It's a 1 in 1000 increase. You are not increasing from 3 to 4, you are increasing from 3 per 1000 to 4 per 1000. But, this is only for those that report their infection. And 64bit seems to get hit harder in Win7 than 32bit contrary to what some have said in this thread.
Win7 was supposed to be something that had technologies at the heart of it to protect users. Serious protection. I've seen a spike in my shop of Win7 infections, especially 64bit. And, on top of that these guys have been owning the machines, literally taking over and disabling the whole puzzle in order to stay active on the computer. It's really amazing.
Win7 has been owned by these malware authors and I only expect it to get worse. Getting rid of the malware always leaves damage, such as disabled features, missing shortcuts, hidden user folders (they hide the users data so they think it's been deleted). One today in particular has all the start menu program shortcuts deleted and the user's folders hidden so they looked like they were missing. The permissions were altered to deny the owner access to their own folders (plus hidden folders like "AppData", and "Local Settings", etc). The start menu items (folders for the installed programs) were there without icons to represent what they were (just the names), and the shortcuts were deleted completely so you can't put them back.
After installing Malwarebytes and then running scans (while in safe mode) where I removed a ton of malware, after rebooting into normal mode I watched the malware remove the shortcut for Malwarebytes off the desktop and from the start menu entries.
Microsoft honed its skills (in "embrace, extend, extinguish") on Java. In fact, that was the catalyst for the concept. They knew very well that adding proprietary extensions, so that Java development would center on Windows, was the fastest way to kill a cross platform programming language that threatened their monopoly (development was very costly back then and tools for multi-platform development were thought to be a god-send). Hell, if you could program for everyone on any platform why would you need Windows?
You are just too naive to understand what was happening back then. It cost Microsoft something like $1.5 billion to get out from under that, plus the removal of their Java VM from Windows.
Microsoft's tactics were to kill everyone that had any hopes of producing a product that would compete and they didn't care how. The embrace, extend, extinguish worked like this. They embrace the product. They get the JAVA creators to get them on the inside track. After they have a license (or not) they attempt to extend the project (in the case of Java) to work best on Windows thus causing developers to rush to produce products for their implementation. Developers are working to strengthen Windows. They have extended it with proprietary functionality that can't be (or easily) duplicated on other platforms. Then, after they have it extended they extinguish it. Maybe it takes a few years, maybe not, but the goal is to kill the product thus killing the investment of the original company. They extinguish it by creating slow updates, by failing to produce anything worthwhile for a long time, and just when the interest is waning, they announce they are going to discontinue the product.
The Judge in the case ruled that Microsoft had to remove their JAVA virtual machine from every windows computer and that they could not incorporate it into future versions. Microsoft created a program that allowed the end user to remove the Java VM. Sun won $1.5 billion from Microsoft in damages.
So, please don't go on with your childish diatribe about how Google is doing this same thing, because no where on Earth is what Google did any where near what Microsoft did, nor to the same degree (and when you consider that the Judge ordered the vast majority of the claims by Oracle thrown out (I believe 3 remain) with the added instructions that they need to consider whether the 3 remaining claims are worth being pursued, you should think twice before claiming Google has done anything wrong). So, get real, grow up, and accept that Microsoft is a convicted predatory monopolist and people won't accept them at their word any longer. It's that simple. And it has nothing to do with whether someone's a Linux user or not (that's just your immature nature rearing its head). And you'll just have to pardon me and the others for not wanting anything to do with Microsoft.
Anything but Microsoft products. Imagine in the future, say 5 years, no one will remember that Microsoft didn't create Skype, that it was purchased.
Those guys that bought Skype back from e-Bay and then sold it for 8.5 billion are geniuses. From a purchase price of 2.75 billion to a sale price of 8.5 billion in how many months?
