I could go on, but I think it goes without saying that at best this "report" uses extremely flawed logic to draw its conclusions, and at worst, Symantec is shilling for Microsoft.
Makes me wonder where the idea of number of "vendor-confirmed vulnerabilities" is a valid indication of the quality of a product, especially in software. I can see in the automotive industry where number of recalls could indicate poor quality cars, but cars are expensive and difficult to fix. Software is easy to patch.
It would be much more useful if someone could come out with numbers of machines that were actually compromised by any of these vulerabilities. If there was a way to find out that 20% of IE installations had vulnerabilities exploited, while 23% of Firefox installations were compromised, that would be worthwhile information. Sitting around and saying "ooh, someone could break in if they did this" is just an attempt to get your name in the news.
It was only about 25 years ago that calculators became even remotely commonplace, and I'm glad of that.
Isn't that a crazy thought? My parents still have an old TI calculator from the late 70s. They spent a relatively significant amount of money for a simple electronic calculator that would do basic math. Now calculators are everywhere, computers, cell phones, whatever. I'm all for kids learning how to do math by hand, but can you imagine a world without electronic calculators? I think that is probably THE most significant inventions of the 20th century and it's so often overlooked.
Problem is, ebay is going to potentially spend BILLIONS of dollars to acquire skype. They must have a better plan than 'use it if you like it'. Adoption rate would have to be rather signficant for this deal to be worthwhile for ebay - and I can't see that happening.
I see skype as being more useful - and I certainly see the use in being able to talk to someone I am buying from.
From a buyer's perspective, I would agree. It's not my personal preference, but I can see many people who would want to talk to a seller. The barrier I see here is on the seller's end (if there's anyone out there that sells consistently on ebay, chime in here). Most regular sellers I know have difficulty keeping up with email - why would they want to make their lives more complicated?
In all seriousness - as WSJ intimates, automated buyer to seller / buyer to previous buyer / etc VOIP calls, could improve ebay's model of doing business.
Explain to me exactly how VOIP calls are going to help "auction success rate" and consequentially ebay's business model? As a regular ebay purchaser and occasional ebay seller I will NOT download and install skype so that the freaky people that buy and sell stuff on ebay can talk to me via voice. I much prefer the relative anonymity of email, where I can delete abusive messages, to actual voice conversations.
With ebay's HUGE userbase, there are a large number of people out there that can't even read. If you have ever attempted to sell anything on ebay, I'm sure you've been bombarded with questions that were clearly answered in your description. Adding voice capability is just going to make dealing with these bidder more annoying. With many ebay sellers selling multiple items at a simultaneously, who is going to have time to discuss problems over VOIP?
ebay has the online auction business well dominated, why would they want to branch into something completely unrelated?
...are really engaged in a conversation that can most easily be "overheard" by a newcomer if written in a conversational style. Two people corresponding via manuscript are (usually) just providing information to one another.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. The real difference is the audience. If you and I are corresponding one-on-one we can probably keep track of the conversation even if top-posting is ues. If we are corresponding in a public forum (slashdot, usenet, whatever), mailing list or just CCing in multiple people on a technical or business issue Usenet style replies are much easier for outsiders to follow.
Only because the average user has been *trained* by bad messaging habits to read email that way.
Actually, I don't believe the people I am referring to were 'trained' at all. My experience has been in my personal correspondance with friends and family - most of their experience with computers is limited to browsing the web and using Yahoo mail, not sure we can blame Microsoft.
Top-posting is fine (it annoys me, but its tolerable) if you are engaged in a single-threaded, IM-style conversation where you only have to answer one question at a time
Your point is well taken, but the most appropriate method of communication should be used in any given situation. I find it somewhat interesting that the Usenet-style posting is the approved standard by the technical community. I can't think of any other communication method that historically used a similar style. If I wrtie a letter by snail-mail I don't include the contents of the previous letter at all. If I communicate by telephone I don't formally repeat the other person's words.
You know what's interesting? I have friends that I have attempted to email the way the GP described and they emailed me backup complaining that they couldn't figure out what I was talking about. Now I just top post - seems to be more readable to the average user.
