The argument is common, and one that even Obama has poked fun at -- the Post Office loses money.
Let's take a step back in history folks -- and realize that the Post Office was not *designed* to make money. It was designed to facilitate the communication between long distances in a organized, logical way. It's a great reason why we have become the powerhouse that we have, because we knew we could rely on legal documents being delivered, because contracts could be signed and sent back, and the legal code behind them was always upheld.
Fast forward to today -- the need for the post office still exists in a large fashion. I am not arguing against or for Saturday delivery, but it's just a point of annoyance for me, so I am addressing it. What other service in the world can allow you to ship a letter from one remote corner of the country to another for mere cents? The ability for citizens to mail letters and rely on their ability to reach the destination is still hugely important, and one that *should* be subsidized by our tax dollars. Until the time we go fully electronic, the post office will have a need. That time is not now. You are still "served" in person, you still have to sign contracts by hand, and a multitude of other things that have not yet caught up to the pace of technology.
So when you think about what the post office has allowed the US to accomplish over the years of its service, take a moment to think that without it, our country would not be nearly as far along as it is, and we have a lot to thank for that. And to boot -- we still need it for the same reasons today.
Windows being secure isn't only about security features, but the stupidity and willingness of users to click "Okay". UAC does something by at least asking before an installation of something, but a user can still click "Yes".
Isn't the fundamental issue of Windows more malware than it is security flaws? Sure, some hackers may be able to take advantage of some security flaws, but this is similar on Apache and elsewhere -- and the odds are, if it's a security flaw they can use, they won't share it either.
Botnets around the world are set up using malware -- not security holes. Once you are in the system and are granted rights because the user let you have them, how can you really prevent that? Google making this change is more tantamount to show that "We don't need MS" than I think, anything else. They are coming out with their own OS now, and to show they can function organizationally without Windows can enable customers and businesses to think the same way.
I like Windows, but I also know how to use it well. There are a lot of instances of people (here especially) who have grown accustomed to bashing MS for the sake of being MS, yet these same people won't bash Apple even though their business practices are nowadays, probably even worse. An OS is a tool -- if you can get your work done with it in the timeframe you want and at the price you want, and mitigate the security through the use of common sense and firewalls, then use whatever the hell you want. BSD, Ubuntu, Mac, Windows, Solaris, etc. But for Google to say it's due to security issues is disingenuous at best, and for the rest of you to say MS is terrible at security is just stupid. They can't throw it all away folks -- their entire business is based around the idea of upgradability of prior systems, and they've managed to maintain that while adding good amounts of security from XP to Win7. Oddly enough... I can still play DOS games on Windows 7, and that's a great reason for MS's success thus far.
Until a company gives you sign-off for using IE7/8 with their application, they basically say "No, don't upgrade". The problem is when you have a set of users who can do 90% of their work without IE6 but still need that 10%, how can you convert them over? You can't.
Managers don't push so hard about IE6 because they simply don't care. If it works, they don't want to bother with it. I have managed to upgrade about 50% of our users but now I'm stuck because the rest of our users have issues with IE7/8. Hell, I upgraded our users to IE7 because some vendors won't even sign off on THAT.
The simple fact is that management pushes applications that are cheap and crappy (this is rather universal) and then IT is stuck with the job of supporting them and ensuring they work. They start to build business processes around these horrible applications, and then find later down the road that the cost of conversion to a better, more useful piece of software (that probably is better coded and works in IE8 because it's more standards-aware) will cost many times over what the initial cost of the system implementation was. But do they care? No -- they bill it back to the business side, while they collect bonuses year to year about how great a job they did that ONE year. It's not about ROI, it's about one year results that you can pin a medal to.
This is the inherent problem with corporate IT as a whole. Read this article and you'll see what I mean: http://infoworld.com/print/108477
At the folks who think that once Steve Jobs' reign at Apple ends, that he will be easily replaceable by anybody at Apple.
