Never used steam myself so maybe someone can enlighten me. The video drivers for Linux are crap compared to Windows, does this mean they have some way access the hardware properly? Or does it mean you need twice the hardware to run at the Windows equivalent performance?
The only problem with HTML is in the interpretation. With every other language being high or low level if it runs it runs the way the programmer intended. With HTML, one line of HTML can behave differently for each browser that interprets / renders it. Any method of communication falls on 2 people to be useful right now we are not getting that. If you had to write different classes for each of the possible targets you end up with a messy bloated heap. Now with web developers in many cases throwing CSS/JS/HTML at the client computer with coding and kludges for IE, FF and others it's insane enough for a person to read it and it sure doesn't make it any easier for the machine to parse it.
If HTML/CSS/JS was parsed and rendered exactly the same way across the board then you could make some elegant contributions and the language set would evolve. Scrapping HTML/CSS/JS is now just an unfortunate act of desperation because of the stupid (not enough of an understatement) browser "wars". Ultimately we need the ultimate sandbox, from there we can write anything we want and the client will be able to make their easy going clicks that the web mentality thrives on. HTML/XML will always be needed in one form or another because it is, 1) good for keeping the description of the appearance concise and 2) the data transmitted can easily be compressed and bad data due to transmission can easily be detected. As always if you had to code any web site in pure Java, C or any other binary compiled language just think about how much you would have to do just to get your banner up. You would have to deal with graphics drivers / OS interfaces, render fonts, deal with screen dimensions dynamically just to show a GIF, all that work for a fraction of a project is a waste. Once we get either cross the board browser/client support we can start moving forward until then complaining about HTML is going to take us no where.
I'm just curious on how you can say one mega-corporation is some how inherently "nicer" or "less evil" then another? None of them would listen to you unless you were lined up behind thousands of others with a hundred dollar bill in your hand. Even then they would still take your money and try to low ball the return.
In the end the quote I feel works the best, "...One day the snake bit her on the cheek. As she lay dying, she asked the snake, "Why have you done this to me?" And the snake answered, "Look, bitch, you knew I was a snake."--Natural Born Killers
Google's decision to go for h.264 was likely a lot to do with the iPhone/iPod Touch. Apple wanted to have streaming video and wanted h.264, Google wants mind share and market penetration. Most users have no idea how the content is encoded but they do know they can goto Youtube to get it. Now that people are lining up at Google's door step to get it the encoding no longer really matters, it is trivial for Google to encode the source in any format they want so the get to keep the ball in their court. I would guess Google's goal would be to have every device compatible with their service and they will implement any codec to make that possible. With Theora they now have an ace up their sleeve, if there is any device that cannot afford to license a hardware H.264 encoder/decoder this will allow for hardware manufacturers to produce a Theora based design and with smaller / no licensing costs involved with Theora many companies may choose to implement it as a catch all solution, it may even be beneficial to content providers as their costs for licensing are 0 as well. If and when this becomes popular we will come into time span where Theora will take over formats like DIVX/XVID in standalone players and other devices. In the end Google's decision was both beneficial to the consumer as well as them selves since they retained mind share as well as control over that aspect of the market. This is a smarter long term strategy. If Google chose to alienate Apple and not host H.264 content then Apple would have been forced to likely seek another content provider or become one themselves in which case they would have likely chose one they could easily control as a result screwing with mobile media streaming distribution similar to the way they handle App development on their platform.
So don't be a hater as long as there is a one to many relationship between the content provider and hardware devices the one will want to keep as many as possible and the many will seek to connect to the one using the cheapest / easiest method available. With Theora being implemented in hardware if it becomes a commodity item it will take over many aspects of distribution.
One issue with touch screens is the ability for a would be attacker to merely clean the screen before you use it. Although recovering further data is not as simple (magstrip, chip, removable device) you are still filling in blank spaces for a would be attacker and that is not usually a good idea.
Just by taking the prints and the GPS location of the household if law enforcement found a set that matched Jon Q Public's fingerprints then they would narrow it down to a very select number of people, maybe 10 or so(the parents, kids, their lawyer, etc). Now out of 300 million you've narrowed it down to just a few. Over the course of multiple interactions you start to fill in some blank spaces. If you take into consideration all other forms of correspondence you would fill in these gaps much quicker.
Like I said this is all tin foil talk but your argument that not having positive ID for each print would make them useless is not the case.
