Does your webcam do that at Mach 25? How about at very high (hundreds or thousands of degrees F.) of heat? Something tells me the quality of your webcam suffers (ie, it melts) in those sorts of situations...
Apple can't be bloody mind-readers. If MS opened up SMB a bit, like by releasing specifications, maybe Apple could use it better. Linux too for that matter. Good thing the EU is trying to force them to do that, huh?
You assume Blu-Ray sells. HD-DVD is a lot cheaper. Blu-Ray wins only if everyone buys a PS3. If everyone buys the xBox console, or the Wii, and then picks up a $300 HD-DVD player, BR is screwed. The first format to $150 players and $20 discs wins.
Then the obvious answer to both is that we need to work on bringing that low-end up to somewhere more reasonable. Such that a basic American education (eventually internationally) includes that sort of basic common sense.
This is adware/spyware based pop-ups. Not internet-based pop-ups. There isn't a lot of Mac/Linux spyware or adware, so they're relatively safe. That said, most of business week's customers probably use PCs, so it's not a horrible assumption.
TFA describes their "pride over technical cunning." I never thought about those people trying to bypass my popup or spam blocker actually being proud of their spawn.
Technical cunning maybe, but not a lot of smarts. If I'm going to go to the trouble of installing a spam/popup blocker, or of running AV software, or trying to delete their software, that ought to tell them I don't like the pop-ups. If I hate the pop-ups, I'm not gonna buy off them, regardless of the deals they offer. So it seems that any rational advertiser would offer more for a solution that allows pissed people to not have to do too much work - that way I'm not so pissed at the advertiser, just the adware-maker.
I mean, I think the real problem is that people will buy stuff from ads that randomly pop-up on their computer. And worse, those ads are the most effective kind?? I mean, if we could get people to wise up and not purchase sketchy stuff from spam or adware, then evil companies would stop making it.
ABC and the other TV companies exist on the simple premise that ad-views = product sales. They convinced other companies of this way back when. Companies buy advertising based on how value it is to them, which is based on expected increase in customers. If they expect to gain fewer ad customers, they won't buy as many ads (or won't pay as much). If a company hears about how 30% of America doesn't watch any commercials in 3 years or something, they will want a 30% ad price discount.
The wonders of hacking. If the print screen button works and it sends it to a file, hardware hackers will find what the button calles and call that directly. Then they find the location,software that does the final dump. That way they can avoing hitting the button and probably in 3 or 4 hours they can get a perfect backup.
I was never expecting someone to manually hit that button. But w/ 270,000 images at 1080p (forgot that HD was 60 fps), that's a lot of processing power. Probably more than 3 or 4 hours on anything short of a workstation.
Remember that all DRM has to do is dissuade enough pirates. It'll never get every pirate, but if it's 20% less convenient to pirate, there will be a bigger than 20% drop in pirates. If you're waiting two-three weeks post-DVD release for a pirated copy (instead of 2 days), you'll just rent the darn thing.
Um, the word "Authenticity" is probably going to confuse small businesses without a lawyer on staff. I mean, when I think "Authenticity", I think "authentic". I don't have a thesaurus in front of me, but I'm pretty sure "authentic" and "genuine" mean the same thing. The guy installing Office on his computer will stick a "Certificate of Authenticity" in his files, and maybe the EULA, thinking that a CoA proves he has a "genuine" (aka "real") copy.
30 frames/sec * 60 seconds/minute * 150 minute movie = 135000 pictures, no? That's an awful lot of times pushing the print screen button. Even if you can "print" to an image file, and use a script to "push" the button continuously, once you factor in reassembling it, that'll still take a while.
No. Factories make something and ship it to me. They spend most of the energy making it, and little shipping it. I interact with my OS all the time. They'll spend more time/energy on the shipping (bandwidth/latency) than they will on processing power. They can't bundle up everything I need and send it to me overnight. Until bandwidth costs become negligible relative to processing power (somewhere in the 10Gb/s for $50 a month realm), I'll take my OS right in front of me.
Because they'll go out of business? Apple would have to sell 5-6 OS X copies for every mac sale it loses, just to break even. And there'd be a lot more piracy.
I've known this for weeks as well, but when you get down to it, it's the discussion that matters. Sites like macrumors or digg (which had this story a week ago) have discussion ranging from "OMG!!1!! Teh Steveness!!" to "It'll have 4D graphics and ship two days after WWDC!!". On/. there will be discussion based on more reasonable features, and identify technical hurdles.
Capitalism only works under certain rules. In the telco businesses, there is a massive Cost of Entry to startup a company - namely owning some fiber/cable (either backbone or "last mile"). Competition isn't going to work when people have no other alternatives because no one else can get the money together to lay loads of cable or fiber. Government regulation can be both helpful and harmful. A government is also a nice way to put a market/industry back on track if it's not following capitalist theory.
