Lies, damned lies and statistics. Couple of random thoughts:
1. It is my observation that bright students in developing countries often gravitate to math/science fields at a higher rate than in the U.S. That isn't necessarily a good thing. While such countries may produce engineers and computer programmers at a high rate, they may produce doctors, research scientists, economists, etc. at a lower rate.
2. In China, India and Eastern Europe, my impression is that more bin-sorting goes on with regard to who can attend what university. In the U.S. you have bright, capable people spread out across more buckets. In India especially there is a well-defined pecking order among universities, with the very best students routed to the most presitigious school.
3. Having participated in the ACM contest at the regional level, the results aren't all based on raw talent. Extensive practice can give you a distinct advantage. It may be that the non-U.S. teams simply prepared better. Being poorly prepared for a contest doesn't mean the U.S. team members are generally incompetant.
4. If the ACM contest is more popular at non-U.S. universities, those countries may be better able to attract the top competitors from their respective talent pools. At the large state university I attended, tryouts were hardly advertised, and I knew many smart, talented people who just weren't interested in competing.
5. It may be a good thing that CS enrollment has dropped from 3.7% to 1.1%. When I was still in school, during the boom times, about 20-30% of my classmates probably shouldn't have been there. I shudder to think of the code they're producing right now.
There's a small set of apps that I usually install on any Windows machine I use. I don't consider all of them to be "great apps", but they fill gaps that are missing in a default XP install. Most of these are pretty well known, but here you go:
The question seem to ask whether, if we just put an amorphous mass of "scientific knowledge" into a big fat RDBMS and let it churn for a while, it would somehow spit out new scientific knowledge. Huh? Imho it displays not only an astounding lack of understanding regarding how knowledge is encoded, but also about the nature (and obvious limitations) of relational databases.
Contrary to the poster of this article seems to believe, Sony makes more than just Playstations. There's Sony Records and Sony Pictures, but then they also make monitors, laptops, desktops, camcorders, stereos, headphones and medical equipment. Not exactly Microsoft's core business.
Having worked for IBM in the past and having been forced to use Notes as my desktop email client, it's difficult for me to comprehend why they'd make it the centerpiece of their assault on Microsoft. Powerful, yes, but also terrible to use as an end-user.
If Verizon's backbone is the bottleneck then it doesn't matter how fat their pipe is over the last mile. Of course, that may be an entirely untrue statement by the AT&T guy. If true, though, he has a point. I'd rather have X Mbps to my door and be able to use all of it than pay twice as much for 4X Mbps and discover that the backbone limits me to X.
You're going to have to download IE7 to use it before you get your hands on Vista. So I turn the question around on you.
Actually, I was planning to wait until Vista came out. Or, failing that, until IE7 moved out of beta and became available through Windows Update, like you mention below.
Whats the motivation to download IE7 for features I already have with Firefox?
1. It came pre-installed with your OS, 2. You want a browser that every website designer absolutely must test against. I'm not suggesting IE7 is going to steal much share from current FireFox users. I'm suggesting it will severely reduce FireFox's appeal to those who don't already use it, since it negates two of the biggest advantages FireFox has over IE6: tabbed browsing and resistance to malware.
Why would my mother or my mothers friends want to use IE7 when they already have the features of IE7 and then some (such as extensions) simply by sticking with Firefox?
I don't know about your mother, but none of my non-technical friends know what extensions are, much less which ones are worth installing. They would have very little motivation to switch to IE7 as long as FireFox continued to do what they need it to do. However, if one of them bought a new computer, I highly doubt he or she would bother to re-install FireFox if IE7 were available and could offer some level of resistance to malware.
Basically, once Vista/IE7 go out the door, I'd expect a marked drop in the growth rate of FireFox among Windows users. As non-technical FireFox users gradually replace their machines and get IE7 by default, I'd expect a gradual decline in FireFox's Windows market share. That could be offset by a increase in the share of non-Windows desktops, should the Linux desktop pick up steam.