This last version of Ubuntu caused me some serious grief during the upgrade. Once installed I was unimpressed with Unity. I tried Gnome 3.0 a couple weeks back and I upgraded several machines to 4.6.x of KDE. My comparison of Unity is based on the design goals and functionality of those other products.
Gnome 3.0 and Unity appear to be targeting the GUI toward those same people that held back computers in the late 80s and early 90s. Those people were happy with the DOS menu systems where they typed a number or letter corresponding to a menu entry that launched a given program. Unity (and Gnome to some degree) is that represented in GUI form. It is NOT the answer and it will NOT contribute to those 200 million target users.
I have used Ubuntu for many years now. I have used computers since the early 80s. Ubuntu runs my primary machine. I have almost 20 Ubuntu machines in my shop. I use it for everything you can imagine and I don't find it difficult to learn nor to use. When Windows users come into the shop I sit them down in front of an Ubuntu machine. I simply direct them in the same way I would direct a Windows user--click here, select that, drag and drop there--without much resistance from the user.
But recently I have been thinking that Mark Shuttleworth needs to give Ubuntu away to some other group of people to manage. Canonical's direction just isn't cutting it, and dumbing it down isn't going to cure any woes. The problems are with the under-pinnings, not the GUI. For instance, I had a problem that pointed to the/var/lib/dpkg/status file had an error at or near a given line. No hint on what was wrong, no hint as to what that file was for, but an error that stopped the install and that wouldn't let me continue with the upgrade. I found an obscure reference to the error message, edited the file, and continued on. Then another error was generated and I needed to resolve it. Then another error, and another, and finally a reference to the same type of error in another file similar to the first one. Upon correcting that I was able to get the upgrade going again. Then after that I received even more errors making it was not possible to get to the GUI desktop -- on a computer that had been successfully running 10.10 for 6 months. After starting in recovery mode (safe start) I was able get into the desktop and download the updated nVidia drivers. I installed those drivers and continued till I was at the desktop. All in all, correcting those errors, cost me 6 hours of my day.
Whatever they are doing it isn't working and dumbing it down with hopes of attracting 200 million people won't succeed.
Some time ago they stated that Ubuntu had 12 million users with Fedora having 24 million. The other distros combined could easily bring that number between 75 million and 100 million users of Linux (not just Ubuntu).
I have the whole cadre of OS installs on various machines because that's what I do for a living. I don't think either the Macintosh nor Windows has the future potential of Linux. Let's just not let one man dumb down the OS interface to the point of it just being dumb.
This would make a great monitor mod. Get a flat screen monitor (as those have plenty of empty space inside. You'll need one with a USB port and one with an HDMI port to make it work. Because the tiny computer doesn't generate much heat and the power requirements will be very low you should be able to create a mod with little to no visible indication that draws off the monitor's power supply and works with the ports that pre-exist on it. Connect up a keyboard, USB ethernet, and a mouse and there you go, a monitor in the display that probably outshines most of HP's all in one computer offerings.
The video at the top of this article, didn't indicate they were targeting 3rd world countries. They were targeting the UK to provide computers to many of the families that can't afford to purchase a computer.
So, siphoning power off the nearest power lines or not having running water and toilet isn't really at issue here.
Poor families don't buy HDMI enabled devices. Certainly, unless they are lucky. But it also has composite out. I'm sure that's not so good. Unless I'm reading that wrong.
And, two of the displays in front of me, on my two most oft used computers, have HDMI 1080p ports.
The original XBOX ran a PIII 700mhz. I don't know how much RAM. This is an ARM processor running at 700mhz. The original XBOX can still be modded to run XBMC and playback most of today's media files.
That said, the ARM processor is much nicer than a PIII. The lack of RAM on that will be the most critical issue. The reason that it runs only Ubuntu 9.x is because that was the last distro created by Canonical to support the ARM processor (dumb dumb move). It could easily be used as an asterisk server, or as a computer to do basic computing such as an internet cafe, which makes it (today) viable as a PC.
