If you look at Apple sales you'll see that iPhones only sell double Mac sales, and cost less than half on average. iPods have maxed out at 50Million a year, and cost far less than 1/5 of the average Mac. So from a revenue standpoint, Macs are still very relevant. Also from a pure numbers and sales standpoint, macs are relevant and bugging MS
You are incorrect. Code injection into a system DLL is possible as a regular user. Firewalls have nothing to do with this, nor does AV. All you have to do is run a piece of malicious code as the lowest level user and you're owned.
MS is as insecure as it comes, despite all their marketing hooplah.
I went through your links, and one's a trojan masquerading as a form of pirated software (ooo ahhh, how hard is that on ANY system?) and the second link shows that Windows 7 was no more secure under very special specific circumstances. (Charlie Miller apparently is very very good at what he does) The question is, on a reboot or even just a killing of Safari, is the Mac still owned?
And as for your "small number of users" point, I guess that's why Apple surpassed MS in market capitalization last week? Because their number of users are insignificant. Wake up and smell the coffee. MS blows six ways to Sunday. Every other significant OS out there is both better and more secure. MS has falling market share across the board. Then again, there's really no where to go but down from 95%+, to be fair. It's the accelerating decline that's significant and the fact that they can't penetrate any new markets even when they buy customers (Bing).
I'll predict that in less than 10 years, MS will be a footnote in history, as the company that brought us an inferior GUi and managed by hook and crook to steal 25 years of innovation from the world at large. It will also be a case study in universities of the success of marketing vapour. I'm still waiting for Chicago to be released, much less Longhorn or Blackcomb. Although I do note that Windows 7 now has a Panther system directory for its logs.... That's about right - 6 years behind.
Windows in the hands of a knowledgeable admin is just as secure as Linux or OSX in the hands of an equally knowledgeable admin.
Untrue. Even in knowledgeable hands, windows is still less secure than any *nix derivative in equal or lesser hands. Why? One reason is because of DLL code injection. Another is the completely clueless way MS architected the (in)security system.
Perhaps not. A brief search through the USPTO site reveals no patents awarded to John Sullivan, and the CSIRO patents are all regarding some modified form of cotton, near as I can tell from the summaries.
There is no patent link in TFA either. What is there is this quote:
The patent, which is owned by CSIRO, had its genesis in a 1977 paper O'Sullivan wrote about how a set of mathematical equations could be used to sharpen images from optical telescopes. He developed it while searching for exploding black holes.
Now, last I checked, a set of equations, or an algorithm, could not be patented. Not having access to the patent itself, we can draw no real conclusions. There is also the question of prior art since the equations were published in 1977.
Nice troll - how do the points in your post have anything to do with TFA? AT&T is the culprit here.
Apple is the new bad guy, not Microsoft.
You're correct in that Microsoft can never be the "new bad guy" as they're the oldest bad guy on the block. Followed by Sony. And which of the two is worse will probably result in Sony being the winner at this point. (Since we're OT anyways, might as well bring in both "bad guys") And what do both these companies have in common? Their best days are behind them from the looks of things and both are screwing their customers over, damaging their reputations in the process. Finding something good about either one is virtually impossible.
well, this will put a crimp in whether to purchase that snazzy new iPhone purportedly coming out this month. Nice, AT&T. First we find out that yes, AT&T has a 5 year exclusive deal, so yes, you will only be able to buy the new iPhone on AT&T's crappy network because you'll be there for 2 years. But now with the 2GB cap (tethered only? Or do you have the option of the original unlimited without it? The TFA doesn't say) it all of a sudden becomes hmmmm, should I? Maybe a Droid isn't so bad after all despite its shortcomings in usability.
The long and the short of this one is: guess I won't jump to the phone I really wanted if there is no unlimited plan, as I'm not interested in getting walloped with that nice $1/MB or whatever they're charging as overrage fees.
You must, therefore, have faith that, even though we now know that methodical observation at best obscures and at worst alters reality,
Not at all. I merely have to figure out how to correlate what I observe with the effects of observation. And there is still that catch all waiting, the infamous "we just don't know".