From good ol wikipedia's entry on WWII
the exact date at which the war commenced differs between historians, with the most common date given as the German invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939
You need to play more WWII video games, everybody knows that the Germans invaded Poland, made a pact with Russia (that they later broke) and the French surrendered after about 2 minutes of fighting.
Yes, I agree, it wouldn't be difficult. My question is, why hasn't anyone done this? Where are these psycho evil people that want to do us all in?
Is it possible that there aren't evil terrorists, Chinese nationals and sociopaths out there that want to bring down our computer dependant society? Is it possible that people hackers and virus writers aren't as inherently evil as we've been led to believe?
When more serious problems come up at their places of work, they cannot deliver. Their companies resort to outsourcing. Little wonder that not much in America seems to be done right these days.
I think you make a great point. So, do you have any advice to parents on how to keep a child from growing up without real world skills? If you are a parent yourself, have you taken any steps to help your kids be more self-reliant?
Thirdly, there probably are "psychos" out there writing viruses. But, there are more Danish teens and Russian mafia writing viruses than the supposed psychos.
Actually, I don't think so. Not exactly sure why, but if there were 'psychos' or other blatantly evil people out there writing viruses, I think they would have come up with a large scale destructive virus before now. You have your script kiddies that are stupid about it and get caught and you've got the Russian mafia that uses bots for warez sites, DOS attacks, etc... but I think there is a third group. There is a group out there that are extremely talented programmers and they write code that exploits vulnerabilities in an annoying, but benign way. I would not be surprised if many of these developers are employed by anti-virus companies or some other company in the industry that stands to gain from virus exploitation.
Call it a conspiracy theory if you want, but there has to be a reason that some pissed of programmer hasn't sat down and written a truly evil virus. It's not because it's too difficult and it's not because there isn't anyone out there with the skills that's anti-social enough. There has to be some other explaination.
I agree, especially since I went to my cell being my only phone. Last thing I need is to be unable to communicate with anyone because my fancy phone contracted a virus. As long as there are vulnerabilities, I would rather have multiple devices.
You have some good points, and I agree in theory. Here in the states culture is a little different, and most of your ideas won't be accepted by the general population. Just a few comments...
Its quite rare for people to need the large cargo & people capacity.
That's just not the case in the US. I'm single and don't have a family, so I bought a motorcycle to ride to work, but let's take the example of my sister and her husband. They have one child, but we routinely (at least once a week) go somewhere together. It's very common for them to have three adults and a child with a car seat in their SUV, plus a stroller and other child paraphenalia. It's obviously not a requirement that they have an SUV, but it does make life nicer.
What if I need more than X persons , its still more cost efficient splitting the group to two cars than driving a SUV.
That may be true if you are driving the car you mentioned, that gets 54mpg, but most SUVs will transport at least 5 adults. I would have to take three cars to equal one SUV, that definitely wouldn't be more efficient.
And engine doesn't need to be as powerfull as its hauling hundreds of kilograms less fat in europe.
This may be true in Finland, and other selected countries, but I don't buy the generalization that all European people are thin. Statistically, France, Italy, and much of eastern europe has nearly as much of a problem with being fat as America does.
The geography and culture over here is so much different than what Europeans are used to, I don't think many can understand why Americans do what they do. Again, my sister and her family have relatives in Nebraska. Where they live is about a 4 hour drive from here. The only option besides driving is taking a bus, and bus tickets for a family of three would cost as much as it does to drive. You can't fly, there is no rail service, there just aren't any other options. Over here it's cheaper and easier for everyone to own an SUV than it is to try to use public transportation (when available) and rent a vehicle when it's not.
Is it really that hard to give up the gas-guzzling SUVs, oil based economy and various wasteful industrial products?