The specifications don't seem to be completely disclosed. For instance, what graphics chip does it use? How much power does it consume? Is it USB 2 or 3? Does it have other chipsets for other functionality?
The 128mb of RAM is insufficient, hands down, completely, utterly, insufficient. They should have 1 gig on it. I'd pay $50 to have that.
The other issue is that it is out of the UK. Distribution will be a problem. First they'll get distribution, then the acceptance will be a slow uptake, then the distributors will pull it. The fact is, that it won't be out there for long. They certainly won't advertise it properly and in the end support will wane and replacement items will be difficult to get a hold of. Shipping from the UK will raise the costs to nearly that of a whole unit.
If they can increase the capabilities for a commercial release and advertise and work hard to get their stock sold, then maybe it'll be a success. I certainly can find a use for many of them.
In the case of this breach, the ramifications could be long lasting and/or not felt for a long time. Depending on the luck of the die (as there are so many ppl affected, you may not see any attempt of intrusion by them for a long time). My feeling is that this protection that Sony is offering will be for a short time and it will be a limited service. They'll offer you a certain level of protection for free but you'll have to pay for it if you want anything beyond that and that it'll be free only for a short period of time. This just gives the ID theft protection company a way to collect potential customer--resulting in no real protection, just a client info exchange between Sony and the ID theft protection company--worthless and expensive is what comes to mind.
And, Sony has said they'll give the PSN (et al) a free month's service, but the service is down going on a month where the customer's have paid for that month, so in the end they'll have received nothing except the service they paid for.
I certainly hope more of you will read between the lines and figure out when Sony is duping you.
Yes, they did hack Sony. But, they were not the ones responsible for stealing the data. Their attacks apparently were long ended by the time these other attacks occurred. On top of that, due to that, isn't it clear that Sony tripped on their own security, or lack thereof? Really, they'd been attacked and yet did nothing to correct the holes uncovered, and now they are blaming it on Anonymous?
As I understand it it has been ongoing from the first iPhone. This update doesn't work on those phones. Those phones are still tracking. There are still millions of people subject to tracking if this is correct. Where's their fix?
I've used Sony Online Entertainment for a decade. I generally do not purchase new Sony products. I have yet to receive anything from Sony indicating that my information may have been stolen. I know they have my correct email because I recently contacted them and they replied to me. I would be weary of anything sent to you. You should ensure you verify the "party" sending you the notices.
Aside from that, I do find it a bit disingenuous that Sony is making a PR announcement that basically says that "your information may have been stolen so we shut down the services", and go to the credit card service bureaus if you have further questions about your credit history. I don't like this because 1) an annual credit report won't flag this as you only get it once a year, and 2) everyone should already know they have an annual credit report entitlement so they are just telling us something we (should) already know.
So, for me reading that I am thinking "wow, this irresponsible company let 77 million people's personal identifying information out into the wild and the best they can come up with is to tell us to check with the credit reporting agencies. That that is nothing more than an effort to pass off part of the obligation "owed us" for what happened".
Further, Sony indicates they'll help you get in contact with an identity theft protection company to help you protect yourself. That does little now (and as a matter of fact, they aren't going to pay for it, they are just going to point you in that direction).
Everyone should be real weary of a company that tries such disingenuous tactics to offload responsibility from themselves.
And, finally, 77 million people's personally identifying information from the US (roughly)? Well, there are 300 million people in the US comprised of about 100 million families. The potential is that they have provided the credit card, address, phone number, email addresses of nearly 3/4 of American families to cyber criminals to do what they will and leaving responsibility for cleaning that up to the credit agencies and you (by introducing you to an identity theft protection scam).
This is an incredibly important breach that should not be put off so lightly.
I'm a windows / dos user from way way back. I'm a Linux user for my main desktop. Unity is nothing more than an attempt to make DOS-like menuing system for graphical programs. And, IMHO, it's pathetic. Pundits, IMHO, jumped on the band wagon because of the controversy as well as the fanaticism they have for Linux and Canonical. Gnome 3 is little better.
