I have to say, TF2 is one of only a very FEW games I continuously come back to and play, over and over again. I never really get bored with it. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I get the idea an awful lot of people abandoned that game simply because they got their attention re-focused on the latest and greatest, shiny new releases.
But IMO, Team Fortress 2 checks all the boxes for a truly fun gaming experience. The 3D shooter category only has so many basic concepts for multiplayer play, anyway. You have your "Capture the Flag" mode, your "Deathmatch", your "Domination", and so on. The only thing that really changes when you pay your $50 for the latest one are the background scenery, design of the levels and the characters. You get some unique weapons too, once in a while, but even those are usually re-hashes of the same ideas 90% of the time.
To me, TF2 ensures plenty of people to play against at any time, because they gave the game away free and it runs well not only on multiple platforms, but has reasonable hardware requirements so even older machines can run it. The bandwidth usage isn't too bad either, so your people stuck on say, a 3mbit DSL connection, can still play it without issues.
I'd rather see more development on top of something great like TF2 than wasted "reinventing the wheel" on yet another FPS title that will just get played for a little while and scrapped.....
(The best thing Valve could do for TF2 though, IMO, is to release some more official levels for it. I've played a few really good custom made ones, but also a lot of buggy, not so well thought out ones that even crashed the game at times. It definitely doesn't have NEAR the enthusiastic level building community that we had for older classics like Quake. It could use an official "level pack" or two from Valve, even if they cost a few bucks to download.)
Call it a conspiracy theory if you like, but I think it's a pretty legitimate summary.....
If U.S. citizens needed an alternative currency, that would be because the U.S. dollar started failing them, right? If that happens, it's pretty closely tied to other markets. We don't live in an economic vacuum..... I doubt converting to the Euro or Canadian dollar would be much of a solution.
At the same time, I really don't follow the logic of the "survivalist" types who want to hoard up ammo and believe that's the only sensible answer for "when it all falls apart". What's the real plan there? Just start shooting people to get what you need? If we're all so lacking in any kind of moral compass or care for anyone other than ourselves that absent of a strong central government, we're all going to revert to savages trying to kill each other to obtain their possessions? They may as well shoot me... I don't want to hang around anymore in that world.
I do, however, see where there could be very compelling reasons to switch to a decentralized currency, not subject to any arbitrary rules imposed by governments.... And by extension, I see why a government with a currency not really backed by anything tangible, would find this alternative a threat.
With automated self-driving cars, a lot of other traditional economics are upset too. For example, what will this do to public transportation like the bus system? Currently, one of the primary advantages to taking the bus is the concept that someone else will do the driving, getting you to your destination. People who don't have a driver's license can just take the bus and still get to or from work. With a self-driving car, why would a license be required anymore? That means one less reason to bother with a bus, when a car would get you from point A to B without a lot of annoying stops along the way dropping off other people or picking them up.
Of course, this will result in upsetting those who like public transportation for the environmental benefits..... So what happens then? Some sort of govt. imposed taxation on using a personal car instead of a bus? I sure hope not, but that's the type of future we're quickly headed into. Slap taxes on all the behaviors you want to deter people from doing so just like lab rats running in a maze, you force them to follow the paths you like.
I beg to differ. The only reason they care about such things as selling Beanie Babies or trading cards is because to them, those objects are simply items of value, which don't function as a currency. When one is exchanged for U.S. dollars, the IRS wants a cut of the profits.
Bitcoin, Litecoin and other such inventions are designed and intended to function as substitutes for U.S. dollars. The plan for them is to allow buying and selling other goods of value (such as those trading cards or Beanie Babies) using the virtual currency. As long as the vast majority prefers to deal in the official U.S. currency instead, Bitcoin type e-money will be dealt with a little more like a stock or mutual fund -- where people want to buy and sell it in an attempt to come out with more U.S. currency than they started with. But there's an underlying design to allow for this stuff to work as a competing or even substitute currency for the U.S. dollar.
I predict the govt. WILL eventually decide to try to take down Bitcoin and variants as a "threat to National Security" (their favorite excuse for such behaviors).
While it's not really "news" that the IRS is once again looking for a source of revenue? I'd argue that there's a strange paradox with the whole thing. If the U.S. govt. starts taxing alternative virtual currencies, that indicates by extension they recognize them as legitimate.
I thought a big part of the whole battle for acceptance of these new e-currencies was the idea that the govt. would never recognize them as legal tender, out of fear it undermines the official currency it has control over via the Federal Reserve.
I don't think you can really have this both ways though.... legitimate taxable currency when it works in government's favor and not recognized as valid when it doesn't!
Perhaps so, but forcibly splitting companies up into separate companies based on their product lines may not really be something we want government doing, regardless of any efficiency improvements it might bring? I don't think arguing about such forced reorganization making products "better" is a very valid reasons for using the force of Federal law against a business.
Looking back on the whole issue, I think an awful lot of people's dislike for Microsoft's products drives them to support the claim that the company was a monopoly that needed to be broken up -- when a more objective look at the facts makes that less clear.
There were definitely areas where Microsoft engaged in anti-competitive behaviors. In my mind, the worst of it was the convoluted and overly restrictive product licensing. For example, I remember when companies couldn't legally create custom images of the Windows OS with their applications and preferred settings and then use "Ghost" or similar software to roll it out to the rest of the PC's they bought, because they didn't pay more for "full" licenses, vs. the limited OEM licenses that came with the machines.
Then there was the strong-arming of hardware manufacturers. (EG. We'll sell you Windows licenses at such a deep discount, you'd be silly not to buy these from us to load on all of your new computers.... BUT, this deal is only good as long as you refuse to build anything with one of our competitor's OS's pre-loaded on it!)
But the court case didn't really even address some of this. Instead, it surrounded the whole bundling of IE thing, which to me was an issue that would have (and history proves, DID) resolve itself with time anyway. The idea that the browser included with an OS was so critical, it would require dismantling a whole software company over the dispute, seems a little ridiculous today.
One thing we've recently seen in my workplace is a Trojan horse virus embedded in a fake Flash player update which carries a valid Adobe signature.
So even allowing only signed apps to install is no guarantee of security.
The main difference with something like UAC versus Apple's Gatekeeper is that Apple made the effort to sell as many programs as possible in their own online store for the Mac, and Microsoft didn't really have an equivalent. So Apple was in a position to put something in place allowing only those store purchased items to be installed by end users (while admins of a box could still have less restrictive settings and load whatever they wished). This allows configuring a system with everything a user needs up front, but still giving the user freedom to buy and load a wide selection of programs after the fact, while ensuring they all come from a known, safe source.
From the photos Apple has on their site of the Mac Pro with its cover open, it looks to me like the flash storage used is a "mini PCIe" form-factor. I've already purchased and used an identical looking 480GB flash drive to fit in an HP "Ultrabook" type of portable called the "Spectre XT Pro".