1) At least they try.
2) Fear of lawsuits, even winnable ones, can worry companies.
3) They have had some successes, but more importantly, they're making news and bringing bad things to light.
For 75 percent of the world, "out-of-the-box" == "during actual operation". It's those people who get infected by malware. Don't expect users to do any extra work beyond going straight to Office or IE or their email app. Thus, "out-of-the-box" is a pretty important state.
That said, this only addresses number of viruses, not level of security, making this a dumb study. Yes, I own a Mac, and will be buying another.
Not the parent, but I think Ubuntu vs. OS X is shaping up as the "easy to use, non-MS mass desktop takeover" battle. There was a digg flamewar about it when an article mentioned two promenient converts from OS X to Ubuntu. And it's also totally OT. Unless you count the fact that they both run Firefox.
Both ATI and Nvidia are going to be making DX10 cards this fall. New games that will truly require a next-gen card are coming out before the holiday season. Vista is coming out sometime in 2007. All the performance from here on out is going to be geared to DX10, so it isn't worth it working on pumping up the power on DX9 cards. Obviously, DX9 users will see advancements with DX10 cards, but the point is sort of that games in two years won't run on DX9 cards, so releasing stronger DX9 cards now is silly.
Transparent and nano-sized? Apple'd love to sell those. I mean, if I drop it on the floor, it doesn't matter if it scratches: I'll never find it if it landed two feet away.
Google has a revenue stream (adsense and adwords) that looks pretty reliable in the short to medium term. So they are trying to come up with more revenue streams, and more places to advertise. Google Maps, gMail, etc. are all places where google can advertise to you without having to split the proceeds with the host site.
Everything else they're trying (like this new gBuy thing) looks like a bunch of shots in the dark. They are. They burn a few hundred thousand on a new idea, if it catches, great. If it doesn't, well, confine it to Google Labs (awesome site, btw) or let it languish in Beta. If 1 in 10 ideas become a secondary revenue stream, Google wins, even if the other 9 flop.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, maybe people are reading the full arti...oh, right, Slashdot. Never mind.
Does your webcam do that at Mach 25? How about at very high (hundreds or thousands of degrees F.) of heat? Something tells me the quality of your webcam suffers (ie, it melts) in those sorts of situations...
just because Apple can't write well using SMB.
Apple can't be bloody mind-readers. If MS opened up SMB a bit, like by releasing specifications, maybe Apple could use it better. Linux too for that matter. Good thing the EU is trying to force them to do that, huh?
You assume Blu-Ray sells. HD-DVD is a lot cheaper. Blu-Ray wins only if everyone buys a PS3. If everyone buys the xBox console, or the Wii, and then picks up a $300 HD-DVD player, BR is screwed. The first format to $150 players and $20 discs wins.
Then the obvious answer to both is that we need to work on bringing that low-end up to somewhere more reasonable. Such that a basic American education (eventually internationally) includes that sort of basic common sense.
This is adware/spyware based pop-ups. Not internet-based pop-ups. There isn't a lot of Mac/Linux spyware or adware, so they're relatively safe. That said, most of business week's customers probably use PCs, so it's not a horrible assumption.
TFA describes their "pride over technical cunning." I never thought about those people trying to bypass my popup or spam blocker actually being proud of their spawn.
Technical cunning maybe, but not a lot of smarts. If I'm going to go to the trouble of installing a spam/popup blocker, or of running AV software, or trying to delete their software, that ought to tell them I don't like the pop-ups. If I hate the pop-ups, I'm not gonna buy off them, regardless of the deals they offer. So it seems that any rational advertiser would offer more for a solution that allows pissed people to not have to do too much work - that way I'm not so pissed at the advertiser, just the adware-maker.
So basically what you're suggesting is a slightly different version of Blue-Security? Same premise, different problem?
I mean, I think the real problem is that people will buy stuff from ads that randomly pop-up on their computer. And worse, those ads are the most effective kind?? I mean, if we could get people to wise up and not purchase sketchy stuff from spam or adware, then evil companies would stop making it.
ABC and the other TV companies exist on the simple premise that ad-views = product sales. They convinced other companies of this way back when. Companies buy advertising based on how value it is to them, which is based on expected increase in customers. If they expect to gain fewer ad customers, they won't buy as many ads (or won't pay as much). If a company hears about how 30% of America doesn't watch any commercials in 3 years or something, they will want a 30% ad price discount.
The wonders of hacking. If the print screen button works and it sends it to a file, hardware hackers will find what the button calles and call that directly. Then they find the location,software that does the final dump. That way they can avoing hitting the button and probably in 3 or 4 hours they can get a perfect backup.