When Steve Jobs goes, so does the rest of the company. There's only one man who can inspire people to work 90 hour weeks when they could be making more money with better benefits at Google, Microsoft, Cisco, etc. And there's only one man who can see the vision that Steve sees, and the way to get there. Apple is a success solely to Steve Jobs visions and ability to see what will be a success and the path to get there. Developers can have a billion good ideas, but it takes a Steve Jobs to pick them out and make them into a polished, finished, cohesive product.
I love my iPhone but with the closed environment Apple is bringing, I am looking at the Android or WinMo7 phones. And lots of other developers are too.
But it is funny to think that Apple fanboys think that Apple will be a great success once Steve is gone.
Yes, because they are asking that if you're infected, to remove the problem (using a provided tool) and then try the patches again.
This really isn't rocket science, is it? Why should MS come up with a solution for only a small percentage of users when they provide the tool to fix it themselves?
The malicious software removal tool will take care of it. Their antivirus will not.
They are giving you the tool to get rid of it and then saying you should install your patches afterwards. But they are chastised for not coming up with a all-in-one solution? Jeez.
Wow, they have you convinced, hook line and sinker.
Apple doesn't release all the functionality that is available in a platform because then you have incentive to upgrade. The iPhone 2G isn't even getting a iPhone OS4 upgrade at all. Do you want the new bells and whistles? Buy the new hardware.
Additionally, how is Steve Jobs going to look at a press conference if they had all these simple features from day one? Only Steve Jobs can go on stage and say "We have some AMAZING news! You can now COPY AND PASTE on your iPhone!"
Only Apple users buy up that bullshit as if it was really innovative stuff, or couldn't be implemented easily. Apple is a perpetual marketing machine. The irony of it is, that it revolves around Steve Jobs and not the products as much.
Best of luck trying to sell simple enhancements like cut and paste (for an example) without Steve Jobs. But then again, Steve Jobs is the only person in the world who can sell a platform that does less, for more money. I'll stick to my *nix and Windows boxes to get real work done, and have enough cash left over to do whatever I want.
True -- honestly I don't know why we don't just use a secondary authentication for everything we do. It would just be easier, to be honest. Having a secure ID, or something like it in addition to a non-expiring password is basically the best way there is to have no security problems with passwords. Even biometrics aren't a bad idea but then the whole "big brother" thing comes into it too.
If your password is 365 days old and not hacked, how is it any MORE secure if you change it and it becomes 3 days old?
The odds are the 3 day old password is a derivative (and easier to create) of your original, so hacking it will be easier too. In fact, if somehow people got your historical passwords, they could figure out what your next one was.
Where I worked last, I picked the date on the calendar and added it to the end of my regular password. Not secure, but a 30 day interval to change it was brutally annoying.
Not really -- because most people have no idea what the "best" product is, and the "best" varies in definition from person to person.
While the "best" for me is still Firefox (addon heaven), some people still find the "best" to be IE (Sharepoint Developers, let's say), and others (Slashdot CPU overclocking nerds) find the "best" to be Chrome.
Slashdot Mirror
Man I miss that game.
Using the term "porn" and "encrusted" is not a good combination.
Pardon me if I don't drink the Apple Kool Aid right away, and don't take Steve Jobs' word for it.
If they don't do it, great. Jobs' is a businessman, and if they crunch the numbers to find that it's more profitable to do it, they will.
I am not vouching for the validity of the rumor mill, mind you :)
Amen. Mod parent up.
Which is exactly what the rumor mill seems to be proposing for the iMac lineup.
This is how I looked at it too. There's nothing to exclude people from downloading an app and installing it like they always do.
As opposed to what may happen on the Macs, where they convert OSX to IOS, and the ONLY way to get an app is to buy it off the App store.
I really don't see an issue.
The argument is common, and one that even Obama has poked fun at -- the Post Office loses money.