(HP claims the notebook can't be purchased with a drive larger than 256GB, even in a custom build order on their web site, but a technical manual I found clearly showed it took the mini PCIe type of flash drive, so I bought a 480GB from CDW to try it and it worked just fine.)
I've seen a few comments yesterday and today though claiming some of these mini PCIe form-factor SSDs are not *really* following the standards for the PCIe connector? So in effect, they perform with a lot less throughput, the same as any existing SSD drive, except just using that type of physical connector.
Anyone know if there's much truth to such claims.... meaning what Apple is offering here really will be more advanced than current SSD technology, or is this a case where companies like HP have really been using the same stuff for at least the last 1-2 years in select ultraportables?
If a big virus hits that exploits a security hole that's unpatched, SOMEONE will offer a patch. I'm 99.999% certain. Why? Because regardless of Microsoft's wishes for XP to just go away, there are still too many people using it every single day (many of whom aren't even computer savvy enough to be able to tell you for sure which version of Windows they're actually using). A serious virus infection would #1, make Microsoft look really bad if they take a stance of "Too bad... we can't fix it.", and #2 would likely put entire networks at risk with the infected files getting copied onto shared drives on servers, uploaded to cloud shared storage locations, and more. It's quite possible such an infection would need an unpatched XP machine to secretly get installed in the first place, but newer OS's would have problems too if the users open attached files sent from the originally infected XP boxes.
If Microsoft stubbornly refused, some 3rd. party computer security firm would seize on the opportunity to get 15 minutes of fame with a free patch they'd circulate.
The problem I can see with it is the governments in question will simply start actively jamming or disrupting these frequencies if they think they're being used to subvert the systems they're trying to monitor.
To do this properly, I think you might have to resort to a system that randomly changes frequencies as it runs -- so modified hardware would be needed as well as software?
The way I see it, there are no really good answers to the questions in the original article. Will MS market-share keep plunging? A *lot* of that hinges on the long-term popularity of the trend of people using tablet devices in place of computers.
If you're the type who likes to bet on future results based on current trends? Then yes, you have a lot of statistical data in your corner. "John Q. Public" and "Jane Doe" who were never really very good with computers to begin with absolutely LOVE devices like the iPad, or smartphones. All they were ever trying to do to begin with was surf the net, check their email, and maybe type up a few letters to print out. The letter writing part, long argued a weak spot for mobile phones or tablets, is largely overcome with a bluetooth wireless keyboard.
The kids and teens who only wanted the computers to play video games? That market is splitting down the middle too. A lot of them are pretty satisfied playing the ever-increasing number of titles on the Android or iOS devices. (Heck, they were playing devices like the Gameboy before that, and stuck paying much higher prices for the game cartridges.) Just as many consider that a non-starter, because they want to play bigger, more demanding titles like World of Warcraft or the Call of Duty series.
I'm not sure how long this trend will continue though? My experience with tablet computing is, you generally get only a "lite" version of a given application, compared to what's done on a full-fledged PC or Mac. If nothing else, it's sorely lacking in local storage capabilities compared to a computer. I think computer sales to the public may have permanently declined a bit, because people figured out there are good alternatives now if they don't really want or need everything a PC can do. But I suspect we're quickly reaching the saturation point there.
If Microsoft could come up with some new, compelling reason to use a Windows based computer... something clearly impossible to do on a tablet or phone that a whole lot of people would REALLY like to be able to do? They're right back in the game.
I'm just curious if anyone out there is maintaining any type of "price guide" or can speak first-hand to the value (or lack thereof) of the electronic hand-held video games that were popular in the early 80's?
For example, I found my original Tandy Radio/Shack "Cosmic Fire Away" game in a box not long ago, and after cleaning it up, realized it still plays as good as when it was new with a fresh set of batteries in it. I knew it was the original version they released. (I remember Radio Shack coming out with a newer model with a yellow plastic case instead of the blue one I have here, because my younger brother got it one Christmas.) What I didn't know until I happened upon it on Wikipedia is that the one I've got was made in 1981 and was only sold for a year.
I know my brother and I also owned a couple games from "Bambino" including "Safari" - a game in an olive green, round plastic case where you had to move a cage around and try to capture animals as they randomly popped up on the display.
These were pretty big deals, technology-wise, at the time, because they transitioned hand-held games from using LED lights or segments to represent things (remember the old Mattel football/soccer/baseball games from the 70's?) to drawing realistic looking icons - eventually in more than one color.
Other than www.handheldmuseum.com though, I don't see a lot of references to these at all? Are they just largely forgotten by most people -- eclipsed by the console and computer game genre?
I think you make an interesting point, except I'm trying to think of examples proving it's true, and I'm not really coming up with them?
What I mean is, sure -- there's always going to be a "right thing at the right time" to get maximum value out of it. But in general, I'm not so sure collectibles reach "peak value" when the audience who grew up with them as kids reach maturity?
As one example, think of the used market today for pedal cars. The most valuable ones seem to be the oldest ones still in good condition (old pedal fire trucks, for example, or really old tricycles). I'm not so sure that the majority of the collectors paying those prices for them today are really the same ones who owned those toys as kids? It seems like many of the desirable ones are old enough to be the toys the collector's parents originally played with as kids.
As another? I know many younger people into "muscle cars" of the 60's, even though they weren't even born yet in the 60's. It's not just the generation who remember those cars from their teenage years who have an interest. There's an appreciation for them which clearly spans generations.
I can definitely see how people grow up and earn enough income to pay good money to have a few items back again that they fondly remember. But I think it's probably a mistake to believe that signifies the "peak value" for the items in question. After that wave of the nostalgic passes, I think you've got at least one more generation after that who finds it fascinating from more of a historical angle. "Wow... I never owned one of these, but I think my dad said he liked it as a kid!"
gd2shoe: Just for the record, it's not that I overlooked that aspect. It's more of a belief that it's not an aspect that should change much, in any properly run organization.
For example, concerns about BYOD devices causing security holes on the corporate network? Strongest case for this would generally be allowing older devices on the network that run older OS's. In our workplace, we simply gave a list of approved BYOD devices users could choose from that we'd allow and support. We also adopted a policy about rooting and jailbreaking. Basically, we acknowledge it's out there and is legal to do, but also note that MOST vulnerabilities come from rooted or jailbroken devices. So I.T. takes a stance of allowing it but not supporting it. If you opt to do it - you do so understanding that if you put in a support ticket with some issue with that device, we will revert it back to a non-rooted or jailbroken state as part of our troubleshooting process (and might remove you from our network until we have time to do that).
All in all, I don't even believe that I.T. is really so "expert" in handling outside threats and attacks. How can we be? We usually don't have access to the source code to the devices we implement and often aren't even good enough at coding to figure out what it meant if we were. Ever get caught in that "balancing act" where you want to apply all new updates to a system to ensure it's "as secure as possible" but some of those updates aren't supported by mission critical software also loaded on the box? Ever do the updates that are pushed out only to find they break a server? (I sure have, especially with some of Microsoft's "recommended updates" that they later recalled and revisited.) Eventually, it happens to most sysadmins that they cause real and immediate problems trying to prevent theoretical security-related ones.
