The old 'viruses only target popular platforms' meme relies on the assumption that every platform is exactly secure as every other platform, and that is provably false.
But putting that aside - if we can agree that there is some phenomena at work that results in a strange lack of viruses on platforms other than Microsoft's - then the answer to the grandparent's question is that Mac|Linux|BSD users do not use malware countermeasures because THEY DON'T NEED THEM.
Meh, Windows7 is only a service pack + marketing. (heavy on the marketing) Get over it.
Re:I'm not dead yet
on
Why TV Lost
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The "TV is dead" line is all about broadcast technology, not the display device itself. People are already using various boxes to watch Internet content on their living room TV's. All you need to kill TV completely is to sell a tuner-free display which plugs directly into your home network.
Most (ALL?) new TVs are embedded computers. My reasonably affordable 32" LCD TV runs linux, has all the features you listed, and updates its firmware over TCP/IP
We are already there in terms of technology. The only ongoing challenge is the content owners who use legal structures to resist change.
I don't really disagree on any of your points there, but I don't see how that makes something like open-source socialist rather than capitalist - unless it is from the very narrow McCarthy era world view.
Capitalism assumes that the actor who makes the most profit from the resources they are given is using them most efficiently
Only when free of external encumbrances - where software patents are involved actors making the most profit are not operating at efficiencies that benefit the overall market.
In the OSS game code IS the resource. The actors that make the most money out of it (IBM, RedHat, etc) are using this resource the most effectively - and usually WITHOUT protectionist practices designed to prevent competition. How is that not capitalism?
You couldn't be more wrong. One of the main pillars of capitalism is that there are no barriers preventing new players from entering a market. In this sense OSS is capitalism at its most pure.
Shops like MS and Apple actively lobby the Government to raise the barrier of entry with laws like the DMCA and software patents. This is decidedly uncaptialistic. Its much closer to fascism really.
Believe it or not, profitability is not really a consideration when it comes to classifying an industry as one kind of ism or another. The key indicator for a capitalistic economy is COMPETITION.
The open source community can handle this problem more gracefully though. Having discussions out in the open means the most annoying issues get a lot attention.
I mean, anyone who wants to know which areas of their OSS project needs the most attention can just go to the forum/mailing lists and pick the threads with the most posts. No fancy data mining techniques needed. Only problem is that it is obvious to everyone if the developers are ignoring popular issues - probably the main reason closed shops don't do this very often
Of course nobody actually READS each and every bit of feedback, having those channels is largely a marketing exercise.
You contradict yourself there somewhat (on breaking compatibility) -
And if its a good enough excuse for Apple than Vista can use it too.
Then...
If Apple gets significant marketshare, the volume of businesses screaming when they release new OS updates will rise accordingly.
The same things that are perfectly reasonable from Apple are simply not acceptable from Microsoft. This is not double standards, Apple and Microsoft are playing different games in different markets.
All this talk of Apple in relation to this particular story is pretty off topic though. In the corporate world Microsoft's biggest problem at the moment is not Apple or Linux but Microsoft itself, and addressing THAT problem won't be easy.
You are thinking of state-run media, which is obviously a stupid idea, but you can have a state-funded media. Socializing media does not have to mean government control.
There are many successful examples of this around the world, one of the largest that comes to mind is the BBC.
State-funded media tends to be a much stronger critic of government then corporate media, and there is nothing coincidental about it.
My digital receiver allows you to program shows you want to watch and it changes the channel for you when the program comes on. You just hit a "watch this" button on the built-in program guide and it does the rest. Still have to set the clock on the VCR though.
Only if gas taxes meet the full and total costs of the road building and maintenance would you be paying twice, but this is not the case. The public subsidize the cost of roads through other taxes to provide a common good. There is no particularly good reason that some of these "other taxes" should not include tolls (where appropriate of course, to many tolls could have a negative impact on the common good - but that is not what you are suggesting).
You raise an interesting idea, but I don't think it will pan out that way.
The rich and powerful are very good at making sure the normal rules don't apply to them. They don't pay as much taxes as the middle class, and they can afford lawyers to get them off the hook for things that would see a normal person serve time - they can even use their close relationship with government leaders to change laws that don't suit them.
