Why does MS and Apple put huge amounts of money into developing browsers when Firefox exists?
It makes both of them money indirectly. In MS's case they have the majority of the market through bundling and as such it gives them a huge amount of power. They have used that power by refusing to support newer technologies and keeping the internet a weak and outdated format. This makes the Web not a viable alternative to Windows and prevents customers from being able to migrate away from Windows... where MS makes pretty much all their money. With Apple, they just need to include a Web browser for OS X and Firefox is not well designed for OS X. Apple could have stepped in and contributed to Firefox to improve it, but it was easier to start with the KHTML project, which was cleaner. Anyone who has used both Firefox and Safari on OS X can easily tell you the ways in which Safari better supports the native features of OS X and makes OS X a better value proposition as a result.
For both companies they have good, financial incentive to do what they do.
Why bother with another web browser that is not really a viable alternative to IE 7.0 and the upcoming Firefox 3.0?
Safari is a viable alternative, at least according to most all of the reviews of it, such as Arstechnica. Personally, I prefer Firefox on Windows, but I do miss some of the nice features that Safari has, but others have not caught up on. For example, I just resized the text box I'm typing this in to be large enough so I don't have to scroll. I regularly miss that when I'm on Windows or Linux.
When Safari for OS X was developed, this particular functionality may have been handled by OS X so the developers did not add redundant code in Safari.
I believe this is correct.
For Windows, it may be different.
I believe Windows Vista does handle this, but from what I understand Safari fails to flag the files properly for the OS and the default is not to check downloaded files.
Relying on the user is the path to doom. Sure, it's the user's fault when he/she does something like this but it's still *bad*.
I disagree. I've never run into the problem where the file it downloaded was not one I wanted it to download, and it is awfully convenient for it to start the download right away. As for relying on the user, whether they're doing that before the download (as Firefox does) or at run time (as Safari does) is not really much of a difference. Either way the user has to decide if they want to run the file from that Web page and in both cases they are informed that the file is downloaded and where it is placed.
hen some user clicks on it and not knows what it is (or even giving the files an enticing name like 'latest-WoW-trailer-from-next-expansion-great-video'?
This is also not usually much of an issue, since OS X informs the user when they run an application, not when they open data. Users are not accustomed to a warning and the OS telling them it is an application, when it is really data.
Relying on the user to understand what is going on without giving them good choices, reasonable defaults, and clear information is what leads to compromises. Apple could be doing better in this situation by limiting the number of auto-downloads by default, adding an option to ask before they download (they entered this as a feature request), and better distinguishing archive files from applications and applications from data within the Finder. That said, the current setup is fairly secure and unlikely to result in compromises.
Well said. It's pretty hard to imagine how silently downloading a program in the background is a "convenience".
This is a straw man. No one said anything about "silently." It downloads the file to your downloads folder (or desktop on Windows) and at the same time opens the downloads window to show you the download is happening and give you the option to cancel it.
This is a bug that Apple should fix, but overstating the issue is just adding confusion and misinformation and helps no one.
That's all this is about? Safari downloads some things instead of displaying them? Is that even a security bug?
According to Apple, no it isn't. According to the rest of us, probably.
If my browser doesn't know how to display it, I think I'd rather it didn't try. Trying seems like it might be even more dangerous. Am I wrong?
That comment is irrelevant. The problem is not that it downloads stuff it doesn't know how to handle, but that it does it automatically and without limit. So it does not ask you and it does not stop at one file or five files, but will load however many automatic downloads the Web page developer included.
I think a lot of people would like the option for it to ask before downloading the file (and Apple entered that as a feature request according to TFA). I think you'd have a hard time arguing that not downloading more than five files automatically from a given page is a reasonable default.
Just to clarify the cause effect relationship, that is not clear enough for me in the parent.
KHTML, that is Konqueror's core, is open source, free software, and easily reusable.
That's why Apple forked the project and uses it as a part of Safari.
Just to clarify your clarification. Apple forked KHTML, which was developed by the Konquerer team, and named their fork WebKit, which is also free and open source. Since then, the developers of KHTML have decided to abandon KHTML in favor of WebKit themselves and are integrating WebKit into Konquerer. So Safari and Konqueror's rendering engine is named 'WebKit' not 'KHTML'.
RTFA. Apple is fixing security issues. They don't consider this to be one, but they did file it as a feature request as a way to prevent being annoyed by this type of thing. In fact, the discoverer praised Apple on their responsiveness to his bug reports, both security related and otherwise.
Lately, it seems to tag executables that have been downloaded and warns you about it when you try to run them.
Apparently, Safari does not have this mechanism, so users might assume it's a valid local icon.
OS X warns you the first time you attempt to run an executable from the internet and gives you the option of not doing so. It makes it pretty hard to accidentally run malware and unlike on Windows, users don't generally have to click a lot of these so they tend to pay more attention. It certainly is not ideal, but you are misguided in thinking OS X does not have such a feature.
By your argument the law should also go after the shareholders, as they are the ultimate profit takers from the illegal activity. Does this extend to your, and mine, 401Ks? Trust me, no one is clean and we invest in them.
Of course we do. No one investigates the actions of the companies in their 401K mutual finds. We do, however, tend to have people managing those funds for us and deciding which companies they should invest in. As such, if a company has a history of breaking the law, we should expect that company to have it's charter revoked. That means the stock tanks. That means the investment fails. And that means illegal activity makes a stock more risky and effects the value to shareholders, giving companies direct incentive to not engage in illegal activity.
I'm not suggesting it would be practical to fix our broken system and make people actually be responsible investigate and participate in the actions of companies they are shareholders of. I'm not convinced that would be a net benefit. Nobody would stand for a law that sends you to jail for the contents of your 401K. That doesn't mean it isn't of benefit to society for your 401K portfolio to take a hit if one of the companies engages in criminal actions and their charter is limited or revoked as a result.
Should we not rather see those who abuse our trust go down for the actions, and they would be the decision makers, not the minions.
