Just have it turn right around a building repeatedly, perhaps go around a block that has a lot of lights, so the vehicle is at idle most of the time, saving fuel and battery until I came back to it.
In an electric car sitting at a light will save fuel, but sitting at a light in an internal combustion vehicle wastes a LOT of fuel. You're getting zero miles per gallon idling.
I have a mileage calculator built into my car, which gives you your current mileage and average since you cleared the counter. Yesterday at lunch I filled it up and reset the calculator and set it to display the average... 0 mpg. As soon as the light turns green and I start moving,.4 mpg, 1.3 mpg... by the next light it's 12 mpg and rising. By the time I reach McDonald's drive through it's reading 22.7. By the time I get my "food" and leave, the mileage is back down to 12 mpg.
Your self-driving car would have much greater gas mileage, especially for the normal idiot who races to the red light so he can waste gasoline sitting there. An intelligently designed program wouldn't do that.
It would be great for me, I only live a few blocks from work, and usually walk when the weather is nice, but there's no parking; I have to park in the street in a two hour zone. I'd just go to work and send the car back home, and call it to get me when I was ready to leave. Far better than having it circle the block for hours.
A cashed up baby boomer generation used to independance going blind are funding (and will continue to do so) any research required.
Damned right we will! Although these days it usually isn't eyesight. In middle age your near vision goes away (the eye's fiocusing lens hardens) but your distance vision stays ok, except for floaters and cataracts. Cataract surgery is common now, and can leave you with better vision than you've had all your life. The number with macular deneration is pretty small, those with diabetic retinopathy becoming more common as people get so damned fat, but most geezer's eyes are fine. It's the reflexes, muscle strength, and memory (and the drugs the doctors push on us) that are usually the problem with old drivers.
While I trust myself to handle these issues better than a computer
That's normal and understandable, but ignorant. It takes a couple of second to move your foot to the brake, a couple of seconds to respond before you even move your foot. The computer has no such limitations.
ABS is a good example. As a driver in the Air Force I was trained in the proper emergency braking procedures, so ABS was a little hard getting used to, but the computer can get the car stopped a LOT faster than I can.
Most likely what will come about won't be that manual driving is illegal, but I'll bet if there's an automated car that crashes with a human driven car, the human driver will alwasy be deemed at fault no matter what, unless mechanical failure can be proven.
The owner's insurance company. You are required to have auto insurance. Whichever car is deemed to be at fault, its owner's insurance company will pay.
Of course, the insurance company ay sue the car manufacturer, but it seems to me that they would have to prove that there was a defect. It my not be a problem at all.
The only way is to educate them. The question is, how can I protect myself from the clueless? Although I haven't gotten a lot of spam lately, so the botnet problem must not be as bad as they say (or spam filters have gotten better).
Do you think Linux would be safe from a user that would happily run anything they got from an email
Nope, but it would be a bit harder. With Windows you just click "install" and then "yes" a bunch of times. Most people are terrible at following directions, so most people would screw up the trojan installation. But you're right, if 50% of PC users ran Linux, you'd see a lot of Linux trojans.
Of course, you know that Microsoft makes it a lot easier to trick a user. They may know not to click on an.exe, but they think a.com file has to do with the internet, and most have no idea that a screen saver is an executable that can do anything it wants. Some of these folks would think twice before a chmod.
"Hey its me! I found this great new site! Just click here to load "Iz_Not_Malware_Site_Iz_cool.html" right now!"
Simply visiting a web site should NOT be able to infect your computer unless your browser and/or OS has some gaping holes.
Part of the problem, I think, is users are used to browser add-ons that you need to visit some sites, like flash or a PDF reader. This isn't any OS's fault.
I've cleaned out friends' computers, told them how they screwed up and not to do it again, a week later they're re-infected the same way.
Whomever thought XP should run as admin by default should have been publicly flogged!
I doubt you'll find many who would disagree with that. Third party software that requires you to log in as admin to run are partly responsible as well.