While I think the performance-enhancing drugs take things way too far, I don't know how much of an ethical dilemma I see with such tactics as figuring out a way to scuff up the baseball before throwing it, to try to achieve some unpredictability?
I'd tend to side more with the "it's just part of the game" camp on that, because when it comes right down to it? It's all about making it as difficult as you can for the batter to hit what you throw at him. A regulation baseball has certain parameters to it that can't be changed without substituting it for a modified ball, and to me THAT'S where you'd want to draw the line on what's allowed. I mean, if the weight of the ball is drastically altered or you use a smaller or larger ball, that's just as much a change as, say, scooting the bases closer together on the field.
As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather see the rest of it just be out in the open. Say "No, we simply don't CARE if you think you have some secret tactic to gouge up the ball a little bit or scuff up its surface before pitching it. Go for it if you think it helps you!" You're always going to have small changes that potentially give small advantages to those who take advantage of them. I'm pretty sure there are certain types of shoes with certain cleat patterns which wind up giving some slight advantage over others too. Are we going to get so anal, we require only shoes with soles matching a precise pattern and dimensions, or else it's "cheating"?
(And honestly, even on the whole drugs issue? The biggest reason I have any problem with that is because it wasn't widely in use or even available in previous generations -- yet part of the game involves tracking records and seeing who is talented enough to break them over time. It's not a fair "A to B" comparison anymore between the "old time greats" and today's players, if the modern players are all juiced up. If the sport actually came out and said, "We consider performance enhancing drugs to be fair play." and ALSO said a line would be drawn where old statistics were "frozen in time" and everything effectively started over? Then I'd be hard pressed to find a reason to call it "cheating" anymore. (I might not like the fact it encourages people to treat their own bodies as disposable for the purpose of getting a little more of an edge in the game... but that's each individual's own decision to make.)
Having done I.T. for over 25 years and counting now, I'm *really* getting fed up with all the authoritarian sysadmin wanna-be's who impose all sorts of rules on what people CAN'T do on a network, instead of ENABLING people to do more with the resources available.
You want an AppleTV on the corporate network (most likely for the purpose of easily projecting things onto a conference room television instead of physically connecting a video cable between the PC and the TV)? Great! Why the hell NOT allow it? It's pretty much the same guts inside as an iPod touch, except with a locked-down version of iOS. Not exactly anything I'd be concerned about. (If your main objection is something along the lines of not liking the fact it lets people stream TV shows or music when that's not what they're hired to do? Guess what! It's not YOUR job or problem to concern yourself with that! Like the telephone on someone's desk, it's a TOOL. In I.T. you're paid to provide it and make sure it functions well. It's not YOUR problem to try to stop them from making personal calls instead of work-oriented ones. The person's direct supervisor can be concerned with all of that.)
As just one of the extreme examples.... my current boss just told me a story of his previous boss at a casino he did I.T. work for. The guy was SO intent on having 100% control and lockdown on things, he wouldn't even give the I.T. staff administrator rights to any of the boxes, except on an "as needed" basis. My boss was trying to install and configure SQL servers on a number of Microsoft servers, so each time he had to load the product, he was required to call or email and request admin access -- which was only granted JUST long enough to get the product installed! At least a couple times, this caused people to sit around and do absolutely nothing productive for the better part of a day, when he forgot they needed admin rights back for a project they were assigned to do and HE wasn't available to give it to them.
At the end of the day, when you work in I.T, or network/systems administration, it's your job to construct and maintain a computer environment that everyone finds as productive as possible. Yes, "computer security" has value... but at the end of the day, it's just about having a documented process in place to show you tried/are trying. It's not actually some sort of goal you can achieve, and the more you try, the more difficult you make it for everyone to just USE the tools they're given.
I think this is why people make BYOD into a FAR bigger deal than it needs to be. Again, the cellphones and mobile devices are simply tools people can use to do their jobs. If you TRUST an employee enough to give them access to your digital information in the first place, then who really cares if your company has the legal right to wipe the device on demand or not? That's like issuing them a pad of paper and pencil and saying, "If you're terminated or quit, you must return the pad of paper to us." Never mind the person might have already torn out the pages where he or she scribbled down the proprietary information you were trying to protect. (Anyone with a smartphone could synchronize the contents to some personal device, off of the company-owned one, so they still possess the data you wished to wipe.)
What protects your DATA is the legal stuff.... non-compete clauses or signed agreements and documents promising you won't do certain things with the info. The BYOD or the company owned devices are just tools that can temporarily hold some of the data for people. Who buys the device is little more than a detail for accounting -- and shouldn't even matter much from the I.T. perspective.
Actually, the customer is not always right about MOST things, because "the customer" is actually a euphemism for "every single unique individual out there who we can get to purchase our product". There's no WAY you can get a consensus on practically any feature or function you'd put in a product that's used by a wide variety of people, all in unique situations.
What you can (and really should) do is try your best to offer a product or service that your design team believes offers the best possible experience for the customer. THEN get customer feedback and make changes whenever you can tell a significant number of individuals want them.
IMO, "health and safety" is only different because we have a legal system which, all too often, rewards individuals and punishes manufacturers, whenever it can be shown an injury occurred using the product, and someone argues in court that a different design could have avoided said injury. (I recall the story of lawnmowers requiring a warning label cautioning not to attempt to hold them up off the ground and use them to trim hedges or other shrubs -- ever since some idiot won a lawsuit for injuring himself doing just that.)
My point is, if most of your customers want that "collapse crane" button, it's probably for a very good reason (a need for it for storage purposes). You can either pretend you know better than they do what's best for them and refuse to provide it -- or you can put some thought into it, and provide it so it only functions along with other safeguards in place. (EG. Heat and motion sensor must not detect presence of a person on or within so many feet of the crane, or the operation cancels with an audible warning alert. Crane must not have anything attached to the end of it when button is pressed or again, it cancels.) A fear of our legal system probably causes many good ideas not to even be attempted, which is unfortunate.
I don't really think the used games are generally only getting discounted by 10%? I've bought a number of used games at GameStop over the years, and typically, I pick them up for no more than $15-35 each. They're also typically titles I'm specifically seeking (because, for example, one of our kids is asking for it), and they're not even readily available on the new market anymore. (Might still be in production, but most retail stores don't bother to stock it on their shelves anymore due to waning interest.)
Until I was asked to write a few tech. articles on bitcoin and other virtual currencies last year, I didn't really pay a lot of attention to them. But I've learned that high end ATI video cards are pretty much the "engines" required for any respectable bitcoin/litecoin mining rig to work successfully.
(As a rule, nVidia cards have been ignored as "not as good of performers as ATI" for this specific use -- though I wonder how this GTX 780 would do?)