Just to add a personal experience a very close family member leased a new Ford Escape a couple of years back and had a similar experience (non hybrid model). She was stopped at a red light with her foot on the break and the engine went full throttle. Lucky for her she had her foot on the break but the suv did jump a foot before it came to a stop.
There is really no excuse for not having a mechanical backup to the system and the more companies that will be going the route of consolidating mechanical functions with electronic means we just have to give way to the possibility of errors becomes greater. Now that HUD's are becoming more popular what's to say a bug in the software won't obstruct your entire view of the road in front of you? Maybe a bug in the NAV system will take certain control over the vehicle to prevent a perceived collision where there is none. Technology is meant to assist the user not supersede them. As this technology becomes more prominent it will just bring the focus to the malicious to tamper with it for what ever outcome they choose. We are also putting a lot of trust in something like a battery. Currently if your engine fails you still have control over the vehicle apart from acceleration, on a fly by wire system once it loses power all those components will cease to exist as well. If we look into real possibilities such as corrosion of the contacts that deliver power, short circuits, blown fuses and battery wear/defects these will make a much larger impact on the driver then ever before. Many people even as we speak may be driving around with some fuses blown but now that the power involved is much greater the systems involved in regulating power flow become much more involved and again more likely to cause a complete system failure.
I'm sorry I think you really need another coffee. Right now these vendors are screaming bloody murder because not enough people are paying the $50 to begin with. You seriously think they will be willing to drop the price by over 50% because no one is able to pirate it any more? That has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard on the internets ever.
I do agree this plans execution is flawed but the concept of offering licensed software is not that bad of an idea. Mr Chan has shot himself in the foot by pursuing up loaders because they are the ones driving the traffic to his servers. Once he has "eliminated" all of these apparent "criminals" then where, Mr Chan will people see all these wonderful adverts for legitimate software?
You seem to think that if you spend $X on a task or project you somehow deserve $X+n in return. If you had any idea how much companies spend each year in R&D versus how much of that R&D actually produces actual results you would realize your opinion is reseted firmly in fantasy. In reality companies *DO* lose money but how you may ask since they have put so much effort into their task? How can the public not just give them their money back that put into working on their dreams? Because it does not work like that. At the end of the day encryption algorithms as you mention take someone else's data and encrypt / obfuscate it until the appropriate algorithm is applied to return the cipher text to its original state. Now if I used a different encryption algorithm then am I circumventing someone else's algorithm? No one is suggesting H246 should be forced to be released under an open source license or any other than specified by the author. Should I be able to patent a method, by which a source of binary sequence is processed by electronic means in a manner that the original binary sequence is indistinguishable from its original state, then a method by which a binary sequence is then processed to represent its original state? At that point you have just cornered the entire encryption concept. Is that what you feel is what you should be granted? If so your friends R,S & A would be unhappy with you as they were not the first to create encryption but they did facilitate a very good method of encryption.
Please don't misinterpret my response to say your contribution should go unnoticed and others should be able to be able to copy your work as their own because that is furthest from the truth. What I am saying is if you were to research and develop a method that even exceeded RSA's implementation then should you not be able to recoup your costs as well? In the end patents are just there to incite innovation, not to stop someone from trying to innovate because someone else already did something similar. If that was the case then the first raw video format would have stopped H264 or any other codec for that reason from even being pursued just because the originator patented his/her/their implementation.
You could patent the size of your combustion chamber, the length of your push rods, the dimensions of your crank shaft and the exact design of your fuel delivery system but you cannot patent the laws of Physics that allow you to harness combustion and demand all uses of combustion to be your invention. You mention you have a strong maths and CS background but listening to your posts is like Microsoft saying they should be able to patent the concept of the operating system, you have a great interest in your claims.
I do agree that if you were to or have created an algorithm that preformed a task in an incredibly unique or efficient way you should be able to be protected from people using your particular algorithm but you cannot stop someone from preforming the actual task. That is the main issue in software patents especially as we have seen in something as simple as VOIP where the "patent" holder did not pursue the algorithm but the task its self saying the mere act of sending data via separate networks that is intended to represent audio was theirs and theirs alone. If they came up with a very efficient way to facilitate such a task then great but there is no way anyone should be able to stop me from sending raw wave form data through a network. At the end of the day if you develop a logic system you own that exact sequence of events no more no less, they are just math but you do own the copyright if you can prove you were the first one to do it but you cannot patent the input or the result, just your transition between the two.
