Ummm... "by definition"? By whose definition? By a general consensus? By a common notion?
Why can't I say, "!= is an equivalence relation which is, by definition, reflexive, and therefore 1!=1"? Because, conventionally, that's not what the != symbol is "defined" as, is it? So is convention a "proof"?
Or did you consider that I wasn't asking about the conventional use of the "=" symbol?
All we can do is keep educating, and hope that they listen.
If only it were that simple. Not only do most people "not give a shit", but I don't think they're going to, and I'm not even sure they should "give a shit". I mean, if everyone had to learn as much as I do about computers (and I'm no genius) before they used them, then I say we pack these things up and send them back, because they aren't ready for general use. Really, I think there just has to be a middle ground, educate users some, computers need to get better and more fool-proof, and geeks need to stop insisting that everyone know everything, and focus on telling people what they NEED to know.
Honestly, I think part of the problem comes from the similarity between a television and a computer monitor. People think that using a computer will be as easy and mindless as watching TV, and I think the first thing users need to learn is IT'S NOT. It's not going to be, and it shouldn't be, because a PC is a more complicated and powerful system. Computers are tools, so rather than a TV, I like to compare computers to chain-saws. It's a tool that needs to be taken care of and maintained, and you need to learn some basic things before you use it, or else it will be dangerous.
Also, I do think the terminology needs to be simplified. For example, I've gotten in the habit of calling all spyware/trojans/worms/whatever-- I call them "viruses". People know what a computer virus is.... Well, that's not true, people know that when you say "computer virus", it means that there's something wrong with their computer that was caused by a combination of some "hacker" being malicious as well as some user being careless. At least many users have some notion similar to that.
So anyway, I do feel a little dirty using the word "virus" as a catch-all, but users don't really understand the difference between viruses and trojans and worms. Even spyware, I found most computer users couldn't really understand what was wrong with installing their spyware-infested cursors. They liked their cursors and their wallpaper switcher and weatherbug, and telling them "It's spyware" left them completely unfazed. Finally, I just said, "It infects your computer with a virus," and they understood: This involved "hackers" doing bad things to their computers, and they had been careless to install it.
There are a lot of different things to do at various levels to lessen these problems, but, as Murphy's law dictates, relying on the good-judgment of your users is never going to work. If someone can screw things up, they will, and "education" won't fix that.
If mathematical proofs were "nothing but a manner of convincing someone", how could it be verifiable by a computer?
First, I think that was the point, that a proof really couldn't be "verified" by a computer because the nature of a proof is that it's proving something to humans.
Second, computers are a mechanical (in the sense that electronics are still mechanical) means to executing "mathematical calculations" as have already been formulated, derived, and proven by human minds. The math that computers perform is math as we know it, not in the absolute sense, because that's how they were designed by us. Therefore, they should be able to "verify" that a formula is manipulated in ways that humans have programmed it to accept.
In other words, computers perform mathematical calculation as they've been programmed to, but they cannot verify the validity of executing those calculations.
Right... Having computers formulate a verify mathematical proofs that people can't understand is a little like having computers compose and then listen to music that people can't hear. What's the point?
Not really, more like it's posited, stipulated, accepted, and intuitively known. Or... do you have a proof? Do you have a proof for 1=1? In a sense, such proofs are possible, but a far bit more complex than you'd think.
Sure, because preserving very old and beautiful art from decay is stupid, but, by god, I must have Pi to the 5 millionth digit. 4,999,999 digits are not enough!
Which, many believe, is exactly the conspiracy that IT pushes on management. Bad computers justify their very jobs.
Being in IT, I'll tell you that I have my doubts that it's much of a conspiracy (though it may be in some companies). Most of the time, the biggest reason why IT managers are hesitant to use Macs is that they aren't familiar with them. Most IT pros I've known have been using/fixing Windows for years, but have barely touched a Macintosh since the late 80's. There are armies of MCSEs, but not really a lot of Mac techs (outside of areas which specialize in media/design). Basically, it's an issue of going with the devil you know rather than the devil you don't.