But XP is two and soon to be 3 versions out of date so no point in even bringing it up
There are a whole lot of computers out there still running XP, and most of them aren't capable of running Win 7 (and good luck getting them to shell out half the price of a new computer for an OS upgrade even if their PC is capable), so XP will matter for quite a while. You don't have to worry about most enterprise XP users, most admins keep their networks locked down and their users walled in.
having low rights mode (Which neither Linux nor Mac have yet)
Interesting, I have some googling to do now. Haven't heard of that.
If you allow the user control over their own machine that means they have the power to fuck it up, full stop.
Sometimes changing language is good, sometimed bad. There is already an all encompasing term inclusive of worms, viruses, and trojans. It's MALWARE. No need nor reason to call all malware a "virus". It isn't "changing definitions", it's ignorance. A virus is a virus and not a worm or trojan, a trojan is a trojan (but can carry a virus as its payload), a worm is a worm and they all are malware.
Don't let someone ignorant of a term change its definition like they tried to do with "quantun leap" (which physicists laugh at, or shake their heads in sadness at). Hey, lets start calling all warm blooded animals "horses", that'll clarify the language!
So, what you're saying is, if it's Windows it's called a virus, but if it's Linux it's called hacking?
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. A virus is NOT hacking, and although a hack attack can use a virus, you don't need a virus to break into a computer. Just because something is malware doesn't make it a virus, the same as just because an animal is a mammal doesn't make it a horse.
Any OS can be hacked, any OS can be rooted, but only Windows (and as someone pointed out a minute ago, AtariST) has gotten viruses.
My hatred of Microsoft isn't irrational, it comes from decades of using their products. And to be fair to Microsoft, they're a hell of a lot less evil than Sony.
You can't have an OS that is secure against viruses, so long as 1) it allows the user to install software, and 2) it does not provide a strict sandbox for said software.
You're confusing viruses with trojans. Viruses need no user intervention.
TL;DR version: the kind of security that you want is called a "walled garden".
If your walled garden is fifty miles long on each side, it's not a problem. Ever had any trouble getting a needed program from a trusted repository? Neither have I. But in Linux, I do of course have keys to the gates, juust in case I want to bring in a different species than the garden contains. If I'm not stupid I'll grow it in a sandbox.
Let me educate you a little, son. A virus is a piece of code that can replicate and attach itself to another piece of code, which it uses to gain entrance into another machine. Linux (and I think Macs) is immune; they use hash tables and install repositories. And AV only works against known viruses. Brand new viruses are immune to McAffee and Norton until it's discovered and added to their tables.
A worm is a piece of code that replicates and oozes through poorly written programs to get into another machine. Linux and Mac aren't completely immune; a hacker (by "hacker" I'm using the old school term that means "someone who understands the machinery and writes quick and dirty code for it, or modifies a piece of machinery to do what it wasn't designed to do) could concievably find a flaw in a program and write a worm to get in. The Morris worm was a Unix worm and almost took the internet down back in the nineties. AV is helpful against KNOWN worms, not unknown worms -- but the best defense against a worm is patching the faulty code that let the worm in, rather than AV.
A trojan is a program that tricks you into installing it, but contains code to use your acceptance to gain control. No OS is immune from trojans, either. The only trojan immunity comes from education (do NOT install a program from an untrusted source, EVER).
What you non-nerds call "hacking" we call cracking, as in "safecracking" (cracking into vaults). It is one person or a team attcking a single computer or system. No OS is immune from this. But cracking a well defended machine is difficult, writing a Windows virus is child's play.
A userspace exploit (let alone a Firefox/Libreoffice/PDF/Mail/PHP exploit, userspace exploit, then rootkit) is not a virus. A virus attaches itself to another program, and replicates, and spreads. Viruses are automatic and need no user intervention to do damage.