With todays servers if someone posts a video to my site I can just transcode it to any format I wish. If I want I can bite the bullet and pay for one license to transcode and no one knows the difference. When it comes down to it the end user just wants to see a slide show at around 30 fps, no special magic no 3D rendering just what they shot on their camcorder or their crappy cell phone camera. So why all this fuss? HTML5 is just a tag not much more and the end user sure as hell doesn't care, they just want to click and see a video. So saying by any justification one method is "better" than another is just plain stupid. Hell at the end of the day I could just buy one license for H264 and host on Amazon S3 offering for a small charge instant transcoding of all material to DIVX,Theora or GIF if I wanted to and tell everyone else to go fuck themselves.
The beauty about not making money off of it is you can just post the code somewhere and stop hosting it, let it go viral. Facebook has to face the fact that people are still using the site but just don't want to see some certain updates. I bet if someone came up with a game that the object was to put your hand over the screen in the area of a Mafia Wars update that it would violate / hurt Facebook's feelings and you (or I guess I would) get a lawyer sending me junk.
I used to think about the same, I would consider my self above average for downloading ISO's multiple times just to clock my fastest time and figured the party line was correct, most people only use maybe a GB / month, and in many cases they do. Now I start getting into Youtube videos at minimum 480p and 720p also comedy central videos and after about 3 hours of video I'm rounding 1.5GB! If I drop my cable TV subscription and continue to watch Internet video of similar quality to replace it for the same amount of time 5 days a week your looking at 1.5 x 30 = 45GB, still well below many bandwidth caps. Now if you have more than one person in the house with the same tastes even if they are watching the same videos on different displays it multiplies from there. Some people are into Netflix, Hulu, iTunes movies, etc and multiply that by the people in the house hold that are doing the same thing your coming around 60+GB / person/month. In some places 64GB is a common cap and just basic stuff all legit and your cap is blown.
ISP's seem to build for todays standards for the future, which is not right. How can they assume news, social media and email is the only thing many are going to use? TV's already come with internet connectivity as well as pretty much every other electronic device. OnLive and other similar ventures will be eating that cap just to play a few games. The usage is not leveling is it about to explode. So now they fail to meet serious future demands and seem "shocked" when they get saturated? Then they complain that supply and demand will kick in because of the saturation and your connection is now charged at a premium?
Saying X is fast enough for Y is fine since you are commenting on present day usage and you in many cases are correct, the trick is that ISP's are banking on your dumb ass to build the network of tomorrow.
These types of comments are like, "I would much rather have that guy kick me in the nuts he seems much cooler". When Google got into the race I was cheering for them because I didn't like Microsoft. Then I liked Google because I didn't like Apple. After all of this I just realized I didn't really like Google but I just hated everyone else. Google is not your friend they are a business and will continue to be this way (especially since Sergy and Larry sold enough of their voting stock). Now when Google does something "questionably evil" it's not Sergy and Larry but the share holders and share holders get to sit by one the sidelines and get none of the flack.
Repeat after me, "This is not high school anymore, this is real life, real companies want to make real money, real companies will do what ever they have to to make said money"
Google is up against companies like Microsoft and most advertising firms, do you really think just because Google has fanboys these companies will make it easy on them? These companies are big enough to make Google make tough choices and some of those choices will definitely be "evil", just wait for the honeymoon to be over.
As a consumer all we can do is demand what we want and realize we are the ones holding the proverbial worm on the hook, don't be fanboys and apologists. The less you care about the flowery shit the more in control you will be.
I understand in programming there is always a possibility of a bug creeping up but common, Microsoft is one of the largest companies in the world, they have been working on the operating system for 20+ years now. They higher the worlds top PHD's to engineer the whole thing and pay them accordingly. Even the code monkeys are MIT grads with specialties in these core systems. When as a company you do one thing and get as much money as they do to do it there is an expectation of them and when you claim to be the best that expectation should be even greater. For so many similar problems to keep cropping up all directed at taking over your computer you have to admit this is becoming a bit ridiculous. It's just like the idea of the dam that springs a leak and each time you plug one another sprouts, but this has been happening since network connectivity began.
Slashdot Mirror
Never used steam myself so maybe someone can enlighten me. The video drivers for Linux are crap compared to Windows, does this mean they have some way access the hardware properly? Or does it mean you need twice the hardware to run at the Windows equivalent performance?