That is insufficient. If those who profit are not the decision makers, they can still continue as they have been and provide others with the incentive to break the law. It happens every day and punishing the executive who took a risk he wouldn't get caught has done nothing to stop because the shareholders and board don't care. They don't look at if a decision maker is doing illegal things, only at the return on their investment and if criminal actions give them more return, they'll keep hiring people until they find someone who will deliver. There is currently no incentive for the to stop, so they haven't and all of society is suffering for it.
I think what Teilo is saying is that it isn't Ford who are liable, but the Exec(s)/Managers who are aware and try to cover up. For instance, why screw the folks in the factories and take awat their jobs because the "VP of Product Safety" decided that the number of exploding fuel lines was too small to worry about and promptly ignored it. The law needs to go after VP.
Actually, I think the law needs to go after both the executives and the company. You see, the corporation is (or may be) profiting by the illegal acts. If you only punish the employee, nothing stops them from continually hiring people they know or have reason to believe will break the law in the same way. It matters nothing to them if a succession of their employees go to jail, and in many cases they do. Unless it hurts the shareholders and the board, it doesn't matter to the corporation.
The whole point of corporations is to divorce shareholders who are profiting by a corporation's acts, from legal responsibility for those acts. In some ways, this is good for creating a good environment for investment, but it results in exactly the kind of recurring illegal action that is so common in corporate America.
The wii controller is not designed for arcade-style fighting games.
I actually think you're mistaken. The Wii controller is not designed the same as the last generation of controller. People said the same thing when Nintendo first came out with the pad style controller, arguing that joysticks were needed to play (arcade style) games.
The problem is not that the Wii controller can't be used to play fighting games, but that fighting games designed to work with the old style of controller, including what the PS3 and XBox360 use will not play on the Wii without work. Of course they're also releasing this for Windows, so there has to be some flexibility for the UI.
Realistically, I think game companies are now trying to choose between targeting the "old" gaming market that is used to the old devices and targeting the Wii market which not only has a different input device, but also has a market more interested in interfaces for the casual gamer. It always takes a lot of work for companies to adapt to new technologies and I think a lot of companies like Capcom may not be agile enough to keep up. I suspect there will be a few old companies and a few new ones that manage to appropriately target the Wii and its new market. These will provide the blockbuster Wii games and rake in the cash, whereas even if Capcom were to make a port of Street Fighter IV for the Wii, it would not be a big hit. It would still be a port, hacked to work on the Wii and with gameplay designed and tested for a different kind of gamer and a different input device.
A few years down the road, once some other companies have pioneered gameplay methodologies and established familiar control schemes that are fun on the Wii, for more casual gamers Capcom will probably have a dedicated Wii division that adapts their franchises for the Wii or writes games specifically for it.
I'd say this summary and even the title of the linked article are a bit misleading. From the text of the article:
Capcom... but has stopped short of committing to a Wii version or confirming the game's release date.
So they haven't promised a version for the Wii or given a date. They're probably still deciding how hard it will be to make a version for the Wii (graphics limitations) and if they can make the UI good enough that Wii fans will actually buy it for the Wii instead of something with a UI that takes advantage of the Wii's input devices. Maybe they will or maybe they won't but if they do it will probably be later than other platforms.
I don't really think Capcom is stupid enough to ignore the Wii. The potential market is huge, so if they aren't getting paid to ignore it, they're just throwing away cash. I think Capcom is like a lot of entrenched video game companies. They were not counting on the Wii to be such a huge success and are still in the process of trying to reverse course and capitalize upon it with games for that interface and for the huge casual gaming market it has potentially opened up.
Apple and Microsoft are both companies which specialize in marketing, ie understanding the needs of their target customers and tailoring their solutions towards them...
Umm, what an odd definition for marketing.
Apple's positioning as an edgy, flashy brand allows it to experiment more with its user interface...
Actually, Apple is not much for deprecating UI features. Rather, they just add new features on top of what they already have; unless they are creating a new device.
...while Microsoft's positioning as lowest common denominator means that introducing new interfaces that are not market-tested will alienate its target base
Microsoft is a monopolist and they've built in dozens of lock-in technologies to make it hard for people to move away from their OS. They can do pretty much anything and people will still have to buy it. Their main issue is getting people to switch from older versions of their OS adopting more lock-in technologies at the same time (and spurring extra profit).
(which still expects to be able to run programs from the DOS era on brand-new systems)
I don't see any technical reason they can't. A DOS emulator is easy to include. In fact, one of MS's biggest problems is in their failure to remain backwards compatible. I know one large company that has passed on upgrading to Vista 3 times now because they use a couple of pieces of software in conjunction and one piece (from Adobe) won't run the version they need on Vista and another piece only works with that version. In fact, it is one of the reasons I don't use Vista on my desktop, because I need to be able to interoperate with that company. This is software that was the most current version in 2005, a lot newer than some ancient DOS program.
Interface innovations are usually produced in university labs or some of the few private labs...
I'd say interface improvements are often first implemented in labs, often using hardware well beyond what is available to normal users. Then industry players look at ways to adopt those technologies and refine them so they are actually usable to normal people. Anyone can think up an interface or try to create something from an old sci-fi novel. It is making it really work in an overall experience that is pleasing to the end user that Apple is rightly famed for. Their HCI people are some of the best in the industry.
Then slow-moving "stability" oriented companies like Microsoft can slowly bring the innovation into their products as well.
MS releases new products too. Compare the amount of "innovation" in the interfaces of the iPod or iPhone to the interfaces of the xBox and Zune. There is a real difference that has nothing to do with one company trying to be more stable or backwards compatible, but rather reflects the expertise (both in house and contract) that the companies apply when making products. MS is slow to innovate UIs, even new ones, but they're pretty slow to innovate in general. It is a cultureal thing, I believe.
The vast majority of people aren't going to be using touch screens... this is just for show. There's a reason this doesn't already exist in OS X.
People don't use touch screens because they have been fairly expensive for laptops, and not all that useful for desktops. Touch screens are, however, coming to the mainstream. I suspect they will be augmenting instead of replacing current input methods and mostly used by tablets and laptops in tablet mode. I expect both Windows and OS X will be making more use of these features.