I'm pretty sure that the "ruling class" will find a way, be it technological or legal, to protect their privacy, all while increasingly monitoring the activities of us ordinary slobs.
It doesn't hurt to be optimistic of course, but I don't see current trends leading towards the geek nirvana that you are talking about. An Orwellian outcome seems much more likely.
Until alternative fuel cars become more common. Just because someone is driving an electric does not mean their car magically causes no wear on the highway. Would YOU want to pay more at the pump in terms of gas taxes to subsidize the roads for those not making use of oil?
While I admit that I would not like it, I have to also admit that this does kind of sound fair. While ICE cars EVs both do the same damage to the road itself, the same cannot be said about the amount of damage they do to the air. Money to fix the problem caused by ICEs needs to come from somewhere, if it comes from the people that are burning fossil fuels so much the better.
Put it this way - if you were driving an EV, how would YOU like to pay taxes to clean up after petrol cars.
Really? In my experience - which includes 2 years of roof maintenance and and 30-odd years of going in-and-out of houses - only very rare heritage-listed buildings have a shingle roof. Traditional building methods use clay or concrete tiles, and modern housing uses Colorbond (20-something layer acrylic coated steel) sheet. Shingles are so expensive in terms of raw materials, initial labor and ongoing maintenance that I have never once been in a house with a shingle roof. I am truly surprised that the economics of building could be so different anywhere else.
I would say that non-geeks are intimidated by computers, and that drives them to forgive the flaws of well established brands like MS because they still seem like a safe bet.
Good point
If MS can put consumers in front of a nice computer running Windows 7, that will go a long way towards assuaging any reservations that people have about Windows. Thus, the MS store.
I'll bite, what propaganda? - I wasn't towing a line, though perhaps I had a jibe at your expense.
I maintain that by the time IRA came on to the scene the situation was intractable, do you disagree? I don't blame the men fighting in the Republican Army any more than British Army, although I believe they both should have shown more restraint.
They were all caught in a shit fight started by people generations dead... I know men who fought on both sides, and I can tell you one didn't want to be there and the other didn't want him there, so even they agreed!
History is a fascinating subject but you don't kill people over it. Honestly, if there was less fretting about who's grandfather did what to who most of the conflict in the world today would evaporate.
Microsoft has a PR problem on their hands, I can assure you. Doesn't mean people are going to change OS or anything. But the fact of the matter is that non-geeks distrust computers, and to them that means Windows.
I knew I would be corrected by a Irishman from one side or the other. Its a bit like correcting someones grammar - you'd better be damn sure you know what your doing. Not sure I deserved the Daily Mail crack though, I was just trying to be as even-handed as possible. Lets face it, its a bit late in the game to be blaming Queen Elizabeth:P
Anywho, I wasn't trying to apportion blame or responsibility one way or the other, just to point out that the situation was much more complicated then the parent suggested. I believe you've helped me make my point. Ta.
Thats such a misguided understanding of the situation I'm tempted to guess you are an American. You've heard of the Irish "Troubles" haven't you?
Half of the country identified themselves as British and the other half spat on the English flag. Religion was involved too (Protestants vs Catholics). Both sides hated each others guts. If the English forces had pulled out there would have been bloodshed on an unimaginable scale. It was pretty much civil war as it was.
Of course staying didn't really calm things down, and caused it's own problems, but it kind-of, sort-of kept a lid on things till diplomatic talks could make some headway.
The safe speed to be driving depends on many factors - prevailing light, condition of the road/vehicle, pedestrians and other motorists, capability of the driver etc etc.
Posted speed limits by definition are the lowest common denominator, but it is entirely possible to be driving dangerously fast while under the speed limit.
The proper solution is to charge people who are driving dangerously fast with doing so, and not have arbitrary limits. The ONLY reason this is not done is because it would be prohibitively expensive - not so expensive that roads become dangerous because of lack of enforcement, but expensive enough that there won't be any profit left over at the end of the day.
If road safety really was more important than revenue than this really wouldn't be a problem, would it?
Slashdot Mirror
My Dad once told me (this was before digital formats were mainstream mind) that he actually preferred the 'dynamic quality' of AM radio over FM.
Back then I just shook my head at the daft old man, but this kind news makes me look back at it in a new light.