The only problem with HTML is in the interpretation. With every other language being high or low level if it runs it runs the way the programmer intended. With HTML, one line of HTML can behave differently for each browser that interprets / renders it. Any method of communication falls on 2 people to be useful right now we are not getting that. If you had to write different classes for each of the possible targets you end up with a messy bloated heap. Now with web developers in many cases throwing CSS/JS/HTML at the client computer with coding and kludges for IE, FF and others it's insane enough for a person to read it and it sure doesn't make it any easier for the machine to parse it.
If HTML/CSS/JS was parsed and rendered exactly the same way across the board then you could make some elegant contributions and the language set would evolve. Scrapping HTML/CSS/JS is now just an unfortunate act of desperation because of the stupid (not enough of an understatement) browser "wars". Ultimately we need the ultimate sandbox, from there we can write anything we want and the client will be able to make their easy going clicks that the web mentality thrives on. HTML/XML will always be needed in one form or another because it is, 1) good for keeping the description of the appearance concise and 2) the data transmitted can easily be compressed and bad data due to transmission can easily be detected. As always if you had to code any web site in pure Java, C or any other binary compiled language just think about how much you would have to do just to get your banner up. You would have to deal with graphics drivers / OS interfaces, render fonts, deal with screen dimensions dynamically just to show a GIF, all that work for a fraction of a project is a waste. Once we get either cross the board browser/client support we can start moving forward until then complaining about HTML is going to take us no where.
I'm just curious on how you can say one mega-corporation is some how inherently "nicer" or "less evil" then another? None of them would listen to you unless you were lined up behind thousands of others with a hundred dollar bill in your hand. Even then they would still take your money and try to low ball the return.
In the end the quote I feel works the best,
"...One day the snake bit her on the cheek. As she lay dying, she asked the snake, "Why have you done this to me?" And the snake answered, "Look, bitch, you knew I was a snake."--Natural Born Killers
Google's decision to go for h.264 was likely a lot to do with the iPhone/iPod Touch. Apple wanted to have streaming video and wanted h.264, Google wants mind share and market penetration. Most users have no idea how the content is encoded but they do know they can goto Youtube to get it. Now that people are lining up at Google's door step to get it the encoding no longer really matters, it is trivial for Google to encode the source in any format they want so the get to keep the ball in their court. I would guess Google's goal would be to have every device compatible with their service and they will implement any codec to make that possible. With Theora they now have an ace up their sleeve, if there is any device that cannot afford to license a hardware H.264 encoder/decoder this will allow for hardware manufacturers to produce a Theora based design and with smaller / no licensing costs involved with Theora many companies may choose to implement it as a catch all solution, it may even be beneficial to content providers as their costs for licensing are 0 as well. If and when this becomes popular we will come into time span where Theora will take over formats like DIVX/XVID in standalone players and other devices. In the end Google's decision was both beneficial to the consumer as well as them selves since they retained mind share as well as control over that aspect of the market. This is a smarter long term strategy. If Google chose to alienate Apple and not host H.264 content then Apple would have been forced to likely seek another content provider or become one themselves in which case they would have likely chose one they could easily control as a result screwing with mobile media streaming distribution similar to the way they handle App development on their platform.
So don't be a hater as long as there is a one to many relationship between the content provider and hardware devices the one will want to keep as many as possible and the many will seek to connect to the one using the cheapest / easiest method available. With Theora being implemented in hardware if it becomes a commodity item it will take over many aspects of distribution.
One issue with touch screens is the ability for a would be attacker to merely clean the screen before you use it. Although recovering further data is not as simple (magstrip, chip, removable device) you are still filling in blank spaces for a would be attacker and that is not usually a good idea.
Just by taking the prints and the GPS location of the household if law enforcement found a set that matched Jon Q Public's fingerprints then they would narrow it down to a very select number of people, maybe 10 or so(the parents, kids, their lawyer, etc). Now out of 300 million you've narrowed it down to just a few. Over the course of multiple interactions you start to fill in some blank spaces. If you take into consideration all other forms of correspondence you would fill in these gaps much quicker.
Like I said this is all tin foil talk but your argument that not having positive ID for each print would make them useless is not the case.
I know this is tin foil talk and all but how hard would it be for other countries to take census forms and check them for finger prints?
Just to add a personal experience a very close family member leased a new Ford Escape a couple of years back and had a similar experience (non hybrid model). She was stopped at a red light with her foot on the break and the engine went full throttle. Lucky for her she had her foot on the break but the suv did jump a foot before it came to a stop.