People building these mining rigs generally cram 3 - 4 of the cards on one motherboard, and run several identically configured machines at a time -- meaning a pretty hefty investment in video boards. It makes me wonder if this isn't really a significant reason for the sales of the more costly models, as opposed to the audience you'd assume was buying them -- 3D gamers?
Not saying I totally disagree with you, but there's SO much going on by way of invading privacy and data-mining people's info, it's impossible to keep up with all of it. People become numb to it after so long. We're at the point now where people only get concerned when they see a very serious and obvious threat. (EG. Word comes out that everyone you know who uses a credit card to buy groceries from a certain store winds up with mysterious charges on their card a month or two later.)
The fact that Skype probably leaks your conversations to law enforcement officials on demand? Disturbing -- yet ultimately kind of a thing when you consider Skype is free to use (at least for a pure Skype to Skype call) and totally optional to use in the first place. I mean, my workplace isn't going to stop taking advantage of it as a free solution to video teleconferencing two meeting rooms in different cities together over it. (Not unless we start holding meetings about illegal operations or something,anyway!) It provides real cost savings and solves a real problem for us, and there's no immediate reason that we'd be worried that law enforcement would WANT to listen in to what we're saying on those calls.
XBox 1? Probably more of the same. People aren't going to have a big issue with it needing "always on" Internet connections if that's what they're already paying for at home anyway with their broadband. You worried the XBox might reveal something it's not supposed to? Unplug it during that time. Whatever....
That's definitely the buzz going around the net.... That between Sony and Microsoft both moving to digital game downloads and no physical optical media to buy anymore, it will be the end of the used game shops.
Of course, I can see something else happening too.... There's a pretty massive collection of existing, used titles out there, just like there are plenty of used music CDs in circulation (even if no more were produced starting today).
It may turn out that the interest in "vintage" consoles and games increases, and rather like antique shops, the used game shops stick around indefinitely. (I could see a pretty good market developing for refurbishing and repairing older consoles too. Maybe each GameStop would have a tech. working full-time in the back room so you could drop off that PS3 or XBox 360 for service work, ready to pick back up the next afternoon?)
Already, the web sites like ArsTechnica who got previews of the new PS4 commented that the graphics were really only incrementally better than what we see now. We've reached a point where most game titles look "good enough" with today's hardware. It's tough to really amaze people to the point the audio/visual portion motivates them to spend hundreds and start over collecting new game titles. (I think to pull that off, you'd need a console that made all the games truly look just like live video/movie footage. Get it to where the stuff we're used to seeing as opening or cut scenes is actually the entire game. Until then? Nah, Microsoft has to sell the new console based on gimmicks like voice commands.)
One of my friends started his own venture capital business years ago, after a long career in corporate I.T. (He focuses on funding educational related projects.)
We were talking a bit about the recent changes at Yahoo, and I know his opinion is that the Tumblr purchase is ill-advised. and looks like it cost the company pretty much all of the available capital it had to spend. After that, I don't think Yahoo is in a financial position to do much more in the way of acquiring anything else. They've got to make do with revamping what they already own (and maybe they think talent obtained from Tumbler will help towards that end?).
The thing is, Yahoo spent FAR too long concerning themselves with convincing people their "branding" was still relevant, and thought they could somehow "win" simply by reminding folks to consider them for search queries. (Remember all the annoying "Yaaaaahhhhhoooooooo!" ads on TV?)
Now, even if the current CEO is trying to make serious changes, I think it's going to be too little, too late. Figuring out a way to monetize Tumblr is a full-time job in itself -- and one you MIGHT want to take on if you were an otherwise profitable and successful company. But Yahoo seems like they just bought themselves a big database of porn and pet pictures that has a relatively short shelf-life, before it's not "trendy" to use anymore and the user-base moves on to something else.
Flickr really was a significantly good service they owned. I knew quite a few photographers who religiously uploaded their work to Flickr (typically with a Pro account since they wanted more storage space and ability to put full resolution photos up). But as they let it stagnate, all sorts of other "Johnny come lately" photo sharing services popped up -- many integrated real tightly with mobile phones, which have become the #1 device used to take photos in the first place.
The press-conference "slam" against pro photographers tells me Yahoo still thinks it needs to cater to the mainstream -- exactly the group they'll have the most competition with. Bad move. If they really enhanced a paid, "Pro" side of the service and kept it cheaper than alternatives -- I know a LOT of people who have at least a second job dealing in photography who'd sign up and use it.
Email is a non-starter at this point. Lots of us still have yahoo email accounts, but it's very often just because of old partnerships they struck with ISPs like the regional Bell telephone companies and later AT&T. You ordered your DSL service? You got a Yahoo email with it. Yahoo Groups had a good run but again, they let it pretty much die off. I used to use it occasionally until the groups all seemed to fill rapidly with spam, and upload/download speeds on attachments got so pitifully slow, you wondered if the whole thing ran on an old Pentium 3 in someone's basement. They only get search queries, by and large, because they manage to work deals to keep it a "default" search engine in various programs. None of their stuff really stands out as a tool you want to use that you can't get elsewhere.
Sure... but even if they really DO care, who's to say they just weren't successful at keeping your info safe anyway?
I've been saying for years now that "computer security" is largely a sham. Time and time again we find out that the biggest manufacturers of anti-virus software are companies run by shifty individuals with poor coding abilities, and respected makers of firewall appliances and routers sourced components from countries like China which had back-doors built into them at the processor level. Encryption schemes provided by all the big commercials software makers are suspect too, since U.S. govt. seems to demand they give them "keys" to break in, if needed.
Look at the stream of security flaws being found in Java, and think about how often it gets used in the design of web applications.
How many web sites run on IIS -- another product historically full of security holes?
There's a LOT of money to be made by promising people you can help secure their systems, and as long as nobody really TRIES to get past whatever you put in place, you can brag about its "100% effectiveness". Anyone trying to do e-commerce business online has a primary goal of generating a profit selling the goods or services they're concentrating on providing. So right off the bat, these people are simply NOT going to have the time to invest a whole lot into securing customer data. They're going to go with the existing "pre fab" tools and products that are advertised as secure and recommended by others. When it turns out one of those isn't so great after all -- oops, there goes your private data again!
I think you really DO have to place the lion's share of the blame with the thieves - which include both the hackers who took the data, AND the "computer security" folks who made a small fortune selling half-baked products and services to people trying to achieve security.
Only partially a fair comment, IMO. Today's internet is VERY much privately funded, even if the original internet was just a government project for military and research lab use.
Is your broadband connection provided to you by your local government and paid for out of your taxes, or do you receive a bill for it from a private ISP?
Slashdot Mirror
I have to say, TF2 is one of only a very FEW games I continuously come back to and play, over and over again. I never really get bored with it. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I get the idea an awful lot of people abandoned that game simply because they got their attention re-focused on the latest and greatest, shiny new releases.