This is precisely the problem with this sort of technology. Even if the consumer agrees to tracking they don't really know what is happening. Frankly, it's not possible for them to agree at all. How can someone say that they don't agree, to the EULA, after paying upwards of $500 (or more) for the device. This puts you in a position of having to agree to a EULA (that you didn't have a stake in creating) with contractually obligating clauses that you don't understand and that you don't know precisely what they are doing, and what they are doing the information?
Even Steve Jobs is rewriting red and blue. Morpheus says to Neo that he has the choice: the red pill will send you back and the blue pill forward. Neo chooses the red pill accepting that he'll just forget everything and go back to his comfort zone. So, Morpheus hands him the blue pill. Neo then exclaims that it's the red pill he wants, and Morpheus redefines red as blue and forces blue on Neo. This is about having the power to influence knowing you have the ability to control the outcome no matter what choice those you influence make.
Listen, if they are tracking they are tracking. It's precisely that. To the consumer they think that the tracking is just for that session and not long term with the belief that the information won't be passed on or used in any other way. Then they find out that in fact they are being tracked. The Jobsian reality distortion field then goes into full effect with Jobs exclaiming that it is the red pill even though it's blue.
This is not true, shy of course, long distance travel, and even then, it should be my choice on which mirror to choose or whether to change it at all.
This is also insufficient justification for collecting that much information. Do we need years worth of collected data that demonstrates our travel in intimate detail just to change the mirror from which we might, just might, need an update?
I think you are making excuses for a company abusing it's position and doing so in secret on platforms where it can only be using the data for purposes of selling to advertisers.
The keywords here are "location-based services". How do consumers know what location-based services they are using an how do they know how to turn them off? And, if you know anything about the iphone you'd know that even if you turn off location based services you are then constantly annoyed by prompts to allow them to use your location. As well, I'd consider using the phone a location-based service, so technically you can't turn it off because just dialing your phone or answering the phone means they have your location.
And how exactly does the collection of the data on your Mac or even Windows with Safari provide you any enhanced services based on your location?
This was all about sneaking onto your computer, phone, or otherwise, in order to collect more than just for "location-based" information, rather it's about Apple collecting information to sell to advertisers, while under the guise that if you say no to the prompts you are somehow insulating yourself from this.
Once you realize this you have to realize that Microsoft is probably doing exactly the same thing. It's time to make all the companies come clean and be upfront on what they are collecting and why and to do so every time in advance.
Actually, it's considerably like the Apple. It has a screen about the same size. It runs apps. It uses touch input to select icons. It's used to make phone calls. It's a personal information manager.
If you mean it's not as good then fine. If you mean it doesn't have near the offerings then fine. If you mean it has problems with updates then fine. If you mean it doesn't have multitasking then fine. If you mean it is barely a smart phone then fine.
But, I've seen it. My niece has one. I used it for a while to get the feel. It's pretty sharp. It's also confusing and quite a bit more primitive than most other phone OSes. I'd never buy one myself. I'm sure it's a competent phone, as far as being a phone.
You have that wrong. Microsoft is a marketing company that monopolizes markets (instead of competing) to stay on top.
It's not that you aren't right in saying they have screwed up the marketing, but they aren't a tech company, they are a marketing company. They don't compete, instead they choose a market, gain a monopoly, and ride the wave.
I couldn't be happier. I don't know why anyone would expect Microsoft to make a tablet considering their apparent inability to create optimized cheap open products.
Even if Microsoft did create one I would never buy it, mainly because there are far too many other choices already and secondly because I would rather not have a convicted predatory monopolist in the market.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a 1 in 1000 increase. You are not increasing from 3 to 4, you are increasing from 3 per 1000 to 4 per 1000. But, this is only for those that report their infection. And 64bit seems to get hit harder in Win7 than 32bit contrary to what some have said in this thread.