In addition to that, it's the fact that there's already an existing Windows infrastructure in their business, and in IT, uniformity=easy. IT managers want all their computers to be identical hardware running identical images, if possible. Throwing a few Macs into the mix has the appearance of an oncoming headache. The fact of an implied cost of all-new software doesn't help, and if they have any home-grown or custom-build software, it will have to be re-created.
So, I guess what I'm getting at is that much of the Microsoft dominance in the business world is the result of inertia as much as anything.
Comparing the version numbering schemes between Windows and MacOS is down right silly.
Right. First of all, because numbering schemes are fairly arbitrary. Apple could call Tiger "OS 11" (or XI?) and it wouldn't change what it was. They could call it "Mac OS 935 XL edition" and it wouldn't be more worth-the-money.
Still, every time Apple releases a new version of their OS, somebody has to say, "What?! You're paying $130 for a 0.1 release?!"
Inevitably, someone needs to explain how Apple's version numbering scheme works, that +0.1 releases aren't security patches or service packs. The difference between 10.0 and 10.4 IS NOT like the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows 2000 SP4. If you absolutely had to compare, you'd have to say it's more like the difference between the original Windows NT and Longhorn.
So, I've posted this explanation many times before, but Apple's numbering scheme goes something like: [code-base].[operating system].[service-pack]
Until they change kernels and break compatibility, the OS will remain OSX (10.x.x). So if we were to put Windows NT in this scheme, and let's say Windows NT 3.1 was Windows 3.0.0.... Then Windows 2000 would be Windows 3.1.0, Windows XP would be 3.2.0, the most up-to-date version would be 3.2.2, and 3.3.0 would be the version number of Longhorn.
I think his overall point is still stands though-- these days, most Mac people buying Macintoshes are either long-time Apple users (who tend to follow Apple's moves fairly closely) or computer-geek-types who are [at least] moderately knowledgable. The computer-illiterates and know-nothings (the sort who wouldn't pay any attention to OS upgrades) think of Windows as the default, and so that's what they buy and that's what they use. Or at least that's a harsh but semi-accurate generalization.
To put it bluntly, you don't know what you're talking about. As a software developer, I know firsthand that Microsoft is trying to get application developers to stop writing programs that require the users to be Admin level.
To put it bluntly, I do know what I'm talking about. As an IT professional, I know first hand that a default install of Windows will leave users running a local user account with administrative privileges. In addition, there are lots of programs on Windows (and Windows is the only platform that I can think of that has this problem) that require administrator accounts to run, hence I say Microsoft is "failing to discourage developers from requiring administrator access to run simple applications". In fact, Even Microsoft's own applications have had a long history of requiring admin rights (including some current apps), and I've actually run into a particular problem with some recent.Net apps.
As a software developer, you might be convinced that those apps you develop have no problems because they're written in.Net, but talk to the IT guy who supports your apps before you go bragging that there aren't any problems.
The "Designed for XP" label requires the ability to run as a lower privileged user. I don't know how much more MS can really do to enforce it.
For one thing, they could make the default setup routine set up an administrator account, then immediately set up an additional account (which they already do), and make the second account NOT an administrator (which they don't do). This would mean that users were running as non-admin by default. Most users don't change the default. That means that software that doesn't allow a "user" to run it wouldn't work on most systems, would be perceived as "broken", and that'd motivate developers to work this stuff out.
Look at OSX. Yes, by default, the users are "administrators", sure, but that essentially means they just have sudo access. They aren't root. OSX has all sorts of apps and games that don't require root access, and it works. Why? Because Apple isn't stupid enough to make the default setup for users to run as root.
I remember Redhat, back around 7.0 I think, when you tried to run X-Windows as root, it gave a pop-up warning that said "You don't really want to do this. Don't do this again" and the background was bright red. You couldn't even change the background through the normal means, because they really wanted you to notice what was going on. Many Linux distros are set up so the XDM won't allow a root login. Ubuntu even disables the root account (gives it a random password by default) so that you have to use sudo for everything.
What I'm saying is, there's plenty more things they could do. There are obvious things that every other operating system does.