There is really no excuse for not having a mechanical backup to the system and the more companies that will be going the route of consolidating mechanical functions with electronic means we just have to give way to the possibility of errors becomes greater. Now that HUD's are becoming more popular what's to say a bug in the software won't obstruct your entire view of the road in front of you? Maybe a bug in the NAV system will take certain control over the vehicle to prevent a perceived collision where there is none. Technology is meant to assist the user not supersede them. As this technology becomes more prominent it will just bring the focus to the malicious to tamper with it for what ever outcome they choose. We are also putting a lot of trust in something like a battery. Currently if your engine fails you still have control over the vehicle apart from acceleration, on a fly by wire system once it loses power all those components will cease to exist as well. If we look into real possibilities such as corrosion of the contacts that deliver power, short circuits, blown fuses and battery wear/defects these will make a much larger impact on the driver then ever before. Many people even as we speak may be driving around with some fuses blown but now that the power involved is much greater the systems involved in regulating power flow become much more involved and again more likely to cause a complete system failure.
The gremlins would have been fine if they didn't align the feeding schedules to metric time
I'll be here all decade, try the veal.
Nobody's gonna care if 1/10000 people don't get their toast.
....
I bet at least one is
What good are operators if you are not instructed how to use them?
I'm sorry I think you really need another coffee. Right now these vendors are screaming bloody murder because not enough people are paying the $50 to begin with. You seriously think they will be willing to drop the price by over 50% because no one is able to pirate it any more? That has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard on the internets ever.
I do agree this plans execution is flawed but the concept of offering licensed software is not that bad of an idea. Mr Chan has shot himself in the foot by pursuing up loaders because they are the ones driving the traffic to his servers. Once he has "eliminated" all of these apparent "criminals" then where, Mr Chan will people see all these wonderful adverts for legitimate software?
You seem to think that if you spend $X on a task or project you somehow deserve $X+n in return. If you had any idea how much companies spend each year in R&D versus how much of that R&D actually produces actual results you would realize your opinion is reseted firmly in fantasy. In reality companies *DO* lose money but how you may ask since they have put so much effort into their task? How can the public not just give them their money back that put into working on their dreams? Because it does not work like that. At the end of the day encryption algorithms as you mention take someone else's data and encrypt / obfuscate it until the appropriate algorithm is applied to return the cipher text to its original state. Now if I used a different encryption algorithm then am I circumventing someone else's algorithm? No one is suggesting H246 should be forced to be released under an open source license or any other than specified by the author. Should I be able to patent a method, by which a source of binary sequence is processed by electronic means in a manner that the original binary sequence is indistinguishable from its original state, then a method by which a binary sequence is then processed to represent its original state? At that point you have just cornered the entire encryption concept. Is that what you feel is what you should be granted? If so your friends R,S & A would be unhappy with you as they were not the first to create encryption but they did facilitate a very good method of encryption.
Please don't misinterpret my response to say your contribution should go unnoticed and others should be able to be able to copy your work as their own because that is furthest from the truth. What I am saying is if you were to research and develop a method that even exceeded RSA's implementation then should you not be able to recoup your costs as well? In the end patents are just there to incite innovation, not to stop someone from trying to innovate because someone else already did something similar. If that was the case then the first raw video format would have stopped H264 or any other codec for that reason from even being pursued just because the originator patented his/her/their implementation.
Don't worry just fixed that for you ... o shit...
Step 1) multiply a by x
Step 2) add result to b
So unless multiplication and subtraction were not implied "instructions" by that algorithm then you are right.
You could patent the size of your combustion chamber, the length of your push rods, the dimensions of your crank shaft and the exact design of your fuel delivery system but you cannot patent the laws of Physics that allow you to harness combustion and demand all uses of combustion to be your invention. You mention you have a strong maths and CS background but listening to your posts is like Microsoft saying they should be able to patent the concept of the operating system, you have a great interest in your claims.
I do agree that if you were to or have created an algorithm that preformed a task in an incredibly unique or efficient way you should be able to be protected from people using your particular algorithm but you cannot stop someone from preforming the actual task. That is the main issue in software patents especially as we have seen in something as simple as VOIP where the "patent" holder did not pursue the algorithm but the task its self saying the mere act of sending data via separate networks that is intended to represent audio was theirs and theirs alone. If they came up with a very efficient way to facilitate such a task then great but there is no way anyone should be able to stop me from sending raw wave form data through a network. At the end of the day if you develop a logic system you own that exact sequence of events no more no less, they are just math but you do own the copyright if you can prove you were the first one to do it but you cannot patent the input or the result, just your transition between the two.
