Apple has used the "Macs don't have malware" angle in their own advertising. I've heard it many many times here on Slashdot, and elsewhere. Its a pretty common angle used to sell and push Macs.
They aren't actually doing the math, they're picking out cues from the trainers and crowd to figure out which plate is right. Thats why they go around a few times, so they can gauge the reaction of the crowd. This was originally done with a horse named Clever Hans.
Jobs says it's a security issue, but Apple is working to find a way to allow developers to build applications for it.
In other words, he dug up a quote to support what you were originally saying, and you apparently didn't read what he quoted closely enough. The GP was trying to say "Yeah, Apple did plan to release a dev kit as far back as May 30, 2007."
On the flip-side of the coin, the only problem I've had with Vista is that two of my games didn't work: one due to bad drivers, and another due to their invasive anti-cheat software not playing well with a 64 bit operating system. A lot of coworkers and friends who have tried it have similar experiences: that is, they seem to get on fine with it. When all the experiences I come across are positive, and the only negative experiences related are on blogs or sites with bias, it makes it seem like FUD.
Of course, the reality is that a lot of people have problems, but a lot of people run it just fine. But that second group of people isn't represented well, and if people try to step up and represent them, they're loudly accused of being paid shills. And frankly, I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that the accusers have no intellectual integrity, since they'd rather resort to ad-hominem instead of considering the other person's experience.
Not that I disagree with the gist of your argument, but government keeps secrets from itself all the time. Theres a huge amount of information thats on a "need-to-know" basis. Not that, in this case, it isn't just one giant cop-out.
My iPhone took 55 seconds. EDGE is good enough on sites that don't have a lot of big images... it really seems to choke on those. Sites like Kotaku bring my iPhone to its knees. But I mostly use the EDGE to do web-based MSN chat and email, and EDGE works well for those applications.
Their software wasn't just bloated, it was terribly buggy as well. Around 2001, I had a job at a help desk at a university. Sometimes we had people come in who had installed AOL's software on their Windows PC (usually 98 se), and then tried to connect to the university dial-up. The AOL software somehow managed to screw up something with Window's networking. Sometimes we had to do a reinstall of the networking components just to get things to work correctly again, even if they had already uninstalled all the AOL stuff.
But you did detect it, when you bothered to scan your machine. Theres always the chance that if you run a full scan against your OS and come up clean, that there is some undetected malware there. But is it reasonable to assume that?
#1: I'm malware free. #2: No you're not, you just don't notice it. #1: Well, I rebooted into safe-mode, ran two anti-virus scans, some rootkit detectors, spy-ware detectors... all came up negative. My harwdware firewall shows no abnormal traffic... #2: Maybe the virus also infected your firewall and hides itself from the scanners! Theres no way to know!
I mean, at what point is it reasonable to say that a computer is likely clean, or most assuredly clean?
It can, but if that attendee actually bothered to look for malware, do you think he would have been unable to find it?
The point is that theres no reasonable response to "You may have malware, but you just can't detect it." I mean, if we posit the existence of undetectable malware, or at least malware undetectable by the poster, then what you have asserted is nearly impossible to disprove. Its simply lazy to respond to "I don't have any malware," with "You do, you just don't know it." Its like saying "Nuh uh! I WIN!"
If the above poster has actively looked for malware and has not found any, then its reasonable to assume he is not infected, unless you can prove otherwise.
You need to work on your reading comprehension. I wasn't claiming that Linux was vulnerable. I'm saying its assanine to respond to someone claiming to be malware free by saying "No, you just don't realize you're infected."
I mean, go on, prove to me right now, without a doubt, that your Linux box is not infected by some rare virus that people haven't seen and don't know how to detect. And just to head you off, claiming "Linux doesn't have viruses" isn't a valid response. After all, maybe you're one of the lucky first people to be infected, and you just don't know it yet! See how convenient this is? You can't prove that you DON'T have a virus short of taking a dump of the bits on the physical platter and doing a diff.
Theres ways to be reasonably sure (as in, 99.999999%). There's no reason to believe that the poster that started the thread was not able to be reasonably sure.
But since you brought this up, tell me how you're going to prevent "Dear stupid user, please install this trojan as root to get your free cursors!" without taking control of the user's own computer away from him or her. You do realize thats how a lot of Windows malware is getting out there right now, don't you?
