No actually I work the genius bar at one of the Apple stores in San Francisco.
So the Mac is so superior that the article to which we are commenting on simply doesn't exist?!?!?!? What an incredible piece of equipment! So that's what the Time Machine is for! You can go back and undo all of the faults you find in the OS and act like they never existed. That way when you trash talk Windows you can look even more superior! I can't wait to tell all of my friends at the Apple store.
You know the point I was trying to make was that all of these OSes are equally suckie because of the people factor. All you've done is shown that Apple fanboys suck more than then norm by coming to throw stones about Windows and all the while COMPLETELY IGNORING the faults that started this thread in the first place.
If you don't think you have to wear a condom when computing that's great, go for it. But don't set the stage for your Mac faithful such that this false sense of security your creating results in some huge infection in Macs when some hacker finally decides its worthwhile to attack the Macs. Every OS has bugs and we're all better off accepting that fact and taking the neccessary steps to protect ourselves.
I am totally offended by your remarks! I AM gay and thought Bill & Steve would make a great looking couple. Who are you to chastise me for expressing my feelings! It would be one thing if you were debating on the content of my remarks; it's a whole other thing to bash me and my sexuality. You must be some sort of homophobe who hides behind the false precept of being mature. Hater!
C'mon folks! Software (including OSes) are written by people. Microsoft has people. Apple has people. Linux has people. All people suck. All people make mistakes. All OSes have vulnerabilities and other bugs. Microsoft just get more notice because of market share -- PERIOD. Hackers, phishers, etc will start targeting Apple and Linux as soon as their market share gets high enough. You'll probably see Firefox hit first because it has more of a chance to steal marketshare away from Internet Explorer (and I say that without Firefox installed on any of my PCs).
When the Mac and Linux finally get some market share I can already hear their users saying "remember when the Mac [Linux] used to be sooooo secure..." The "security" both enjoy is such an illusion today soley because people just aren't interested in targeting them... And don't kid yourself thinking that it's because hackers hate Microsoft more. It's all about where they can do the most damage.
You're right! It's just as meaningful as the adult film's version of the oscars! It means so much to them...but can you name who won best porn star of 2006? Pretty sad life if you could...
Ok I realize I may not have read every thread here but I cannot believe you M$ bashers aren't whining about how Scott is such a sell out. It's probably because you know half the stuff an M$ basher (like Scott) usually whines about is a bunch of crap.
All of Scott's anti-M$ arguments are now effectively in the toilet. By taking the money and bending over to M$ Scott has confirmed he was only in it for the money and that his arguments against M$ were only hype in order to spin up a large settlement.
It's just like anywhere else in the world; the poor want what the rich have. That's why:
- The world hates the US
- The Palestinians hate the Israelis
- M$ competitors hate M$
- Skinheads hate everyone but themselves
- People living in poor areas of the US are the first to say: their votes aren't counted, police abuse them, schools don't get the same funding, etc.
I realize that these are some very broad, unqualified generalizations but if you boil it all down it's about the haves and the have-nots. The have-nots are always blaming someone else for their situation rather then stepping up and fixing the problem. Lately people have learned to tap into this and sell hate to control these have-nots and get them to do stupid things like kill innocent people because it's the 'right' or 'only' way to fix the problem. I'm sure in my lifetime we'll see some version of a Linux terrorist group sending suicide bombers over to Redmond.
Wouldn't it be great if people could bring real issues to the table instead of spin based on hate because of what they don't have?
Ok you got me. I wasn't clear enough in that sentence. I guess I got caught up in the non-sense debate on how to distingush spam from non-spam. Yes, I agree 30 million + no concent = spam.
"If we establish opt-in for all e-mail we throw out the baby with the bathwater."
Now how is that? I am talking about business communication here, advertising, not personal communication.
Opt-in is not a white list. What you describe is more of the latter. We certainly don't need is any pre-emtive technology that deletes email because it's not on our personal white list. That just doesn't work and will break email.
What we need are enforcable laws and a system to support it. Opt-out just isn't a viable solution because it is so hard to prove. You opt-out of a list and the spammer sells your validated email address (plus anything else he/she gleaned in the op-out process) to another list or they use your information on another list they manage under another name.
Opt-in puts the burden of proof on the spammer and/or advertiser. Upon complaint by the individual they must prove they had a right to use that individual's email (ISP, software, hardware) for delivery of their advertisement.
Now if you start splitting hairs on how you descern an advertisement from a regular email I can only believe you are a spammer and wasting everyone's time by mudding this issue.
When a telemarketer calls you how do you know he/she is not someone who is really looking out for your best interest? How do you know that they are calling hundreds of people a day and not just you exclusivly?
You are trying to diminish the problem of spam by offering excuses (for the spammers?) of how it can't be stopped.
How hard is it to imagine a reporting system where people forward their suspected spam to some government agency (FTC?), the agency tallies the reports and fines or punishes accordingly?
I don't see the issue with distinguishing spam from non-spam. It's all about quantity. Shimmer, in your examples it was a one-to-one corresepondence of email. Spam is about quantity not just context. If someone sent 30 million people the same or similar email then that is spam.
It's the lack of clarity that people bring to these 'debates' that allow politicians to keep doing what they are doing rather than just use common sense.
Slashdot Mirror
dumb.exe dumb.exe dumber.exe Go linux desktop!!! 2009 4sure!
Educate, Exonerate
Same old lil' penguins...
1. Damn Microsoft and their proprietary protocols!
2. Damn Microsoft for using standards based protocols!
It's not "don't fear the penguins"... It's "don't be afraid little penguins."