Customer service may play a part, but imho it's all about design. The public doesn't always associate Apple products with having the highest performance, but they do view them as being well-made, "just working", and being beautifully designed. Everything Apple: their website, commercials, other marketing materials, and products, looks attractive. Contrast this with the majority of PC hardware vendors, whose offerings look like they were designed by...well...an engineer. I never ceased to be astounded by the sheer quantity of ugly junk the Dells and HPs of the world manage to release each year. If they'd just drop a million bucks and hire a crack design team to come up something less clunky, I'm convinced they'd recoup the expense in additional sales.
I can see IE7 having a more substantial effect than you suggest. You're right in that MS is playing catchup, adding features to IE7 that have been in FireFox for a while, but that's precisely why I think it may be impactful. Except for the anti-MS zealots and users of nonWindows OSs, why does anyone switch to FireFox? Basically it's tabbed browsing and a decreased vulnerability to malware and similar exploits. What does IE7 offer? Tabbed browsing and decreased vulnerability to malware and similar exploits.
Assuming IE7 actually lives up to those promises, what's my motivation for taking the time to download FireFox? Standards compliance? Nobody cares but web geeks. For that matter, it's often "easier" for the end-user to conform to the "Microsoft" standard than to actual W3C standards. Speed? FireFox's advantage is slight at best, and definitely not significant enough to motivate the "average user" to switch.
One thing working in FireFox's favor is that it can play in the alternate-OS space, which is theoretically on the rise. To whatever extent Windows the OS loses share to Linux/OSX/etc., IE7 loses share to the browsers that operate on those platforms.
What counts as a "piece" of spyware? If a particular malware application entails five files, is each of those a "piece"? Are they counting each tracking cookie as a "piece"? Without detailed definitions, "20 pieces" is meaningless.
Actually I know a fair bit about large software projects. Typically they too suffer from the "features over stability and performance" problem, since they're customer driven. One thing I know about corporate software projets is that, for the most part, developers do what their technical lead tells them to do. That's the essential difference with Firefox, given that it's developed by volunteers who can't be "told" what to work on.
In my original post I wasn't suggesting that the Firefox "management" force developers to spend more time on bug fixes and performance enhancement. Clearly that's not possible since they're all volunteers. What I was trying to communicate is my wish that the developers themselves would shift their priorities more in line with what I described.
I really wish the Opera (and Firefox) camps would focus less on adding new features and more on stability, security, performance and standards compliance. Widgets? In-line spell check? Don't know about you, but I'd certainly prefer a smaller, faster, more secure browser that crashes less often in place of the wonders of in-line spell checking.
AV companies could give away their stuff for free, too, which would probably result in many more people running AV software and consequently not being hit by viruses. Are they morally obligated to do so?
In order to update, test and release their malicious software removal tool out-of-band Microsoft would necessarily have to shift resources away from some other project, which could hurt them elsewhere. So it's not like they're declining to deploy the update ahead of schedule out of pure spite. If they bend over backwards in order to release a fix for this particular date-triggered virus, they run the risk of being expected to respond similarly to every such virus in the future.
I don't consider it Microsoft's responsibility to ensure that every Windows user gets just-in-time virus removal for free. It might be different if the virus exploited an OS flaw, but to my knowledge this one doesn't. This is why people pay money for AV software. That said, it would be nice if they'd schedule an out-of-cycle release of the malicious software removal tool, but doing so could create a precedent they don't wish to establish.
"But if Dell refuses to sell Eudora and will only sell Microsoft Outlook, they can shave $30 off their price. Basically the same PC, but $30 cheaper."
Great. I'll buy the Dell. If Microsoft wants to cut their profit margin on Windows in order to get their other apps shipped by default, I'm not too upset about that.
"The problem is that Dell's decision to carry Microsoft application software has nothing to do with them being better/worse than Microsoft's competitors."
I know. It has to do with the fact that shipping Microsoft's apps lets them offer their "package" to their customers at a $30 discount. Apparently, someone at Dell crunched the numbers and determined that Dell customers would rather save $30 and have a bunch of Microsoft apps installed than have Eudora installed and pay $30 more.
Meh. If the apps are easily uninstalled then this isn't so much of a problem. I buy the Dell, get the discount, then take them off and put on whatever I want. If the competing apps offer comparable quality at a comparable price, then they'll get their market share. If they're not good enough for me to bother uninstalling the default stuff then, imho, they don't deserve that market share.
Nothing says Microsoft has to offer Dell any sort of bulk discount or that Dell has to make concessions to Microsoft in order to get such a discount.