Let's take a step back in history folks -- and realize that the Post Office was not *designed* to make money. It was designed to facilitate the communication between long distances in a organized, logical way. It's a great reason why we have become the powerhouse that we have, because we knew we could rely on legal documents being delivered, because contracts could be signed and sent back, and the legal code behind them was always upheld.
Fast forward to today -- the need for the post office still exists in a large fashion. I am not arguing against or for Saturday delivery, but it's just a point of annoyance for me, so I am addressing it. What other service in the world can allow you to ship a letter from one remote corner of the country to another for mere cents? The ability for citizens to mail letters and rely on their ability to reach the destination is still hugely important, and one that *should* be subsidized by our tax dollars. Until the time we go fully electronic, the post office will have a need. That time is not now. You are still "served" in person, you still have to sign contracts by hand, and a multitude of other things that have not yet caught up to the pace of technology.
So when you think about what the post office has allowed the US to accomplish over the years of its service, take a moment to think that without it, our country would not be nearly as far along as it is, and we have a lot to thank for that. And to boot -- we still need it for the same reasons today.
Windows being secure isn't only about security features, but the stupidity and willingness of users to click "Okay". UAC does something by at least asking before an installation of something, but a user can still click "Yes".
Isn't the fundamental issue of Windows more malware than it is security flaws? Sure, some hackers may be able to take advantage of some security flaws, but this is similar on Apache and elsewhere -- and the odds are, if it's a security flaw they can use, they won't share it either.
Botnets around the world are set up using malware -- not security holes. Once you are in the system and are granted rights because the user let you have them, how can you really prevent that? Google making this change is more tantamount to show that "We don't need MS" than I think, anything else. They are coming out with their own OS now, and to show they can function organizationally without Windows can enable customers and businesses to think the same way.
I like Windows, but I also know how to use it well. There are a lot of instances of people (here especially) who have grown accustomed to bashing MS for the sake of being MS, yet these same people won't bash Apple even though their business practices are nowadays, probably even worse. An OS is a tool -- if you can get your work done with it in the timeframe you want and at the price you want, and mitigate the security through the use of common sense and firewalls, then use whatever the hell you want. BSD, Ubuntu, Mac, Windows, Solaris, etc. But for Google to say it's due to security issues is disingenuous at best, and for the rest of you to say MS is terrible at security is just stupid. They can't throw it all away folks -- their entire business is based around the idea of upgradability of prior systems, and they've managed to maintain that while adding good amounts of security from XP to Win7. Oddly enough... I can still play DOS games on Windows 7, and that's a great reason for MS's success thus far.
I still use a hardware firewall though :)
Well Yahoo, AOL, and Pets.com also had high market valuations at one point too.
Look how that turned out.
All it says is that Apple owns all of its own manufacturing and equipment and makes a LOT of expensive hardware. MS sells software, mostly.
It's what is making me look for a new job.
Until a company gives you sign-off for using IE7/8 with their application, they basically say "No, don't upgrade". The problem is when you have a set of users who can do 90% of their work without IE6 but still need that 10%, how can you convert them over? You can't.
Managers don't push so hard about IE6 because they simply don't care. If it works, they don't want to bother with it. I have managed to upgrade about 50% of our users but now I'm stuck because the rest of our users have issues with IE7/8. Hell, I upgraded our users to IE7 because some vendors won't even sign off on THAT.
The simple fact is that management pushes applications that are cheap and crappy (this is rather universal) and then IT is stuck with the job of supporting them and ensuring they work. They start to build business processes around these horrible applications, and then find later down the road that the cost of conversion to a better, more useful piece of software (that probably is better coded and works in IE8 because it's more standards-aware) will cost many times over what the initial cost of the system implementation was. But do they care? No -- they bill it back to the business side, while they collect bonuses year to year about how great a job they did that ONE year. It's not about ROI, it's about one year results that you can pin a medal to.
This is the inherent problem with corporate IT as a whole. Read this article and you'll see what I mean: http://infoworld.com/print/108477
At the folks who think that once Steve Jobs' reign at Apple ends, that he will be easily replaceable by anybody at Apple.