Oh and just so you know, there are trojans out there for Linux. One of the systems at my old job was cracked. Luckily the admin noticed that someone was trying to get a rootkit on his system. These cracks often involve software installed on the Linux system with incorrect security settings, as I believe was the case here. But thats the point: the security of the system ultimately falls upon the user not doing stupid things, which is impossible to guarantee without taking control of the computer away from said user.
Yeah, and there could be a huge Linux virus epidemic. Its just stealthy enough that its not being detected! Seriously, its become standard to retort to claims of malware free with Windows with "Nuh uh! You probably just don't know you have it!" which is stupid if only for the reason that such a claim isn't reasonably falsifiable. I know that a lot of malware is designed to be stealthy, but a lot of computer professionals know how to root this stuff out, and theres no reason to think that the grandparent is not capable of detecting it.
I've never been infected by malware. And I have confirmed this every time I've been challenged on that point. Doesn't stop people comming out and saying that I really am infected, I just can't detect it.
"Be confident," is the dating equivalent of telling someone that water is wet. Everyone knows that confidence is important in dating, and yet people still trot it out as if they're the sole possessor of this great hidden nugget of wisdom. The fact of the matter is, learning to exude confidence is tough for people who are not already socially adjusted. Telling them that they just need to be confident is kicking them when they're down. If they knew how to build up their confidence, they would not be having any problems with women.
If you read any of the materials designed around helping men with women, then you'll find that they spend little time telling the reader that they need confidence, instead opting to teach them how to be confident and show it.
I don't think the characterization is fair. You are talking about different freedoms, and the trade offs between them. Not all freedoms are equal, and not all freedoms are good. If you'll excuse the hyperbole, in an anarchy, you have the freedom to murder and steal, but I don't see many people clamoring for those freedoms in our society. I'd imagine the FSF has made a decision about which freedoms are more important. "Software freedom" isn't quite as clear cut a decision as my example, and is largely dependent on your opinion.
In what ways are they not accommodating of femininity, and what can be done to correct this? Are females, likewise, accommodating of masculinity? If not, what can be done to correct this?
I'm genuinely interested in the statement, because its very difficult to draw a line between what is reasonable when one gender is expected to "accommodate" another. If I come into a workplace culture, how much should I expect them to accommodate me, and how much should they expect me to adapt to their culture? If the difference is too great, then maybe its a poor place for me to work.
Its a pretty sticky subject. Its hard to draw a good line, and I'd like to hear others' opinions.
The behavior isn't limited to men. Women isolated with other women will often develop environments that are not very friendly towards men.
We can generalize this to "people who form groups based on certain common behavior and ideas develop environments unfriendly towards other people that do not share those behaviors or ideals." Ever tried to be a guy who doesn't like sports who hangs out with lots of sports fans? A Republican in a Democrat convention? A satanist going to a Christian church? A libertarian going to a local Marxist meeting?
I'm not condoning the behavior, but your post came across as pretty sexist, since you limited it to just men. I don't think that was your intention.
Not that I can tell. After browsing your link, they describe microaggressions as small comments that carry implicit negative connotations directed at the person being discriminated against. What she is describing is not being explicitly included into the group, and my response is that the norm is not to be explicitly included in the group, and that one usually has to work at it and fit in.
Answer with "Are you overreacting?" which is a common response to microaggressions, does not mean that there is truly sexism occurring. The point of the line of questioning is, what makes her situation different than if I were in the exact same situation? What makes it sexist? You are starting from the assumption that it is sexist, I am starting from the position that it may or may not be, and am engaging in discussion.
Furthermore, there is a serious trend, where people believe that situations that are normal for men-men relationships are somehow inherently sexist for men-women relationships. I believe that may be the case in some situations, but not for many of them. Blatantly labeling something sexist because it does not live up to one's expectations dilutes the problem of real sexism in the workplace.
Forgive me for being blunt, but it seems that you are saying "How dare you question accusations of sexism!" I'm sorry, but she hasn't given me any indication that she is being treated differently than I would, were our positions switched. If this is not the case, then feel free to point it out, and I will adjust my position accordingly.
Well thats a good point. My personal experience says that women get in just as easily (if not easier, so that the higher ups can look all PC), but anecdote isn't data.
