I think judgment matters. If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
It's just too much of a binary approach to the matter; either you accept being part of the network and are fine or you choose not to join and are hiding something. The fact is that there are grey areas on this matter; It's not often that there's something I don't want anyone to know, but there are thousands of things I don't want some people to know.
Likewise, I don't think it's entirely appropriate to have you automatically opted in. Suddenly, everyone is a part of a network whether they want to be or not, and that's really problematic when the general response to concerns over the privacy of social networks is "Don't join." What do you do when that's no longer an option?
To further this sentiment, I'd like to posit that Google needs to realize that they are treading into new territory as a technology leader, and that their actions will be the basis of how online interactions may be handled in the future. The reason that many feel the need to speak out now is because it's important for the public to note what it wants in software and the net. Granted, G+ is free and we can opt not to use it; but user feedback drives the development of thousands of pieces of software every day, free or paid. Why should G+ be any different?
I agree that while it's a simple fix, it's not something to call an over-reaction. The results of the methodology used here are pretty heavy, and definitely something to be aware of. Is it going to affect many people? Probably not, but you don't just ignore it.
I will say that the article is a bit dramatic, something which the exploit developer even commented on.
Since a few others followed in your footsteps here, it should be noted that Comex even mentions on the site that he simultaneously released a patch for the flaw he's using. As it says on the website:
"Along with the jailbreak, I am releasing a patch for the main vulnerability which anyone especially security conscious can install to render themselves immune; due to the nature of iOS, this patch can only be installed on a jailbroken device. Until Apple releases an update, jailbreaking will ironically be the best way to remain secure."
The Jailbreak community has been very open about possible security holes created by Jailbreaking, and the core Jailbreaking sites all have guides on securing your iDevice. Between that and backing SHSH Blobs, you basically can jailbreak ad arbitrium and not have to worry.
Did Apple kind of shoot themselves in the foot with their "No Viruses/Malware" campaign? Yeah. (Nevermind that they never actually claimed you couldn't be infected...)
Is MacDefender a portend of Malware waves upon OS X? Unlikely, and it really has nothing to do with market share. I know this is a tired argument, but the "You're day is coming OS X, just wait until you're worthwhile to hack!" idea just hasn't played out no matter how many times security researchers shout it from their blogs/websites (often times alongside links to purchase Macintosh AV software).
A sense of reality is necessary here -- this isn't like Vundo or any of its variants. This Rogue AV is awfully polite and asks you to go through the standard OS X install process in order to get on the system. (Strange how Mr. Bott makes it seem like the program is just suddenly installed and active)
That's what you get to see when this RogueAV tries to get on the system. There's nothing automatic about it, there is tons of user input, and that's precisely why it's not much to get worried about as a Mac user. That's a helluva lot more work than simply viewing a flash ad, a PDF, or any other drive-by exploit that occurs on the Windows side of the world.
Now, I cannot stress enough that I'm not suggesting OS X is immune. But to say it's about to have the same level of infections as Windows? Not now, and not until the Malware folk come up with some grand exploit to get their software onto OS X as quickly as they can through Windows. It's not numbers, it's that it's a pain to do.
The problem with this assessment is that it's the exact same assessment that OS X has been receiving for the past 6 years whenever a new Trojan pops up. And no, this trojan really isn't any different than its predecessors. I'm not trying to defend OS X as the almighty glorious Mac Master Race computer, but it's a little ridiculous to see this cycle every time an OS X Trojan pops up (and they've pretty much all been trojans -- IIRC, a few were classified as worms, but I really don't remember clearly):
1. Malware appears for OS X 2. AV companies advertise it wildly 3. Journalists/"Analysts" declare that age of Innocence for OS X is over, no longer "immune" to Malware 4. Message Board users declare the end of OS X/Catastrophic damage 5. Time passes and reality sets in -- the Malware/Trojan fails to reach any noticeable level of threat
Again, this isn't to say OS X is immune. Absolutely not. But every time a bit of Malware appears, this exact cycle happens -- and OS X and Apple's sales only go up.
That's a little FUD-y. It's a drive-by download, and once it's down, it has to install like any other application, user password and all. If you have "open safe files" off, you'll just end up with a few copies of a.zip called "mac-antispyware" or something to that effect, depending on the variant.
I would assume that flavor and variety in *nix keeps it relatively clean. Sure, you're working with a lot of the same components, but you have so many variations that it's just not a viable target to hit in this manner.
Additionally, to some degree, it's a safe assumption that if Linux is installed, the usual drive-by styles aren't going to work because the user security software Common Sense is up to date and active.
This is what it really boils down to, IMO. For a lot of/. users, it's going to be common sense not to do these things. It's finding a reasonable and effective way to transmit this data to users that will be the solution. I don't agree with blocking, random warning pop-ups, or anything in that vein; UAC on Vista trained far too many people (IMHO) to just click through any pop-up they find. I do think that a stronger campaign from Apple regarding what should and should not require a user password might be beneficial though. If people begin to understand that, it becomes very simple to learn "Hrm...I didn't do anything and now it needs my password. Abort."