No operating system can be virus-proof that gives users root access and lets them execute arbitrary code. There will always be some user with root, even if it's a tech-savvy system administrator, and that person can always do something stupid. I don't consider a MS AV program to be a conflict of interest. Whatever the MS AV revenue stream stands to gain from an insecure OS, the OS revenue stream (and those of all MS apps) stand to lose much, much more. The existence of a MS AV app in no way dampens MS's motivation to produce a more secure product.
I'm a big fan of maintaining a dividing line between operating system and applications. As far as I'm concerned, Microsoft should be free to bundle their apps with their OS, but those apps shouldn't be integrated with the OS in such a way that they can't be easily removed (and replaced by competing products). That principle should apply to media players, mail clients, web browsers, anti-spyware and anti-virus tools. I would love to see Microsoft ship Microsoft-brand anti-spyware and anti-virus tools with Vista. I would hate to see them be as tightly integrated with the operating system as Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player currently are.
...is that these viruses may actually be evolutionarily advantageous. The article was extremely short on info about the mechanisms through which they cause humans to become obese. For example, they may simply make humans more efficient processors of calories. In the presence of excess caloric intake, this would cause the "more efficient" folks to become obese where "less efficient" individuals would not.
Consider the AAV2 virus, which I think has been covered on Slashdot before, which appears to prevent certain types of cancer. Not all viruses are bad, even if these particular obesity-related viruses turn out to be.
First, there is almost never a need to format your drive. Nor is there a need, despite what the zealots say, for you to move to a non-Windows OS. Here's how to avoid malware:
1. Keep your system up-to-date with the latest MS patches on a daily basis.
2. Either use XP's built-in firewall or something like ZoneAlarm if you're not using XP.
3. If you have the cash, buy a router and put it between your system and your net connection.
4. Don't log on using an account with Administrator access unless you absolutely have to.
5. Don't read your mail using MS Outlook.
6. Don't run suspicious executable files or open suspicious attachments. Don't install shady applications or porn dialers that come bundled with malware.
If you happen to get hit by something, here's what to do:
1. Install LavaSoft Ad-Aware, MS Anti-Spyware, Ewido and Hijack This!. Ewido isn't free, but comes with a free trial period last I checked. I didn't include Spybot Search and Destroy because it's mangled my system on mutiple occasions.
2. Boot into safe mode.
3. Run a full scan with Ad-Aware, MS Anti-Spyware and Ewido. When that's done, fire up Hijack This! and look for anything fishy. Browser helper objects (BHOs) should be considered suspicious unless they're something easily recognizable (Acrobat Reader, Google Toolbar, etc.)
4. If those three (Ad-Aware, MS Anti-Spyware, Ewido) didn't catch what you have, consider taking a "more the merrier" approach and installing additional spyware removal tools. I've heard good things about Spyware Doctor, but it's not free.
"Maybe I've been blind to the views of the majority in this proudly secular country."
It often seems those of the "educated atheist" bent are frequently entirely ignorant of the actual views held by the citizenry of which they are a part. In my opinion it's a matter of isolation. People in general, and young educated atheists are no exception, tend to congregate with others similar to them. It's natural, then, to make the mistake of mapping one's peers' views onto the populace as a whole.
As for Britain being a "proudly secular country", I don't think so. Norway maybe. Germany. France. Not the UK. Not yet, at least.
Solution: have a non-sensitive branch of the military set up a honeypot. Allow it to become infected. Then use it as a means to prosecute botnet administrators under the tougher law.
Are you just speaking ethically in the abstract, or are there actual laws in place to prevent such "tipping" of law enforcment officials?
Perhaps, rather than tipping individuals, they could tip entire agencies. Maybe do some sort of cooperative deal with the FBI whereby they (largely) fund a specific computer crime unit dedicated to busting up botnets.
I understand this isn't something marketing can easily "package" for purchasing managers, but it seems like something that could give them (Microsoft)a little PR boost. So many people despise spam and malware, they could score points just by casting themselves as the company that's "sticking it to the bad guys". I know I'd give them a virtual high-five.