You're absolutely right, they shouldn't be. But they are, a great many of them, because unfortunately many 3rd-party apps, especially games, require admin rights to run properly -- and who wants to exit and login as a different user every time they want to play a game? (Which in itself is a separate rant.)
With so many users running with admin rights, it'll be a no-brainer to compromise this particular setup.
I guess that, when Microsoft talks about their future plans for "improving security", I assume that the first assumed step is to rectify that particular problem. Perhaps I'm naive to attribute even this small measure of care and competence to Microsoft's developers. However, any other security steps are pointless until this issue is rectified. Frankly, it's obscene that Windows has been encouraging users to run as admin for so long, and failing to discourage developers from requiring administrator access to run simple applications. It's pointless and it's stupid.
All that sort of data should be kept in a standard place anyway. Scattering it about the hard drive only means that users need higher access levels to more directories, which INCREASES the damage a virus is able to do (assuming users aren't running as admin, which they shouldn't be, and assuming a virus isn't exploiting a security hole to elevate its privileges, which there isn't much you can do to prevent it from wreaking whatever havoc it wants at that point).
Very insightful post. I think part of what turns people off about a centralized server, however, is the possibility of snooping by the very people running the server. Also, whenever you talk about storing data on a remote server, there's the question of the up-time of that server (which is something users don't have control of themselves.
On the other side, data stored in a centralized server is more readily accessible anyway. Also, data-redundancy and backups are usually more cost/time efficient when done on a large scale.
So again, there are trade-offs between the two methods.
You know what, I actually really like the idea. Maybe it shouldn't be too simple, but in theory, all user data SHOULD be kept in the user's profile. I hate when some application developer doesn't follow this, but it really should be kept there, and every user should have full access to their own profile anyway.
So, if you had some user-friendly (but clearly labeled, and with warning messages) option to "secure delete" user profiles, it seems like it would be a nice security measure. It's not technically difficult, and not anything a virus/trojan couldn't do on it's own, and if all user data really is being stored in the user profile, it's not complicated.
Well, what happens if we remove everything from your list that either A) almost no one uses, B) is available in Windows 2000, or C) consists in moving around menus and controls? Ok, you got me on better font antialiasing, nicer icons, new theme, fast-user switching, and faster booting. And of those, only fast-user switching is an added feature, the rest are small qualitative upgrades.
Ok, to be fair, I'll throw in the Movie Maker. I've never met anyone who uses it, but it is an actual extra feature. Maybe even CD burning, since it's hard to find a good freeware CD burner in Windows, but still, it's not as though you couldn't burn CDs in Windows 2000. Microsoft just bundled some CD capabilities, and not even enough. Really, are you considering these substantial upgrades? They all seem cosmetic to me, nothing a person can't live without.
But all the system restore, file protection, firewall stuff from MS is pretty much junk. If you really want some of that stuff, you'd better get it from a 3rd party.
XP is as different from 2000 as 10.2 was from 10.1.
Honestly, I find that a little hard to compare. The meaningful improvements (I thought) between 10.1 and 10.2 were much more under-the-hood, but not so much in features and interface, whereas the difference between 2000 and XP seems to be the opposite-- the under-the-hood is very similar, but the changes were mostly cosmetic. So which is more "different", I don't know. I can tell you, however, which was more worthwhile for my computing needs...
Yes, Microsoft fully expects you to pay for XP, but most sane people will not actually upgrade to XP from 2000...Seeing people getting all excited at the thought of buying yet another yearly remake of the same OS is, well, a bit strange.
I understand what you're saying, but a few points:
There were a lot of people who excitedly went out and purchased (or illegally downloaded) an upgrade from Windows 2000 to Windows XP.
There will be a lot of people who will stick with Panther after Tiger is released. There are a lot of people still running Jaguar at present.
If there were as many substantial improvements between Windows 200 and Windows XP as are slated to be in Tiger, many more people would probably rush out and purchase it. As it is, Windows XP pretty much is Windows 2000 with a slightly uglier skin on the GUI.
Well, part of the reason each were called "dark" is because they were mysterious. "Dark matter" because there were measurable effects where no matter could be detected, and therefore it was presumed that there must be undetectable matter causing the effects. "Dark Energy" came later to explain measurable effects where no force could be discerned, and so it was presumed that there must be an unknown force causing the effects.