No, he's right. Constant back ups are not just good for the tech support people it's good for the basic user, the office user, or the "I just need that one paper" user. In general, customers to technical support services are not entirely concerned as to why their machine broke or went haywire, as strange as it may seem. Even if you did explain the circumstances surrounding the computer failure, you're assuming that the customer is going to have a decent enough grasp of computing to understand your explanation, and that you have a decent enough understanding of the customer to be able to explain it in simple terms.
Additionally, sometimes it is just quicker and more efficient to resolve an issue with a reimage and a series of back up DVDs for both the customer and the IT worker. We could spend the time hunting down the source of the cryptic BSOD error information, wasting the customer's time, or reimage the computer, toss on the backed up information, and have their computer up and running again in a matter of a few hours, if that even. In an office environment, the latter will almost always be preferred.
This doesn't dismiss the need for technical support, however, as not all problems are as tedious. Technical support means being familiar with the common software used by the customers you support, having a working knowledge of the types of computers and issues that people run into, and being the ever-present source of information for users to utilize if they are having issues. Occasionally there's time for the Romantic battle with a dying computer to make the OS stable enough to retrieve files and basically breathe life back into a computer that should be discarded, but for the most part, it's finding a way to ensure that a customer is not without their computer any longer than they have to be, and for the most part, the answer to that is to encourage good back-up habits so that you can just wipe and reinstall.
is the sandbox I get from a table top RPG made in videogame form. Games like Assassin's Creed do a wonderful job of giving you a pretty big world to play in, but still battle with the challenge of difficulty versus realism and freedom within the confines of a story. For example, as much fun as Assassin's Creed was for the bits I played, it still felt really linear, to the point that I would almost call it a beat-em-up moreso than a stealth game. Yeah, I could have chosen "not" to mass-kill the guards. But, if they are going to give people the power to take on literally dozens of guards at once and all the guards are too chivalrous to attack you while you are in battle with another person, it's hard to see a reason not to abuse the lazy AI. Plus, if a game is purported to be realistic, then the player will take a realistic approach to the scenario as per their abilities in game.
See, the issue I had with Assassin's creed was that there wasn't much fantasy involved. It doesn't draw you in as an RPG could, because no matter how grim the situation gets, you can always rely on the masscounterkill guard technique. You can choose not to do it, but you can't really forget that it's a possibility. Also, respawning guards sort of takes away from the reality of the game. Yes, they probably have a LOT of guards. But when I've been in extended combat for the greater part of an hour and have somewhere around 80 guards dead at my feet, I start to wonder where the hell they are getting these people? It's the same issue that Oblivion had with its magical teleporting guards and vengeful enemies that would literally chase you across the map just to do battle. (Did they REALLY care that much about the 2 gold I took?) It's these minor things that make or break a game.
Same thing with MMO's. You can dictate that a server is an RP server, enforce RP rules, ban out of character talk, but MMOs still lack the overall purpose that brings you to anything beyond mass grind. Too much focus is put on a direct balance between classes and an emphasis on kill for exp and best item that any sort of role playing possibilities are lost. Why not have an RPG where fighters get their EXP for fighting, Healers get their EXP for healing (get rid of potions and such...make it tough to survive); why can't a person make a healthy living in the game as a shop keep, own their own store, maybe a house on 4th and Main, and what not? I realize that coding has its limitations, but these concepts are not completely foreign to gaming, they just haven't been compiled together in one game, as far as I know. And for story? Well, why not have dedicated story tellers for servers? List major quests that need to be taken care of. Post public bounties for people, have thousands of smaller quests that could lead up to information necessary to complete the major quest. DnD without the dice, but for real this time.
I know that it's a hell of a vision, and would require some pretty dedicated employees and story tellers, but that would be bigger than WoW if it happened, and it would be almost the ultimate sandbox. A very vague mission (save the princess, kill the dragon, etc). A million and one ways to do it)
Meh, no offense, but it sounds like you're not as good of a salesman as Apple. The reason that people end up not caring is because the things you are telling them are truly don't matter. They want something that plays mp3s, that can play music they rip from their CDs, and so on. I don't think that it's "buying into hype" if they are getting exactly what they wanted. Your preference of a more open non-proprietary locked player is your preference, which just doesn't sell to the basic consumer. The simple premise of "I want to rip from CDs easily and be able to play MP3s with a simple interface" is what makes the iPod sell. Not being able to play proprietary files that the consumer probably wouldn't use anyways is not really an issue even.
There are many programs which convert fairly easily to iPod videos. Off the top of my head, visual hub is an amazing converter which will convert to iPod format and even has options to optimize for the iPod model you have (in terms of screen size). The only video files I can't get to work on an iPod are.rm and the newer.rmxx (I forget the other two letters) format, and that's only because I don't have the full real player program to convert them to something else.
Otherwise, everything converted just fine and dandy.