The old 'viruses only target popular platforms' meme relies on the assumption that every platform is exactly secure as every other platform, and that is provably false.
But putting that aside - if we can agree that there is some phenomena at work that results in a strange lack of viruses on platforms other than Microsoft's - then the answer to the grandparent's question is that Mac|Linux|BSD users do not use malware countermeasures because THEY DON'T NEED THEM.
Wow, this is why you don't don't do meth kids.
Meh, Windows7 is only a service pack + marketing. (heavy on the marketing) Get over it.
The "TV is dead" line is all about broadcast technology, not the display device itself. People are already using various boxes to watch Internet content on their living room TV's. All you need to kill TV completely is to sell a tuner-free display which plugs directly into your home network.
Most (ALL?) new TVs are embedded computers. My reasonably affordable 32" LCD TV runs linux, has all the features you listed, and updates its firmware over TCP/IP
We are already there in terms of technology. The only ongoing challenge is the content owners who use legal structures to resist change.
It just occurs to me that this could be another case of semantics over OSS/Free Software.
I could accept an argument stating that Free Software is a socialist construct. OSS is an entirely different kettle of fish though.
Capitalism assumes that the actor who makes the most profit from the resources they are given is using them most efficiently
Only when free of external encumbrances - where software patents are involved actors making the most profit are not operating at efficiencies that benefit the overall market.
In the OSS game code IS the resource. The actors that make the most money out of it (IBM, RedHat, etc) are using this resource the most effectively - and usually WITHOUT protectionist practices designed to prevent competition. How is that not capitalism?
You couldn't be more wrong. One of the main pillars of capitalism is that there are no barriers preventing new players from entering a market. In this sense OSS is capitalism at its most pure.
Shops like MS and Apple actively lobby the Government to raise the barrier of entry with laws like the DMCA and software patents. This is decidedly uncaptialistic. Its much closer to fascism really.
Believe it or not, profitability is not really a consideration when it comes to classifying an industry as one kind of ism or another. The key indicator for a capitalistic economy is COMPETITION.
The open source community can handle this problem more gracefully though. Having discussions out in the open means the most annoying issues get a lot attention.
I mean, anyone who wants to know which areas of their OSS project needs the most attention can just go to the forum/mailing lists and pick the threads with the most posts. No fancy data mining techniques needed. Only problem is that it is obvious to everyone if the developers are ignoring popular issues - probably the main reason closed shops don't do this very often
Of course nobody actually READS each and every bit of feedback, having those channels is largely a marketing exercise.
And if its a good enough excuse for Apple than Vista can use it too.
Then...
If Apple gets significant marketshare, the volume of businesses screaming when they release new OS updates will rise accordingly.
The same things that are perfectly reasonable from Apple are simply not acceptable from Microsoft. This is not double standards, Apple and Microsoft are playing different games in different markets.
All this talk of Apple in relation to this particular story is pretty off topic though. In the corporate world Microsoft's biggest problem at the moment is not Apple or Linux but Microsoft itself, and addressing THAT problem won't be easy.
You are thinking of state-run media, which is obviously a stupid idea, but you can have a state-funded media. Socializing media does not have to mean government control.
There are many successful examples of this around the world, one of the largest that comes to mind is the BBC.
State-funded media tends to be a much stronger critic of government then corporate media, and there is nothing coincidental about it.
Thats funny, I was sure it was the other way around.
I take it you must mean IN THE COURTROOM morality takes a back seat to the law, but even then...
The CPU is dead. Netcraft confirms it.
My digital receiver allows you to program shows you want to watch and it changes the channel for you when the program comes on. You just hit a "watch this" button on the built-in program guide and it does the rest. Still have to set the clock on the VCR though.
Only if gas taxes meet the full and total costs of the road building and maintenance would you be paying twice, but this is not the case. The public subsidize the cost of roads through other taxes to provide a common good. There is no particularly good reason that some of these "other taxes" should not include tolls (where appropriate of course, to many tolls could have a negative impact on the common good - but that is not what you are suggesting).
You raise an interesting idea, but I don't think it will pan out that way.
The rich and powerful are very good at making sure the normal rules don't apply to them. They don't pay as much taxes as the middle class, and they can afford lawyers to get them off the hook for things that would see a normal person serve time - they can even use their close relationship with government leaders to change laws that don't suit them.