I was never expecting someone to manually hit that button. But w/ 270,000 images at 1080p (forgot that HD was 60 fps), that's a lot of processing power. Probably more than 3 or 4 hours on anything short of a workstation.
Remember that all DRM has to do is dissuade enough pirates. It'll never get every pirate, but if it's 20% less convenient to pirate, there will be a bigger than 20% drop in pirates. If you're waiting two-three weeks post-DVD release for a pirated copy (instead of 2 days), you'll just rent the darn thing.
Um, the word "Authenticity" is probably going to confuse small businesses without a lawyer on staff. I mean, when I think "Authenticity", I think "authentic". I don't have a thesaurus in front of me, but I'm pretty sure "authentic" and "genuine" mean the same thing. The guy installing Office on his computer will stick a "Certificate of Authenticity" in his files, and maybe the EULA, thinking that a CoA proves he has a "genuine" (aka "real") copy.
30 frames/sec * 60 seconds/minute * 150 minute movie = 135000 pictures, no? That's an awful lot of times pushing the print screen button. Even if you can "print" to an image file, and use a script to "push" the button continuously, once you factor in reassembling it, that'll still take a while.
No. Factories make something and ship it to me. They spend most of the energy making it, and little shipping it. I interact with my OS all the time. They'll spend more time/energy on the shipping (bandwidth/latency) than they will on processing power. They can't bundle up everything I need and send it to me overnight. Until bandwidth costs become negligible relative to processing power (somewhere in the 10Gb/s for $50 a month realm), I'll take my OS right in front of me.
Because they'll go out of business? Apple would have to sell 5-6 OS X copies for every mac sale it loses, just to break even. And there'd be a lot more piracy.
I've known this for weeks as well, but when you get down to it, it's the discussion that matters. Sites like macrumors or digg (which had this story a week ago) have discussion ranging from "OMG!!1!! Teh Steveness!!" to "It'll have 4D graphics and ship two days after WWDC!!". On /. there will be discussion based on more reasonable features, and identify technical hurdles.
When I read the Subject, why did I think this was going to be about Ballmer?
Yeah, but luckily, we now have backslash - no need to RTFA or RTFC (comments). Backslash on this story can just bring us the best from the thread.
Wow. I'm too lazy to fully read a news summary aggregator, and I'm now waiting on the summary of the summary.
Capitalism only works under certain rules. In the telco businesses, there is a massive Cost of Entry to startup a company - namely owning some fiber/cable (either backbone or "last mile"). Competition isn't going to work when people have no other alternatives because no one else can get the money together to lay loads of cable or fiber. Government regulation can be both helpful and harmful. A government is also a nice way to put a market/industry back on track if it's not following capitalist theory.
1) At least they try.
2) Fear of lawsuits, even winnable ones, can worry companies.
3) They have had some successes, but more importantly, they're making news and bringing bad things to light.
For 75 percent of the world, "out-of-the-box" == "during actual operation". It's those people who get infected by malware. Don't expect users to do any extra work beyond going straight to Office or IE or their email app. Thus, "out-of-the-box" is a pretty important state.
That said, this only addresses number of viruses, not level of security, making this a dumb study. Yes, I own a Mac, and will be buying another.
Not the parent, but I think Ubuntu vs. OS X is shaping up as the "easy to use, non-MS mass desktop takeover" battle. There was a digg flamewar about it when an article mentioned two promenient converts from OS X to Ubuntu. And it's also totally OT. Unless you count the fact that they both run Firefox.
Both ATI and Nvidia are going to be making DX10 cards this fall. New games that will truly require a next-gen card are coming out before the holiday season. Vista is coming out sometime in 2007. All the performance from here on out is going to be geared to DX10, so it isn't worth it working on pumping up the power on DX9 cards. Obviously, DX9 users will see advancements with DX10 cards, but the point is sort of that games in two years won't run on DX9 cards, so releasing stronger DX9 cards now is silly.
Dude, I want a transparent Ipod too.
Transparent and nano-sized? Apple'd love to sell those. I mean, if I drop it on the floor, it doesn't matter if it scratches: I'll never find it if it landed two feet away.
Google has a revenue stream (adsense and adwords) that looks pretty reliable in the short to medium term. So they are trying to come up with more revenue streams, and more places to advertise. Google Maps, gMail, etc. are all places where google can advertise to you without having to split the proceeds with the host site.
Everything else they're trying (like this new gBuy thing) looks like a bunch of shots in the dark. They are. They burn a few hundred thousand on a new idea, if it catches, great. If it doesn't, well, confine it to Google Labs (awesome site, btw) or let it languish in Beta. If 1 in 10 ideas become a secondary revenue stream, Google wins, even if the other 9 flop.