Slashdot Mirror
Lies, damned lies and statistics. Couple of random thoughts:
1. It is my observation that bright students in developing countries often gravitate to math/science fields at a higher rate than in the U.S. That isn't necessarily a good thing. While such countries may produce engineers and computer programmers at a high rate, they may produce doctors, research scientists, economists, etc. at a lower rate.
2. In China, India and Eastern Europe, my impression is that more bin-sorting goes on with regard to who can attend what university. In the U.S. you have bright, capable people spread out across more buckets. In India especially there is a well-defined pecking order among universities, with the very best students routed to the most presitigious school.
3. Having participated in the ACM contest at the regional level, the results aren't all based on raw talent. Extensive practice can give you a distinct advantage. It may be that the non-U.S. teams simply prepared better. Being poorly prepared for a contest doesn't mean the U.S. team members are generally incompetant.
4. If the ACM contest is more popular at non-U.S. universities, those countries may be better able to attract the top competitors from their respective talent pools. At the large state university I attended, tryouts were hardly advertised, and I knew many smart, talented people who just weren't interested in competing.
5. It may be a good thing that CS enrollment has dropped from 3.7% to 1.1%. When I was still in school, during the boom times, about 20-30% of my classmates probably shouldn't have been there. I shudder to think of the code they're producing right now.
There's a small set of apps that I usually install on any Windows machine I use. I don't consider all of them to be "great apps", but they fill gaps that are missing in a default XP install. Most of these are pretty well known, but here you go:
The question seem to ask whether, if we just put an amorphous mass of "scientific knowledge" into a big fat RDBMS and let it churn for a while, it would somehow spit out new scientific knowledge. Huh? Imho it displays not only an astounding lack of understanding regarding how knowledge is encoded, but also about the nature (and obvious limitations) of relational databases.
Contrary to the poster of this article seems to believe, Sony makes more than just Playstations. There's Sony Records and Sony Pictures, but then they also make monitors, laptops, desktops, camcorders, stereos, headphones and medical equipment. Not exactly Microsoft's core business.
Having worked for IBM in the past and having been forced to use Notes as my desktop email client, it's difficult for me to comprehend why they'd make it the centerpiece of their assault on Microsoft. Powerful, yes, but also terrible to use as an end-user.
If Verizon's backbone is the bottleneck then it doesn't matter how fat their pipe is over the last mile. Of course, that may be an entirely untrue statement by the AT&T guy. If true, though, he has a point. I'd rather have X Mbps to my door and be able to use all of it than pay twice as much for 4X Mbps and discover that the backbone limits me to X.
You're going to have to download IE7 to use it before you get your hands on Vista. So I turn the question around on you.
Actually, I was planning to wait until Vista came out. Or, failing that, until IE7 moved out of beta and became available through Windows Update, like you mention below.
Whats the motivation to download IE7 for features I already have with Firefox?
1. It came pre-installed with your OS, 2. You want a browser that every website designer absolutely must test against. I'm not suggesting IE7 is going to steal much share from current FireFox users. I'm suggesting it will severely reduce FireFox's appeal to those who don't already use it, since it negates two of the biggest advantages FireFox has over IE6: tabbed browsing and resistance to malware.
Why would my mother or my mothers friends want to use IE7 when they already have the features of IE7 and then some (such as extensions) simply by sticking with Firefox?
I don't know about your mother, but none of my non-technical friends know what extensions are, much less which ones are worth installing. They would have very little motivation to switch to IE7 as long as FireFox continued to do what they need it to do. However, if one of them bought a new computer, I highly doubt he or she would bother to re-install FireFox if IE7 were available and could offer some level of resistance to malware.
Basically, once Vista/IE7 go out the door, I'd expect a marked drop in the growth rate of FireFox among Windows users. As non-technical FireFox users gradually replace their machines and get IE7 by default, I'd expect a gradual decline in FireFox's Windows market share. That could be offset by a increase in the share of non-Windows desktops, should the Linux desktop pick up steam.
Customer service may play a part, but imho it's all about design. The public doesn't always associate Apple products with having the highest performance, but they do view them as being well-made, "just working", and being beautifully designed. Everything Apple: their website, commercials, other marketing materials, and products, looks attractive. Contrast this with the majority of PC hardware vendors, whose offerings look like they were designed by...well...an engineer. I never ceased to be astounded by the sheer quantity of ugly junk the Dells and HPs of the world manage to release each year. If they'd just drop a million bucks and hire a crack design team to come up something less clunky, I'm convinced they'd recoup the expense in additional sales.