Still, you have point. Most people don't want to fire up a dedicated interface in order to use a mapping program or a photo manager. Rather, these will likely see use for "widgets" that can be brought up and dismissed quickly and for games and other special purpose interfaces. Sure your photo manager will soon support using two fingers to expand an image, but who will want to do that instead of using one hand and a mouse? I actually see more application for gestures on the trackpad where you already have your fingers there and so can quickly activate a manipulation of the currently selected item/window.
With the Linux desktop, whichever variety you choose, there remains large technological advancements before it is usable by the general public. With Windows, it works, and has been working for over ten years for the majority of people.
I disagree with this. For the most part the problems preventing Linux from being usable to everyone as a desktop are not technological ones. Lack of application compatibility and lack of hardware drivers are the two main issues and both are the result of the state of the industry. Were Linux and Windows switched market share tomorrow (by an act of Allah) in a year or two people would be complaining that Windows is not ready for the desktop because application developers, hardware manufacturers, and computer OEMs were targeting Linux. This is not to say, they are not real problems, only that they are no more a technological fault of Linux that they are of Windows.
Vista has improved many small things that always ticked me off with XP.
I agree Vista does include numerous small improvements and features; but I'd also argue it includes anti-features as well, designed to benefit MS or their partners at the expense of the end user (more draconian DRM for example). I'd also argue that it is MS's monopoly on desktop OS's that is the reason why there is so little advancement in the field. Traditionally, one of the main problems with monopolies is that they retard innovation in that market because the monopolist has little incentive to put time and money into improvements because customers are going to buy whatever they make anyway. Other companies are likewise discouraged from investing in innovation in the market because the monopoly power means it will cost more for less return and with more risk than a healthy market. Face it, there is plenty of room for improvement of OS's. Hell, Vista still doesn't even have a spell checker that works in all my applications and uses the same dictionary, let alone other universal services. It's been what, ten years since the first OS with that feature was shipped (then killed).
Speed-wise, SP1 made everything more responsive and quicker, and switching between windows seems a lot better than on XP. And we all know that hardly anyone installed XP on old computers -- preferring at the time their old Windows 2000, but eventually XP won people over as they upgraded.
Most people don't have a clue what an OS even is. People were never "won over" by XP, so much as it became ubiquitous because it was pre-installed on every home computer and eventually it was needed in business as well (despite the speed problems) for application compatibility. The drawback of speed didn't go away, but was made less important as the hardware people were running gradually was replaced with faster gear. Doubtless the same thing will happen with Vista.
But, like another poster referenced, you likely wouldn't spend money on an os anyways. A few hundred bucks spread out over many years for something that I spend hours with daily, and makes things go easier IS worth my hard-earned money, and the frustrations saved over XP are worth it because I value my time.
I'm a professional in the computer industry and I have no problem shelling out cash for an OS. In fact, I've shelled out cash for WinXP, Vista, and OS X. Additionally I make use of Ubuntu and Solaris on the desktop and numerous other OS's for server use. That said, I do not yet recommend Vista for corporate use and don't use it as my main, Windows desktop because of numerous issues of which performance is only one. I expect within the next year those issues will mostly be resolved, but truthfully, I expected the same thing a year ago and it hasn't quite happened yet. Application compatibility is better, but still not good enough for me to do my daily work on it.
Which further supports my claim that the phrase is meaningless. It's an exploit with no 'patch' as of yet. Aren't all (working) exploits unpatched ?
It refers to exploits where no patch is yet available. Your attempt to redefine it, again, to make it meaningless is not helpful. Most incidents where an exploit is successful are effecting machines that simply have not applied an available patch. These mostly hit home users using software that does not auto-update.
The term "zero day" is useful because it differentiates exploits where there is no available patch, which are of particular concern to security minded people, especially administrators. Zero day exploits are the ones where they have to do something other than test and install an update, or make sure it is already up to date. In the case of a zero day, they have to look for work-arounds, potentially disabling a service, or sending out a memo to users to tell them not to do something they might normally do. Because of this, the term "zero day" is a very, very useful term for security people and seeing it normally means it is a potentially serious issue they must address.
The problem is that the media saw the term, noticed people were attentive to it, and started using it as a synonym for "bad." Likewise, the unwashed masses have started to use it the same way, having seen the term in the media.
Face it, the phrase is empty. For the love of Dog, please stop using it, it's driving me insane !!!!
The phrase is very useful for discussion among people who know what they're talking about. So for the love of Buddha, please stop misusing it, stop misinforming people about it, and why don't you stop misusing it yourself. Not all of us want our vocabularies dumbed down to the subset understandable by the least common denominator of society, nor do we want to have to use less precise language just because laypeople misuse a term.
Well take my example of Digital Cameras. http://www.dpreview.com/ [dpreview.com] is much more informed and not biased at all and very professional.
How do you know it is not biased? They're being paid by the companies they are reviewing. So how do you know they don't nix the most critical reviews? Do they take donated cameras? Are those cameras the same as normal people buy, or cherry picked by the companies donating them?
The point is no one place reviews all these things because to do so is madness.
There are several things useful for review sites. Expertise is one, and maybe one where CR is not top of their game. Another is credibility, where CR is at the top of their game. With other sites, you just don't know for the most part if they are honest or will remain that way. A third is testing methodology. Do they know how to acquire and test batches of goods for reliability?
Still individual publications out write CR in every field they cover. This is because they specialize which is a good thing.
Most individual publications are horribly biased either by intention or because of the realities of the industry. The only practical way around that is to move away from advertising as in income stream and move to subscriptions. Very few people want to pay a subscription for just reviews on one type of product, because it is inconvenient even if it is not too costly.
If they run ads or even take donated gear, I don't trust them. This opinion has proved to be the correct one again and again as magazine after magazine has been exposed as changing content to suit the people paying them, and that isn't the reader. For sites where consumers post reviews, the situation is just as bad. Reviews can be removed at the behest of advertisers. Reviews can be paid astroturfing. Reviews can be biased by consumers trying to justify their purchase or angry because they had a bad experience that may not be reflective of the general case. Seriously, paid subscriptions are the only model that does not have a huge probability of intentional or unintentional misinformation.