Only insofar as the users have agreed to report their infection to Microsoft.
And, if 4 in 1000 is the measure I have had x out of thousands in my shop of late.
Win7 was supposed to be something that had technologies at the heart of it to protect users. Serious protection. I've seen a spike in my shop of Win7 infections, especially 64bit. And, on top of that these guys have been owning the machines, literally taking over and disabling the whole puzzle in order to stay active on the computer. It's really amazing.
Win7 has been owned by these malware authors and I only expect it to get worse. Getting rid of the malware always leaves damage, such as disabled features, missing shortcuts, hidden user folders (they hide the users data so they think it's been deleted). One today in particular has all the start menu program shortcuts deleted and the user's folders hidden so they looked like they were missing. The permissions were altered to deny the owner access to their own folders (plus hidden folders like "AppData", and "Local Settings", etc). The start menu items (folders for the installed programs) were there without icons to represent what they were (just the names), and the shortcuts were deleted completely so you can't put them back.
After installing Malwarebytes and then running scans (while in safe mode) where I removed a ton of malware, after rebooting into normal mode I watched the malware remove the shortcut for Malwarebytes off the desktop and from the start menu entries.
Windows 7 is getting owned.
Microsoft honed its skills (in "embrace, extend, extinguish") on Java. In fact, that was the catalyst for the concept. They knew very well that adding proprietary extensions, so that Java development would center on Windows, was the fastest way to kill a cross platform programming language that threatened their monopoly (development was very costly back then and tools for multi-platform development were thought to be a god-send). Hell, if you could program for everyone on any platform why would you need Windows?
You are just too naive to understand what was happening back then. It cost Microsoft something like $1.5 billion to get out from under that, plus the removal of their Java VM from Windows.
Microsoft's tactics were to kill everyone that had any hopes of producing a product that would compete and they didn't care how. The embrace, extend, extinguish worked like this. They embrace the product. They get the JAVA creators to get them on the inside track. After they have a license (or not) they attempt to extend the project (in the case of Java) to work best on Windows thus causing developers to rush to produce products for their implementation. Developers are working to strengthen Windows. They have extended it with proprietary functionality that can't be (or easily) duplicated on other platforms. Then, after they have it extended they extinguish it. Maybe it takes a few years, maybe not, but the goal is to kill the product thus killing the investment of the original company. They extinguish it by creating slow updates, by failing to produce anything worthwhile for a long time, and just when the interest is waning, they announce they are going to discontinue the product.
The Judge in the case ruled that Microsoft had to remove their JAVA virtual machine from every windows computer and that they could not incorporate it into future versions. Microsoft created a program that allowed the end user to remove the Java VM. Sun won $1.5 billion from Microsoft in damages.
So, please don't go on with your childish diatribe about how Google is doing this same thing, because no where on Earth is what Google did any where near what Microsoft did, nor to the same degree (and when you consider that the Judge ordered the vast majority of the claims by Oracle thrown out (I believe 3 remain) with the added instructions that they need to consider whether the 3 remaining claims are worth being pursued, you should think twice before claiming Google has done anything wrong). So, get real, grow up, and accept that Microsoft is a convicted predatory monopolist and people won't accept them at their word any longer. It's that simple. And it has nothing to do with whether someone's a Linux user or not (that's just your immature nature rearing its head). And you'll just have to pardon me and the others for not wanting anything to do with Microsoft.
Anything but Microsoft products. Imagine in the future, say 5 years, no one will remember that Microsoft didn't create Skype, that it was purchased.
Those guys that bought Skype back from e-Bay and then sold it for 8.5 billion are geniuses. From a purchase price of 2.75 billion to a sale price of 8.5 billion in how many months?
Likely not the only one, but one of the few--most certainly.
Most pulseaudio issues were resolved quite a while ago.
Freetard. Proprietard. Shit happens.