As we delve into the world of quarks, things are becoming much more interesting, and what was previously "uncertain" becomes less uncertain but merely a bounded problem which can be tested and validated.
Then we move to Einstein who first of all did not agree with Heisenberg in 1926 and, secondly, worked diligently against quantum mechanics because he did not believe in its potential randomness. Einstein appears to be wrong on the second count as quantum mechanics appears to explain many many events that we cannot explain otherwise.
it really depends on what you're calling "Science". I refer to science as what results out of the scientific method. What some call "Science" really is an ideology, and I'd agree with you in that regard, because it is not science. It's unfortunate that particularly vocal groups have taken science, created various forms of ideological "Science" and politicized science for their own ends. This diminishes real science in incredibly damaging ways, depending on the group espousing their version of "Science".
Science in and of itself is not a body of concepts, it is an approach that builds a body of knowledge that is self-consistent with regards to that knowledge. Take evolution - it's still a theory despite the preponderance of evidence. However, there exists not a single shred of evidence to date that evolution is wrong. A single such piece of evidence would invalidate the theory, or modify it if possible to account for the new observation. That is science. Making grandiose statements that something is not so... just because of baseless beliefs with no backing facts (but much faith) is not science.
That's an interesting definition of posit. I meant to assume or presume as per the definition.
Faith is, by definition, "[t]he confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing." You must have some degree of faith in the simple idea of testability,
I need no faith. If I run a test and it always shows the same result, then I have empirical proof that the test works. If I can show that it fails in some way repeatably, then I have shown that the test is incorrect and I have learned something new.
No faith required.
I think the core concept you refer to is how some scientists, notably Einstein, couldn't accept the results of their observations and theory as it clashed with their personal beliefs/faith. Many physicists have faith that the world is ordered. Why? Because for some reason they need it to be. Quantum Mechanics opens doors in some of those areas and makes things less certain. Personally I'm happy about that otherwise the universe would be a boring place.
Are you kidding? Measurements are not fact.... but ultimately you must have faith that science has something - anything - to say about the true nature of the phenomena.
why must I have "faith"? Why can I not merely posit that, by gosh, I don't know? Or perhaps that this is an approximation that appears to give the right answer of behavior 99.999% of the time?
Why do you insist on having absolute answers and act like without them we'll perish? Bacteria seem to get along fine without this knowledge. So do higher lifeforms.
Somebody needs to learn about the philosophy of science. You're a fish that doesn't see the water.
So what is science? At its heart it is an approach to observe, measure, and record, then correlate the records with theories to allow us to better understand the nature of the subject observed.
I'm not "depriving" myself of a good game. A good game is one that does not have DRM on it that will deprive me at some point and time of the ability to play it.
Other things I *loved* about Blizzard back in the days: all that was needed on Windows for their games to work was to have the game's folder. You could copy it from one machine to another etc. No crazy Windows registry non-sense. One folder.
That "back in the days" was yesterday for me. World of Warcraft is exactly this.
WoW requires a subscription and persistent internet connection to play. It's a little different than an offline game.
I'm pretty sure this will fall afoul of some existing law regarding wiretapping or some such. Unless, of course, the customer opts in, or fails to opt out.
I think the farming metaphor would be "eating the seed corn". (I'm not sure if it's quite the same metaphor, but it at least has the advantage of not being horrifying to think about)
Slashdot Mirror
If you look at Apple sales you'll see that iPhones only sell double Mac sales, and cost less than half on average. iPods have maxed out at 50Million a year, and cost far less than 1/5 of the average Mac. So from a revenue standpoint, Macs are still very relevant. Also from a pure numbers and sales standpoint, macs are relevant and bugging MS
All you need to do is tether your phone and download a Linux distro update and apps. You're done for the month.
You are incorrect. Code injection into a system DLL is possible as a regular user. Firewalls have nothing to do with this, nor does AV. All you have to do is run a piece of malicious code as the lowest level user and you're owned.
MS is as insecure as it comes, despite all their marketing hooplah.