Theories about what "dark matter" and "dark energy" were came later.
For instance, I had a friend who used to sell sponsorship to big golf tournaments. Companies would pay huge somes of money, and there was plenty of data around that there was a lousy ROI. They kept doing it because they wanted the perks - the premium positions & champagne, etc. He said in his few years, only saw one company actually utilise their investment well by tying it in with other promotions.
I'm not arguing against your general idea, but this doesn't seem like a great comparison. The reason I say this is that it doesn't seem like these companies failed to measure success properly. You probably had some execs who just didn't give a crap whether their company did well, so long as they, personally, got their perks. But where are the perks of spamming?
The design posted says a watch with bluetooth, and the picture shows a color screen. The convenient interface with the computer, I'd assume that'd be a given, and the price tag under $500 because that's about the most I'd consider paying for it.
So if we take you example of using the iPod shuffle, then you take a device the size of a shuffle, add a screen and bluetooth, and you have a device too big to be worn comfortably as a watch. The shuffle already is too big to be worn as a watch.
Sure, we'll get there. Give it a few years, and everything will shrink. Still, I'd say neither the idea of an iPod in a watch nor the proposed design is particularly spectacular. The innovation here would be in the engineering that allowed you to fit all that in a small watch.
Slashdot Mirror
If it's so simple, go ahead and come up with a proof now. Or has your understanding diminished since the 1st grade?
Why can't I say, "!= is an equivalence relation which is, by definition, reflexive, and therefore 1!=1"? Because, conventionally, that's not what the != symbol is "defined" as, is it? So is convention a "proof"?
Or did you consider that I wasn't asking about the conventional use of the "=" symbol?
If only it were that simple. Not only do most people "not give a shit", but I don't think they're going to, and I'm not even sure they should "give a shit". I mean, if everyone had to learn as much as I do about computers (and I'm no genius) before they used them, then I say we pack these things up and send them back, because they aren't ready for general use. Really, I think there just has to be a middle ground, educate users some, computers need to get better and more fool-proof, and geeks need to stop insisting that everyone know everything, and focus on telling people what they NEED to know.
Honestly, I think part of the problem comes from the similarity between a television and a computer monitor. People think that using a computer will be as easy and mindless as watching TV, and I think the first thing users need to learn is IT'S NOT. It's not going to be, and it shouldn't be, because a PC is a more complicated and powerful system. Computers are tools, so rather than a TV, I like to compare computers to chain-saws. It's a tool that needs to be taken care of and maintained, and you need to learn some basic things before you use it, or else it will be dangerous.
Also, I do think the terminology needs to be simplified. For example, I've gotten in the habit of calling all spyware/trojans/worms/whatever-- I call them "viruses". People know what a computer virus is.... Well, that's not true, people know that when you say "computer virus", it means that there's something wrong with their computer that was caused by a combination of some "hacker" being malicious as well as some user being careless. At least many users have some notion similar to that.
So anyway, I do feel a little dirty using the word "virus" as a catch-all, but users don't really understand the difference between viruses and trojans and worms. Even spyware, I found most computer users couldn't really understand what was wrong with installing their spyware-infested cursors. They liked their cursors and their wallpaper switcher and weatherbug, and telling them "It's spyware" left them completely unfazed. Finally, I just said, "It infects your computer with a virus," and they understood: This involved "hackers" doing bad things to their computers, and they had been careless to install it.
There are a lot of different things to do at various levels to lessen these problems, but, as Murphy's law dictates, relying on the good-judgment of your users is never going to work. If someone can screw things up, they will, and "education" won't fix that.
First, I think that was the point, that a proof really couldn't be "verified" by a computer because the nature of a proof is that it's proving something to humans.
Second, computers are a mechanical (in the sense that electronics are still mechanical) means to executing "mathematical calculations" as have already been formulated, derived, and proven by human minds. The math that computers perform is math as we know it, not in the absolute sense, because that's how they were designed by us. Therefore, they should be able to "verify" that a formula is manipulated in ways that humans have programmed it to accept.