No OS is hack proof, but only two OSes have ever been prone to viruses -- DOS and Windows. And AV software isn't going to prevent you from being trojaned (any OS can be trojaned), and it won't prevent a userspace exploit.
You know, I wish Microsoft would stop making excuses for their insecure software and put some effort into building a secure OS. Yes, Win7 is far better than earlier offerings, but compared to everything else it's a joke. But I applaud their adding AV to win 8; at least this is another step forward (glad they're at least trying). One of Windows minuses is you keep having to pay for AV tables (unless you use a free offering like FreeAVG, which I'm using on my Windows box. No AV needed for my other computer). I hope they make it a lot more transparent -- like so the average user won't even know it's there, and lightweight enough that it doesn't slow the PC down (I doubt that will hapen, considering MS's other software).
As to McAfee and Norton, DIE MOTHERFUCKING PARASITES! DIE, DAMN YOU!
Any business whose existance depends on a single other company's failures is always in danger of disappearing. Look at Stacker! I hope this puts both companies out of business.
The sad thing is, Norton used to make good tools that did what should have been in Windows to start with. They should have figured that like everything else, MS would sooner or later have their own.
Money is only a tool of trade, and only fools worship their tools. I agree with the GP, if money is the most important thing in your life (let alone the only thing in your life), you're a sad excuse for a human being and I pity you.
Sure, distros like Ubuntu make installation painless for most people. Windows/OSX take it one step further by already being there and not needing installation.
Linux installs have been as painless as Ubuntu since at least way back in the Mandrake years. Yes, Windows comes with your computer, but what's the user to do when his registry grows so big that the computer slows to a crawl or he's infected by some virus? Hire someone to reinstall it and all his apps... or install Linux. You don't have to be very technically proficient to install Linux, as a test of this I had my daughter install Linux when she was 12. Yeah, she's bright, but any adult with average intelligence (or even less) could install Linux.
Windows is indeed a pain in the ass to install. Not difficult or technically challenging, just a pain in the ass.
You can compare XP to Linux all you want, but fact is it is OLD. Compare modern Linux to Windows 7 or Vista if you want an accurate comparison.
I have no idea how hard or easy Win 7 installation is, but it came on my new notebook, and it's even less user-friendly than XP was, especially to someone used to Windows. Why does Microsoft insist on changing EVERYTHING about every OS or app they sell when they come out with a new version?
In comparison, I just updated kubuntu from 9 to 11. It works the same way 9 did; the only things that changed is Samba is installed by default in the new version (a nice surprise), flash works better, it seems "snappier", there are a few other niceties, but it didn't take getting used to like a new version od Windows does.
I will agree that Win 7 is better than XP; far more stable and secure. But it still has a long way to go to catch up with Linux in useability, stability, and safety.
And nice of you to throw the fanboy card around. Is everyone that thinks Linux is too messy for most users a fanboy of some other system by default?
No. Most people who think Linux is "too messy" simply haven't tried it because of the FUD. "Windows fan" isn't any more of a put down than calling a Cubs fan a fan (actually "cubs fan" is imo a put down, the Cubs are losers and have been for over 100 years. Can't say that about Microsoft). Note I did NOT use the derogatory term "fanboy" or the more derogatory "fanboi".
Can't the Linux folks handle a little criticism?
If the criticism is warranted, then Linux devs usually get to work on it. Unwarranted criticism (like saying Windows is more useable or stable) can be safely dismissed or easily argued.
Isn't it possible that Linux may be in need of improvement?
Everything made by man is in need of improvement; Linux is far from perfect.
Isn't it possible that Linux may be "worse" in some people's minds and those people's opinions matter as much as yours?
If they use both OSes regularly, their opinion is as valid as mine. But most people who bash Linux either haven't even tried it, haven't tried it in this century, or gave it maybe ten minutes. Those people's opinions are as worthless as my opinion on the merits and demerits of Lamborghini vs Porche.
