1) Build Linux-based PCs that "just work" right out of the box. This includes all of the gripes from above: Wireless, video, music, devices, etc.
2) Pick a well-supported distro to partner with, and help create a software development and support team specifically for those boxes. Encourage the users to interact and contribute to the distro/Linux OSI, while educating them in the ways of the OSI.
3) Basically, do what the Apple does with the Macs, expect do it with Linux.
4) Profit.
Does Apple have a patent on that kind of business model? Without getting into specifics, I don't think they do.
You bring up an interesting point, one that I didn't consider. If we (the slashdot conflux) are to take that into consideration when evaluating the intention of the DHS regarding this press-release, then we could assume that they know that any attempt at subverting privacy, security, etc. will be discovered through such means. A reverse-engineering might prove this patch and subsequent patches benign in the civil-liberties-eroding sense. If, however, it's discovered that the patch indeed performs some kind of surveillance or intelligence gathering, not only does that demonstrate a massive underestimation of "the people" by "the man", but it provides even greater evidence that we live in some troubling times. The implications of such a thing occurring are major: the government is trying to hack your home computer. Not only do you have to worry about spam, viruses, spyware and the like, but now you have to wonder if Big Brother is logging every Internet search you make (ala Yahoo!), or counts every time you view something on the government's "evil-doers" list.
Congratulations, Aaron. You just made it onto next month's no-fly list! It's a veritable who's-who of international terrorists and United State Senators alike! Keep up the good work.
We (The slashdot conflux) have always advocated improved computer security, particularly in the case of the Windows operating system. Patches have proven to be an effective method for maintaining said system against such related problems, and from the position of the corporate sys-admin down to the family's IT technician, we've always made it a point to ensure the most updated patches were in place. Now it's finally a matter of the government's to help ensure all the citizens of this country take similar steps.
Should we: A) rejoice because someone of authority has finally been sold on Windows security through patching by some qualified expert, B) assume that there's a greater conspiracy at work here which involves improving the government's ability to surveil their constituency, or C) imagine that there's a very legitimate, non-civil-liberties threatening need for the government to urge the users of the majority operating system in the United States, and very possibly the world, to maintain their systems at a sensible level of security? Maybe Al-Quaida (sp?) communicates via holes in certain unpatched systems (wild-guess speculation), or maybe terrorists are being funded by income brought in by spam-bots and zombie machines (plausible).
The real problem is that our cynicism makes viewing realistic possibilities hard to imagine, and our tools go logical deduction sort of seem to fail. Occam's razor can't be used in a situation like this because time has proved over and again that the interests of people at the government level aren't always in the interest of people at the constituency level. This is one of those times that we (the slashdot conflux) would like to imagine that someone (like Lawrence Lessig or Brad Templeton) has finally said something to an official that he finally understood and as a result has taken this action, but since we often have a hard time getting our own management to listen to the good ideas we put forth, we're hesitant to believe such a thing has happened. In fact, given the recent history of our government, we're much more inclined to consider a sinister purpose. The DHS press release has many of the "hidden agenda" trappings, like specifically indicating which patch to apply, as well as the call of immediacy.
Just to put things in perspective; right now, Britons are unloading all liquids and gels into trash cans prior to boarding US-bound planes, while we're wondering if the US government is acting in our best interest by adamantly suggesting we patch our Windows computers.
Sounds like the whole thing is flawed. In any case, you're right, my "logic" is flawed as I used the term loosely. Of course, since MS is the subject of discussion, logic takes a backseat anyhow.
The logic is that the MS claim of "foolproof" WGA software has only tagged a fraction of the millions of legitimate users as pirates, while true pirated copies are working as legitimate. The logic would follow that for every pirated copy marked as legal, someone with the legal copy is being marked as a pirate. That supposed "fraction" starts to look something like 1/2 or 3/5 or worse.
The thing about Flash is that many designers and artists use it to create pieces of art, animated or dynamic in form. For these people, Flash is used to a different end than what a typical commercial or information website might use it for, which in many cases amounts to abuse of Flash.
I think it's a little hippocritical of the general slashdot user to complain about the restrictive political climate and it's often infringing acts on the creative rights of their citizens, yet dismiss Flash as a merit-less platform for art, music and other creative ideas. Somehow, I think these slashdot users are also the same people who spend too much time on sites like albinoblacksheep or newgrounds.
More interestingly, will MS actually patch it, even with complete knowledge of the hole? If it further delays Vista's release (because of potentially complex code organization, or other roadblock), they might not even bother until later.
Unfortunately, I think it's been established that many "average" users run in that mode, regardless of security concerns. I wonder if Vista will be an exception to this.
The/. summary makes it sound like there's rampant gaming addiction brought on by game-manufacturers. I think the odds are that the patients of these clinics have some other kind of physical or psychological problem which just so happens to rear its ugly head when some other form of activity is introduced, specifically gaming. The same can be said of gambling, drinking, drugs, sex, tv-watching, etc., but somehow this is so much worse because children are at stake? Cmon! Parents, be thankful you caught your child's substance-dependency issues, or social anxiety/anti-social issues early, where you can treat them. Treating video games as the problem isn't solving anything.