They do still sell advertising space so that's a conflict of interest.
They do? Where? There are no ads accompanying the article and I don't see them on any of the reviews I've looked at.
The reason CR sucks though it that their reach is too far to produce any real usable information and reviews.
I've found their reviews very useful and their expertise in affordable testing procedures carries from products to product. They provide fairly useful reviews from a normal person's perspective, with some product lines being reviewed by experts as well.
You say Consumer Reports sucks.. well maybe so, unless you compare them to every other company out there. They're pretty much the most reliable source of unbiased, professionally written reviews out there. Even for unprofessional reviews you have to deal with astroturf (more and more common) and with people trying to justify their purchase, by excusing problems or by villainizing the company because of a bad experience. Consumer Reports is better than anyone else I've seen. Who, exactly, is more trustworthy and useful in your opinion and why do you think that?
Reviews: Walking the fine line between placating advertisers and telling the truth. Reviewers who bite the hand that feed them soon go hungry. So even the most disappointingly middling hash job gets a gentleman's C.
Then you should applaud Consumer Reports entering the gaming review market. They don't have any advertising and don't have anyone to please but subscribers. They even refuse to take donated equipment for reviews because of cherry picking and anonymously buy their gear through regular retail channels.
If we get the money out of the review process and really see some honesty...
There is one ad on the page with the article. It is for a subscription to Consumer Reports. If you really want the money out of the process, go subscribe. I think it is well worth it for their great, independent assessments of cars, electronics, computer hardware, etc. Without a subscription, for example, I'd never have known Dell has brought their laptop line from near the bottom of the heap to near the top (just under the premium vendors) within just the last year.
If you want people to review things impartially with your interests in mind, pay them already. Otherwise, feel free to put up with reviews that are closer to PR releases
I think it's obvious to anyone with common sense that this Wii Fit can hardly be considered a workout.
I don't think that is obvious at all. Compared to aerobic step based exercise programs offered by many gyms or compared to DDR why would anyone assume this is less of a workout?
On one hand, I commend Nintendo for at least attempting to get people off the couch, but it's only a half-a$$ed attempt.
I'd say this is about as much of a workout as one could expect from any video game console. That is not to say it is the best activity for people looking to lose weight, but it is pretty decent compared to people looking at playing video games based off of any other input device.
Besides, after the buzz wears down, anyone doing these "exercises" will quickly discover there are no results to be had, and the balancing board will end up in the closet with the rest of the rubber bands, abdominizors, and exercises dvds.
I think you missed the point. This doesn't belong in the same category because it is not an exercise device, it is a game input device. Rather it will likely stay next to the TV along with or replacing many people's DDR pads. There certainly are plenty of people who still play DDR regularly.
Perhaps a better alternative would be to attach electrodes to the player's butt and give them a shock every time they miss.
There are already feedback devices for games that provide a mild shock, but I don't think they have gained any ground in the US. In nay case, I think you're mischaracterizing the Wii Fit. The primary purpose is to allow for developers to create fun games (skateboarding, dance dance, etc.). Any physical fitness benefits are secondary, although not necessarily insignificant. Some K-12 schools have DDR setups now and maybe they'll have Wii Fit setups in the next 5 years or so. bet kids prefer it to running laps around the gym all winter.
I have no idea what Chuck Fish's interests are but if you want to change the market, it might be best to do it with someone who knows the market--or even has the ability to change it from the inside.
No. You don't need such inside information to pass fair laws that benefit the people. We've all seen what happens when you appoint industry insiders as regulators and government officials, because Bush filled the executive branch with them. Now we have an EPA head who complains that he "has to" place bears on the endangered watch list. All such a scheme ends up with is backroom deals and a "good 'ole boy" network where advisors don't look out for the interests of the people so much as where they will be getting a cushy job four years down the road.
I don't think the problem is a theoretical computational barrier, it's a real life political issue that's going to take Machiavellian like maneuvering to produce any real results.
Machiavellian maneuvering does not benefit the people because it is selfish, by definition. What we need are people who understand the issues from a technical, legal, and social perspective and who aren't afraid to stand up and do the right thing. We need reformists, not sleazy businessmen or career executives.
And what you're not accounting for, at least in the US, is everyone has the opportunity. Opportunity is what counts for equality not outcome.
No. Equal opportunity is what accounts for equality... and we sure don't have equal opportunity because inherited wealth is a more important factor than any other in predicting future wealth. Upward mobility in the US is significantly worse than much of Europe for example and the American dream of "work hard and become rich" is just that, a dream. In reality, it very, very, very rarely happens and certainly cannot be considered a real factor in the way our economy works.
Are we economically or socially equal if because of my inheritance I never have to work and simply live off the interest you and others pay me to "borrow" money so you can buy a home? Do you have the same opportunity I do? Of course not, you don't have money to lend and don't have money to pay for your house outright, so you must borrow from me to get ahead. Because of this, there is little to no chance you will ever make as much money as I do over the course of my lifetime, regardless of if you're smarter than I or if you work harder. And guess what, the same thing will be true of our children.
What they do with that opportunity has a big impact on how their lives will turn out.
But it still has less impact on normal people's lives than who their parents were.
And where does this "extreme capitalism" exist? And what is it?
"Extreme capitalism" refers to an economy where privately controlled industry is so much greater of a force than either socialism or communist cells, such that it causes the wealth to consistently consolidate into the hands of people who inherit wealth. "Extreme capitalism" is a dangerous alternative to a balanced economy and just as likely to result in an economic collapse as extreme socialism or extreme communism. One could easily argue that the US is currently an extreme capitalist economy because we are experiencing just such consolidation and while we have as much socialism as the EU, it is not directed in such a way as to mitigate that wealth condensation. The US has, historically, been classified as an "extreme capitalist" economy at several times in the past, resulting in such economic collapses as the great depression and shifts towards more socialism and large communist cell sizes characterized by the new deal.
Ah, the key is "immigration", if there were no immigration in Europe it's population would be declining...