This last version of Ubuntu caused me some serious grief during the upgrade. Once installed I was unimpressed with Unity. I tried Gnome 3.0 a couple weeks back and I upgraded several machines to 4.6.x of KDE. My comparison of Unity is based on the design goals and functionality of those other products.
Gnome 3.0 and Unity appear to be targeting the GUI toward those same people that held back computers in the late 80s and early 90s. Those people were happy with the DOS menu systems where they typed a number or letter corresponding to a menu entry that launched a given program. Unity (and Gnome to some degree) is that represented in GUI form. It is NOT the answer and it will NOT contribute to those 200 million target users.
I have used Ubuntu for many years now. I have used computers since the early 80s. Ubuntu runs my primary machine. I have almost 20 Ubuntu machines in my shop. I use it for everything you can imagine and I don't find it difficult to learn nor to use. When Windows users come into the shop I sit them down in front of an Ubuntu machine. I simply direct them in the same way I would direct a Windows user--click here, select that, drag and drop there--without much resistance from the user.
But recently I have been thinking that Mark Shuttleworth needs to give Ubuntu away to some other group of people to manage. Canonical's direction just isn't cutting it, and dumbing it down isn't going to cure any woes. The problems are with the under-pinnings, not the GUI. For instance, I had a problem that pointed to the /var/lib/dpkg/status file had an error at or near a given line. No hint on what was wrong, no hint as to what that file was for, but an error that stopped the install and that wouldn't let me continue with the upgrade. I found an obscure reference to the error message, edited the file, and continued on. Then another error was generated and I needed to resolve it. Then another error, and another, and finally a reference to the same type of error in another file similar to the first one. Upon correcting that I was able to get the upgrade going again. Then after that I received even more errors making it was not possible to get to the GUI desktop -- on a computer that had been successfully running 10.10 for 6 months. After starting in recovery mode (safe start) I was able get into the desktop and download the updated nVidia drivers. I installed those drivers and continued till I was at the desktop. All in all, correcting those errors, cost me 6 hours of my day.
Whatever they are doing it isn't working and dumbing it down with hopes of attracting 200 million people won't succeed.
Some time ago they stated that Ubuntu had 12 million users with Fedora having 24 million. The other distros combined could easily bring that number between 75 million and 100 million users of Linux (not just Ubuntu).
I have the whole cadre of OS installs on various machines because that's what I do for a living. I don't think either the Macintosh nor Windows has the future potential of Linux. Let's just not let one man dumb down the OS interface to the point of it just being dumb.
This would make a great monitor mod. Get a flat screen monitor (as those have plenty of empty space inside. You'll need one with a USB port and one with an HDMI port to make it work. Because the tiny computer doesn't generate much heat and the power requirements will be very low you should be able to create a mod with little to no visible indication that draws off the monitor's power supply and works with the ports that pre-exist on it. Connect up a keyboard, USB ethernet, and a mouse and there you go, a monitor in the display that probably outshines most of HP's all in one computer offerings.
The video at the top of this article, didn't indicate they were targeting 3rd world countries. They were targeting the UK to provide computers to many of the families that can't afford to purchase a computer.
So, siphoning power off the nearest power lines or not having running water and toilet isn't really at issue here.
I agree, though, my HDMI enabled monitors do not.
Poor families don't buy HDMI enabled devices. Certainly, unless they are lucky. But it also has composite out. I'm sure that's not so good. Unless I'm reading that wrong.
And, two of the displays in front of me, on my two most oft used computers, have HDMI 1080p ports.
The original XBOX ran a PIII 700mhz. I don't know how much RAM. This is an ARM processor running at 700mhz. The original XBOX can still be modded to run XBMC and playback most of today's media files.
That said, the ARM processor is much nicer than a PIII. The lack of RAM on that will be the most critical issue. The reason that it runs only Ubuntu 9.x is because that was the last distro created by Canonical to support the ARM processor (dumb dumb move). It could easily be used as an asterisk server, or as a computer to do basic computing such as an internet cafe, which makes it (today) viable as a PC.