I'm hoping that this is meant to be sarcastic, though I'm certainly stretching to find it.
Security hole from hell? Okay, if a person has that kind of access to your machine, your files are really already compromised; cause unless you frequently leave your Mac out in the open with the root password pasted to it, people will rarely get to the point where they can recover incriminating files. On top of that, you can control what time machine does and does not back up.
While I appreciate the insight that the law says copying and distributing, I don't really think that anyone caught acquiring movies/music from usenet could use ignorance as an excuse. (especially since ignorance isn't supposed to circumvent the law) To compare it to buying stolen goods is incorrect, IMO. Buying stolen goods from a known retailer would indicate that you are operating under the assumption that since it is a major retailer, all of its goods are legitimately acquired, properly processed and recorded, and legal for sale.
Going to Usenet in itself, however, indicates a slightly deeper understanding of the Internet. Essentially, to claim that you did not know the file was copyrighted when logs indicate you acquired it while on usenet would boil down to a your word against the word of the RIAA lawyer. At this point, all the lawyer would have to do is show that you have an average or above average knowledge of the Internet and most judge's/juries would probably rule in favor of the RIAA. You don't have to shit out lines of C++ to use Usenet, but you do need to do more than just "check e-mail and stuff" when you log on to know to go to usenet and get files. It would be a tough sale for even the most experienced liars.
Harness the power of Wikipedia when you're connected to the Internet -- built right into it's Dictionary. You get a great Mac OS X user interface with super-fast searching and beautifully laid out-results."
Leverage really. If they talk to a label and say that DRM doesn't sell while the label says DRM is necessary and consumers don't care, Apple can pull out comparison charts of new releases that had both DRM and DRM-free copies, and show [what I'm hoping will be] the staggering difference between the two.
...but for now, I'm not terribly impressed. Apple:
- still has only EMI (and the independents) at this new rate (compared to Amazon, which also has Universal) ...
- chose to react rather than innovate
It's the fourth bullet point that dismays me the most.
I'm not sure that's entirely a fair analysis of the situation. Many labels appear to be either hesitant to sign or left Apple because they would not give them the pricing or the DRM they wanted.
As I see it, Apple did innovate in pushing the digital market a heck of a lot harder than anyone else, and by pushing the price to a fairly reasonable level that people are actually buying songs at. Because they were first, they're getting shat on for it, or so it seems.
Won't matter. Cute idea, won't matter. Whether it's the unholy successors of people like Mr. Thompson who are on a personal crusade to ruin something for their own gain, or just people who don't get the concept of there being more to games than just games, whichever term you slap on video games is going to be considered a child's title, though in some cases it may take awhile.
Also, Interactive Entertainment sounds like something which self-lubricates and vibrates a lot. Not necessarily the best name, though certainly fun.
You're being a little silly here. I don't think that anyone is going to argue that the AT&T service is pretty bad and also a little infuriating. But that is the contract entered into when you bought an iPhone. You knew this going into it. Honestly, I'm surprised that Apple had the decency to warn people in advance that the update would remove the unlocking. I'm not calling it bricking, because bricking would assume that a legitimately purchased phone that was still in contract is no longer working due to the update.
Essentially, you're bitching because you made up your own rules to play with, and Apple is playing a whole different game. I'm not saying that you don't have a right to the technology you own. If Apple sent out an update on Macbooks which forced you to use Appleworks instead of any other office suite, you'd have a right to be angry. You didn't sign up for any contract which said you couldn't or that you had to use Apple's program.
That isn't the case with the iPhone. You entered into a contract knowingly (it was most definitely during the purchase), so what is the point of bitching when you've already broken the rules. Technically, Apple didn't have to tell you, or even hint that a phone would be reverted to an unlocked state. They've been polite; you're the one being a bit unreasonable, in my opinion.
I think a major issue though is that a lot of developers spend more time worrying about how it looks then how it adds to the game. So much time is spent with how the water looks from the outside, little concern is given to what the game looks like when you're actually submerged in water. Games of all genre's are guilty of this. On top of that, many are so focused on keeping a soundtrack going, with unique sounds from each moving item on screen (metal scrapping, enemies yelling), that a submerged character can hear everything with crystal clear quality.
Guns operate miraculously underwater, players move just as quick as they do on land as they do beneath water. Characters without any sort of SCUBA gear breath for minutes underwater while carrying ridiculous amounts of gear (the amount of gear has lessened recently though), and other such silly actions. The water looks pretty, but the looks are quite deceptive. Hell, Metroid Prime had a better underwater physics than a lot of games today have simply because it took into consideration the movement of a person in water. It was a small effect, but damn did it make those water pits disturbing, knowing that you could feasibly get stuck, or one wrong jump meant you're starting over. That small element of realism added more to the atmosphere than watching every droplet of water slowly evaporate off Samus' visor ever could have.
Oh, and though this is just a pet peeve of mine, we need to stop being able to jump and shoot in games, or at least add in the element of difficulty that would come with trying to do so.