What if I didn't think your clothes were stupid? Maybe I just wanted to treat you like part of the group, and my group, all the way back to college - men and women, included people by poking fun at each other. So now I make a comment about your clothing, thinking "Hey she'll take it in good fun and make a joke back, that would be cool," but instead you automatically assume that everyone should behave the way you decided, and take it personally. How inclined am I to try to be buddy-buddy with you in the first place?
Your last statement defaults back to the position that it was not meant in jest, and that people should behave the way you have decided is appropriate. Thats fine if thats your principles, but its not going to win you that many friends. And thats not due to sexism.
Women can be "pigs" just as much as men, so I'm guessing you could, but probably have too much self-respect to do so. Assuming I had bosses like that, I could theoretically act like a pig too, and get in their good graces. However, the reality is that my standards are too high for that, and I'd come across as a faker and a wet blanket. I don't doubt that it'd be harder for you, but its an analogous situation.
People like that tend to be insular with the people they share that with. Unless they know the other is of like mind, you probably won't get in with that social group. The only option for those with standards is to move on, male or female. How many male feminists are likely to be in your boss's group?
Moreover, how is this boss's behavior limited to IT? There's lots of sleeze everywhere. You were unfortunate to get one for a boss. I don't see how that generalizes this problem to IT in general.
Ok, lets consider that point. Why exactly is it stupid? Because they are not behaving the way you think they should? Why should the guys adapt to the woman's point of view, instead of vice-versa? Are you saying that its the males' job to accommodate the woman? How is that any more reasonable than if I were to demand my coworkers to include me in their social groups, and oh-by-the-way-you-have-to-behave-the-exact-way-I'm-comfortable-with?
You are explicitly assuming that the IT guys' behavior is "stupid," just because they are not behaving the way you expect. You are implying that they should adapt their behavior to accommodate you. What if I told you I thought it was stupid for you to wear necklaces and fancy clothes, because, hey jewelry doesn't help you to code better? I don't think this because I recognize that other people have different interests, priorities, and social norms than other people. Thats what acceptance and equality is, not trying to shoe-horn everyone into your pre-conceptions of idealized behavior.
And the attitude you brought up there is pretty much exactly the attitude I was calling out. Thanks for the opportunity to reiterate.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple has used the "Macs don't have malware" angle in their own advertising. I've heard it many many times here on Slashdot, and elsewhere. Its a pretty common angle used to sell and push Macs.
They aren't actually doing the math, they're picking out cues from the trainers and crowd to figure out which plate is right. Thats why they go around a few times, so they can gauge the reaction of the crowd. This was originally done with a horse named Clever Hans.
Who seriously names their kid "Bubba"? Seriously.
In other words, he dug up a quote to support what you were originally saying, and you apparently didn't read what he quoted closely enough. The GP was trying to say "Yeah, Apple did plan to release a dev kit as far back as May 30, 2007."
On the flip-side of the coin, the only problem I've had with Vista is that two of my games didn't work: one due to bad drivers, and another due to their invasive anti-cheat software not playing well with a 64 bit operating system. A lot of coworkers and friends who have tried it have similar experiences: that is, they seem to get on fine with it. When all the experiences I come across are positive, and the only negative experiences related are on blogs or sites with bias, it makes it seem like FUD.
Of course, the reality is that a lot of people have problems, but a lot of people run it just fine. But that second group of people isn't represented well, and if people try to step up and represent them, they're loudly accused of being paid shills. And frankly, I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that the accusers have no intellectual integrity, since they'd rather resort to ad-hominem instead of considering the other person's experience.
Not that I disagree with the gist of your argument, but government keeps secrets from itself all the time. Theres a huge amount of information thats on a "need-to-know" basis. Not that, in this case, it isn't just one giant cop-out.
My iPhone took 55 seconds. EDGE is good enough on sites that don't have a lot of big images... it really seems to choke on those. Sites like Kotaku bring my iPhone to its knees. But I mostly use the EDGE to do web-based MSN chat and email, and EDGE works well for those applications.
Actually, there was a lawsuit in France over Apple's DRM and the iPod lock-in.
Their software wasn't just bloated, it was terribly buggy as well. Around 2001, I had a job at a help desk at a university. Sometimes we had people come in who had installed AOL's software on their Windows PC (usually 98 se), and then tried to connect to the university dial-up. The AOL software somehow managed to screw up something with Window's networking. Sometimes we had to do a reinstall of the networking components just to get things to work correctly again, even if they had already uninstalled all the AOL stuff.