I went through your links, and one's a trojan masquerading as a form of pirated software (ooo ahhh, how hard is that on ANY system?) and the second link shows that Windows 7 was no more secure under very special specific circumstances. (Charlie Miller apparently is very very good at what he does) The question is, on a reboot or even just a killing of Safari, is the Mac still owned?
And as for your "small number of users" point, I guess that's why Apple surpassed MS in market capitalization last week? Because their number of users are insignificant. Wake up and smell the coffee. MS blows six ways to Sunday. Every other significant OS out there is both better and more secure. MS has falling market share across the board. Then again, there's really no where to go but down from 95%+, to be fair. It's the accelerating decline that's significant and the fact that they can't penetrate any new markets even when they buy customers (Bing).
I'll predict that in less than 10 years, MS will be a footnote in history, as the company that brought us an inferior GUi and managed by hook and crook to steal 25 years of innovation from the world at large. It will also be a case study in universities of the success of marketing vapour. I'm still waiting for Chicago to be released, much less Longhorn or Blackcomb. Although I do note that Windows 7 now has a Panther system directory for its logs.... That's about right - 6 years behind.
Windows in the hands of a knowledgeable admin is just as secure as Linux or OSX in the hands of an equally knowledgeable admin.
Untrue. Even in knowledgeable hands, windows is still less secure than any *nix derivative in equal or lesser hands. Why? One reason is because of DLL code injection. Another is the completely clueless way MS architected the (in)security system.
Perhaps not. A brief search through the USPTO site reveals no patents awarded to John Sullivan, and the CSIRO patents are all regarding some modified form of cotton, near as I can tell from the summaries.
There is no patent link in TFA either. What is there is this quote:
The patent, which is owned by CSIRO, had its genesis in a 1977 paper O'Sullivan wrote about how a set of mathematical equations could be used to sharpen images from optical telescopes. He developed it while searching for exploding black holes.
Now, last I checked, a set of equations, or an algorithm, could not be patented. Not having access to the patent itself, we can draw no real conclusions. There is also the question of prior art since the equations were published in 1977.
Nice troll - how do the points in your post have anything to do with TFA? AT&T is the culprit here.
Apple is the new bad guy, not Microsoft.
You're correct in that Microsoft can never be the "new bad guy" as they're the oldest bad guy on the block. Followed by Sony. And which of the two is worse will probably result in Sony being the winner at this point. (Since we're OT anyways, might as well bring in both "bad guys") And what do both these companies have in common? Their best days are behind them from the looks of things and both are screwing their customers over, damaging their reputations in the process. Finding something good about either one is virtually impossible.
well, this will put a crimp in whether to purchase that snazzy new iPhone purportedly coming out this month. Nice, AT&T. First we find out that yes, AT&T has a 5 year exclusive deal, so yes, you will only be able to buy the new iPhone on AT&T's crappy network because you'll be there for 2 years. But now with the 2GB cap (tethered only? Or do you have the option of the original unlimited without it? The TFA doesn't say) it all of a sudden becomes hmmmm, should I? Maybe a Droid isn't so bad after all despite its shortcomings in usability.
The long and the short of this one is: guess I won't jump to the phone I really wanted if there is no unlimited plan, as I'm not interested in getting walloped with that nice $1/MB or whatever they're charging as overrage fees.
... Heisenberg [Uncertainty Principle]...
You must, therefore, have faith that, even though we now know that methodical observation at best obscures and at worst alters reality,
Not at all. I merely have to figure out how to correlate what I observe with the effects of observation. And there is still that catch all waiting, the infamous "we just don't know".
As we delve into the world of quarks, things are becoming much more interesting, and what was previously "uncertain" becomes less uncertain but merely a bounded problem which can be tested and validated.
Then we move to Einstein who first of all did not agree with Heisenberg in 1926 and, secondly, worked diligently against quantum mechanics because he did not believe in its potential randomness. Einstein appears to be wrong on the second count as quantum mechanics appears to explain many many events that we cannot explain otherwise.
...Instead the thinking now suggests that the mass of the sun warps space-time and creates a curved 3-D surface...