The specifications don't seem to be completely disclosed. For instance, what graphics chip does it use? How much power does it consume? Is it USB 2 or 3? Does it have other chipsets for other functionality?
The 128mb of RAM is insufficient, hands down, completely, utterly, insufficient. They should have 1 gig on it. I'd pay $50 to have that.
The other issue is that it is out of the UK. Distribution will be a problem. First they'll get distribution, then the acceptance will be a slow uptake, then the distributors will pull it. The fact is, that it won't be out there for long. They certainly won't advertise it properly and in the end support will wane and replacement items will be difficult to get a hold of. Shipping from the UK will raise the costs to nearly that of a whole unit.
If they can increase the capabilities for a commercial release and advertise and work hard to get their stock sold, then maybe it'll be a success. I certainly can find a use for many of them.
In the case of this breach, the ramifications could be long lasting and/or not felt for a long time. Depending on the luck of the die (as there are so many ppl affected, you may not see any attempt of intrusion by them for a long time). My feeling is that this protection that Sony is offering will be for a short time and it will be a limited service. They'll offer you a certain level of protection for free but you'll have to pay for it if you want anything beyond that and that it'll be free only for a short period of time. This just gives the ID theft protection company a way to collect potential customer--resulting in no real protection, just a client info exchange between Sony and the ID theft protection company--worthless and expensive is what comes to mind.
And, Sony has said they'll give the PSN (et al) a free month's service, but the service is down going on a month where the customer's have paid for that month, so in the end they'll have received nothing except the service they paid for.
I certainly hope more of you will read between the lines and figure out when Sony is duping you.
Yes, they did hack Sony. But, they were not the ones responsible for stealing the data. Their attacks apparently were long ended by the time these other attacks occurred. On top of that, due to that, isn't it clear that Sony tripped on their own security, or lack thereof? Really, they'd been attacked and yet did nothing to correct the holes uncovered, and now they are blaming it on Anonymous?
As I understand it it has been ongoing from the first iPhone. This update doesn't work on those phones. Those phones are still tracking. There are still millions of people subject to tracking if this is correct. Where's their fix?
I've used Sony Online Entertainment for a decade. I generally do not purchase new Sony products. I have yet to receive anything from Sony indicating that my information may have been stolen. I know they have my correct email because I recently contacted them and they replied to me. I would be weary of anything sent to you. You should ensure you verify the "party" sending you the notices.
Aside from that, I do find it a bit disingenuous that Sony is making a PR announcement that basically says that "your information may have been stolen so we shut down the services", and go to the credit card service bureaus if you have further questions about your credit history. I don't like this because 1) an annual credit report won't flag this as you only get it once a year, and 2) everyone should already know they have an annual credit report entitlement so they are just telling us something we (should) already know.
So, for me reading that I am thinking "wow, this irresponsible company let 77 million people's personal identifying information out into the wild and the best they can come up with is to tell us to check with the credit reporting agencies. That that is nothing more than an effort to pass off part of the obligation "owed us" for what happened".
Further, Sony indicates they'll help you get in contact with an identity theft protection company to help you protect yourself. That does little now (and as a matter of fact, they aren't going to pay for it, they are just going to point you in that direction).
Everyone should be real weary of a company that tries such disingenuous tactics to offload responsibility from themselves.
And, finally, 77 million people's personally identifying information from the US (roughly)? Well, there are 300 million people in the US comprised of about 100 million families. The potential is that they have provided the credit card, address, phone number, email addresses of nearly 3/4 of American families to cyber criminals to do what they will and leaving responsibility for cleaning that up to the credit agencies and you (by introducing you to an identity theft protection scam).
This is an incredibly important breach that should not be put off so lightly.
