of Successful Cooking_ but failed to mention that a lot of Alton's show is from Shirley O. Corriher's book. It is a fantastic text that is more of a chemistry lab book than a cooking book. (I would rather be taught why something works than just presented with a generic formula.)
But also, Harold McGee's books need mentioning here. Try _On Food and Cooking: The Science and Lore of the Kitchen_. He has much better depth, and is probably the expert on things like breads.
And of course any geek worth his (coarse kosher) salt would have read _The Physiology of Taste_ by Brillat-Savarin.
Most users (and ditch the myopic /. self-indulgent perspective -- we here are *NOT* most users) are "afriad" of their machines. They don't want to "break them" (all your Aunt Tillie needs is one corruption of her machine by installing some corrupt or bad software and she will swear off installing new apps (althought the same lesson never seems to get through about opening exe's attached to email)). Up until a few years ago, the only app most WIndows user knew were spreadsheets and word processors. (Uh,... and minesweeper and solitare. ;) NOw that the internet is big, people are learning about email, browsers, and whatnot and are getting less afraid of "breaking their machines."
And, Granted: Windows is getting easier to use, but that still doesn't make it as easy as a Mac.
But, OTOH, the one thing I didn't mention is that Mac users as a whole tend to be creative minds, while PC users aren't. (Windows users tend to be more along the lines of office drones -- keeping in mind that the computer is no longer the exclusive domain of the geek, and in fact the number of general business users SIGNIFICANTLY outnumber the geeks.) Creative people would be more inclined to experiment, thus that would tend to skew the data a bit.
So I think the broader usage of apps is in (large) part due to the ease of use and also affected by the fact that creative types tend to gravitate to the machine.
No Power as they speculated you would never hook a device up that wouldn't have its own powersource.
Uh,... 90% of computer users know how to do 4-5 things:
1. Turn the computer on.
2. Open up a word processor, browser or email package.
3. Type a letter/document/email.
4. Browse.
5. Shut the machine off.
"versatile" doesn't matter one lick to these people.
If they have a machine that encourages them to use it by making the process easier, then they have in effect a more versatile machine.
Previous studies have been conducted that show that Mac users tend to use a much broader range of software than their Windows counterparts. This is, in part, due to an easier to use system encouraging more exploration.
Well, I had to say something with an authoritarian "Parent voice" and it was either that or "send them to bed without supper."
Okay... so it was a long reach for a weak joke...
Good! There are already enough spam relays in China (and very few that I am aware of at MIT).
We should make a deal that China doesn't get anymore IPs until they deal with all the spam coming from there. That and finish their dinner...