That would be at least a 4-D surface, and IIRC, it's more like 7-D. 3-D is merely how it's presented on paper.
I am well aware of the definition.
it really depends on what you're calling "Science". I refer to science as what results out of the scientific method. What some call "Science" really is an ideology, and I'd agree with you in that regard, because it is not science. It's unfortunate that particularly vocal groups have taken science, created various forms of ideological "Science" and politicized science for their own ends. This diminishes real science in incredibly damaging ways, depending on the group espousing their version of "Science".
Science in and of itself is not a body of concepts, it is an approach that builds a body of knowledge that is self-consistent with regards to that knowledge. Take evolution - it's still a theory despite the preponderance of evidence. However, there exists not a single shred of evidence to date that evolution is wrong. A single such piece of evidence would invalidate the theory, or modify it if possible to account for the new observation. That is science. Making grandiose statements that something is not so ... just because of baseless beliefs with no backing facts (but much faith) is not science.
To "posit" is to create a hypothesis.
That's an interesting definition of posit. I meant to assume or presume as per the definition.
Faith is, by definition, "[t]he confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing." You must have some degree of faith in the simple idea of testability,
I need no faith. If I run a test and it always shows the same result, then I have empirical proof that the test works. If I can show that it fails in some way repeatably, then I have shown that the test is incorrect and I have learned something new.
No faith required.
I think the core concept you refer to is how some scientists, notably Einstein, couldn't accept the results of their observations and theory as it clashed with their personal beliefs/faith. Many physicists have faith that the world is ordered. Why? Because for some reason they need it to be. Quantum Mechanics opens doors in some of those areas and makes things less certain. Personally I'm happy about that otherwise the universe would be a boring place.
Are you kidding? Measurements are not fact. ... but ultimately you must have faith that science has something - anything - to say about the true nature of the phenomena.
why must I have "faith"? Why can I not merely posit that, by gosh, I don't know? Or perhaps that this is an approximation that appears to give the right answer of behavior 99.999% of the time?
Why do you insist on having absolute answers and act like without them we'll perish? Bacteria seem to get along fine without this knowledge. So do higher lifeforms.
That can't be the only requirement for a game to be good.
I just stated that it was a requirement. Not the sole requirement.
Just tune in to Jersey Shore for 10 seconds
I believe 10s of exposure will damage your IQ.
Somebody needs to learn about the philosophy of science. You're a fish that doesn't see the water.
So what is science? At its heart it is an approach to observe, measure, and record, then correlate the records with theories to allow us to better understand the nature of the subject observed.
how do you think scientists got past the mind blowing inconsistencies quantum mechanics requires us to grasp. ...
By believing what they measure and observe and correlate it with theory?
I think it's more basic than that. Any ideology followed closely and long enough leads to unthinking behavior and beliefs.
Including... science.
Except science isn't an ideology.
And why would you leave your laptop in your truck while going into the store?
Better yet, why would you blame the store for the result of your lack of common sense?
The only one that's a "retarded shit" is you.
I'm not "depriving" myself of a good game. A good game is one that does not have DRM on it that will deprive me at some point and time of the ability to play it.
Other things I *loved* about Blizzard back in the days: all that was needed on Windows for their games to work was to have the game's folder. You could copy it from one machine to another etc. No crazy Windows registry non-sense. One folder.
That "back in the days" was yesterday for me. World of Warcraft is exactly this.
WoW requires a subscription and persistent internet connection to play. It's a little different than an offline game.
I'm pretty sure this will fall afoul of some existing law regarding wiretapping or some such. Unless, of course, the customer opts in, or fails to opt out.
I think the farming metaphor would be "eating the seed corn". (I'm not sure if it's quite the same metaphor, but it at least has the advantage of not being horrifying to think about)
Part of the point was the horrifying aspect....
A simple mnemonic to think of when contemplating using the internet for something: Would trust handing that data to a total stranger on the street?
And that's why I wish I could give 1 time card numbers to stores as well. Keeps them from tracking me too.
Paranoid? Obviously not enough, I'm not AC.
You must not read /. over the past couple of weeks....