I'm pretty sure that the "ruling class" will find a way, be it technological or legal, to protect their privacy, all while increasingly monitoring the activities of us ordinary slobs.
It doesn't hurt to be optimistic of course, but I don't see current trends leading towards the geek nirvana that you are talking about. An Orwellian outcome seems much more likely.
Until alternative fuel cars become more common. Just because someone is driving an electric does not mean their car magically causes no wear on the highway. Would YOU want to pay more at the pump in terms of gas taxes to subsidize the roads for those not making use of oil?
While I admit that I would not like it, I have to also admit that this does kind of sound fair. While ICE cars EVs both do the same damage to the road itself, the same cannot be said about the amount of damage they do to the air. Money to fix the problem caused by ICEs needs to come from somewhere, if it comes from the people that are burning fossil fuels so much the better.
Put it this way - if you were driving an EV, how would YOU like to pay taxes to clean up after petrol cars.
Really? In my experience - which includes 2 years of roof maintenance and and 30-odd years of going in-and-out of houses - only very rare heritage-listed buildings have a shingle roof. Traditional building methods use clay or concrete tiles, and modern housing uses Colorbond (20-something layer acrylic coated steel) sheet. Shingles are so expensive in terms of raw materials, initial labor and ongoing maintenance that I have never once been in a house with a shingle roof. I am truly surprised that the economics of building could be so different anywhere else.
I would say that non-geeks are intimidated by computers, and that drives them to forgive the flaws of well established brands like MS because they still seem like a safe bet.
Good point
If MS can put consumers in front of a nice computer running Windows 7, that will go a long way towards assuaging any reservations that people have about Windows. Thus, the MS store.
Ah ha! so they DO have a problem!
I'll bite, what propaganda? - I wasn't towing a line, though perhaps I had a jibe at your expense.
I maintain that by the time IRA came on to the scene the situation was intractable, do you disagree? I don't blame the men fighting in the Republican Army any more than British Army, although I believe they both should have shown more restraint.
They were all caught in a shit fight started by people generations dead... I know men who fought on both sides, and I can tell you one didn't want to be there and the other didn't want him there, so even they agreed!
History is a fascinating subject but you don't kill people over it. Honestly, if there was less fretting about who's grandfather did what to who most of the conflict in the world today would evaporate.
Microsoft has a PR problem on their hands, I can assure you. Doesn't mean people are going to change OS or anything. But the fact of the matter is that non-geeks distrust computers, and to them that means Windows.
I knew I would be corrected by a Irishman from one side or the other. Its a bit like correcting someones grammar - you'd better be damn sure you know what your doing. Not sure I deserved the Daily Mail crack though, I was just trying to be as even-handed as possible. Lets face it, its a bit late in the game to be blaming Queen Elizabeth :P
Anywho, I wasn't trying to apportion blame or responsibility one way or the other, just to point out that the situation was much more complicated then the parent suggested. I believe you've helped me make my point. Ta.
Pretty much by definition.
Thats such a misguided understanding of the situation I'm tempted to guess you are an American. You've heard of the Irish "Troubles" haven't you?
Half of the country identified themselves as British and the other half spat on the English flag. Religion was involved too (Protestants vs Catholics). Both sides hated each others guts. If the English forces had pulled out there would have been bloodshed on an unimaginable scale. It was pretty much civil war as it was.
Of course staying didn't really calm things down, and caused it's own problems, but it kind-of, sort-of kept a lid on things till diplomatic talks could make some headway.
But you know, whatever.
The safe speed to be driving depends on many factors - prevailing light, condition of the road/vehicle, pedestrians and other motorists, capability of the driver etc etc.
Posted speed limits by definition are the lowest common denominator, but it is entirely possible to be driving dangerously fast while under the speed limit.
The proper solution is to charge people who are driving dangerously fast with doing so, and not have arbitrary limits. The ONLY reason this is not done is because it would be prohibitively expensive - not so expensive that roads become dangerous because of lack of enforcement, but expensive enough that there won't be any profit left over at the end of the day.
If road safety really was more important than revenue than this really wouldn't be a problem, would it?