But IMO, Team Fortress 2 checks all the boxes for a truly fun gaming experience. The 3D shooter category only has so many basic concepts for multiplayer play, anyway. You have your "Capture the Flag" mode, your "Deathmatch", your "Domination", and so on. The only thing that really changes when you pay your $50 for the latest one are the background scenery, design of the levels and the characters. You get some unique weapons too, once in a while, but even those are usually re-hashes of the same ideas 90% of the time.
To me, TF2 ensures plenty of people to play against at any time, because they gave the game away free and it runs well not only on multiple platforms, but has reasonable hardware requirements so even older machines can run it. The bandwidth usage isn't too bad either, so your people stuck on say, a 3mbit DSL connection, can still play it without issues.
I'd rather see more development on top of something great like TF2 than wasted "reinventing the wheel" on yet another FPS title that will just get played for a little while and scrapped.....
(The best thing Valve could do for TF2 though, IMO, is to release some more official levels for it. I've played a few really good custom made ones, but also a lot of buggy, not so well thought out ones that even crashed the game at times. It definitely doesn't have NEAR the enthusiastic level building community that we had for older classics like Quake. It could use an official "level pack" or two from Valve, even if they cost a few bucks to download.)
Call it a conspiracy theory if you like, but I think it's a pretty legitimate summary.....
If U.S. citizens needed an alternative currency, that would be because the U.S. dollar started failing them, right? If that happens, it's pretty closely tied to other markets. We don't live in an economic vacuum..... I doubt converting to the Euro or Canadian dollar would be much of a solution.
At the same time, I really don't follow the logic of the "survivalist" types who want to hoard up ammo and believe that's the only sensible answer for "when it all falls apart". What's the real plan there? Just start shooting people to get what you need? If we're all so lacking in any kind of moral compass or care for anyone other than ourselves that absent of a strong central government, we're all going to revert to savages trying to kill each other to obtain their possessions? They may as well shoot me... I don't want to hang around anymore in that world.
I do, however, see where there could be very compelling reasons to switch to a decentralized currency, not subject to any arbitrary rules imposed by governments .... And by extension, I see why a government with a currency not really backed by anything tangible, would find this alternative a threat.
With automated self-driving cars, a lot of other traditional economics are upset too. For example, what will this do to public transportation like the bus system? Currently, one of the primary advantages to taking the bus is the concept that someone else will do the driving, getting you to your destination. People who don't have a driver's license can just take the bus and still get to or from work. With a self-driving car, why would a license be required anymore? That means one less reason to bother with a bus, when a car would get you from point A to B without a lot of annoying stops along the way dropping off other people or picking them up.
Of course, this will result in upsetting those who like public transportation for the environmental benefits..... So what happens then? Some sort of govt. imposed taxation on using a personal car instead of a bus? I sure hope not, but that's the type of future we're quickly headed into. Slap taxes on all the behaviors you want to deter people from doing so just like lab rats running in a maze, you force them to follow the paths you like.
I beg to differ. The only reason they care about such things as selling Beanie Babies or trading cards is because to them, those objects are simply items of value, which don't function as a currency. When one is exchanged for U.S. dollars, the IRS wants a cut of the profits.
Bitcoin, Litecoin and other such inventions are designed and intended to function as substitutes for U.S. dollars. The plan for them is to allow buying and selling other goods of value (such as those trading cards or Beanie Babies) using the virtual currency. As long as the vast majority prefers to deal in the official U.S. currency instead, Bitcoin type e-money will be dealt with a little more like a stock or mutual fund -- where people want to buy and sell it in an attempt to come out with more U.S. currency than they started with. But there's an underlying design to allow for this stuff to work as a competing or even substitute currency for the U.S. dollar.
I predict the govt. WILL eventually decide to try to take down Bitcoin and variants as a "threat to National Security" (their favorite excuse for such behaviors).
While it's not really "news" that the IRS is once again looking for a source of revenue? I'd argue that there's a strange paradox with the whole thing. If the U.S. govt. starts taxing alternative virtual currencies, that indicates by extension they recognize them as legitimate.
I thought a big part of the whole battle for acceptance of these new e-currencies was the idea that the govt. would never recognize them as legal tender, out of fear it undermines the official currency it has control over via the Federal Reserve.
I don't think you can really have this both ways though.... legitimate taxable currency when it works in government's favor and not recognized as valid when it doesn't!
Perhaps so, but forcibly splitting companies up into separate companies based on their product lines may not really be something we want government doing, regardless of any efficiency improvements it might bring? I don't think arguing about such forced reorganization making products "better" is a very valid reasons for using the force of Federal law against a business.
Looking back on the whole issue, I think an awful lot of people's dislike for Microsoft's products drives them to support the claim that the company was a monopoly that needed to be broken up -- when a more objective look at the facts makes that less clear.
There were definitely areas where Microsoft engaged in anti-competitive behaviors. In my mind, the worst of it was the convoluted and overly restrictive product licensing. For example, I remember when companies couldn't legally create custom images of the Windows OS with their applications and preferred settings and then use "Ghost" or similar software to roll it out to the rest of the PC's they bought, because they didn't pay more for "full" licenses, vs. the limited OEM licenses that came with the machines.
Then there was the strong-arming of hardware manufacturers. (EG. We'll sell you Windows licenses at such a deep discount, you'd be silly not to buy these from us to load on all of your new computers.... BUT, this deal is only good as long as you refuse to build anything with one of our competitor's OS's pre-loaded on it!)
But the court case didn't really even address some of this. Instead, it surrounded the whole bundling of IE thing, which to me was an issue that would have (and history proves, DID) resolve itself with time anyway. The idea that the browser included with an OS was so critical, it would require dismantling a whole software company over the dispute, seems a little ridiculous today.
One thing we've recently seen in my workplace is a Trojan horse virus embedded in a fake Flash player update which carries a valid Adobe signature.
So even allowing only signed apps to install is no guarantee of security.
The main difference with something like UAC versus Apple's Gatekeeper is that Apple made the effort to sell as many programs as possible in their own online store for the Mac, and Microsoft didn't really have an equivalent. So Apple was in a position to put something in place allowing only those store purchased items to be installed by end users (while admins of a box could still have less restrictive settings and load whatever they wished). This allows configuring a system with everything a user needs up front, but still giving the user freedom to buy and load a wide selection of programs after the fact, while ensuring they all come from a known, safe source.
I didn't recall the type correctly... The drive I replaced in the Spectre XT Pro was actually an "mSATA" type of drive.
I guess it was something like the drive Crucial sells here:
http://www.crucial.com/store/mpartspecs.aspx?mtbpoid=433DDBDFA5CA7304
So I stand potentially corrected.... Perhaps the PCIe connector Apple is using here a little thinner and different. Looked very similar though.