The D620 had several different chipsets that it could end up using, IIRC. I may be thinking of the earlier D6xx models, but I thought that the D620s were on the same chipset. And though the demonstration had different models, his focus was on the Macbook, even though he was supposedly being fair and not naming names, which is a little back-asswards in my opinion. If he was really that concerned, he wouldn't have even put a mac on screen, as simply put, as much as a lot of people hate Macs, they are still iconic, to the degree that a complete tech-newb could probably spout out a few statistics on the Macbook without ever having handled one.
My point wasn't so much that he's picking on Mac; it's that his presentation originally was in bad taste, and when the public commented on it, he sort of went into a fit on it. A tiny fit, but it was enough to really sully his reputation and make what should have been a great research video into a bunch of FUD. The approach he probably should have done was to show the proof of concept on other machines as well as the Macbook, which would have incited less of a response, and a little more understanding in the matter.
David Maynor: OK, I'm now legally free to discuss the details of the attack and here are all the details. Enjoy!
Apple supporters: We don't care about your stupid details! Shut up and go away!!
Okay, but that's not entirely in context. Yeah, a lot of Apple Folk aren't going to care about this anymore for one reason and one reason alone; at this point, it is irrelevant to most end users. Why? Well, the vulnerability has since been patched; the only thing that drudging something like this up does is spread more garbage about the "insecurity" of the Macbook, OS X, etc. The story, as it is and as it was, is more about OS X than the actual bug that was found in that chipset/driver. It's true; OS X may only be mentioned once, but it's THE brand name mentioned, and when it comes down to it, a lot of journalists are looking for the quickest way to attach a name to an item.
Truth be told, I doubt that many actual publications could run a full story on Maynor's findings because simply put, he's getting way too technical. A responsible publication would opt to not publish, as they really can't do much more than associate the flaw (wiFi hack) with the name (Apple). Unfortunately, we don't always have the most responsible journalists.
I think that Apple folk have some what of a right to be pissed at his presentation method. If he thinks that he needs to stick it to the Apple folk for believing that they don't need to live in constant threat of their computers being overtaken by *insert virus/malware of the week*, fine, but truthfully, at that point, releasing data and associating it with Apple is just douchebaggery and somewhat sullies the reputation of the researcher, who should theoretically be above such nonsense. (Before anyone comments, yes, calling his actions douchebaggery or using the word in general sullies my reputation, but I'm not presenting as an expert is the difference)
What Maynor has is a wonderful research project; I just wish he'd understand that he messed up a little in his choice of actions when citing Apple in specific. Demonstrating the effect on just one more laptop model (Dell D620, for example), would have made all his problems go away.
Wish I had mod points so I could mod this up, but instead I'll comment.
This program seems like it's going in the right direction for laptop recovery; unintrusive programs which teach you to keep your laptop and information safe, but gives you one last hope in case all else fails.
While I would like to see more success stories as evidence of the viability of this software, I think that it's definitely a good idea, and could really cement itself at the pristine business model for physical laptop recovery.
Star Trek didn't turn science haters into science lovers. It just gave established science lovers something they'd be interested in, and made a pretty buck out of it as well.
I must disagree; there are many people who simply believed in the vision of the future which Star Trek presented and at least became more accepting of some of the science techniques presented in the show. A person of semi-reasonable intelligence at some point will most likely wonder, "Is that possible?", do the research themselves, and see the bits of truth mixed in with the fictitious writing in the show, or at least give some people who would otherwise be discouraged from scientific careers something to hook them into at least thinking about science and what it can be used for.
Though not a perfect example, consider the character of Phillip J. Fry from Futurama. Granted, he a lazy idiot, but he harbors three major passions in his life; Leela, space, and Star Trek. And while Fry is a considerable idiot due to unnatural phenomenon, even as an idiot, he never loses his admiration of space, the ability to explore as an astronaut, or the science used to let him go to space.
Granted, this is a comedy cartoon, but there are most likely a good many people who had the same lifestyle as Fry growing up and all it took was something like Star Trek to hook them into the sciences. Even if it was just "Hrm...does that really work?" or "Holy crap that explosion was awesome! I wanna make a phaser!" and the disappointment of reality lead them at least to examine the science behind it, science fiction does hold a place for the common person in bringing them to science.
Apple sees an issue in the patent system and says, "Let's address it."
You see an issue, and say, trash the system, it's worthless.
Why? There is no logical reason why it needs to be trashed when the problem can be dealt with quite easily with a relatively simple (oh, and common) moderation system which the patent office apparently does not have in place. Trashing the system is really destructive, not only to big businesses, but also small businesses. That means time of uncertainty when all businesses alike can (and most likely would) lose profit because nothing ties their product to them. Nothing is stopping someone from taking another person's idea once the system is abolished, submitting it as their own, and basically stealing the patent under the new system. An abolishment of the prior system is BAD, and that's in capitals, so you know it's bad. Transition? Maybe, if the new system is proven to be more efficient. But no, abolishment = BAD.