No, the two trucks were tree pullers-haulers, and his business was similar to the other two. Most of the landscaping was for newly constructed properties. If you've ever transplanted a tree, even a sapling, you know it takes a lot of water -- and the local government didn't seem to care about the economic repercussions.
When we had a drought here in central Illinois a decade or so ago, no such restrictions were put on businesses. You could wash your car, but only at a commercial car wash. You couldn't water your lawn, but landscapers weren't forbidden from watering new trees.
A normal person's definition of "small business" is completely different than government's definition. 30 or 40 years ago my Uncle Bob had a landscaping business in Colorado (he had an office and two trucks), and applied for a small business loan. He was denied because there were three landscapers in the town, all of comparable size (and all three lost their busineses because local government banned watering). While his teeny business was denied because it wasn't a "small" business, AMC (remember them? They made cars) got a small business loan of millions.
No, Uncle Bob wasn't a terminator from the future sent back to save me from the other terminators. The only terminator in this story terminated my uncle's business.
This is the second one I've heard of in a week, there was one a few miles from here last week (it was covered in slashdot). SCADA operators better start smartening up or there'll be some serious trouble.
Someone should at least get a reprimand out of this. Three letters? WTF?
I have no experience with OSX, for all I know it's head and shoulders above Linux. But I use kubuntu, XP (at work) and Win 7. Of the three, kubuntu is far in the lead in useability. Your list:
driver updates: Painless and transparent in Linux. Requires a reboot in Windows. Plus, I never had a Linux update break anything in the ten years I've been using it. But when I upgraded from 98 to XP, the next day the internet stopped working. Microsoft had replaced a perfectly good network driver with one that didn't work at all! A non nerd wouldn't have been able to reinstall the original driver, let alone figure out what the problem had been. How is that in any way user-friendly?
Installation: Linux is a breeze to install, Windows is total a pain in the ass. With Linux, put the CD or DVD in, start the PC, answer a few questions ("What is your time zone? What user name do you want? Password?) and 30 minutes later you reboot, and you have a fully functional computer. With Windows (at least XP, I never installed 7 or used Vista) every question is ten minutes apart. When it's done there are several reboots needed, then you have to reinstall each and every app; in Linux most apps you need are installed with the OS. And of course, reboots with every installed app in Windows, not in Linux. There's no contest and no comparison here. When it comes to installation, Linux is a brand new Porche and Windows is a rusted out Yugo. Remember, I use both OSes and have installed different flavors and versions of both. Anybody who says Windows is easier to install than Linux is either lying, or never has had experience installing both.
system updates: Far easier in Linux. I upgraded kubuntu to version 11 last week, Saturday there were tons of updates. Click "ok", enter the root password, forget about it. No reboots, just a message on the screen telling you it's done. Far more useable.
software compatibility: Everything that ran on the first version of Linux I had ten years ago runs fine on the latest distros, and I'm sure the first Linux app ever created would still run. OTOH, when I upgraded from 95 to 98, most of my DOS games woudn't run (you can compile a 40 year old Unix program with a Linux compiler and it will run). When I upgraded from 98 to XP, likewise -- hald the programs were incompatible, including the CD burning software that came with my burner.
file compatibility: Again, Linux wins. Microsoft goes out of their way to make their OSes and apps incompatible with everything else. Microsoft isn't even compatible with itself! I can't tell you how many tinmes at work I can't open a Word document because there's an older version on my machine than the machine sending the file. I never saw that in OO. When they upgraded Access (I hate that damned program), none of the apps I'd written would work; it was completely incompatible with files from the earlier version, so I had to completely rewrite EVERYTHING. You call that user friendly? I sure don't.