From the photos Apple has on their site of the Mac Pro with its cover open, it looks to me like the flash storage used is a "mini PCIe" form-factor. I've already purchased and used an identical looking 480GB flash drive to fit in an HP "Ultrabook" type of portable called the "Spectre XT Pro".
(HP claims the notebook can't be purchased with a drive larger than 256GB, even in a custom build order on their web site, but a technical manual I found clearly showed it took the mini PCIe type of flash drive, so I bought a 480GB from CDW to try it and it worked just fine.)
I've seen a few comments yesterday and today though claiming some of these mini PCIe form-factor SSDs are not *really* following the standards for the PCIe connector? So in effect, they perform with a lot less throughput, the same as any existing SSD drive, except just using that type of physical connector.
Anyone know if there's much truth to such claims .... meaning what Apple is offering here really will be more advanced than current SSD technology, or is this a case where companies like HP have really been using the same stuff for at least the last 1-2 years in select ultraportables?
If a big virus hits that exploits a security hole that's unpatched, SOMEONE will offer a patch. I'm 99.999% certain. Why? Because regardless of Microsoft's wishes for XP to just go away, there are still too many people using it every single day (many of whom aren't even computer savvy enough to be able to tell you for sure which version of Windows they're actually using). A serious virus infection would #1, make Microsoft look really bad if they take a stance of "Too bad... we can't fix it.", and #2 would likely put entire networks at risk with the infected files getting copied onto shared drives on servers, uploaded to cloud shared storage locations, and more. It's quite possible such an infection would need an unpatched XP machine to secretly get installed in the first place, but newer OS's would have problems too if the users open attached files sent from the originally infected XP boxes.
If Microsoft stubbornly refused, some 3rd. party computer security firm would seize on the opportunity to get 15 minutes of fame with a free patch they'd circulate.
The problem I can see with it is the governments in question will simply start actively jamming or disrupting these frequencies if they think they're being used to subvert the systems they're trying to monitor.
To do this properly, I think you might have to resort to a system that randomly changes frequencies as it runs -- so modified hardware would be needed as well as software?
The way I see it, there are no really good answers to the questions in the original article. Will MS market-share keep plunging? A *lot* of that hinges on the long-term popularity of the trend of people using tablet devices in place of computers.
If you're the type who likes to bet on future results based on current trends? Then yes, you have a lot of statistical data in your corner. "John Q. Public" and "Jane Doe" who were never really very good with computers to begin with absolutely LOVE devices like the iPad, or smartphones. All they were ever trying to do to begin with was surf the net, check their email, and maybe type up a few letters to print out. The letter writing part, long argued a weak spot for mobile phones or tablets, is largely overcome with a bluetooth wireless keyboard.
The kids and teens who only wanted the computers to play video games? That market is splitting down the middle too. A lot of them are pretty satisfied playing the ever-increasing number of titles on the Android or iOS devices. (Heck, they were playing devices like the Gameboy before that, and stuck paying much higher prices for the game cartridges.) Just as many consider that a non-starter, because they want to play bigger, more demanding titles like World of Warcraft or the Call of Duty series.
I'm not sure how long this trend will continue though? My experience with tablet computing is, you generally get only a "lite" version of a given application, compared to what's done on a full-fledged PC or Mac. If nothing else, it's sorely lacking in local storage capabilities compared to a computer. I think computer sales to the public may have permanently declined a bit, because people figured out there are good alternatives now if they don't really want or need everything a PC can do. But I suspect we're quickly reaching the saturation point there.
If Microsoft could come up with some new, compelling reason to use a Windows based computer ... something clearly impossible to do on a tablet or phone that a whole lot of people would REALLY like to be able to do? They're right back in the game.
I'm just curious if anyone out there is maintaining any type of "price guide" or can speak first-hand to the value (or lack thereof) of the electronic hand-held video games that were popular in the early 80's?
For example, I found my original Tandy Radio/Shack "Cosmic Fire Away" game in a box not long ago, and after cleaning it up, realized it still plays as good as when it was new with a fresh set of batteries in it. I knew it was the original version they released. (I remember Radio Shack coming out with a newer model with a yellow plastic case instead of the blue one I have here, because my younger brother got it one Christmas.) What I didn't know until I happened upon it on Wikipedia is that the one I've got was made in 1981 and was only sold for a year.
I know my brother and I also owned a couple games from "Bambino" including "Safari" - a game in an olive green, round plastic case where you had to move a cage around and try to capture animals as they randomly popped up on the display.
These were pretty big deals, technology-wise, at the time, because they transitioned hand-held games from using LED lights or segments to represent things (remember the old Mattel football/soccer/baseball games from the 70's?) to drawing realistic looking icons - eventually in more than one color.
Other than www.handheldmuseum.com though, I don't see a lot of references to these at all? Are they just largely forgotten by most people -- eclipsed by the console and computer game genre?
I think you make an interesting point, except I'm trying to think of examples proving it's true, and I'm not really coming up with them?
What I mean is, sure -- there's always going to be a "right thing at the right time" to get maximum value out of it. But in general, I'm not so sure collectibles reach "peak value" when the audience who grew up with them as kids reach maturity?
As one example, think of the used market today for pedal cars. The most valuable ones seem to be the oldest ones still in good condition (old pedal fire trucks, for example, or really old tricycles). I'm not so sure that the majority of the collectors paying those prices for them today are really the same ones who owned those toys as kids? It seems like many of the desirable ones are old enough to be the toys the collector's parents originally played with as kids.
As another? I know many younger people into "muscle cars" of the 60's, even though they weren't even born yet in the 60's. It's not just the generation who remember those cars from their teenage years who have an interest. There's an appreciation for them which clearly spans generations.
I can definitely see how people grow up and earn enough income to pay good money to have a few items back again that they fondly remember. But I think it's probably a mistake to believe that signifies the "peak value" for the items in question. After that wave of the nostalgic passes, I think you've got at least one more generation after that who finds it fascinating from more of a historical angle. "Wow... I never owned one of these, but I think my dad said he liked it as a kid!"
gd2shoe: Just for the record, it's not that I overlooked that aspect. It's more of a belief that it's not an aspect that should change much, in any properly run organization.
For example, concerns about BYOD devices causing security holes on the corporate network? Strongest case for this would generally be allowing older devices on the network that run older OS's. In our workplace, we simply gave a list of approved BYOD devices users could choose from that we'd allow and support. We also adopted a policy about rooting and jailbreaking. Basically, we acknowledge it's out there and is legal to do, but also note that MOST vulnerabilities come from rooted or jailbroken devices. So I.T. takes a stance of allowing it but not supporting it. If you opt to do it - you do so understanding that if you put in a support ticket with some issue with that device, we will revert it back to a non-rooted or jailbroken state as part of our troubleshooting process (and might remove you from our network until we have time to do that).