Slashdot Mirror
FTA:
I think judgment matters. If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
It's just too much of a binary approach to the matter; either you accept being part of the network and are fine or you choose not to join and are hiding something. The fact is that there are grey areas on this matter; It's not often that there's something I don't want anyone to know, but there are thousands of things I don't want some people to know.
Likewise, I don't think it's entirely appropriate to have you automatically opted in. Suddenly, everyone is a part of a network whether they want to be or not, and that's really problematic when the general response to concerns over the privacy of social networks is "Don't join." What do you do when that's no longer an option?
To further this sentiment, I'd like to posit that Google needs to realize that they are treading into new territory as a technology leader, and that their actions will be the basis of how online interactions may be handled in the future. The reason that many feel the need to speak out now is because it's important for the public to note what it wants in software and the net. Granted, G+ is free and we can opt not to use it; but user feedback drives the development of thousands of pieces of software every day, free or paid. Why should G+ be any different?
I agree that while it's a simple fix, it's not something to call an over-reaction. The results of the methodology used here are pretty heavy, and definitely something to be aware of. Is it going to affect many people? Probably not, but you don't just ignore it.
I will say that the article is a bit dramatic, something which the exploit developer even commented on.
Since a few others followed in your footsteps here, it should be noted that Comex even mentions on the site that he simultaneously released a patch for the flaw he's using. As it says on the website:
"Along with the jailbreak, I am releasing a patch for the main vulnerability which anyone especially security conscious can install to render themselves immune; due to the nature of iOS, this patch can only be installed on a jailbroken device. Until Apple releases an update, jailbreaking will ironically be the best way to remain secure."
The Jailbreak community has been very open about possible security holes created by Jailbreaking, and the core Jailbreaking sites all have guides on securing your iDevice. Between that and backing SHSH Blobs, you basically can jailbreak ad arbitrium and not have to worry.
Did Apple kind of shoot themselves in the foot with their "No Viruses/Malware" campaign? Yeah. (Nevermind that they never actually claimed you couldn't be infected...)
Is MacDefender a portend of Malware waves upon OS X? Unlikely, and it really has nothing to do with market share. I know this is a tired argument, but the "You're day is coming OS X, just wait until you're worthwhile to hack!" idea just hasn't played out no matter how many times security researchers shout it from their blogs/websites (often times alongside links to purchase Macintosh AV software).
A sense of reality is necessary here -- this isn't like Vundo or any of its variants. This Rogue AV is awfully polite and asks you to go through the standard OS X install process in order to get on the system. (Strange how Mr. Bott makes it seem like the program is just suddenly installed and active)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoogO_f6DLI&feature=player_embedded
That's what you get to see when this RogueAV tries to get on the system. There's nothing automatic about it, there is tons of user input, and that's precisely why it's not much to get worried about as a Mac user. That's a helluva lot more work than simply viewing a flash ad, a PDF, or any other drive-by exploit that occurs on the Windows side of the world.
Now, I cannot stress enough that I'm not suggesting OS X is immune. But to say it's about to have the same level of infections as Windows? Not now, and not until the Malware folk come up with some grand exploit to get their software onto OS X as quickly as they can through Windows. It's not numbers, it's that it's a pain to do.
The problem with this assessment is that it's the exact same assessment that OS X has been receiving for the past 6 years whenever a new Trojan pops up. And no, this trojan really isn't any different than its predecessors. I'm not trying to defend OS X as the almighty glorious Mac Master Race computer, but it's a little ridiculous to see this cycle every time an OS X Trojan pops up (and they've pretty much all been trojans -- IIRC, a few were classified as worms, but I really don't remember clearly):
1. Malware appears for OS X
2. AV companies advertise it wildly
3. Journalists/"Analysts" declare that age of Innocence for OS X is over, no longer "immune" to Malware
4. Message Board users declare the end of OS X/Catastrophic damage
5. Time passes and reality sets in -- the Malware/Trojan fails to reach any noticeable level of threat
Again, this isn't to say OS X is immune. Absolutely not. But every time a bit of Malware appears, this exact cycle happens -- and OS X and Apple's sales only go up.
That's a little FUD-y. It's a drive-by download, and once it's down, it has to install like any other application, user password and all. If you have "open safe files" off, you'll just end up with a few copies of a .zip called "mac-antispyware" or something to that effect, depending on the variant.
I would assume that flavor and variety in *nix keeps it relatively clean. Sure, you're working with a lot of the same components, but you have so many variations that it's just not a viable target to hit in this manner. Additionally, to some degree, it's a safe assumption that if Linux is installed, the usual drive-by styles aren't going to work because the user security software Common Sense is up to date and active. This is what it really boils down to, IMO. For a lot of /. users, it's going to be common sense not to do these things. It's finding a reasonable and effective way to transmit this data to users that will be the solution. I don't agree with blocking, random warning pop-ups, or anything in that vein; UAC on Vista trained far too many people (IMHO) to just click through any pop-up they find. I do think that a stronger campaign from Apple regarding what should and should not require a user password might be beneficial though. If people begin to understand that, it becomes very simple to learn "Hrm...I didn't do anything and now it needs my password. Abort."