You didn't mention networking. I can access my Win7 files from my Linux box just fine with Samba, but according to the Windows help file you have to have Win 7 Professional on one of your PCs to be able to network at all. This is user friendly?
device compatibility: This did indeed use to be a problem with Linux, but I've seen no compatibility problems lately. In fact, I was surprised to find that the buttons on my cordless mouse and keyboard that didn't use to work in Linux work flawlessly now. And then there's the two bluetooth dongles I bought, one for the Linux box and one for the Windows box. In Windows, I had to run an install script from a mini-CD to make it work (and there's no CD on the notebook, I had to copy the files to a thumb drive in the Linux box to make bluetooth work in the Windows box), in Linux I just plugged the dongle in and it was ready. And you seriously think Windows is more device-compatible?
stability: Are you kidding me? Seriously? A Windows fan would bring up stability? Yes, Windows is far more stable
He's Baptist, the kiddie fiddlers are Catholic. But who knows, maybe he did get assraped. Then again, I think it's more likely he's a closeted gay himself, he seems like that kind of hypocrite.
No one is allowed to be rewarded for their talents, or for taking advantage of opportunities they are presented with.
On the contrary, if you're handed a stroke of luck there is nothing wrong with taking advantage of that, and in fact you should. But don't make the mistake of thinking luck played no part, because it always does. Similarly, bad luck usually has a hand or two in poverty.
Your moronic idea of allocating resources based on need
I never advocated that. I advocate those who have been lucky enough to become rich to pay their fair share in taxes. "To whom much is given, much is expected in return" if you're a religious man, as well as "render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's".
Slashdot Mirror
Just have it turn right around a building repeatedly, perhaps go around a block that has a lot of lights, so the vehicle is at idle most of the time, saving fuel and battery until I came back to it.
In an electric car sitting at a light will save fuel, but sitting at a light in an internal combustion vehicle wastes a LOT of fuel. You're getting zero miles per gallon idling.
I have a mileage calculator built into my car, which gives you your current mileage and average since you cleared the counter. Yesterday at lunch I filled it up and reset the calculator and set it to display the average... 0 mpg. As soon as the light turns green and I start moving, .4 mpg, 1.3 mpg... by the next light it's 12 mpg and rising. By the time I reach McDonald's drive through it's reading 22.7. By the time I get my "food" and leave, the mileage is back down to 12 mpg.
Your self-driving car would have much greater gas mileage, especially for the normal idiot who races to the red light so he can waste gasoline sitting there. An intelligently designed program wouldn't do that.
It would be great for me, I only live a few blocks from work, and usually walk when the weather is nice, but there's no parking; I have to park in the street in a two hour zone. I'd just go to work and send the car back home, and call it to get me when I was ready to leave. Far better than having it circle the block for hours.
A cashed up baby boomer generation used to independance going blind are funding (and will continue to do so) any research required.
Damned right we will! Although these days it usually isn't eyesight. In middle age your near vision goes away (the eye's fiocusing lens hardens) but your distance vision stays ok, except for floaters and cataracts. Cataract surgery is common now, and can leave you with better vision than you've had all your life. The number with macular deneration is pretty small, those with diabetic retinopathy becoming more common as people get so damned fat, but most geezer's eyes are fine. It's the reflexes, muscle strength, and memory (and the drugs the doctors push on us) that are usually the problem with old drivers.
While I trust myself to handle these issues better than a computer
That's normal and understandable, but ignorant. It takes a couple of second to move your foot to the brake, a couple of seconds to respond before you even move your foot. The computer has no such limitations.
ABS is a good example. As a driver in the Air Force I was trained in the proper emergency braking procedures, so ABS was a little hard getting used to, but the computer can get the car stopped a LOT faster than I can.
Most likely what will come about won't be that manual driving is illegal, but I'll bet if there's an automated car that crashes with a human driven car, the human driver will alwasy be deemed at fault no matter what, unless mechanical failure can be proven.
The owner's insurance company. You are required to have auto insurance. Whichever car is deemed to be at fault, its owner's insurance company will pay.
Of course, the insurance company ay sue the car manufacturer, but it seems to me that they would have to prove that there was a defect. It my not be a problem at all.