Citing the iTunes store as representative of anything but a "Hits Business" is flawed. I think consumers who represent the statistics in the long tail don't shop at the iTunes store. While I know it's not a vaild argument to cite what my own purchasing practices are, I for one spend a lot less on music at iTunes and more at places like Om Records, Defected, and other independent label online stores. In fact, if I do purchase at iTunes, it's usually a very popular song which is consistent with iTunes being in the "Hits Business". The arguer is right about that, but wrong about who it accurately represents.
"If you are trying to do layout that is pixel-perfect on the web you are fucking up."
I wish I had the mod-points to mod the parent up, but this statement really sums up most of the problems with CSS/Layout/Design on the Internet. So many of the older generation of designers come from a print background where layouts and structure are static. The Web is anything but. Today's Web-designers create flexible, always-changing, never-static "documents." The concept that the Web is as organically dynamic as the people who use it should be the first lesson anyone seriously interested in Web-design should learn.
All sarcasm aside, I think that an Apple computer running Windows will appear to run faster than a similarly configured Dell or HP running Windows because the Apple computer doesn't start up with all the extra "support/bonus" software that Dell and HP dump onto their computers before they ship it out to the customer. Also, let us forget the fact that Apple Computers don't ship with Windows, i.e. *Clean Install* of Windows, which we all know runs faster than the 3-year old Win2K install running with spy/bloat/ad-ware on Joe Average's workstation.
When my brother and I first got ahold of the game, we went through the trouble of setting the PC up to run on the 32 inch TV with the surround sound on high in the dark before we even installed it. Scared the holy fuck out of us a few times, but it was lots of fun.
My 20" Intel iMac has also been rock solid. Guess that makes two data points. In any case, there's been little or no coverage that I've seen regarding problems with those machines. Not that there aren't any problems at all, but they are few, and far between.
And while this article is regarding batteries, the arguments are regarding first generation products, of which it would appear that the Intel iMacs have had little problems. The sweeping generalization that many people make about the status of quality regarding first generation products, whether they are Apple's, or any other company's products, is wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like an idea for a product:
1) Build Linux-based PCs that "just work" right out of the box. This includes all of the gripes from above: Wireless, video, music, devices, etc.
2) Pick a well-supported distro to partner with, and help create a software development and support team specifically for those boxes. Encourage the users to interact and contribute to the distro/Linux OSI, while educating them in the ways of the OSI.
3) Basically, do what the Apple does with the Macs, expect do it with Linux.
4) Profit.
Does Apple have a patent on that kind of business model? Without getting into specifics, I don't think they do.
I think...
"...tak[ing] the axe to Microsoft..."
is a good start.
You bring up an interesting point, one that I didn't consider. If we (the slashdot conflux) are to take that into consideration when evaluating the intention of the DHS regarding this press-release, then we could assume that they know that any attempt at subverting privacy, security, etc. will be discovered through such means. A reverse-engineering might prove this patch and subsequent patches benign in the civil-liberties-eroding sense. If, however, it's discovered that the patch indeed performs some kind of surveillance or intelligence gathering, not only does that demonstrate a massive underestimation of "the people" by "the man", but it provides even greater evidence that we live in some troubling times. The implications of such a thing occurring are major: the government is trying to hack your home computer. Not only do you have to worry about spam, viruses, spyware and the like, but now you have to wonder if Big Brother is logging every Internet search you make (ala Yahoo!), or counts every time you view something on the government's "evil-doers" list.
QUIET! I haven't upsold him on the coffee table book yet!
Congratulations, Aaron. You just made it onto next month's no-fly list! It's a veritable who's-who of international terrorists and United State Senators alike! Keep up the good work.
We (The slashdot conflux) have always advocated improved computer security, particularly in the case of the Windows operating system. Patches have proven to be an effective method for maintaining said system against such related problems, and from the position of the corporate sys-admin down to the family's IT technician, we've always made it a point to ensure the most updated patches were in place. Now it's finally a matter of the government's to help ensure all the citizens of this country take similar steps.
Should we: A) rejoice because someone of authority has finally been sold on Windows security through patching by some qualified expert, B) assume that there's a greater conspiracy at work here which involves improving the government's ability to surveil their constituency, or C) imagine that there's a very legitimate, non-civil-liberties threatening need for the government to urge the users of the majority operating system in the United States, and very possibly the world, to maintain their systems at a sensible level of security? Maybe Al-Quaida (sp?) communicates via holes in certain unpatched systems (wild-guess speculation), or maybe terrorists are being funded by income brought in by spam-bots and zombie machines (plausible).
The real problem is that our cynicism makes viewing realistic possibilities hard to imagine, and our tools go logical deduction sort of seem to fail. Occam's razor can't be used in a situation like this because time has proved over and again that the interests of people at the government level aren't always in the interest of people at the constituency level. This is one of those times that we (the slashdot conflux) would like to imagine that someone (like Lawrence Lessig or Brad Templeton) has finally said something to an official that he finally understood and as a result has taken this action, but since we often have a hard time getting our own management to listen to the good ideas we put forth, we're hesitant to believe such a thing has happened. In fact, given the recent history of our government, we're much more inclined to consider a sinister purpose. The DHS press release has many of the "hidden agenda" trappings, like specifically indicating which patch to apply, as well as the call of immediacy.