All in all, I don't even believe that I.T. is really so "expert" in handling outside threats and attacks. How can we be? We usually don't have access to the source code to the devices we implement and often aren't even good enough at coding to figure out what it meant if we were. Ever get caught in that "balancing act" where you want to apply all new updates to a system to ensure it's "as secure as possible" but some of those updates aren't supported by mission critical software also loaded on the box? Ever do the updates that are pushed out only to find they break a server? (I sure have, especially with some of Microsoft's "recommended updates" that they later recalled and revisited.) Eventually, it happens to most sysadmins that they cause real and immediate problems trying to prevent theoretical security-related ones.
While I think the performance-enhancing drugs take things way too far, I don't know how much of an ethical dilemma I see with such tactics as figuring out a way to scuff up the baseball before throwing it, to try to achieve some unpredictability?
I'd tend to side more with the "it's just part of the game" camp on that, because when it comes right down to it? It's all about making it as difficult as you can for the batter to hit what you throw at him. A regulation baseball has certain parameters to it that can't be changed without substituting it for a modified ball, and to me THAT'S where you'd want to draw the line on what's allowed. I mean, if the weight of the ball is drastically altered or you use a smaller or larger ball, that's just as much a change as, say, scooting the bases closer together on the field.
As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather see the rest of it just be out in the open. Say "No, we simply don't CARE if you think you have some secret tactic to gouge up the ball a little bit or scuff up its surface before pitching it. Go for it if you think it helps you!" You're always going to have small changes that potentially give small advantages to those who take advantage of them. I'm pretty sure there are certain types of shoes with certain cleat patterns which wind up giving some slight advantage over others too. Are we going to get so anal, we require only shoes with soles matching a precise pattern and dimensions, or else it's "cheating"?
(And honestly, even on the whole drugs issue? The biggest reason I have any problem with that is because it wasn't widely in use or even available in previous generations -- yet part of the game involves tracking records and seeing who is talented enough to break them over time. It's not a fair "A to B" comparison anymore between the "old time greats" and today's players, if the modern players are all juiced up. If the sport actually came out and said, "We consider performance enhancing drugs to be fair play." and ALSO said a line would be drawn where old statistics were "frozen in time" and everything effectively started over? Then I'd be hard pressed to find a reason to call it "cheating" anymore. (I might not like the fact it encourages people to treat their own bodies as disposable for the purpose of getting a little more of an edge in the game ... but that's each individual's own decision to make.)
Having done I.T. for over 25 years and counting now, I'm *really* getting fed up with all the authoritarian sysadmin wanna-be's who impose all sorts of rules on what people CAN'T do on a network, instead of ENABLING people to do more with the resources available.
You want an AppleTV on the corporate network (most likely for the purpose of easily projecting things onto a conference room television instead of physically connecting a video cable between the PC and the TV)? Great! Why the hell NOT allow it? It's pretty much the same guts inside as an iPod touch, except with a locked-down version of iOS. Not exactly anything I'd be concerned about. (If your main objection is something along the lines of not liking the fact it lets people stream TV shows or music when that's not what they're hired to do? Guess what! It's not YOUR job or problem to concern yourself with that! Like the telephone on someone's desk, it's a TOOL. In I.T. you're paid to provide it and make sure it functions well. It's not YOUR problem to try to stop them from making personal calls instead of work-oriented ones. The person's direct supervisor can be concerned with all of that.)
As just one of the extreme examples .... my current boss just told me a story of his previous boss at a casino he did I.T. work for. The guy was SO intent on having 100% control and lockdown on things, he wouldn't even give the I.T. staff administrator rights to any of the boxes, except on an "as needed" basis. My boss was trying to install and configure SQL servers on a number of Microsoft servers, so each time he had to load the product, he was required to call or email and request admin access -- which was only granted JUST long enough to get the product installed! At least a couple times, this caused people to sit around and do absolutely nothing productive for the better part of a day, when he forgot they needed admin rights back for a project they were assigned to do and HE wasn't available to give it to them.
At the end of the day, when you work in I.T, or network/systems administration, it's your job to construct and maintain a computer environment that everyone finds as productive as possible. Yes, "computer security" has value ... but at the end of the day, it's just about having a documented process in place to show you tried/are trying. It's not actually some sort of goal you can achieve, and the more you try, the more difficult you make it for everyone to just USE the tools they're given.
I think this is why people make BYOD into a FAR bigger deal than it needs to be. Again, the cellphones and mobile devices are simply tools people can use to do their jobs. If you TRUST an employee enough to give them access to your digital information in the first place, then who really cares if your company has the legal right to wipe the device on demand or not? That's like issuing them a pad of paper and pencil and saying, "If you're terminated or quit, you must return the pad of paper to us." Never mind the person might have already torn out the pages where he or she scribbled down the proprietary information you were trying to protect. (Anyone with a smartphone could synchronize the contents to some personal device, off of the company-owned one, so they still possess the data you wished to wipe.)
What protects your DATA is the legal stuff.... non-compete clauses or signed agreements and documents promising you won't do certain things with the info. The BYOD or the company owned devices are just tools that can temporarily hold some of the data for people. Who buys the device is little more than a detail for accounting -- and shouldn't even matter much from the I.T. perspective.
Actually, the customer is not always right about MOST things, because "the customer" is actually a euphemism for "every single unique individual out there who we can get to purchase our product". There's no WAY you can get a consensus on practically any feature or function you'd put in a product that's used by a wide variety of people, all in unique situations.
What you can (and really should) do is try your best to offer a product or service that your design team believes offers the best possible experience for the customer. THEN get customer feedback and make changes whenever you can tell a significant number of individuals want them.
IMO, "health and safety" is only different because we have a legal system which, all too often, rewards individuals and punishes manufacturers, whenever it can be shown an injury occurred using the product, and someone argues in court that a different design could have avoided said injury. (I recall the story of lawnmowers requiring a warning label cautioning not to attempt to hold them up off the ground and use them to trim hedges or other shrubs -- ever since some idiot won a lawsuit for injuring himself doing just that.)
My point is, if most of your customers want that "collapse crane" button, it's probably for a very good reason (a need for it for storage purposes). You can either pretend you know better than they do what's best for them and refuse to provide it -- or you can put some thought into it, and provide it so it only functions along with other safeguards in place. (EG. Heat and motion sensor must not detect presence of a person on or within so many feet of the crane, or the operation cancels with an audible warning alert. Crane must not have anything attached to the end of it when button is pressed or again, it cancels.) A fear of our legal system probably causes many good ideas not to even be attempted, which is unfortunate.
I don't really think the used games are generally only getting discounted by 10%? I've bought a number of used games at GameStop over the years, and typically, I pick them up for no more than $15-35 each. They're also typically titles I'm specifically seeking (because, for example, one of our kids is asking for it), and they're not even readily available on the new market anymore. (Might still be in production, but most retail stores don't bother to stock it on their shelves anymore due to waning interest.)