No actually I work the genius bar at one of the Apple stores in San Francisco.
So the Mac is so superior that the article to which we are commenting on simply doesn't exist?!?!?!? What an incredible piece of equipment! So that's what the Time Machine is for! You can go back and undo all of the faults you find in the OS and act like they never existed. That way when you trash talk Windows you can look even more superior! I can't wait to tell all of my friends at the Apple store.
You know the point I was trying to make was that all of these OSes are equally suckie because of the people factor. All you've done is shown that Apple fanboys suck more than then norm by coming to throw stones about Windows and all the while COMPLETELY IGNORING the faults that started this thread in the first place.
If you don't think you have to wear a condom when computing that's great, go for it. But don't set the stage for your Mac faithful such that this false sense of security your creating results in some huge infection in Macs when some hacker finally decides its worthwhile to attack the Macs. Every OS has bugs and we're all better off accepting that fact and taking the neccessary steps to protect ourselves.
I am totally offended by your remarks! I AM gay and thought Bill & Steve would make a great looking couple. Who are you to chastise me for expressing my feelings! It would be one thing if you were debating on the content of my remarks; it's a whole other thing to bash me and my sexuality. You must be some sort of homophobe who hides behind the false precept of being mature. Hater!
Vulnerabilities are just pillow talk to them... :)
C'mon folks! Software (including OSes) are written by people. Microsoft has people. Apple has people. Linux has people. All people suck. All people make mistakes. All OSes have vulnerabilities and other bugs. Microsoft just get more notice because of market share -- PERIOD. Hackers, phishers, etc will start targeting Apple and Linux as soon as their market share gets high enough. You'll probably see Firefox hit first because it has more of a chance to steal marketshare away from Internet Explorer (and I say that without Firefox installed on any of my PCs).
When the Mac and Linux finally get some market share I can already hear their users saying "remember when the Mac [Linux] used to be sooooo secure..." The "security" both enjoy is such an illusion today soley because people just aren't interested in targeting them... And don't kid yourself thinking that it's because hackers hate Microsoft more. It's all about where they can do the most damage.
You're right! It's just as meaningful as the adult film's version of the oscars! It means so much to them...but can you name who won best porn star of 2006? Pretty sad life if you could...
"Bullshit. OpenOffice 2 matches the menu layout of Microsoft Office. Come up with better excuses for your lame FUD."
Well if you read a couple of posts back...
"It's till beta though."
You Microsoft haters would crucify Microsoft for comparing a beta product to what's shipping now. Hypocrite!
Ok I realize I may not have read every thread here but I cannot believe you M$ bashers aren't whining about how Scott is such a sell out. It's probably because you know half the stuff an M$ basher (like Scott) usually whines about is a bunch of crap.
All of Scott's anti-M$ arguments are now effectively in the toilet. By taking the money and bending over to M$ Scott has confirmed he was only in it for the money and that his arguments against M$ were only hype in order to spin up a large settlement.
It's just like anywhere else in the world; the poor want what the rich have. That's why:
- The world hates the US
- The Palestinians hate the Israelis
- M$ competitors hate M$
- Skinheads hate everyone but themselves
- People living in poor areas of the US are the first to say: their votes aren't counted, police abuse them, schools don't get the same funding, etc.
I realize that these are some very broad, unqualified generalizations but if you boil it all down it's about the haves and the have-nots. The have-nots are always blaming someone else for their situation rather then stepping up and fixing the problem. Lately people have learned to tap into this and sell hate to control these have-nots and get them to do stupid things like kill innocent people because it's the 'right' or 'only' way to fix the problem. I'm sure in my lifetime we'll see some version of a Linux terrorist group sending suicide bombers over to Redmond.
Wouldn't it be great if people could bring real issues to the table instead of spin based on hate because of what they don't have?
Ok you got me. I wasn't clear enough in that sentence. I guess I got caught up in the non-sense debate on how to distingush spam from non-spam. Yes, I agree 30 million + no concent = spam.
Let me clarify...
"If we establish opt-in for all e-mail we throw out the baby with the bathwater."
Now how is that? I am talking about business communication here, advertising, not personal communication.
Opt-in is not a white list. What you describe is more of the latter. We certainly don't need is any pre-emtive technology that deletes email because it's not on our personal white list. That just doesn't work and will break email.
What we need are enforcable laws and a system to support it. Opt-out just isn't a viable solution because it is so hard to prove. You opt-out of a list and the spammer sells your validated email address (plus anything else he/she gleaned in the op-out process) to another list or they use your information on another list they manage under another name.
Opt-in puts the burden of proof on the spammer and/or advertiser. Upon complaint by the individual they must prove they had a right to use that individual's email (ISP, software, hardware) for delivery of their advertisement.
Now if you start splitting hairs on how you descern an advertisement from a regular email I can only believe you are a spammer and wasting everyone's time by mudding this issue.
When a telemarketer calls you how do you know he/she is not someone who is really looking out for your best interest? How do you know that they are calling hundreds of people a day and not just you exclusivly?
You are trying to diminish the problem of spam by offering excuses (for the spammers?) of how it can't be stopped.
How hard is it to imagine a reporting system where people forward their suspected spam to some government agency (FTC?), the agency tallies the reports and fines or punishes accordingly?
I don't see the issue with distinguishing spam from non-spam. It's all about quantity. Shimmer, in your examples it was a one-to-one corresepondence of email. Spam is about quantity not just context. If someone sent 30 million people the same or similar email then that is spam. It's the lack of clarity that people bring to these 'debates' that allow politicians to keep doing what they are doing rather than just use common sense.