In other words, computers perform mathematical calculation as they've been programmed to, but they cannot verify the validity of executing those calculations.
Right... Having computers formulate a verify mathematical proofs that people can't understand is a little like having computers compose and then listen to music that people can't hear. What's the point?
Not really, more like it's posited, stipulated, accepted, and intuitively known. Or... do you have a proof? Do you have a proof for 1=1? In a sense, such proofs are possible, but a far bit more complex than you'd think.
Nice pictures.
Sure, because preserving very old and beautiful art from decay is stupid, but, by god, I must have Pi to the 5 millionth digit. 4,999,999 digits are not enough!
Lisa: (after reading "C:\DOS\RUN" joke) Ha! Only one person in a million would find that funny.
Frink: Yes, we call that the Dennis Miller ratio.
Being in IT, I'll tell you that I have my doubts that it's much of a conspiracy (though it may be in some companies). Most of the time, the biggest reason why IT managers are hesitant to use Macs is that they aren't familiar with them. Most IT pros I've known have been using/fixing Windows for years, but have barely touched a Macintosh since the late 80's. There are armies of MCSEs, but not really a lot of Mac techs (outside of areas which specialize in media/design). Basically, it's an issue of going with the devil you know rather than the devil you don't.
In addition to that, it's the fact that there's already an existing Windows infrastructure in their business, and in IT, uniformity=easy. IT managers want all their computers to be identical hardware running identical images, if possible. Throwing a few Macs into the mix has the appearance of an oncoming headache. The fact of an implied cost of all-new software doesn't help, and if they have any home-grown or custom-build software, it will have to be re-created.
So, I guess what I'm getting at is that much of the Microsoft dominance in the business world is the result of inertia as much as anything.
Right. First of all, because numbering schemes are fairly arbitrary. Apple could call Tiger "OS 11" (or XI?) and it wouldn't change what it was. They could call it "Mac OS 935 XL edition" and it wouldn't be more worth-the-money.
Still, every time Apple releases a new version of their OS, somebody has to say, "What?! You're paying $130 for a 0.1 release?!"
Inevitably, someone needs to explain how Apple's version numbering scheme works, that +0.1 releases aren't security patches or service packs. The difference between 10.0 and 10.4 IS NOT like the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows 2000 SP4. If you absolutely had to compare, you'd have to say it's more like the difference between the original Windows NT and Longhorn.
So, I've posted this explanation many times before, but Apple's numbering scheme goes something like: [code-base].[operating system].[service-pack]
Until they change kernels and break compatibility, the OS will remain OSX (10.x.x). So if we were to put Windows NT in this scheme, and let's say Windows NT 3.1 was Windows 3.0.0.... Then Windows 2000 would be Windows 3.1.0, Windows XP would be 3.2.0, the most up-to-date version would be 3.2.2, and 3.3.0 would be the version number of Longhorn.
I think his overall point is still stands though-- these days, most Mac people buying Macintoshes are either long-time Apple users (who tend to follow Apple's moves fairly closely) or computer-geek-types who are [at least] moderately knowledgable. The computer-illiterates and know-nothings (the sort who wouldn't pay any attention to OS upgrades) think of Windows as the default, and so that's what they buy and that's what they use. Or at least that's a harsh but semi-accurate generalization.
To put it bluntly, I do know what I'm talking about. As an IT professional, I know first hand that a default install of Windows will leave users running a local user account with administrative privileges. In addition, there are lots of programs on Windows (and Windows is the only platform that I can think of that has this problem) that require administrator accounts to run, hence I say Microsoft is "failing to discourage developers from requiring administrator access to run simple applications". In fact, Even Microsoft's own applications have had a long history of requiring admin rights (including some current apps), and I've actually run into a particular problem with some recent .Net apps.
As a software developer, you might be convinced that those apps you develop have no problems because they're written in .Net, but talk to the IT guy who supports your apps before you go bragging that there aren't any problems.
For one thing, they could make the default setup routine set up an administrator account, then immediately set up an additional account (which they already do), and make the second account NOT an administrator (which they don't do). This would mean that users were running as non-admin by default. Most users don't change the default. That means that software that doesn't allow a "user" to run it wouldn't work on most systems, would be perceived as "broken", and that'd motivate developers to work this stuff out.