So? How is growing the population through immigration a problem? It helps keep said population diverse and healthy? Are you concerned we'll be running out of people sometime soon? It's not like the world population is not increasing at frightening rates.
Which would have the oppose effect, it would just drive them away. While it's also declining in the US, because some religious communities "multiply", it's population isn't shrink quite as fast.
Great, so religious wackos are breeding rapidly in the US and not so much in Europe... and you think that is a sign that the US society is healthier?
Theoretically a corporation serves the common good [alternet.org] or public good.
That hasn't even been theoretically true since the US was founded.
Many of those in the US who do not have medical coverage do not want it.
I don't believe this is a significant portion of the uninsured. Please provide a citation.
When did it become good to force those who don't want health insurance to pay for it?
We're not talking about anything as abstract as "good" we're talking about wealth distribution. Whether you consider it good or evil, socialized healthcare in most places taxes the rich more and gives back to everyone equally, thus resulting in wealth being redistributed from the top to the bottom. This helps to stabilize a runaway, extreme capitalist economy by partially mitigating wealth condensation.
Or those who lead a healthy life style pay for those who don't exercise, do smoke, and have poor diets?
Ahh, so you're arguing that socialized healthcare will increase your costs? For most people, that simply isn't true. Consolidated bargaining results in lower overall costs, which is why most europeans pay less for healthcare than most americans, while still receiving better quality care. A big benefit of socialized healthcare is that it is long term, so doctors can focus on preventative measures like helping people exercise more, quit smoking, and have better diets... and it has worked for them.
Slashdot Mirror
It makes both of them money indirectly. In MS's case they have the majority of the market through bundling and as such it gives them a huge amount of power. They have used that power by refusing to support newer technologies and keeping the internet a weak and outdated format. This makes the Web not a viable alternative to Windows and prevents customers from being able to migrate away from Windows... where MS makes pretty much all their money. With Apple, they just need to include a Web browser for OS X and Firefox is not well designed for OS X. Apple could have stepped in and contributed to Firefox to improve it, but it was easier to start with the KHTML project, which was cleaner. Anyone who has used both Firefox and Safari on OS X can easily tell you the ways in which Safari better supports the native features of OS X and makes OS X a better value proposition as a result.
For both companies they have good, financial incentive to do what they do.
Safari is a viable alternative, at least according to most all of the reviews of it, such as Arstechnica. Personally, I prefer Firefox on Windows, but I do miss some of the nice features that Safari has, but others have not caught up on. For example, I just resized the text box I'm typing this in to be large enough so I don't have to scroll. I regularly miss that when I'm on Windows or Linux.
I believe this is correct.
For Windows, it may be different.I believe Windows Vista does handle this, but from what I understand Safari fails to flag the files properly for the OS and the default is not to check downloaded files.
I disagree. I've never run into the problem where the file it downloaded was not one I wanted it to download, and it is awfully convenient for it to start the download right away. As for relying on the user, whether they're doing that before the download (as Firefox does) or at run time (as Safari does) is not really much of a difference. Either way the user has to decide if they want to run the file from that Web page and in both cases they are informed that the file is downloaded and where it is placed.
hen some user clicks on it and not knows what it is (or even giving the files an enticing name like 'latest-WoW-trailer-from-next-expansion-great-video'?This is also not usually much of an issue, since OS X informs the user when they run an application, not when they open data. Users are not accustomed to a warning and the OS telling them it is an application, when it is really data.
Relying on the user to understand what is going on without giving them good choices, reasonable defaults, and clear information is what leads to compromises. Apple could be doing better in this situation by limiting the number of auto-downloads by default, adding an option to ask before they download (they entered this as a feature request), and better distinguishing archive files from applications and applications from data within the Finder. That said, the current setup is fairly secure and unlikely to result in compromises.
This is a straw man. No one said anything about "silently." It downloads the file to your downloads folder (or desktop on Windows) and at the same time opens the downloads window to show you the download is happening and give you the option to cancel it.
This is a bug that Apple should fix, but overstating the issue is just adding confusion and misinformation and helps no one.
According to Apple, no it isn't. According to the rest of us, probably.
If my browser doesn't know how to display it, I think I'd rather it didn't try. Trying seems like it might be even more dangerous. Am I wrong?That comment is irrelevant. The problem is not that it downloads stuff it doesn't know how to handle, but that it does it automatically and without limit. So it does not ask you and it does not stop at one file or five files, but will load however many automatic downloads the Web page developer included.
I think a lot of people would like the option for it to ask before downloading the file (and Apple entered that as a feature request according to TFA). I think you'd have a hard time arguing that not downloading more than five files automatically from a given page is a reasonable default.
Just to clarify your clarification. Apple forked KHTML, which was developed by the Konquerer team, and named their fork WebKit, which is also free and open source. Since then, the developers of KHTML have decided to abandon KHTML in favor of WebKit themselves and are integrating WebKit into Konquerer. So Safari and Konqueror's rendering engine is named 'WebKit' not 'KHTML'.
RTFA. Apple is fixing security issues. They don't consider this to be one, but they did file it as a feature request as a way to prevent being annoyed by this type of thing. In fact, the discoverer praised Apple on their responsiveness to his bug reports, both security related and otherwise.
OS X warns you the first time you attempt to run an executable from the internet and gives you the option of not doing so. It makes it pretty hard to accidentally run malware and unlike on Windows, users don't generally have to click a lot of these so they tend to pay more attention. It certainly is not ideal, but you are misguided in thinking OS X does not have such a feature.
Of course we do. No one investigates the actions of the companies in their 401K mutual finds. We do, however, tend to have people managing those funds for us and deciding which companies they should invest in. As such, if a company has a history of breaking the law, we should expect that company to have it's charter revoked. That means the stock tanks. That means the investment fails. And that means illegal activity makes a stock more risky and effects the value to shareholders, giving companies direct incentive to not engage in illegal activity.
I'm not suggesting it would be practical to fix our broken system and make people actually be responsible investigate and participate in the actions of companies they are shareholders of. I'm not convinced that would be a net benefit. Nobody would stand for a law that sends you to jail for the contents of your 401K. That doesn't mean it isn't of benefit to society for your 401K portfolio to take a hit if one of the companies engages in criminal actions and their charter is limited or revoked as a result.