But you did detect it, when you bothered to scan your machine. Theres always the chance that if you run a full scan against your OS and come up clean, that there is some undetected malware there. But is it reasonable to assume that?
#1: I'm malware free.
#2: No you're not, you just don't notice it.
#1: Well, I rebooted into safe-mode, ran two anti-virus scans, some rootkit detectors, spy-ware detectors... all came up negative. My harwdware firewall shows no abnormal traffic...
#2: Maybe the virus also infected your firewall and hides itself from the scanners! Theres no way to know!
I mean, at what point is it reasonable to say that a computer is likely clean, or most assuredly clean?
It can, but if that attendee actually bothered to look for malware, do you think he would have been unable to find it?
The point is that theres no reasonable response to "You may have malware, but you just can't detect it." I mean, if we posit the existence of undetectable malware, or at least malware undetectable by the poster, then what you have asserted is nearly impossible to disprove. Its simply lazy to respond to "I don't have any malware," with "You do, you just don't know it." Its like saying "Nuh uh! I WIN!"
If the above poster has actively looked for malware and has not found any, then its reasonable to assume he is not infected, unless you can prove otherwise.
Sure you can, if you combine your malware with an elevation of privileges exploit.
You need to work on your reading comprehension. I wasn't claiming that Linux was vulnerable. I'm saying its assanine to respond to someone claiming to be malware free by saying "No, you just don't realize you're infected."
I mean, go on, prove to me right now, without a doubt, that your Linux box is not infected by some rare virus that people haven't seen and don't know how to detect. And just to head you off, claiming "Linux doesn't have viruses" isn't a valid response. After all, maybe you're one of the lucky first people to be infected, and you just don't know it yet! See how convenient this is? You can't prove that you DON'T have a virus short of taking a dump of the bits on the physical platter and doing a diff.
Theres ways to be reasonably sure (as in, 99.999999%). There's no reason to believe that the poster that started the thread was not able to be reasonably sure.
But since you brought this up, tell me how you're going to prevent "Dear stupid user, please install this trojan as root to get your free cursors!" without taking control of the user's own computer away from him or her. You do realize thats how a lot of Windows malware is getting out there right now, don't you?
Oh and just so you know, there are trojans out there for Linux. One of the systems at my old job was cracked. Luckily the admin noticed that someone was trying to get a rootkit on his system. These cracks often involve software installed on the Linux system with incorrect security settings, as I believe was the case here. But thats the point: the security of the system ultimately falls upon the user not doing stupid things, which is impossible to guarantee without taking control of the computer away from said user.
Yeah, and there could be a huge Linux virus epidemic. Its just stealthy enough that its not being detected! Seriously, its become standard to retort to claims of malware free with Windows with "Nuh uh! You probably just don't know you have it!" which is stupid if only for the reason that such a claim isn't reasonably falsifiable. I know that a lot of malware is designed to be stealthy, but a lot of computer professionals know how to root this stuff out, and theres no reason to think that the grandparent is not capable of detecting it.
I've never been infected by malware. And I have confirmed this every time I've been challenged on that point. Doesn't stop people comming out and saying that I really am infected, I just can't detect it.
You know, I think you're on to something here. Have you ever seen them both at the same time?
Its impossible to create an energy source that lasts forever. Damn Second Law of Thermodynamics.
"Be confident," is the dating equivalent of telling someone that water is wet. Everyone knows that confidence is important in dating, and yet people still trot it out as if they're the sole possessor of this great hidden nugget of wisdom. The fact of the matter is, learning to exude confidence is tough for people who are not already socially adjusted. Telling them that they just need to be confident is kicking them when they're down. If they knew how to build up their confidence, they would not be having any problems with women.
If you read any of the materials designed around helping men with women, then you'll find that they spend little time telling the reader that they need confidence, instead opting to teach them how to be confident and show it.
I don't think the characterization is fair. You are talking about different freedoms, and the trade offs between them. Not all freedoms are equal, and not all freedoms are good. If you'll excuse the hyperbole, in an anarchy, you have the freedom to murder and steal, but I don't see many people clamoring for those freedoms in our society. I'd imagine the FSF has made a decision about which freedoms are more important. "Software freedom" isn't quite as clear cut a decision as my example, and is largely dependent on your opinion.
In what ways are they not accommodating of femininity, and what can be done to correct this? Are females, likewise, accommodating of masculinity? If not, what can be done to correct this?