Well, in a word, yes, it is. Sure, you see some people driving all by themselves in a great big SUV, or people that own one just for the status, but for the most part, the people that own them have a use for them. If you want to carry more than four passengers and any reasonable amount of cargo an SUV is the only way to go. Driving an SUV that gets 16 mpg is more efficient than driving two Hondas that get 30 mpg on the same trip. Problem isn't so much that people want do drive gas-guzzling SUVs as it is that there aren't any viable options. If I could get an electric SUV that would do what I wanted, or ride a subway the 20 blocks to work, or teleport, I would jump at the chance. Problem is, when a new Toyota Prius costs $20,000, it's difficult for me to justify the purchase price. At $3.00/gallon it would take 129,000 miles to make up the purchase price of a $20,000 car rather than keep an existing SUV. Hardly seems efficient to me.
Better question is, what's your proposal. We all move to cities where there is public transportation (and crime, drugs and other unsavory things that come with the big city). There are no easy answers. We can all point fingers at each other and complain about our behavior, but until someone comes up with a solution it's all just talk.
I am not surprised at linux's lower cost, I am surprised Solaris was so high. Other than Sun's high licensing costs I'm at a loss on why Solaris would be so much higher.
The article says a "comperable Sparc-based Solaris server". Sparc servers are significantly more expensive than a comperable AMD or Intel processor. My guess that would account for much of the cost difference.
Bruce Schneier is a security expert with a practical perspective on security analysis. I subscribe to his newsletter, and near as I can tell, he's not particularly biased for or against Windows. He is very vocal about the balance needed between individual rights and security concerns. He also regularly points out security measures and implementations that are just for show.
I read the article and it doesn't seem like he's bashing TCG at all. Appears more like he has issues with Microsoft wanting to release VISTA as a approved TCG OS without actually following the best practices document.
Slashdot Mirror
Did i just imagine the bitterness ?
Must have, I was just pointing out the facts.
I could go on, but I think it goes without saying that at best this "report" uses extremely flawed logic to draw its conclusions, and at worst, Symantec is shilling for Microsoft.
Makes me wonder where the idea of number of "vendor-confirmed vulnerabilities" is a valid indication of the quality of a product, especially in software. I can see in the automotive industry where number of recalls could indicate poor quality cars, but cars are expensive and difficult to fix. Software is easy to patch.
It would be much more useful if someone could come out with numbers of machines that were actually compromised by any of these vulerabilities. If there was a way to find out that 20% of IE installations had vulnerabilities exploited, while 23% of Firefox installations were compromised, that would be worthwhile information. Sitting around and saying "ooh, someone could break in if they did this" is just an attempt to get your name in the news.
Damn!!! No more voyer pron.
It was only about 25 years ago that calculators became even remotely commonplace, and I'm glad of that.
Isn't that a crazy thought? My parents still have an old TI calculator from the late 70s. They spent a relatively significant amount of money for a simple electronic calculator that would do basic math. Now calculators are everywhere, computers, cell phones, whatever. I'm all for kids learning how to do math by hand, but can you imagine a world without electronic calculators? I think that is probably THE most significant inventions of the 20th century and it's so often overlooked.
BTW, he was burned while commiting arson. Go figure....
Chicks always dig the bad boys.
1) If you don't like eBAYskype(tm) don't use it.
2) People who do like eBAYskype(tm) can use it.
Problem is, ebay is going to potentially spend BILLIONS of dollars to acquire skype. They must have a better plan than 'use it if you like it'. Adoption rate would have to be rather signficant for this deal to be worthwhile for ebay - and I can't see that happening.
I see skype as being more useful - and I certainly see the use in being able to talk to someone I am buying from.
From a buyer's perspective, I would agree. It's not my personal preference, but I can see many people who would want to talk to a seller. The barrier I see here is on the seller's end (if there's anyone out there that sells consistently on ebay, chime in here). Most regular sellers I know have difficulty keeping up with email - why would they want to make their lives more complicated?
Shame. It's a good thing I was able to help instead. :P
;)
Figured there would be a Windows (l)user out there that would chime in with a workaround.
In all seriousness - as WSJ intimates, automated buyer to seller / buyer to previous buyer / etc VOIP calls, could improve ebay's model of doing business.
Explain to me exactly how VOIP calls are going to help "auction success rate" and consequentially ebay's business model? As a regular ebay purchaser and occasional ebay seller I will NOT download and install skype so that the freaky people that buy and sell stuff on ebay can talk to me via voice. I much prefer the relative anonymity of email, where I can delete abusive messages, to actual voice conversations.