Should we not rather see those who abuse our trust go down for the actions, and they would be the decision makers, not the minions.That is insufficient. If those who profit are not the decision makers, they can still continue as they have been and provide others with the incentive to break the law. It happens every day and punishing the executive who took a risk he wouldn't get caught has done nothing to stop because the shareholders and board don't care. They don't look at if a decision maker is doing illegal things, only at the return on their investment and if criminal actions give them more return, they'll keep hiring people until they find someone who will deliver. There is currently no incentive for the to stop, so they haven't and all of society is suffering for it.
Actually, I think the law needs to go after both the executives and the company. You see, the corporation is (or may be) profiting by the illegal acts. If you only punish the employee, nothing stops them from continually hiring people they know or have reason to believe will break the law in the same way. It matters nothing to them if a succession of their employees go to jail, and in many cases they do. Unless it hurts the shareholders and the board, it doesn't matter to the corporation.
The whole point of corporations is to divorce shareholders who are profiting by a corporation's acts, from legal responsibility for those acts. In some ways, this is good for creating a good environment for investment, but it results in exactly the kind of recurring illegal action that is so common in corporate America.
I actually think you're mistaken. The Wii controller is not designed the same as the last generation of controller. People said the same thing when Nintendo first came out with the pad style controller, arguing that joysticks were needed to play (arcade style) games.
The problem is not that the Wii controller can't be used to play fighting games, but that fighting games designed to work with the old style of controller, including what the PS3 and XBox360 use will not play on the Wii without work. Of course they're also releasing this for Windows, so there has to be some flexibility for the UI.
Realistically, I think game companies are now trying to choose between targeting the "old" gaming market that is used to the old devices and targeting the Wii market which not only has a different input device, but also has a market more interested in interfaces for the casual gamer. It always takes a lot of work for companies to adapt to new technologies and I think a lot of companies like Capcom may not be agile enough to keep up. I suspect there will be a few old companies and a few new ones that manage to appropriately target the Wii and its new market. These will provide the blockbuster Wii games and rake in the cash, whereas even if Capcom were to make a port of Street Fighter IV for the Wii, it would not be a big hit. It would still be a port, hacked to work on the Wii and with gameplay designed and tested for a different kind of gamer and a different input device.
A few years down the road, once some other companies have pioneered gameplay methodologies and established familiar control schemes that are fun on the Wii, for more casual gamers Capcom will probably have a dedicated Wii division that adapts their franchises for the Wii or writes games specifically for it.
I'd say this summary and even the title of the linked article are a bit misleading. From the text of the article:
Capcom... but has stopped short of committing to a Wii version or confirming the game's release date.So they haven't promised a version for the Wii or given a date. They're probably still deciding how hard it will be to make a version for the Wii (graphics limitations) and if they can make the UI good enough that Wii fans will actually buy it for the Wii instead of something with a UI that takes advantage of the Wii's input devices. Maybe they will or maybe they won't but if they do it will probably be later than other platforms.
I don't really think Capcom is stupid enough to ignore the Wii. The potential market is huge, so if they aren't getting paid to ignore it, they're just throwing away cash. I think Capcom is like a lot of entrenched video game companies. They were not counting on the Wii to be such a huge success and are still in the process of trying to reverse course and capitalize upon it with games for that interface and for the huge casual gaming market it has potentially opened up.
Umm, what an odd definition for marketing.
Apple's positioning as an edgy, flashy brand allows it to experiment more with its user interface...Actually, Apple is not much for deprecating UI features. Rather, they just add new features on top of what they already have; unless they are creating a new device.
...while Microsoft's positioning as lowest common denominator means that introducing new interfaces that are not market-tested will alienate its target baseMicrosoft is a monopolist and they've built in dozens of lock-in technologies to make it hard for people to move away from their OS. They can do pretty much anything and people will still have to buy it. Their main issue is getting people to switch from older versions of their OS adopting more lock-in technologies at the same time (and spurring extra profit).
(which still expects to be able to run programs from the DOS era on brand-new systems)I don't see any technical reason they can't. A DOS emulator is easy to include. In fact, one of MS's biggest problems is in their failure to remain backwards compatible. I know one large company that has passed on upgrading to Vista 3 times now because they use a couple of pieces of software in conjunction and one piece (from Adobe) won't run the version they need on Vista and another piece only works with that version. In fact, it is one of the reasons I don't use Vista on my desktop, because I need to be able to interoperate with that company. This is software that was the most current version in 2005, a lot newer than some ancient DOS program.
Interface innovations are usually produced in university labs or some of the few private labs...I'd say interface improvements are often first implemented in labs, often using hardware well beyond what is available to normal users. Then industry players look at ways to adopt those technologies and refine them so they are actually usable to normal people. Anyone can think up an interface or try to create something from an old sci-fi novel. It is making it really work in an overall experience that is pleasing to the end user that Apple is rightly famed for. Their HCI people are some of the best in the industry.
Then slow-moving "stability" oriented companies like Microsoft can slowly bring the innovation into their products as well.MS releases new products too. Compare the amount of "innovation" in the interfaces of the iPod or iPhone to the interfaces of the xBox and Zune. There is a real difference that has nothing to do with one company trying to be more stable or backwards compatible, but rather reflects the expertise (both in house and contract) that the companies apply when making products. MS is slow to innovate UIs, even new ones, but they're pretty slow to innovate in general. It is a cultureal thing, I believe.
People don't use touch screens because they have been fairly expensive for laptops, and not all that useful for desktops. Touch screens are, however, coming to the mainstream. I suspect they will be augmenting instead of replacing current input methods and mostly used by tablets and laptops in tablet mode. I expect both Windows and OS X will be making more use of these features.
Still, you have point. Most people don't want to fire up a dedicated interface in order to use a mapping program or a photo manager. Rather, these will likely see use for "widgets" that can be brought up and dismissed quickly and for games and other special purpose interfaces. Sure your photo manager will soon support using two fingers to expand an image, but who will want to do that instead of using one hand and a mouse? I actually see more application for gestures on the trackpad where you already have your fingers there and so can quickly activate a manipulation of the currently selected item/window.