No, he's right. Constant back ups are not just good for the tech support people it's good for the basic user, the office user, or the "I just need that one paper" user. In general, customers to technical support services are not entirely concerned as to why their machine broke or went haywire, as strange as it may seem. Even if you did explain the circumstances surrounding the computer failure, you're assuming that the customer is going to have a decent enough grasp of computing to understand your explanation, and that you have a decent enough understanding of the customer to be able to explain it in simple terms.
Additionally, sometimes it is just quicker and more efficient to resolve an issue with a reimage and a series of back up DVDs for both the customer and the IT worker. We could spend the time hunting down the source of the cryptic BSOD error information, wasting the customer's time, or reimage the computer, toss on the backed up information, and have their computer up and running again in a matter of a few hours, if that even. In an office environment, the latter will almost always be preferred.
This doesn't dismiss the need for technical support, however, as not all problems are as tedious. Technical support means being familiar with the common software used by the customers you support, having a working knowledge of the types of computers and issues that people run into, and being the ever-present source of information for users to utilize if they are having issues. Occasionally there's time for the Romantic battle with a dying computer to make the OS stable enough to retrieve files and basically breathe life back into a computer that should be discarded, but for the most part, it's finding a way to ensure that a customer is not without their computer any longer than they have to be, and for the most part, the answer to that is to encourage good back-up habits so that you can just wipe and reinstall.
is the sandbox I get from a table top RPG made in videogame form. Games like Assassin's Creed do a wonderful job of giving you a pretty big world to play in, but still battle with the challenge of difficulty versus realism and freedom within the confines of a story. For example, as much fun as Assassin's Creed was for the bits I played, it still felt really linear, to the point that I would almost call it a beat-em-up moreso than a stealth game. Yeah, I could have chosen "not" to mass-kill the guards. But, if they are going to give people the power to take on literally dozens of guards at once and all the guards are too chivalrous to attack you while you are in battle with another person, it's hard to see a reason not to abuse the lazy AI. Plus, if a game is purported to be realistic, then the player will take a realistic approach to the scenario as per their abilities in game.
See, the issue I had with Assassin's creed was that there wasn't much fantasy involved. It doesn't draw you in as an RPG could, because no matter how grim the situation gets, you can always rely on the masscounterkill guard technique. You can choose not to do it, but you can't really forget that it's a possibility. Also, respawning guards sort of takes away from the reality of the game. Yes, they probably have a LOT of guards. But when I've been in extended combat for the greater part of an hour and have somewhere around 80 guards dead at my feet, I start to wonder where the hell they are getting these people? It's the same issue that Oblivion had with its magical teleporting guards and vengeful enemies that would literally chase you across the map just to do battle. (Did they REALLY care that much about the 2 gold I took?) It's these minor things that make or break a game.
Same thing with MMO's. You can dictate that a server is an RP server, enforce RP rules, ban out of character talk, but MMOs still lack the overall purpose that brings you to anything beyond mass grind. Too much focus is put on a direct balance between classes and an emphasis on kill for exp and best item that any sort of role playing possibilities are lost. Why not have an RPG where fighters get their EXP for fighting, Healers get their EXP for healing (get rid of potions and such...make it tough to survive); why can't a person make a healthy living in the game as a shop keep, own their own store, maybe a house on 4th and Main, and what not? I realize that coding has its limitations, but these concepts are not completely foreign to gaming, they just haven't been compiled together in one game, as far as I know. And for story? Well, why not have dedicated story tellers for servers? List major quests that need to be taken care of. Post public bounties for people, have thousands of smaller quests that could lead up to information necessary to complete the major quest. DnD without the dice, but for real this time.
I know that it's a hell of a vision, and would require some pretty dedicated employees and story tellers, but that would be bigger than WoW if it happened, and it would be almost the ultimate sandbox. A very vague mission (save the princess, kill the dragon, etc). A million and one ways to do it)
Meh, no offense, but it sounds like you're not as good of a salesman as Apple. The reason that people end up not caring is because the things you are telling them are truly don't matter. They want something that plays mp3s, that can play music they rip from their CDs, and so on. I don't think that it's "buying into hype" if they are getting exactly what they wanted. Your preference of a more open non-proprietary locked player is your preference, which just doesn't sell to the basic consumer. The simple premise of "I want to rip from CDs easily and be able to play MP3s with a simple interface" is what makes the iPod sell. Not being able to play proprietary files that the consumer probably wouldn't use anyways is not really an issue even.
There are many programs which convert fairly easily to iPod videos. Off the top of my head, visual hub is an amazing converter which will convert to iPod format and even has options to optimize for the iPod model you have (in terms of screen size). The only video files I can't get to work on an iPod are .rm and the newer .rmxx (I forget the other two letters) format, and that's only because I don't have the full real player program to convert them to something else.