I can see IE7 having a more substantial effect than you suggest. You're right in that MS is playing catchup, adding features to IE7 that have been in FireFox for a while, but that's precisely why I think it may be impactful. Except for the anti-MS zealots and users of nonWindows OSs, why does anyone switch to FireFox? Basically it's tabbed browsing and a decreased vulnerability to malware and similar exploits. What does IE7 offer? Tabbed browsing and decreased vulnerability to malware and similar exploits.
Assuming IE7 actually lives up to those promises, what's my motivation for taking the time to download FireFox? Standards compliance? Nobody cares but web geeks. For that matter, it's often "easier" for the end-user to conform to the "Microsoft" standard than to actual W3C standards. Speed? FireFox's advantage is slight at best, and definitely not significant enough to motivate the "average user" to switch.
One thing working in FireFox's favor is that it can play in the alternate-OS space, which is theoretically on the rise. To whatever extent Windows the OS loses share to Linux/OSX/etc., IE7 loses share to the browsers that operate on those platforms.
Why is the U.S. Secret Service busting spammers? Shouldn't this be the purview of the FTC, FCC or FBI?
What counts as a "piece" of spyware? If a particular malware application entails five files, is each of those a "piece"? Are they counting each tracking cookie as a "piece"? Without detailed definitions, "20 pieces" is meaningless.
Actually I know a fair bit about large software projects. Typically they too suffer from the "features over stability and performance" problem, since they're customer driven. One thing I know about corporate software projets is that, for the most part, developers do what their technical lead tells them to do. That's the essential difference with Firefox, given that it's developed by volunteers who can't be "told" what to work on.
In my original post I wasn't suggesting that the Firefox "management" force developers to spend more time on bug fixes and performance enhancement. Clearly that's not possible since they're all volunteers. What I was trying to communicate is my wish that the developers themselves would shift their priorities more in line with what I described.
Thanks for the sarcasm. Despite my love for small, efficient applications, graphical browsing is not something I'm willing to give up.
I really wish the Opera (and Firefox) camps would focus less on adding new features and more on stability, security, performance and standards compliance. Widgets? In-line spell check? Don't know about you, but I'd certainly prefer a smaller, faster, more secure browser that crashes less often in place of the wonders of in-line spell checking.
AV companies could give away their stuff for free, too, which would probably result in many more people running AV software and consequently not being hit by viruses. Are they morally obligated to do so?
In order to update, test and release their malicious software removal tool out-of-band Microsoft would necessarily have to shift resources away from some other project, which could hurt them elsewhere. So it's not like they're declining to deploy the update ahead of schedule out of pure spite. If they bend over backwards in order to release a fix for this particular date-triggered virus, they run the risk of being expected to respond similarly to every such virus in the future.
I don't consider it Microsoft's responsibility to ensure that every Windows user gets just-in-time virus removal for free. It might be different if the virus exploited an OS flaw, but to my knowledge this one doesn't. This is why people pay money for AV software. That said, it would be nice if they'd schedule an out-of-cycle release of the malicious software removal tool, but doing so could create a precedent they don't wish to establish.
"But if Dell refuses to sell Eudora and will only sell Microsoft Outlook, they can shave $30 off their price. Basically the same PC, but $30 cheaper."
Great. I'll buy the Dell. If Microsoft wants to cut their profit margin on Windows in order to get their other apps shipped by default, I'm not too upset about that.
"The problem is that Dell's decision to carry Microsoft application software has nothing to do with them being better/worse than Microsoft's competitors."
I know. It has to do with the fact that shipping Microsoft's apps lets them offer their "package" to their customers at a $30 discount. Apparently, someone at Dell crunched the numbers and determined that Dell customers would rather save $30 and have a bunch of Microsoft apps installed than have Eudora installed and pay $30 more.
Meh. If the apps are easily uninstalled then this isn't so much of a problem. I buy the Dell, get the discount, then take them off and put on whatever I want. If the competing apps offer comparable quality at a comparable price, then they'll get their market share. If they're not good enough for me to bother uninstalling the default stuff then, imho, they don't deserve that market share.