How do you protect the user from themselves
The only way is to educate them. The question is, how can I protect myself from the clueless? Although I haven't gotten a lot of spam lately, so the botnet problem must not be as bad as they say (or spam filters have gotten better).
Do you think Linux would be safe from a user that would happily run anything they got from an email
Nope, but it would be a bit harder. With Windows you just click "install" and then "yes" a bunch of times. Most people are terrible at following directions, so most people would screw up the trojan installation. But you're right, if 50% of PC users ran Linux, you'd see a lot of Linux trojans.
Of course, you know that Microsoft makes it a lot easier to trick a user. They may know not to click on an .exe, but they think a .com file has to do with the internet, and most have no idea that a screen saver is an executable that can do anything it wants. Some of these folks would think twice before a chmod.
"Hey its me! I found this great new site! Just click here to load "Iz_Not_Malware_Site_Iz_cool.html" right now!"
Simply visiting a web site should NOT be able to infect your computer unless your browser and/or OS has some gaping holes.
Part of the problem, I think, is users are used to browser add-ons that you need to visit some sites, like flash or a PDF reader. This isn't any OS's fault.
I've cleaned out friends' computers, told them how they screwed up and not to do it again, a week later they're re-infected the same way.
Whomever thought XP should run as admin by default should have been publicly flogged!
I doubt you'll find many who would disagree with that. Third party software that requires you to log in as admin to run are partly responsible as well.
But XP is two and soon to be 3 versions out of date so no point in even bringing it up
There are a whole lot of computers out there still running XP, and most of them aren't capable of running Win 7 (and good luck getting them to shell out half the price of a new computer for an OS upgrade even if their PC is capable), so XP will matter for quite a while. You don't have to worry about most enterprise XP users, most admins keep their networks locked down and their users walled in.
having low rights mode (Which neither Linux nor Mac have yet)
Interesting, I have some googling to do now. Haven't heard of that.
If you allow the user control over their own machine that means they have the power to fuck it up, full stop.
True, look at how people drive.
From what I understand, the first year after transplanting (remember, these were good size trees, not saplings) they need a LOT of water.
Sometimes changing language is good, sometimed bad. There is already an all encompasing term inclusive of worms, viruses, and trojans. It's MALWARE. No need nor reason to call all malware a "virus". It isn't "changing definitions", it's ignorance. A virus is a virus and not a worm or trojan, a trojan is a trojan (but can carry a virus as its payload), a worm is a worm and they all are malware.
Don't let someone ignorant of a term change its definition like they tried to do with "quantun leap" (which physicists laugh at, or shake their heads in sadness at). Hey, lets start calling all warm blooded animals "horses", that'll clarify the language!
So, what you're saying is, if it's Windows it's called a virus, but if it's Linux it's called hacking?
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. A virus is NOT hacking, and although a hack attack can use a virus, you don't need a virus to break into a computer. Just because something is malware doesn't make it a virus, the same as just because an animal is a mammal doesn't make it a horse.
Any OS can be hacked, any OS can be rooted, but only Windows (and as someone pointed out a minute ago, AtariST) has gotten viruses.
My hatred of Microsoft isn't irrational, it comes from decades of using their products. And to be fair to Microsoft, they're a hell of a lot less evil than Sony.
You can't have an OS that is secure against viruses, so long as 1) it allows the user to install software, and 2) it does not provide a strict sandbox for said software.
You're confusing viruses with trojans. Viruses need no user intervention.
TL;DR version: the kind of security that you want is called a "walled garden".
If your walled garden is fifty miles long on each side, it's not a problem. Ever had any trouble getting a needed program from a trusted repository? Neither have I. But in Linux, I do of course have keys to the gates, juust in case I want to bring in a different species than the garden contains. If I'm not stupid I'll grow it in a sandbox.
Let me educate you a little, son. A virus is a piece of code that can replicate and attach itself to another piece of code, which it uses to gain entrance into another machine. Linux (and I think Macs) is immune; they use hash tables and install repositories. And AV only works against known viruses. Brand new viruses are immune to McAffee and Norton until it's discovered and added to their tables.