Otherwise, everything converted just fine and dandy.
I'm hoping that this is meant to be sarcastic, though I'm certainly stretching to find it.
Security hole from hell? Okay, if a person has that kind of access to your machine, your files are really already compromised; cause unless you frequently leave your Mac out in the open with the root password pasted to it, people will rarely get to the point where they can recover incriminating files. On top of that, you can control what time machine does and does not back up.
While I appreciate the insight that the law says copying and distributing, I don't really think that anyone caught acquiring movies/music from usenet could use ignorance as an excuse. (especially since ignorance isn't supposed to circumvent the law) To compare it to buying stolen goods is incorrect, IMO. Buying stolen goods from a known retailer would indicate that you are operating under the assumption that since it is a major retailer, all of its goods are legitimately acquired, properly processed and recorded, and legal for sale.
Going to Usenet in itself, however, indicates a slightly deeper understanding of the Internet. Essentially, to claim that you did not know the file was copyrighted when logs indicate you acquired it while on usenet would boil down to a your word against the word of the RIAA lawyer. At this point, all the lawyer would have to do is show that you have an average or above average knowledge of the Internet and most judge's/juries would probably rule in favor of the RIAA. You don't have to shit out lines of C++ to use Usenet, but you do need to do more than just "check e-mail and stuff" when you log on to know to go to usenet and get files. It would be a tough sale for even the most experienced liars.
From the Dictionary Section:
"Wikipedia in Dictionary
Harness the power of Wikipedia when you're connected to the Internet -- built right into it's Dictionary. You get a great Mac OS X user interface with super-fast searching and beautifully laid out-results."
From the Parental Controls:
"Wikipedia Content Filter
Limit access to profanity in Wikipedia."
Huh...interesting.
Leverage really. If they talk to a label and say that DRM doesn't sell while the label says DRM is necessary and consumers don't care, Apple can pull out comparison charts of new releases that had both DRM and DRM-free copies, and show [what I'm hoping will be] the staggering difference between the two.
...but for now, I'm not terribly impressed. Apple:- still has only EMI (and the independents) at this new rate (compared to Amazon, which also has Universal)
It's the fourth bullet point that dismays me the most.
I'm not sure that's entirely a fair analysis of the situation. Many labels appear to be either hesitant to sign or left Apple because they would not give them the pricing or the DRM they wanted.
As I see it, Apple did innovate in pushing the digital market a heck of a lot harder than anyone else, and by pushing the price to a fairly reasonable level that people are actually buying songs at. Because they were first, they're getting shat on for it, or so it seems.
Won't matter. Cute idea, won't matter. Whether it's the unholy successors of people like Mr. Thompson who are on a personal crusade to ruin something for their own gain, or just people who don't get the concept of there being more to games than just games, whichever term you slap on video games is going to be considered a child's title, though in some cases it may take awhile.
Also, Interactive Entertainment sounds like something which self-lubricates and vibrates a lot. Not necessarily the best name, though certainly fun.
You're being a little silly here. I don't think that anyone is going to argue that the AT&T service is pretty bad and also a little infuriating. But that is the contract entered into when you bought an iPhone. You knew this going into it. Honestly, I'm surprised that Apple had the decency to warn people in advance that the update would remove the unlocking. I'm not calling it bricking, because bricking would assume that a legitimately purchased phone that was still in contract is no longer working due to the update.
Essentially, you're bitching because you made up your own rules to play with, and Apple is playing a whole different game. I'm not saying that you don't have a right to the technology you own. If Apple sent out an update on Macbooks which forced you to use Appleworks instead of any other office suite, you'd have a right to be angry. You didn't sign up for any contract which said you couldn't or that you had to use Apple's program.
That isn't the case with the iPhone. You entered into a contract knowingly (it was most definitely during the purchase), so what is the point of bitching when you've already broken the rules. Technically, Apple didn't have to tell you, or even hint that a phone would be reverted to an unlocked state. They've been polite; you're the one being a bit unreasonable, in my opinion.
I think a major issue though is that a lot of developers spend more time worrying about how it looks then how it adds to the game. So much time is spent with how the water looks from the outside, little concern is given to what the game looks like when you're actually submerged in water. Games of all genre's are guilty of this. On top of that, many are so focused on keeping a soundtrack going, with unique sounds from each moving item on screen (metal scrapping, enemies yelling), that a submerged character can hear everything with crystal clear quality.
Guns operate miraculously underwater, players move just as quick as they do on land as they do beneath water. Characters without any sort of SCUBA gear breath for minutes underwater while carrying ridiculous amounts of gear (the amount of gear has lessened recently though), and other such silly actions. The water looks pretty, but the looks are quite deceptive. Hell, Metroid Prime had a better underwater physics than a lot of games today have simply because it took into consideration the movement of a person in water. It was a small effect, but damn did it make those water pits disturbing, knowing that you could feasibly get stuck, or one wrong jump meant you're starting over. That small element of realism added more to the atmosphere than watching every droplet of water slowly evaporate off Samus' visor ever could have.