With ebay's HUGE userbase, there are a large number of people out there that can't even read. If you have ever attempted to sell anything on ebay, I'm sure you've been bombarded with questions that were clearly answered in your description. Adding voice capability is just going to make dealing with these bidder more annoying. With many ebay sellers selling multiple items at a simultaneously, who is going to have time to discuss problems over VOIP?
ebay has the online auction business well dominated, why would they want to branch into something completely unrelated?
Has anyone heard of a untility which will burn folders to multiple CD/DVDs without having to split the folders and files by hand?
Sure, I've used a utility called multicd
Nero, EZ CD Creator, etc... can do it,but...
Oh. Sounds like you are running on a Windows box. Sorry, can't help you.
...are really engaged in a conversation that can most easily be "overheard" by a newcomer if written in a conversational style. Two people corresponding via manuscript are (usually) just providing information to one another.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. The real difference is the audience. If you and I are corresponding one-on-one we can probably keep track of the conversation even if top-posting is ues. If we are corresponding in a public forum (slashdot, usenet, whatever), mailing list or just CCing in multiple people on a technical or business issue Usenet style replies are much easier for outsiders to follow.
Only because the average user has been *trained* by bad messaging habits to read email that way.
Actually, I don't believe the people I am referring to were 'trained' at all. My experience has been in my personal correspondance with friends and family - most of their experience with computers is limited to browsing the web and using Yahoo mail, not sure we can blame Microsoft.
Top-posting is fine (it annoys me, but its tolerable) if you are engaged in a single-threaded, IM-style conversation where you only have to answer one question at a time
Your point is well taken, but the most appropriate method of communication should be used in any given situation. I find it somewhat interesting that the Usenet-style posting is the approved standard by the technical community. I can't think of any other communication method that historically used a similar style. If I wrtie a letter by snail-mail I don't include the contents of the previous letter at all. If I communicate by telephone I don't formally repeat the other person's words.
I bet top posters drive you crazy. :o)
You know what's interesting? I have friends that I have attempted to email the way the GP described and they emailed me backup complaining that they couldn't figure out what I was talking about. Now I just top post - seems to be more readable to the average user.
Umm.. No.
From good ol wikipedia's entry on WWII
the exact date at which the war commenced differs between historians, with the most common date given as the German invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939
You need to play more WWII video games, everybody knows that the Germans invaded Poland, made a pact with Russia (that they later broke) and the French surrendered after about 2 minutes of fighting.
Yes, I agree, it wouldn't be difficult. My question is, why hasn't anyone done this? Where are these psycho evil people that want to do us all in?
Is it possible that there aren't evil terrorists, Chinese nationals and sociopaths out there that want to bring down our computer dependant society? Is it possible that people hackers and virus writers aren't as inherently evil as we've been led to believe?
When more serious problems come up at their places of work, they cannot deliver. Their companies resort to outsourcing. Little wonder that not much in America seems to be done right these days.
I think you make a great point. So, do you have any advice to parents on how to keep a child from growing up without real world skills? If you are a parent yourself, have you taken any steps to help your kids be more self-reliant?
Thirdly, there probably are "psychos" out there writing viruses. But, there are more Danish teens and Russian mafia writing viruses than the supposed psychos.
Actually, I don't think so. Not exactly sure why, but if there were 'psychos' or other blatantly evil people out there writing viruses, I think they would have come up with a large scale destructive virus before now. You have your script kiddies that are stupid about it and get caught and you've got the Russian mafia that uses bots for warez sites, DOS attacks, etc... but I think there is a third group. There is a group out there that are extremely talented programmers and they write code that exploits vulnerabilities in an annoying, but benign way. I would not be surprised if many of these developers are employed by anti-virus companies or some other company in the industry that stands to gain from virus exploitation.
Call it a conspiracy theory if you want, but there has to be a reason that some pissed of programmer hasn't sat down and written a truly evil virus. It's not because it's too difficult and it's not because there isn't anyone out there with the skills that's anti-social enough. There has to be some other explaination.