When Steve Jobs goes, so does the rest of the company. There's only one man who can inspire people to work 90 hour weeks when they could be making more money with better benefits at Google, Microsoft, Cisco, etc. And there's only one man who can see the vision that Steve sees, and the way to get there. Apple is a success solely to Steve Jobs visions and ability to see what will be a success and the path to get there. Developers can have a billion good ideas, but it takes a Steve Jobs to pick them out and make them into a polished, finished, cohesive product.
I love my iPhone but with the closed environment Apple is bringing, I am looking at the Android or WinMo7 phones. And lots of other developers are too.
But it is funny to think that Apple fanboys think that Apple will be a great success once Steve is gone.
You do know that OS is about 10 years old at this point, right?
You might want to try their new one.
Yes, because they are asking that if you're infected, to remove the problem (using a provided tool) and then try the patches again.
This really isn't rocket science, is it? Why should MS come up with a solution for only a small percentage of users when they provide the tool to fix it themselves?
The malicious software removal tool will take care of it. Their antivirus will not.
They are giving you the tool to get rid of it and then saying you should install your patches afterwards. But they are chastised for not coming up with a all-in-one solution? Jeez.
Their Malicious Software Removal Tool (sent out on Patch Tuesday) can remove the rootkit.
But I won't stop the Slashdotters here from complaining about it.
Wow, they have you convinced, hook line and sinker.
Apple doesn't release all the functionality that is available in a platform because then you have incentive to upgrade. The iPhone 2G isn't even getting a iPhone OS4 upgrade at all. Do you want the new bells and whistles? Buy the new hardware.
Additionally, how is Steve Jobs going to look at a press conference if they had all these simple features from day one? Only Steve Jobs can go on stage and say "We have some AMAZING news! You can now COPY AND PASTE on your iPhone!"
Only Apple users buy up that bullshit as if it was really innovative stuff, or couldn't be implemented easily. Apple is a perpetual marketing machine. The irony of it is, that it revolves around Steve Jobs and not the products as much.
Best of luck trying to sell simple enhancements like cut and paste (for an example) without Steve Jobs. But then again, Steve Jobs is the only person in the world who can sell a platform that does less, for more money. I'll stick to my *nix and Windows boxes to get real work done, and have enough cash left over to do whatever I want.
True -- honestly I don't know why we don't just use a secondary authentication for everything we do. It would just be easier, to be honest. Having a secure ID, or something like it in addition to a non-expiring password is basically the best way there is to have no security problems with passwords. Even biometrics aren't a bad idea but then the whole "big brother" thing comes into it too.
If your password is 365 days old and not hacked, how is it any MORE secure if you change it and it becomes 3 days old?
The odds are the 3 day old password is a derivative (and easier to create) of your original, so hacking it will be easier too. In fact, if somehow people got your historical passwords, they could figure out what your next one was.
Where I worked last, I picked the date on the calendar and added it to the end of my regular password. Not secure, but a 30 day interval to change it was brutally annoying.
I didn't get into Warcraft3 (that's where DOTA is from, right?) because of the "heroes" or whatever they had that made gameplay immensely boring.
How does DOTA compare to say, Starcraft? That's my favorite RTS to this point... does it have a high learning curve?
I'll check it out if it's worth checking out. S2 made Savage2 and I really love that game.
I'll show you an unshipped product.
Not really -- because most people have no idea what the "best" product is, and the "best" varies in definition from person to person.
While the "best" for me is still Firefox (addon heaven), some people still find the "best" to be IE (Sharepoint Developers, let's say), and others (Slashdot CPU overclocking nerds) find the "best" to be Chrome.
I thought that contracts required Google to disclose the cause and time of their downtime, and this disclosure is part of that.
Right now though, Google is making Microsoft look like they have better uptime for SaaS.
If you're using Norton I would wonder what kind of advice you are really qualified to give out.