I disagree with this. For the most part the problems preventing Linux from being usable to everyone as a desktop are not technological ones. Lack of application compatibility and lack of hardware drivers are the two main issues and both are the result of the state of the industry. Were Linux and Windows switched market share tomorrow (by an act of Allah) in a year or two people would be complaining that Windows is not ready for the desktop because application developers, hardware manufacturers, and computer OEMs were targeting Linux. This is not to say, they are not real problems, only that they are no more a technological fault of Linux that they are of Windows.
Vista has improved many small things that always ticked me off with XP.I agree Vista does include numerous small improvements and features; but I'd also argue it includes anti-features as well, designed to benefit MS or their partners at the expense of the end user (more draconian DRM for example). I'd also argue that it is MS's monopoly on desktop OS's that is the reason why there is so little advancement in the field. Traditionally, one of the main problems with monopolies is that they retard innovation in that market because the monopolist has little incentive to put time and money into improvements because customers are going to buy whatever they make anyway. Other companies are likewise discouraged from investing in innovation in the market because the monopoly power means it will cost more for less return and with more risk than a healthy market. Face it, there is plenty of room for improvement of OS's. Hell, Vista still doesn't even have a spell checker that works in all my applications and uses the same dictionary, let alone other universal services. It's been what, ten years since the first OS with that feature was shipped (then killed).
Speed-wise, SP1 made everything more responsive and quicker, and switching between windows seems a lot better than on XP. And we all know that hardly anyone installed XP on old computers -- preferring at the time their old Windows 2000, but eventually XP won people over as they upgraded.Most people don't have a clue what an OS even is. People were never "won over" by XP, so much as it became ubiquitous because it was pre-installed on every home computer and eventually it was needed in business as well (despite the speed problems) for application compatibility. The drawback of speed didn't go away, but was made less important as the hardware people were running gradually was replaced with faster gear. Doubtless the same thing will happen with Vista.
But, like another poster referenced, you likely wouldn't spend money on an os anyways. A few hundred bucks spread out over many years for something that I spend hours with daily, and makes things go easier IS worth my hard-earned money, and the frustrations saved over XP are worth it because I value my time.I'm a professional in the computer industry and I have no problem shelling out cash for an OS. In fact, I've shelled out cash for WinXP, Vista, and OS X. Additionally I make use of Ubuntu and Solaris on the desktop and numerous other OS's for server use. That said, I do not yet recommend Vista for corporate use and don't use it as my main, Windows desktop because of numerous issues of which performance is only one. I expect within the next year those issues will mostly be resolved, but truthfully, I expected the same thing a year ago and it hasn't quite happened yet. Application compatibility is better, but still not good enough for me to do my daily work on it.
It refers to exploits where no patch is yet available. Your attempt to redefine it, again, to make it meaningless is not helpful. Most incidents where an exploit is successful are effecting machines that simply have not applied an available patch. These mostly hit home users using software that does not auto-update.
The term "zero day" is useful because it differentiates exploits where there is no available patch, which are of particular concern to security minded people, especially administrators. Zero day exploits are the ones where they have to do something other than test and install an update, or make sure it is already up to date. In the case of a zero day, they have to look for work-arounds, potentially disabling a service, or sending out a memo to users to tell them not to do something they might normally do. Because of this, the term "zero day" is a very, very useful term for security people and seeing it normally means it is a potentially serious issue they must address.
The problem is that the media saw the term, noticed people were attentive to it, and started using it as a synonym for "bad." Likewise, the unwashed masses have started to use it the same way, having seen the term in the media.
Face it, the phrase is empty. For the love of Dog, please stop using it, it's driving me insane !!!!The phrase is very useful for discussion among people who know what they're talking about. So for the love of Buddha, please stop misusing it, stop misinforming people about it, and why don't you stop misusing it yourself. Not all of us want our vocabularies dumbed down to the subset understandable by the least common denominator of society, nor do we want to have to use less precise language just because laypeople misuse a term.
How do you know it is not biased? They're being paid by the companies they are reviewing. So how do you know they don't nix the most critical reviews? Do they take donated cameras? Are those cameras the same as normal people buy, or cherry picked by the companies donating them?
The point is no one place reviews all these things because to do so is madness.There are several things useful for review sites. Expertise is one, and maybe one where CR is not top of their game. Another is credibility, where CR is at the top of their game. With other sites, you just don't know for the most part if they are honest or will remain that way. A third is testing methodology. Do they know how to acquire and test batches of goods for reliability?
Still individual publications out write CR in every field they cover. This is because they specialize which is a good thing.Most individual publications are horribly biased either by intention or because of the realities of the industry. The only practical way around that is to move away from advertising as in income stream and move to subscriptions. Very few people want to pay a subscription for just reviews on one type of product, because it is inconvenient even if it is not too costly.
If they run ads or even take donated gear, I don't trust them. This opinion has proved to be the correct one again and again as magazine after magazine has been exposed as changing content to suit the people paying them, and that isn't the reader. For sites where consumers post reviews, the situation is just as bad. Reviews can be removed at the behest of advertisers. Reviews can be paid astroturfing. Reviews can be biased by consumers trying to justify their purchase or angry because they had a bad experience that may not be reflective of the general case. Seriously, paid subscriptions are the only model that does not have a huge probability of intentional or unintentional misinformation.
They do? Where? There are no ads accompanying the article and I don't see them on any of the reviews I've looked at.
The reason CR sucks though it that their reach is too far to produce any real usable information and reviews.I've found their reviews very useful and their expertise in affordable testing procedures carries from products to product. They provide fairly useful reviews from a normal person's perspective, with some product lines being reviewed by experts as well.
You say Consumer Reports sucks.. well maybe so, unless you compare them to every other company out there. They're pretty much the most reliable source of unbiased, professionally written reviews out there. Even for unprofessional reviews you have to deal with astroturf (more and more common) and with people trying to justify their purchase, by excusing problems or by villainizing the company because of a bad experience. Consumer Reports is better than anyone else I've seen. Who, exactly, is more trustworthy and useful in your opinion and why do you think that?