Look at OSX. Yes, by default, the users are "administrators", sure, but that essentially means they just have sudo access. They aren't root. OSX has all sorts of apps and games that don't require root access, and it works. Why? Because Apple isn't stupid enough to make the default setup for users to run as root.
I remember Redhat, back around 7.0 I think, when you tried to run X-Windows as root, it gave a pop-up warning that said "You don't really want to do this. Don't do this again" and the background was bright red. You couldn't even change the background through the normal means, because they really wanted you to notice what was going on. Many Linux distros are set up so the XDM won't allow a root login. Ubuntu even disables the root account (gives it a random password by default) so that you have to use sudo for everything.
What I'm saying is, there's plenty more things they could do. There are obvious things that every other operating system does.
With so many users running with admin rights, it'll be a no-brainer to compromise this particular setup.
I guess that, when Microsoft talks about their future plans for "improving security", I assume that the first assumed step is to rectify that particular problem. Perhaps I'm naive to attribute even this small measure of care and competence to Microsoft's developers. However, any other security steps are pointless until this issue is rectified. Frankly, it's obscene that Windows has been encouraging users to run as admin for so long, and failing to discourage developers from requiring administrator access to run simple applications. It's pointless and it's stupid.
All that sort of data should be kept in a standard place anyway. Scattering it about the hard drive only means that users need higher access levels to more directories, which INCREASES the damage a virus is able to do (assuming users aren't running as admin, which they shouldn't be, and assuming a virus isn't exploiting a security hole to elevate its privileges, which there isn't much you can do to prevent it from wreaking whatever havoc it wants at that point).
On the other side, data stored in a centralized server is more readily accessible anyway. Also, data-redundancy and backups are usually more cost/time efficient when done on a large scale.
So again, there are trade-offs between the two methods.
So, if you had some user-friendly (but clearly labeled, and with warning messages) option to "secure delete" user profiles, it seems like it would be a nice security measure. It's not technically difficult, and not anything a virus/trojan couldn't do on it's own, and if all user data really is being stored in the user profile, it's not complicated.
Ok, to be fair, I'll throw in the Movie Maker. I've never met anyone who uses it, but it is an actual extra feature. Maybe even CD burning, since it's hard to find a good freeware CD burner in Windows, but still, it's not as though you couldn't burn CDs in Windows 2000. Microsoft just bundled some CD capabilities, and not even enough. Really, are you considering these substantial upgrades? They all seem cosmetic to me, nothing a person can't live without.
But all the system restore, file protection, firewall stuff from MS is pretty much junk. If you really want some of that stuff, you'd better get it from a 3rd party.
XP is as different from 2000 as 10.2 was from 10.1.
Honestly, I find that a little hard to compare. The meaningful improvements (I thought) between 10.1 and 10.2 were much more under-the-hood, but not so much in features and interface, whereas the difference between 2000 and XP seems to be the opposite-- the under-the-hood is very similar, but the changes were mostly cosmetic. So which is more "different", I don't know. I can tell you, however, which was more worthwhile for my computing needs...
I understand what you're saying, but a few points:
Theories about what "dark matter" and "dark energy" were came later.
Well silly me for trying to make my post on-topic.
I'm not arguing against your general idea, but this doesn't seem like a great comparison. The reason I say this is that it doesn't seem like these companies failed to measure success properly. You probably had some execs who just didn't give a crap whether their company did well, so long as they, personally, got their perks. But where are the perks of spamming?
So if we take you example of using the iPod shuffle, then you take a device the size of a shuffle, add a screen and bluetooth, and you have a device too big to be worn comfortably as a watch. The shuffle already is too big to be worn as a watch.
Sure, we'll get there. Give it a few years, and everything will shrink. Still, I'd say neither the idea of an iPod in a watch nor the proposed design is particularly spectacular. The innovation here would be in the engineering that allowed you to fit all that in a small watch.
Most of the accessories aren't produced by Apple. So you might want to complain about Belkin instead.