Oh, and though this is just a pet peeve of mine, we need to stop being able to jump and shoot in games, or at least add in the element of difficulty that would come with trying to do so.
The D620 had several different chipsets that it could end up using, IIRC. I may be thinking of the earlier D6xx models, but I thought that the D620s were on the same chipset. And though the demonstration had different models, his focus was on the Macbook, even though he was supposedly being fair and not naming names, which is a little back-asswards in my opinion. If he was really that concerned, he wouldn't have even put a mac on screen, as simply put, as much as a lot of people hate Macs, they are still iconic, to the degree that a complete tech-newb could probably spout out a few statistics on the Macbook without ever having handled one.
My point wasn't so much that he's picking on Mac; it's that his presentation originally was in bad taste, and when the public commented on it, he sort of went into a fit on it. A tiny fit, but it was enough to really sully his reputation and make what should have been a great research video into a bunch of FUD. The approach he probably should have done was to show the proof of concept on other machines as well as the Macbook, which would have incited less of a response, and a little more understanding in the matter.
Okay, but that's not entirely in context. Yeah, a lot of Apple Folk aren't going to care about this anymore for one reason and one reason alone; at this point, it is irrelevant to most end users. Why? Well, the vulnerability has since been patched; the only thing that drudging something like this up does is spread more garbage about the "insecurity" of the Macbook, OS X, etc. The story, as it is and as it was, is more about OS X than the actual bug that was found in that chipset/driver. It's true; OS X may only be mentioned once, but it's THE brand name mentioned, and when it comes down to it, a lot of journalists are looking for the quickest way to attach a name to an item.
Truth be told, I doubt that many actual publications could run a full story on Maynor's findings because simply put, he's getting way too technical. A responsible publication would opt to not publish, as they really can't do much more than associate the flaw (wiFi hack) with the name (Apple). Unfortunately, we don't always have the most responsible journalists.
I think that Apple folk have some what of a right to be pissed at his presentation method. If he thinks that he needs to stick it to the Apple folk for believing that they don't need to live in constant threat of their computers being overtaken by *insert virus/malware of the week*, fine, but truthfully, at that point, releasing data and associating it with Apple is just douchebaggery and somewhat sullies the reputation of the researcher, who should theoretically be above such nonsense. (Before anyone comments, yes, calling his actions douchebaggery or using the word in general sullies my reputation, but I'm not presenting as an expert is the difference)
What Maynor has is a wonderful research project; I just wish he'd understand that he messed up a little in his choice of actions when citing Apple in specific. Demonstrating the effect on just one more laptop model (Dell D620, for example), would have made all his problems go away.
Wish I had mod points so I could mod this up, but instead I'll comment. This program seems like it's going in the right direction for laptop recovery; unintrusive programs which teach you to keep your laptop and information safe, but gives you one last hope in case all else fails. While I would like to see more success stories as evidence of the viability of this software, I think that it's definitely a good idea, and could really cement itself at the pristine business model for physical laptop recovery.
I must disagree; there are many people who simply believed in the vision of the future which Star Trek presented and at least became more accepting of some of the science techniques presented in the show. A person of semi-reasonable intelligence at some point will most likely wonder, "Is that possible?", do the research themselves, and see the bits of truth mixed in with the fictitious writing in the show, or at least give some people who would otherwise be discouraged from scientific careers something to hook them into at least thinking about science and what it can be used for.
Though not a perfect example, consider the character of Phillip J. Fry from Futurama. Granted, he a lazy idiot, but he harbors three major passions in his life; Leela, space, and Star Trek. And while Fry is a considerable idiot due to unnatural phenomenon, even as an idiot, he never loses his admiration of space, the ability to explore as an astronaut, or the science used to let him go to space.
Granted, this is a comedy cartoon, but there are most likely a good many people who had the same lifestyle as Fry growing up and all it took was something like Star Trek to hook them into the sciences. Even if it was just "Hrm...does that really work?" or "Holy crap that explosion was awesome! I wanna make a phaser!" and the disappointment of reality lead them at least to examine the science behind it, science fiction does hold a place for the common person in bringing them to science.
So...lemme get this straight.
Apple sees an issue in the patent system and says, "Let's address it."
You see an issue, and say, trash the system, it's worthless.
Why? There is no logical reason why it needs to be trashed when the problem can be dealt with quite easily with a relatively simple (oh, and common) moderation system which the patent office apparently does not have in place. Trashing the system is really destructive, not only to big businesses, but also small businesses. That means time of uncertainty when all businesses alike can (and most likely would) lose profit because nothing ties their product to them. Nothing is stopping someone from taking another person's idea once the system is abolished, submitting it as their own, and basically stealing the patent under the new system. An abolishment of the prior system is BAD, and that's in capitals, so you know it's bad. Transition? Maybe, if the new system is proven to be more efficient. But no, abolishment = BAD.