I'm a windows / dos user from way way back. I'm a Linux user for my main desktop. Unity is nothing more than an attempt to make DOS-like menuing system for graphical programs. And, IMHO, it's pathetic. Pundits, IMHO, jumped on the band wagon because of the controversy as well as the fanaticism they have for Linux and Canonical. Gnome 3 is little better.
This is precisely the problem with this sort of technology. Even if the consumer agrees to tracking they don't really know what is happening. Frankly, it's not possible for them to agree at all. How can someone say that they don't agree, to the EULA, after paying upwards of $500 (or more) for the device. This puts you in a position of having to agree to a EULA (that you didn't have a stake in creating) with contractually obligating clauses that you don't understand and that you don't know precisely what they are doing, and what they are doing the information?
Even Steve Jobs is rewriting red and blue. Morpheus says to Neo that he has the choice: the red pill will send you back and the blue pill forward. Neo chooses the red pill accepting that he'll just forget everything and go back to his comfort zone. So, Morpheus hands him the blue pill. Neo then exclaims that it's the red pill he wants, and Morpheus redefines red as blue and forces blue on Neo. This is about having the power to influence knowing you have the ability to control the outcome no matter what choice those you influence make.
Listen, if they are tracking they are tracking. It's precisely that. To the consumer they think that the tracking is just for that session and not long term with the belief that the information won't be passed on or used in any other way. Then they find out that in fact they are being tracked. The Jobsian reality distortion field then goes into full effect with Jobs exclaiming that it is the red pill even though it's blue.
This is not true, shy of course, long distance travel, and even then, it should be my choice on which mirror to choose or whether to change it at all.
This is also insufficient justification for collecting that much information. Do we need years worth of collected data that demonstrates our travel in intimate detail just to change the mirror from which we might, just might, need an update?
I think you are making excuses for a company abusing it's position and doing so in secret on platforms where it can only be using the data for purposes of selling to advertisers.
The keywords here are "location-based services". How do consumers know what location-based services they are using an how do they know how to turn them off? And, if you know anything about the iphone you'd know that even if you turn off location based services you are then constantly annoyed by prompts to allow them to use your location. As well, I'd consider using the phone a location-based service, so technically you can't turn it off because just dialing your phone or answering the phone means they have your location.
And how exactly does the collection of the data on your Mac or even Windows with Safari provide you any enhanced services based on your location?
This was all about sneaking onto your computer, phone, or otherwise, in order to collect more than just for "location-based" information, rather it's about Apple collecting information to sell to advertisers, while under the guise that if you say no to the prompts you are somehow insulating yourself from this.
Once you realize this you have to realize that Microsoft is probably doing exactly the same thing. It's time to make all the companies come clean and be upfront on what they are collecting and why and to do so every time in advance.
Actually, it's considerably like the Apple. It has a screen about the same size. It runs apps. It uses touch input to select icons. It's used to make phone calls. It's a personal information manager.
If you mean it's not as good then fine. If you mean it doesn't have near the offerings then fine. If you mean it has problems with updates then fine. If you mean it doesn't have multitasking then fine. If you mean it is barely a smart phone then fine.
But, I've seen it. My niece has one. I used it for a while to get the feel. It's pretty sharp. It's also confusing and quite a bit more primitive than most other phone OSes. I'd never buy one myself. I'm sure it's a competent phone, as far as being a phone.
You have that wrong. Microsoft is a marketing company that monopolizes markets (instead of competing) to stay on top.
It's not that you aren't right in saying they have screwed up the marketing, but they aren't a tech company, they are a marketing company. They don't compete, instead they choose a market, gain a monopoly, and ride the wave.
I couldn't be happier. I don't know why anyone would expect Microsoft to make a tablet considering their apparent inability to create optimized cheap open products.
Even if Microsoft did create one I would never buy it, mainly because there are far too many other choices already and secondly because I would rather not have a convicted predatory monopolist in the market.