Then you should applaud Consumer Reports entering the gaming review market. They don't have any advertising and don't have anyone to please but subscribers. They even refuse to take donated equipment for reviews because of cherry picking and anonymously buy their gear through regular retail channels.
If we get the money out of the review process and really see some honesty...There is one ad on the page with the article. It is for a subscription to Consumer Reports. If you really want the money out of the process, go subscribe. I think it is well worth it for their great, independent assessments of cars, electronics, computer hardware, etc. Without a subscription, for example, I'd never have known Dell has brought their laptop line from near the bottom of the heap to near the top (just under the premium vendors) within just the last year.
If you want people to review things impartially with your interests in mind, pay them already. Otherwise, feel free to put up with reviews that are closer to PR releases
I don't think that is obvious at all. Compared to aerobic step based exercise programs offered by many gyms or compared to DDR why would anyone assume this is less of a workout?
On one hand, I commend Nintendo for at least attempting to get people off the couch, but it's only a half-a$$ed attempt.I'd say this is about as much of a workout as one could expect from any video game console. That is not to say it is the best activity for people looking to lose weight, but it is pretty decent compared to people looking at playing video games based off of any other input device.
Besides, after the buzz wears down, anyone doing these "exercises" will quickly discover there are no results to be had, and the balancing board will end up in the closet with the rest of the rubber bands, abdominizors, and exercises dvds.I think you missed the point. This doesn't belong in the same category because it is not an exercise device, it is a game input device. Rather it will likely stay next to the TV along with or replacing many people's DDR pads. There certainly are plenty of people who still play DDR regularly.
Perhaps a better alternative would be to attach electrodes to the player's butt and give them a shock every time they miss.There are already feedback devices for games that provide a mild shock, but I don't think they have gained any ground in the US. In nay case, I think you're mischaracterizing the Wii Fit. The primary purpose is to allow for developers to create fun games (skateboarding, dance dance, etc.). Any physical fitness benefits are secondary, although not necessarily insignificant. Some K-12 schools have DDR setups now and maybe they'll have Wii Fit setups in the next 5 years or so. bet kids prefer it to running laps around the gym all winter.
No. You don't need such inside information to pass fair laws that benefit the people. We've all seen what happens when you appoint industry insiders as regulators and government officials, because Bush filled the executive branch with them. Now we have an EPA head who complains that he "has to" place bears on the endangered watch list. All such a scheme ends up with is backroom deals and a "good 'ole boy" network where advisors don't look out for the interests of the people so much as where they will be getting a cushy job four years down the road.
I don't think the problem is a theoretical computational barrier, it's a real life political issue that's going to take Machiavellian like maneuvering to produce any real results.Machiavellian maneuvering does not benefit the people because it is selfish, by definition. What we need are people who understand the issues from a technical, legal, and social perspective and who aren't afraid to stand up and do the right thing. We need reformists, not sleazy businessmen or career executives.
No. Equal opportunity is what accounts for equality... and we sure don't have equal opportunity because inherited wealth is a more important factor than any other in predicting future wealth. Upward mobility in the US is significantly worse than much of Europe for example and the American dream of "work hard and become rich" is just that, a dream. In reality, it very, very, very rarely happens and certainly cannot be considered a real factor in the way our economy works.
Are we economically or socially equal if because of my inheritance I never have to work and simply live off the interest you and others pay me to "borrow" money so you can buy a home? Do you have the same opportunity I do? Of course not, you don't have money to lend and don't have money to pay for your house outright, so you must borrow from me to get ahead. Because of this, there is little to no chance you will ever make as much money as I do over the course of my lifetime, regardless of if you're smarter than I or if you work harder. And guess what, the same thing will be true of our children.
What they do with that opportunity has a big impact on how their lives will turn out.But it still has less impact on normal people's lives than who their parents were.
And where does this "extreme capitalism" exist? And what is it?"Extreme capitalism" refers to an economy where privately controlled industry is so much greater of a force than either socialism or communist cells, such that it causes the wealth to consistently consolidate into the hands of people who inherit wealth. "Extreme capitalism" is a dangerous alternative to a balanced economy and just as likely to result in an economic collapse as extreme socialism or extreme communism. One could easily argue that the US is currently an extreme capitalist economy because we are experiencing just such consolidation and while we have as much socialism as the EU, it is not directed in such a way as to mitigate that wealth condensation. The US has, historically, been classified as an "extreme capitalist" economy at several times in the past, resulting in such economic collapses as the great depression and shifts towards more socialism and large communist cell sizes characterized by the new deal.
So? How is growing the population through immigration a problem? It helps keep said population diverse and healthy? Are you concerned we'll be running out of people sometime soon? It's not like the world population is not increasing at frightening rates.
Which would have the oppose effect, it would just drive them away. While it's also declining in the US, because some religious communities "multiply", it's population isn't shrink quite as fast.Great, so religious wackos are breeding rapidly in the US and not so much in Europe... and you think that is a sign that the US society is healthier?
That hasn't even been theoretically true since the US was founded.
Many of those in the US who do not have medical coverage do not want it.I don't believe this is a significant portion of the uninsured. Please provide a citation.
When did it become good to force those who don't want health insurance to pay for it?We're not talking about anything as abstract as "good" we're talking about wealth distribution. Whether you consider it good or evil, socialized healthcare in most places taxes the rich more and gives back to everyone equally, thus resulting in wealth being redistributed from the top to the bottom. This helps to stabilize a runaway, extreme capitalist economy by partially mitigating wealth condensation.
Or those who lead a healthy life style pay for those who don't exercise, do smoke, and have poor diets?Ahh, so you're arguing that socialized healthcare will increase your costs? For most people, that simply isn't true. Consolidated bargaining results in lower overall costs, which is why most europeans pay less for healthcare than most americans, while still receiving better quality care. A big benefit of socialized healthcare is that it is long term, so doctors can focus on preventative measures like helping people exercise more, quit smoking, and have better diets... and it has worked for them.