Until I was asked to write a few tech. articles on bitcoin and other virtual currencies last year, I didn't really pay a lot of attention to them. But I've learned that high end ATI video cards are pretty much the "engines" required for any respectable bitcoin/litecoin mining rig to work successfully.
(As a rule, nVidia cards have been ignored as "not as good of performers as ATI" for this specific use -- though I wonder how this GTX 780 would do?)
People building these mining rigs generally cram 3 - 4 of the cards on one motherboard, and run several identically configured machines at a time -- meaning a pretty hefty investment in video boards. It makes me wonder if this isn't really a significant reason for the sales of the more costly models, as opposed to the audience you'd assume was buying them -- 3D gamers?
Not saying I totally disagree with you, but there's SO much going on by way of invading privacy and data-mining people's info, it's impossible to keep up with all of it. People become numb to it after so long. We're at the point now where people only get concerned when they see a very serious and obvious threat. (EG. Word comes out that everyone you know who uses a credit card to buy groceries from a certain store winds up with mysterious charges on their card a month or two later.)
The fact that Skype probably leaks your conversations to law enforcement officials on demand? Disturbing -- yet ultimately kind of a thing when you consider Skype is free to use (at least for a pure Skype to Skype call) and totally optional to use in the first place. I mean, my workplace isn't going to stop taking advantage of it as a free solution to video teleconferencing two meeting rooms in different cities together over it. (Not unless we start holding meetings about illegal operations or something,anyway!) It provides real cost savings and solves a real problem for us, and there's no immediate reason that we'd be worried that law enforcement would WANT to listen in to what we're saying on those calls.
XBox 1? Probably more of the same. People aren't going to have a big issue with it needing "always on" Internet connections if that's what they're already paying for at home anyway with their broadband. You worried the XBox might reveal something it's not supposed to? Unplug it during that time. Whatever....
That's definitely the buzz going around the net.... That between Sony and Microsoft both moving to digital game downloads and no physical optical media to buy anymore, it will be the end of the used game shops.
Of course, I can see something else happening too.... There's a pretty massive collection of existing, used titles out there, just like there are plenty of used music CDs in circulation (even if no more were produced starting today).
It may turn out that the interest in "vintage" consoles and games increases, and rather like antique shops, the used game shops stick around indefinitely. (I could see a pretty good market developing for refurbishing and repairing older consoles too. Maybe each GameStop would have a tech. working full-time in the back room so you could drop off that PS3 or XBox 360 for service work, ready to pick back up the next afternoon?)
Already, the web sites like ArsTechnica who got previews of the new PS4 commented that the graphics were really only incrementally better than what we see now. We've reached a point where most game titles look "good enough" with today's hardware. It's tough to really amaze people to the point the audio/visual portion motivates them to spend hundreds and start over collecting new game titles. (I think to pull that off, you'd need a console that made all the games truly look just like live video/movie footage. Get it to where the stuff we're used to seeing as opening or cut scenes is actually the entire game. Until then? Nah, Microsoft has to sell the new console based on gimmicks like voice commands.)
One of my friends started his own venture capital business years ago, after a long career in corporate I.T. (He focuses on funding educational related projects.)
We were talking a bit about the recent changes at Yahoo, and I know his opinion is that the Tumblr purchase is ill-advised. and looks like it cost the company pretty much all of the available capital it had to spend. After that, I don't think Yahoo is in a financial position to do much more in the way of acquiring anything else. They've got to make do with revamping what they already own (and maybe they think talent obtained from Tumbler will help towards that end?).
The thing is, Yahoo spent FAR too long concerning themselves with convincing people their "branding" was still relevant, and thought they could somehow "win" simply by reminding folks to consider them for search queries. (Remember all the annoying "Yaaaaahhhhhoooooooo!" ads on TV?)
Now, even if the current CEO is trying to make serious changes, I think it's going to be too little, too late. Figuring out a way to monetize Tumblr is a full-time job in itself -- and one you MIGHT want to take on if you were an otherwise profitable and successful company. But Yahoo seems like they just bought themselves a big database of porn and pet pictures that has a relatively short shelf-life, before it's not "trendy" to use anymore and the user-base moves on to something else.
Flickr really was a significantly good service they owned. I knew quite a few photographers who religiously uploaded their work to Flickr (typically with a Pro account since they wanted more storage space and ability to put full resolution photos up). But as they let it stagnate, all sorts of other "Johnny come lately" photo sharing services popped up -- many integrated real tightly with mobile phones, which have become the #1 device used to take photos in the first place.
The press-conference "slam" against pro photographers tells me Yahoo still thinks it needs to cater to the mainstream -- exactly the group they'll have the most competition with. Bad move. If they really enhanced a paid, "Pro" side of the service and kept it cheaper than alternatives -- I know a LOT of people who have at least a second job dealing in photography who'd sign up and use it.
Email is a non-starter at this point. Lots of us still have yahoo email accounts, but it's very often just because of old partnerships they struck with ISPs like the regional Bell telephone companies and later AT&T. You ordered your DSL service? You got a Yahoo email with it. Yahoo Groups had a good run but again, they let it pretty much die off. I used to use it occasionally until the groups all seemed to fill rapidly with spam, and upload/download speeds on attachments got so pitifully slow, you wondered if the whole thing ran on an old Pentium 3 in someone's basement. They only get search queries, by and large, because they manage to work deals to keep it a "default" search engine in various programs. None of their stuff really stands out as a tool you want to use that you can't get elsewhere.
Sure... but even if they really DO care, who's to say they just weren't successful at keeping your info safe anyway?
I've been saying for years now that "computer security" is largely a sham. Time and time again we find out that the biggest manufacturers of anti-virus software are companies run by shifty individuals with poor coding abilities, and respected makers of firewall appliances and routers sourced components from countries like China which had back-doors built into them at the processor level. Encryption schemes provided by all the big commercials software makers are suspect too, since U.S. govt. seems to demand they give them "keys" to break in, if needed.
Look at the stream of security flaws being found in Java, and think about how often it gets used in the design of web applications.
How many web sites run on IIS -- another product historically full of security holes?
There's a LOT of money to be made by promising people you can help secure their systems, and as long as nobody really TRIES to get past whatever you put in place, you can brag about its "100% effectiveness". Anyone trying to do e-commerce business online has a primary goal of generating a profit selling the goods or services they're concentrating on providing. So right off the bat, these people are simply NOT going to have the time to invest a whole lot into securing customer data. They're going to go with the existing "pre fab" tools and products that are advertised as secure and recommended by others. When it turns out one of those isn't so great after all -- oops, there goes your private data again!
I think you really DO have to place the lion's share of the blame with the thieves - which include both the hackers who took the data, AND the "computer security" folks who made a small fortune selling half-baked products and services to people trying to achieve security.
Only partially a fair comment, IMO. Today's internet is VERY much privately funded, even if the original internet was just a government project for military and research lab use.
Is your broadband connection provided to you by your local government and paid for out of your taxes, or do you receive a bill for it from a private ISP?