I'm genuinely interested in the statement, because its very difficult to draw a line between what is reasonable when one gender is expected to "accommodate" another. If I come into a workplace culture, how much should I expect them to accommodate me, and how much should they expect me to adapt to their culture? If the difference is too great, then maybe its a poor place for me to work.
Its a pretty sticky subject. Its hard to draw a good line, and I'd like to hear others' opinions.
The behavior isn't limited to men. Women isolated with other women will often develop environments that are not very friendly towards men.
We can generalize this to "people who form groups based on certain common behavior and ideas develop environments unfriendly towards other people that do not share those behaviors or ideals." Ever tried to be a guy who doesn't like sports who hangs out with lots of sports fans? A Republican in a Democrat convention? A satanist going to a Christian church? A libertarian going to a local Marxist meeting?
I'm not condoning the behavior, but your post came across as pretty sexist, since you limited it to just men. I don't think that was your intention.
Not that I can tell. After browsing your link, they describe microaggressions as small comments that carry implicit negative connotations directed at the person being discriminated against. What she is describing is not being explicitly included into the group, and my response is that the norm is not to be explicitly included in the group, and that one usually has to work at it and fit in.
Answer with "Are you overreacting?" which is a common response to microaggressions, does not mean that there is truly sexism occurring. The point of the line of questioning is, what makes her situation different than if I were in the exact same situation? What makes it sexist? You are starting from the assumption that it is sexist, I am starting from the position that it may or may not be, and am engaging in discussion.
Furthermore, there is a serious trend, where people believe that situations that are normal for men-men relationships are somehow inherently sexist for men-women relationships. I believe that may be the case in some situations, but not for many of them. Blatantly labeling something sexist because it does not live up to one's expectations dilutes the problem of real sexism in the workplace.
Forgive me for being blunt, but it seems that you are saying "How dare you question accusations of sexism!" I'm sorry, but she hasn't given me any indication that she is being treated differently than I would, were our positions switched. If this is not the case, then feel free to point it out, and I will adjust my position accordingly.
Well thats a good point. My personal experience says that women get in just as easily (if not easier, so that the higher ups can look all PC), but anecdote isn't data.
What if I didn't think your clothes were stupid? Maybe I just wanted to treat you like part of the group, and my group, all the way back to college - men and women, included people by poking fun at each other. So now I make a comment about your clothing, thinking "Hey she'll take it in good fun and make a joke back, that would be cool," but instead you automatically assume that everyone should behave the way you decided, and take it personally. How inclined am I to try to be buddy-buddy with you in the first place?
Your last statement defaults back to the position that it was not meant in jest, and that people should behave the way you have decided is appropriate. Thats fine if thats your principles, but its not going to win you that many friends. And thats not due to sexism.
Women can be "pigs" just as much as men, so I'm guessing you could, but probably have too much self-respect to do so. Assuming I had bosses like that, I could theoretically act like a pig too, and get in their good graces. However, the reality is that my standards are too high for that, and I'd come across as a faker and a wet blanket. I don't doubt that it'd be harder for you, but its an analogous situation.
People like that tend to be insular with the people they share that with. Unless they know the other is of like mind, you probably won't get in with that social group. The only option for those with standards is to move on, male or female. How many male feminists are likely to be in your boss's group?
Moreover, how is this boss's behavior limited to IT? There's lots of sleeze everywhere. You were unfortunate to get one for a boss. I don't see how that generalizes this problem to IT in general.
Ok, lets consider that point. Why exactly is it stupid? Because they are not behaving the way you think they should? Why should the guys adapt to the woman's point of view, instead of vice-versa? Are you saying that its the males' job to accommodate the woman? How is that any more reasonable than if I were to demand my coworkers to include me in their social groups, and oh-by-the-way-you-have-to-behave-the-exact-way-I'm-comfortable-with?
You are explicitly assuming that the IT guys' behavior is "stupid," just because they are not behaving the way you expect. You are implying that they should adapt their behavior to accommodate you. What if I told you I thought it was stupid for you to wear necklaces and fancy clothes, because, hey jewelry doesn't help you to code better? I don't think this because I recognize that other people have different interests, priorities, and social norms than other people. Thats what acceptance and equality is, not trying to shoe-horn everyone into your pre-conceptions of idealized behavior.
And the attitude you brought up there is pretty much exactly the attitude I was calling out. Thanks for the opportunity to reiterate.