With todays servers if someone posts a video to my site I can just transcode it to any format I wish. If I want I can bite the bullet and pay for one license to transcode and no one knows the difference. When it comes down to it the end user just wants to see a slide show at around 30 fps, no special magic no 3D rendering just what they shot on their camcorder or their crappy cell phone camera. So why all this fuss? HTML5 is just a tag not much more and the end user sure as hell doesn't care, they just want to click and see a video. So saying by any justification one method is "better" than another is just plain stupid. Hell at the end of the day I could just buy one license for H264 and host on Amazon S3 offering for a small charge instant transcoding of all material to DIVX,Theora or GIF if I wanted to and tell everyone else to go fuck themselves.
The beauty about not making money off of it is you can just post the code somewhere and stop hosting it, let it go viral. Facebook has to face the fact that people are still using the site but just don't want to see some certain updates. I bet if someone came up with a game that the object was to put your hand over the screen in the area of a Mafia Wars update that it would violate / hurt Facebook's feelings and you (or I guess I would) get a lawyer sending me junk.
I used to think about the same, I would consider my self above average for downloading ISO's multiple times just to clock my fastest time and figured the party line was correct, most people only use maybe a GB / month, and in many cases they do. Now I start getting into Youtube videos at minimum 480p and 720p also comedy central videos and after about 3 hours of video I'm rounding 1.5GB! If I drop my cable TV subscription and continue to watch Internet video of similar quality to replace it for the same amount of time 5 days a week your looking at 1.5 x 30 = 45GB, still well below many bandwidth caps. Now if you have more than one person in the house with the same tastes even if they are watching the same videos on different displays it multiplies from there. Some people are into Netflix, Hulu, iTunes movies, etc and multiply that by the people in the house hold that are doing the same thing your coming around 60+GB / person/month. In some places 64GB is a common cap and just basic stuff all legit and your cap is blown.
ISP's seem to build for todays standards for the future, which is not right. How can they assume news, social media and email is the only thing many are going to use? TV's already come with internet connectivity as well as pretty much every other electronic device. OnLive and other similar ventures will be eating that cap just to play a few games. The usage is not leveling is it about to explode. So now they fail to meet serious future demands and seem "shocked" when they get saturated? Then they complain that supply and demand will kick in because of the saturation and your connection is now charged at a premium?
Saying X is fast enough for Y is fine since you are commenting on present day usage and you in many cases are correct, the trick is that ISP's are banking on your dumb ass to build the network of tomorrow.
These types of comments are like, "I would much rather have that guy kick me in the nuts he seems much cooler". When Google got into the race I was cheering for them because I didn't like Microsoft. Then I liked Google because I didn't like Apple. After all of this I just realized I didn't really like Google but I just hated everyone else. Google is not your friend they are a business and will continue to be this way (especially since Sergy and Larry sold enough of their voting stock). Now when Google does something "questionably evil" it's not Sergy and Larry but the share holders and share holders get to sit by one the sidelines and get none of the flack.
Repeat after me, "This is not high school anymore, this is real life, real companies want to make real money, real companies will do what ever they have to to make said money"
Google is up against companies like Microsoft and most advertising firms, do you really think just because Google has fanboys these companies will make it easy on them? These companies are big enough to make Google make tough choices and some of those choices will definitely be "evil", just wait for the honeymoon to be over.
As a consumer all we can do is demand what we want and realize we are the ones holding the proverbial worm on the hook, don't be fanboys and apologists. The less you care about the flowery shit the more in control you will be.
If that was true then cars must have been running Linux for years.
Ahh common Sony will never make you install the rootkit for their own device, they will install it for you at the factory!
I understand in programming there is always a possibility of a bug creeping up but common, Microsoft is one of the largest companies in the world, they have been working on the operating system for 20+ years now. They higher the worlds top PHD's to engineer the whole thing and pay them accordingly. Even the code monkeys are MIT grads with specialties in these core systems. When as a company you do one thing and get as much money as they do to do it there is an expectation of them and when you claim to be the best that expectation should be even greater. For so many similar problems to keep cropping up all directed at taking over your computer you have to admit this is becoming a bit ridiculous. It's just like the idea of the dam that springs a leak and each time you plug one another sprouts, but this has been happening since network connectivity began.