Well, in my day, we had to walk uphill in the snow just to use the phone.
Of course we also had to live in a lake.
I agree, especially since I went to my cell being my only phone. Last thing I need is to be unable to communicate with anyone because my fancy phone contracted a virus. As long as there are vulnerabilities, I would rather have multiple devices.
You have some good points, and I agree in theory. Here in the states culture is a little different, and most of your ideas won't be accepted by the general population. Just a few comments...
Its quite rare for people to need the large cargo & people capacity.
That's just not the case in the US. I'm single and don't have a family, so I bought a motorcycle to ride to work, but let's take the example of my sister and her husband. They have one child, but we routinely (at least once a week) go somewhere together. It's very common for them to have three adults and a child with a car seat in their SUV, plus a stroller and other child paraphenalia. It's obviously not a requirement that they have an SUV, but it does make life nicer.
What if I need more than X persons , its still more cost efficient splitting the group to two cars than driving a SUV.
That may be true if you are driving the car you mentioned, that gets 54mpg, but most SUVs will transport at least 5 adults. I would have to take three cars to equal one SUV, that definitely wouldn't be more efficient.
And engine doesn't need to be as powerfull as its hauling hundreds of kilograms less fat in europe.
This may be true in Finland, and other selected countries, but I don't buy the generalization that all European people are thin. Statistically, France, Italy, and much of eastern europe has nearly as much of a problem with being fat as America does.
The geography and culture over here is so much different than what Europeans are used to, I don't think many can understand why Americans do what they do. Again, my sister and her family have relatives in Nebraska. Where they live is about a 4 hour drive from here. The only option besides driving is taking a bus, and bus tickets for a family of three would cost as much as it does to drive. You can't fly, there is no rail service, there just aren't any other options. Over here it's cheaper and easier for everyone to own an SUV than it is to try to use public transportation (when available) and rent a vehicle when it's not.
You can have big cities that aren't complete cesspools of crime and drugs. It works in other parts of the civilized world.
Where? Mecca?
Don't think he was attacking your grammar, he was insinuating that you were irrational, genius.
Is it really that hard to give up the gas-guzzling SUVs, oil based economy and various wasteful industrial products?
Well, in a word, yes, it is. Sure, you see some people driving all by themselves in a great big SUV, or people that own one just for the status, but for the most part, the people that own them have a use for them. If you want to carry more than four passengers and any reasonable amount of cargo an SUV is the only way to go. Driving an SUV that gets 16 mpg is more efficient than driving two Hondas that get 30 mpg on the same trip. Problem isn't so much that people want do drive gas-guzzling SUVs as it is that there aren't any viable options. If I could get an electric SUV that would do what I wanted, or ride a subway the 20 blocks to work, or teleport, I would jump at the chance. Problem is, when a new Toyota Prius costs $20,000, it's difficult for me to justify the purchase price. At $3.00/gallon it would take 129,000 miles to make up the purchase price of a $20,000 car rather than keep an existing SUV. Hardly seems efficient to me.
Better question is, what's your proposal. We all move to cities where there is public transportation (and crime, drugs and other unsavory things that come with the big city). There are no easy answers. We can all point fingers at each other and complain about our behavior, but until someone comes up with a solution it's all just talk.
I am not surprised at linux's lower cost, I am surprised Solaris was so high. Other than Sun's high licensing costs I'm at a loss on why Solaris would be so much higher.
The article says a "comperable Sparc-based Solaris server". Sparc servers are significantly more expensive than a comperable AMD or Intel processor. My guess that would account for much of the cost difference.
They're already here.
I'm not sure of the writer's bias
Bruce Schneier is a security expert with a practical perspective on security analysis. I subscribe to his newsletter, and near as I can tell, he's not particularly biased for or against Windows. He is very vocal about the balance needed between individual rights and security concerns. He also regularly points out security measures and implementations that are just for show.
I read the article and it doesn't seem like he's bashing TCG at all. Appears more like he has issues with Microsoft wanting to release VISTA as a approved TCG OS without actually following the best practices document.