A worm is a piece of code that replicates and oozes through poorly written programs to get into another machine. Linux and Mac aren't completely immune; a hacker (by "hacker" I'm using the old school term that means "someone who understands the machinery and writes quick and dirty code for it, or modifies a piece of machinery to do what it wasn't designed to do) could concievably find a flaw in a program and write a worm to get in. The Morris worm was a Unix worm and almost took the internet down back in the nineties. AV is helpful against KNOWN worms, not unknown worms -- but the best defense against a worm is patching the faulty code that let the worm in, rather than AV.
A trojan is a program that tricks you into installing it, but contains code to use your acceptance to gain control. No OS is immune from trojans, either. The only trojan immunity comes from education (do NOT install a program from an untrusted source, EVER).
What you non-nerds call "hacking" we call cracking, as in "safecracking" (cracking into vaults). It is one person or a team attcking a single computer or system. No OS is immune from this. But cracking a well defended machine is difficult, writing a Windows virus is child's play.
A userspace exploit (let alone a Firefox/Libreoffice/PDF/Mail/PHP exploit, userspace exploit, then rootkit) is not a virus. A virus attaches itself to another program, and replicates, and spreads. Viruses are automatic and need no user intervention to do damage.
No OS is hack proof, but only two OSes have ever been prone to viruses -- DOS and Windows. And AV software isn't going to prevent you from being trojaned (any OS can be trojaned), and it won't prevent a userspace exploit.
You know, I wish Microsoft would stop making excuses for their insecure software and put some effort into building a secure OS. Yes, Win7 is far better than earlier offerings, but compared to everything else it's a joke. But I applaud their adding AV to win 8; at least this is another step forward (glad they're at least trying). One of Windows minuses is you keep having to pay for AV tables (unless you use a free offering like FreeAVG, which I'm using on my Windows box. No AV needed for my other computer). I hope they make it a lot more transparent -- like so the average user won't even know it's there, and lightweight enough that it doesn't slow the PC down (I doubt that will hapen, considering MS's other software).
As to McAfee and Norton, DIE MOTHERFUCKING PARASITES! DIE, DAMN YOU!
Any business whose existance depends on a single other company's failures is always in danger of disappearing. Look at Stacker! I hope this puts both companies out of business.
The sad thing is, Norton used to make good tools that did what should have been in Windows to start with. They should have figured that like everything else, MS would sooner or later have their own.
Money is only a tool of trade, and only fools worship their tools. I agree with the GP, if money is the most important thing in your life (let alone the only thing in your life), you're a sad excuse for a human being and I pity you.
No, curiosity was merely the bait, ignorance killed him.
Sure, distros like Ubuntu make installation painless for most people. Windows/OSX take it one step further by already being there and not needing installation.
Linux installs have been as painless as Ubuntu since at least way back in the Mandrake years. Yes, Windows comes with your computer, but what's the user to do when his registry grows so big that the computer slows to a crawl or he's infected by some virus? Hire someone to reinstall it and all his apps... or install Linux. You don't have to be very technically proficient to install Linux, as a test of this I had my daughter install Linux when she was 12. Yeah, she's bright, but any adult with average intelligence (or even less) could install Linux.
Windows is indeed a pain in the ass to install. Not difficult or technically challenging, just a pain in the ass.
You can compare XP to Linux all you want, but fact is it is OLD. Compare modern Linux to Windows 7 or Vista if you want an accurate comparison.
I have no idea how hard or easy Win 7 installation is, but it came on my new notebook, and it's even less user-friendly than XP was, especially to someone used to Windows. Why does Microsoft insist on changing EVERYTHING about every OS or app they sell when they come out with a new version?
In comparison, I just updated kubuntu from 9 to 11. It works the same way 9 did; the only things that changed is Samba is installed by default in the new version (a nice surprise), flash works better, it seems "snappier", there are a few other niceties, but it didn't take getting used to like a new version od Windows does.