Nothing says Microsoft has to offer Dell any sort of bulk discount or that Dell has to make concessions to Microsoft in order to get such a discount.
No operating system can be virus-proof that gives users root access and lets them execute arbitrary code. There will always be some user with root, even if it's a tech-savvy system administrator, and that person can always do something stupid. I don't consider a MS AV program to be a conflict of interest. Whatever the MS AV revenue stream stands to gain from an insecure OS, the OS revenue stream (and those of all MS apps) stand to lose much, much more. The existence of a MS AV app in no way dampens MS's motivation to produce a more secure product.
I'm a big fan of maintaining a dividing line between operating system and applications. As far as I'm concerned, Microsoft should be free to bundle their apps with their OS, but those apps shouldn't be integrated with the OS in such a way that they can't be easily removed (and replaced by competing products). That principle should apply to media players, mail clients, web browsers, anti-spyware and anti-virus tools. I would love to see Microsoft ship Microsoft-brand anti-spyware and anti-virus tools with Vista. I would hate to see them be as tightly integrated with the operating system as Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player currently are.
...is that these viruses may actually be evolutionarily advantageous. The article was extremely short on info about the mechanisms through which they cause humans to become obese. For example, they may simply make humans more efficient processors of calories. In the presence of excess caloric intake, this would cause the "more efficient" folks to become obese where "less efficient" individuals would not.
Consider the AAV2 virus, which I think has been covered on Slashdot before, which appears to prevent certain types of cancer. Not all viruses are bad, even if these particular obesity-related viruses turn out to be.
First, there is almost never a need to format your drive. Nor is there a need, despite what the zealots say, for you to move to a non-Windows OS. Here's how to avoid malware:
1. Keep your system up-to-date with the latest MS patches on a daily basis.
2. Either use XP's built-in firewall or something like ZoneAlarm if you're not using XP.
3. If you have the cash, buy a router and put it between your system and your net connection.
4. Don't log on using an account with Administrator access unless you absolutely have to.
5. Don't read your mail using MS Outlook.
6. Don't run suspicious executable files or open suspicious attachments. Don't install shady applications or porn dialers that come bundled with malware.
If you happen to get hit by something, here's what to do:
1. Install LavaSoft Ad-Aware, MS Anti-Spyware, Ewido and Hijack This!. Ewido isn't free, but comes with a free trial period last I checked. I didn't include Spybot Search and Destroy because it's mangled my system on mutiple occasions.
2. Boot into safe mode.
3. Run a full scan with Ad-Aware, MS Anti-Spyware and Ewido. When that's done, fire up Hijack This! and look for anything fishy. Browser helper objects (BHOs) should be considered suspicious unless they're something easily recognizable (Acrobat Reader, Google Toolbar, etc.)
4. If those three (Ad-Aware, MS Anti-Spyware, Ewido) didn't catch what you have, consider taking a "more the merrier" approach and installing additional spyware removal tools. I've heard good things about Spyware Doctor, but it's not free.
"Maybe I've been blind to the views of the majority in this proudly secular country."
It often seems those of the "educated atheist" bent are frequently entirely ignorant of the actual views held by the citizenry of which they are a part. In my opinion it's a matter of isolation. People in general, and young educated atheists are no exception, tend to congregate with others similar to them. It's natural, then, to make the mistake of mapping one's peers' views onto the populace as a whole.
As for Britain being a "proudly secular country", I don't think so. Norway maybe. Germany. France. Not the UK. Not yet, at least.
Solution: have a non-sensitive branch of the military set up a honeypot. Allow it to become infected. Then use it as a means to prosecute botnet administrators under the tougher law.
Are you just speaking ethically in the abstract, or are there actual laws in place to prevent such "tipping" of law enforcment officials?
Perhaps, rather than tipping individuals, they could tip entire agencies. Maybe do some sort of cooperative deal with the FBI whereby they (largely) fund a specific computer crime unit dedicated to busting up botnets.
I understand this isn't something marketing can easily "package" for purchasing managers, but it seems like something that could give them (Microsoft)a little PR boost. So many people despise spam and malware, they could score points just by casting themselves as the company that's "sticking it to the bad guys". I know I'd give them a virtual high-five.