Just to put things in perspective; right now, Britons are unloading all liquids and gels into trash cans prior to boarding US-bound planes, while we're wondering if the US government is acting in our best interest by adamantly suggesting we patch our Windows computers.
Sounds like the whole thing is flawed. In any case, you're right, my "logic" is flawed as I used the term loosely. Of course, since MS is the subject of discussion, logic takes a backseat anyhow.
The logic is that the MS claim of "foolproof" WGA software has only tagged a fraction of the millions of legitimate users as pirates, while true pirated copies are working as legitimate. The logic would follow that for every pirated copy marked as legal, someone with the legal copy is being marked as a pirate. That supposed "fraction" starts to look something like 1/2 or 3/5 or worse.
Here's my link contribution to what I would consider "Quality Flash Work."
http://www.beautifully-webdesign.net/
The thing about Flash is that many designers and artists use it to create pieces of art, animated or dynamic in form. For these people, Flash is used to a different end than what a typical commercial or information website might use it for, which in many cases amounts to abuse of Flash.
I think it's a little hippocritical of the general slashdot user to complain about the restrictive political climate and it's often infringing acts on the creative rights of their citizens, yet dismiss Flash as a merit-less platform for art, music and other creative ideas. Somehow, I think these slashdot users are also the same people who spend too much time on sites like albinoblacksheep or newgrounds.
More interestingly, will MS actually patch it, even with complete knowledge of the hole? If it further delays Vista's release (because of potentially complex code organization, or other roadblock), they might not even bother until later.
I posted a similar comment mere seconds after yours. Bet I win with the most "redundant" down mods.
Unfortunately, I think it's been established that many "average" users run in that mode, regardless of security concerns. I wonder if Vista will be an exception to this.
"...which casts doubt as to what the pedagogical use for notebooks in class really is."
Sex Ed.
The /. summary makes it sound like there's rampant gaming addiction brought on by game-manufacturers. I think the odds are that the patients of these clinics have some other kind of physical or psychological problem which just so happens to rear its ugly head when some other form of activity is introduced, specifically gaming. The same can be said of gambling, drinking, drugs, sex, tv-watching, etc., but somehow this is so much worse because children are at stake? Cmon! Parents, be thankful you caught your child's substance-dependency issues, or social anxiety/anti-social issues early, where you can treat them. Treating video games as the problem isn't solving anything.
Citing the iTunes store as representative of anything but a "Hits Business" is flawed. I think consumers who represent the statistics in the long tail don't shop at the iTunes store. While I know it's not a vaild argument to cite what my own purchasing practices are, I for one spend a lot less on music at iTunes and more at places like Om Records, Defected, and other independent label online stores. In fact, if I do purchase at iTunes, it's usually a very popular song which is consistent with iTunes being in the "Hits Business". The arguer is right about that, but wrong about who it accurately represents.
"If you are trying to do layout that is pixel-perfect on the web you are fucking up."
I wish I had the mod-points to mod the parent up, but this statement really sums up most of the problems with CSS/Layout/Design on the Internet. So many of the older generation of designers come from a print background where layouts and structure are static. The Web is anything but. Today's Web-designers create flexible, always-changing, never-static "documents." The concept that the Web is as organically dynamic as the people who use it should be the first lesson anyone seriously interested in Web-design should learn.
The Internet cannot get you drunk. I should know, I've tried.
All sarcasm aside, I think that an Apple computer running Windows will appear to run faster than a similarly configured Dell or HP running Windows because the Apple computer doesn't start up with all the extra "support/bonus" software that Dell and HP dump onto their computers before they ship it out to the customer. Also, let us forget the fact that Apple Computers don't ship with Windows, i.e. *Clean Install* of Windows, which we all know runs faster than the 3-year old Win2K install running with spy/bloat/ad-ware on Joe Average's workstation.
I prefer to catch my crabs with actual pots baited with sticks of butter. Cuts down on time to the range top, and ultimately, the belly.
That's a silly thing to worry about because if it does, it's not like there's going be some kind of aftermath to be concerned about.
Trust no one.
When my brother and I first got ahold of the game, we went through the trouble of setting the PC up to run on the 32 inch TV with the surround sound on high in the dark before we even installed it. Scared the holy fuck out of us a few times, but it was lots of fun.
CNN was reporting on 2,000 years last time I checked. Sensationalism, maybe?
Study: Earth likely hottest in 2,000 years
So far so good...
My 20" Intel iMac has also been rock solid. Guess that makes two data points. In any case, there's been little or no coverage that I've seen regarding problems with those machines. Not that there aren't any problems at all, but they are few, and far between.
And while this article is regarding batteries, the arguments are regarding first generation products, of which it would appear that the Intel iMacs have had little problems. The sweeping generalization that many people make about the status of quality regarding first generation products, whether they are Apple's, or any other company's products, is wrong.