I will agree that Win 7 is better than XP; far more stable and secure. But it still has a long way to go to catch up with Linux in useability, stability, and safety.
And nice of you to throw the fanboy card around. Is everyone that thinks Linux is too messy for most users a fanboy of some other system by default?
No. Most people who think Linux is "too messy" simply haven't tried it because of the FUD. "Windows fan" isn't any more of a put down than calling a Cubs fan a fan (actually "cubs fan" is imo a put down, the Cubs are losers and have been for over 100 years. Can't say that about Microsoft). Note I did NOT use the derogatory term "fanboy" or the more derogatory "fanboi".
Can't the Linux folks handle a little criticism?
If the criticism is warranted, then Linux devs usually get to work on it. Unwarranted criticism (like saying Windows is more useable or stable) can be safely dismissed or easily argued.
Isn't it possible that Linux may be in need of improvement?
Everything made by man is in need of improvement; Linux is far from perfect.
Isn't it possible that Linux may be "worse" in some people's minds and those people's opinions matter as much as yours?
If they use both OSes regularly, their opinion is as valid as mine. But most people who bash Linux either haven't even tried it, haven't tried it in this century, or gave it maybe ten minutes. Those people's opinions are as worthless as my opinion on the merits and demerits of Lamborghini vs Porche.
I could easily give a counter example
Then please do so, it looks to me like you already tried and failed.
No, but she's that stupid.
No, the two trucks were tree pullers-haulers, and his business was similar to the other two. Most of the landscaping was for newly constructed properties. If you've ever transplanted a tree, even a sapling, you know it takes a lot of water -- and the local government didn't seem to care about the economic repercussions.
When we had a drought here in central Illinois a decade or so ago, no such restrictions were put on businesses. You could wash your car, but only at a commercial car wash. You couldn't water your lawn, but landscapers weren't forbidden from watering new trees.
If you're gaming and surfing, a Linux computer and an X-Box would suit you better. Linux for surfing (much safer) X-Box for gaming (made for games).
I mean, nobody is that stupid, right? Right?
I see you've never met my ex-wife, you lucky bastard!
The medicine is a nenoweapon -- against the infected cells.
A normal person's definition of "small business" is completely different than government's definition. 30 or 40 years ago my Uncle Bob had a landscaping business in Colorado (he had an office and two trucks), and applied for a small business loan. He was denied because there were three landscapers in the town, all of comparable size (and all three lost their busineses because local government banned watering). While his teeny business was denied because it wasn't a "small" business, AMC (remember them? They made cars) got a small business loan of millions.
No, Uncle Bob wasn't a terminator from the future sent back to save me from the other terminators. The only terminator in this story terminated my uncle's business.
This is the second one I've heard of in a week, there was one a few miles from here last week (it was covered in slashdot). SCADA operators better start smartening up or there'll be some serious trouble.
Someone should at least get a reprimand out of this. Three letters? WTF?
I have no experience with OSX, for all I know it's head and shoulders above Linux. But I use kubuntu, XP (at work) and Win 7. Of the three, kubuntu is far in the lead in useability. Your list:
He's Baptist, the kiddie fiddlers are Catholic. But who knows, maybe he did get assraped. Then again, I think it's more likely he's a closeted gay himself, he seems like that kind of hypocrite.
Only for Volkswagons!
No one is allowed to be rewarded for their talents, or for taking advantage of opportunities they are presented with.
On the contrary, if you're handed a stroke of luck there is nothing wrong with taking advantage of that, and in fact you should. But don't make the mistake of thinking luck played no part, because it always does. Similarly, bad luck usually has a hand or two in poverty.
Your moronic idea of allocating resources based on need
I never advocated that. I advocate those who have been lucky enough to become rich to pay their fair share in taxes. "To whom much is given, much is expected in return" if you're a religious man, as well as "render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's".