Tom, I think it's the teens themselves. Kids nowadays have access to much more cash than earlier generations, and they usually have more control over what they do with it.
All three of my daughters (now twenty to thirty yrs old) grew up making their own cash (no allowances), and consequently were able to have more control over what to do with it, thereby learning faster the real meaning of what money is worth.
But why equate those advanced books to teen level reading? At least not until upper level high school, anyway. (and it's "All's QUIET on the Western Front", you left off the "e"...) (just a nitpick...)
My four year old grandson reads regularly for fun. Is already writing, too. I think the idea of being able to use his parents' computer has a lot to do with it. It only took one recitation of how to spell his new sister's name (Elizabeth) before he remembered it and wrote it down later in the day!
The brain is like a muscle - exercise it properly and it'll get better at what it does naturally.
Once you've ripped your CDs to your iPod, you do NOT need to re-rip them to CD to transfer them.
Ripping them in the first place puts them into your iTunes library, and they are stored in folders in the iTunes Library folder.
If you want to transfer them to another program to use with another player, since they HAVE NO DRM, you can just move them to that other player's library, or import them using that other player's software. Most will do that. If it won't use AAC, then use iTunes to translate them into mp3's, then transfer them.
There is no need to re-rip them, unless the other player's software forces you to do that, in which case, it's not Apple forcing you, it's that other player.
It's not actually losing the laptops, it's the fact that when they do, the laptop hasn't been encrypted.
I've worked for the gov't for thirty years, and no matter how hard you try, once an Agency gets over a couple of thousand people, keeping track of all of their equipment gets to be a really hard job.
So, as with my own Agency, you don't try so hard to stop what you can't, you concentrate on protecting what you know you can't afford to lose. In other words, you not only encrypt the hard drive of all laptops, but you set up your systems so that accessing the information is done through secure, encrypted VPN connections to protected servers where the information is kept safely behind firewalls. That way, when (not if, but WHEN) a laptop is lost, there isn't any information there to be compromised. So really, the only info you are protecting on the laptop is your network information.
You'll never be able to stop the loss of portable hardware. You concentrate on protecting your information instead.
You're wrong, that's no lock-in. That's the point. Since most people don't have more than an average 22 songs on their iPod, then they are not "locked in" to staying with the iPod. Plus, if you want to burn your ITS music to Cd then re-rip it using the software to your new player, there's nothing to stop you from doing that, either. Apple's EULA to iTunes doesn't prohibit that, either.
Lock-in is a myth, or properly, a straw man used to attack Apple.
He's chosen now because they are re-negotiating with the labels in May, and he's trying to use public and governmental pressure to try to force the labels to back off. Having to develop and maintain the DRM software on the iPod is expensive and adds a layer of complexity to how the unit works. Plus, as he noted, it has been broken before, and not fixing it risks losing the entire big 4's library from the ITS. Not a good business model. Add this to the fact that Steve just HATES not being in full control, and the DRM isn't under his control.
Whoever that AC is up there in #3 & 4 is a doofus. Didn't you read Jobs essay?
There IS NO lock-in, regardless of how much the Inquirer wants to spin things. 90% of songs stored and used on iPods have no DRM. They are mostly loaded from customers' owned CDs. Plus any illegally obtained music, which of course, would also have no DRM. So where's the lock-in?
Apple is NOT afraid of competition, they have fared very well in an open market. The iPod was well on its way to popularity even before the ITMS (as it was then known) was launched. How did iPod customers get their music? CDs and shared downloads. Mostly Cds. That's how I started mine. Ripped them into iTunes and then synced my iPod. No store, no DRM. Just me and my music.
This letter is actually HUGE. TechDirt is downplaying its significance, but I think it will have a very substantial affect.
First, he states, clearly and unequivocally, that Apple will sell DRM free music when they are allowed to. He didn't hedge that statement.
Second, he directed the EU to go after the labels. His point is well made. I think the main reason he won against Apple Corps is because the LABELS control the licenses for the music; Apple is just a distributor. That means, contractually, the labels have the control, not Apple, and he invites the EU to go after the true owners of the licenses - the ones who really have control of the issue.
He makes Apple's position very clear, they feel that DRM is a waste of resources and doesn't work.
Whoever that moron is whose going by the moniker whattaxes? needs to consult a tax lawyer if he ever wins the lottery and decides to change his citizenship.
The IRS doesn't care what country you owe your allegiance to. If you live in the US and work here (and you'd better have a work visa if you're not a US citizen!) they're gonna expect you to pay taxes according to the US tax code. Not only on your US earnings, but on what you earn overseas, too!
Get your facts straight before you blow off and make yourself look stupid.
Look, folks, my wife isn't much of a computer person, even if I am a geek. Her favorite saying is that once she can just speak to her computer to tell it what she wants to do, then she'll use if herself and not bug me to download her email.
I don't think she's alone. I can think of a lot of things I'd like to be able to just speak the commands for without slowing myself down by having to type or use the mouse. Sure, at a certain level of working on the innards of a box you'll need to start typing, but 99% of a user's day could be made much more productive by good speech recognition. (Yeah the guy above is right, there is a world of diff between speech recognition and voice recognition!)
And I think computers will someday be commanded much more by voice than keyboard. Voice is definitely a biometric, and combined with other biometrics, can be a good security system.
I agree with you guys. the whineys above do sound like the same whineys that dissed the iPod in the beginning.
Yeah, it does seem to be missing that oh-so-important 3G - which most providers in the US don't provide anyway. Go back and look at the keynote - Steve said very clearly that it will in the future.
As for Exchange integration - what part of CONSUMER don't you understand? Exchange is for business, and this is NOT a business phone. It is intended for the high end consumer, not the business consumer.
As for the rest (voice dialing, etc.) wait a bit - this was just a first look, and Apple often reserves the details for later, just before the product is released. We've got until June, for Pete's sake!
If they release it in June without, for instance, voice dialing, then you've got every reason to gripe, and I'll be right next to you, too.
Go back and look at the CNBC interview Steve did that Tuesday afternoon. He clearly noted that he expects the price to come down after noting something about economies of scale. It'll clearly depend on how many of these things they sell. The more they sell, the lower they can drop the price over time. Again, look at the Razr, same deal.
I would note as well a quote on another site (sorry, don't remember which one) of a Cingular sales rep that told a journalist that from inquiries he's gotten about the iPhone, he could sell 100 a day easily.
And, yes, Apple often adds features to later models. First versions often aren't the best - they're just the teaser to open the market, something that can be easily dumped if it doesn't sell well. Look at the Cube. It was a beautifully crafted machine, but was too high in price for the lack of expandability, but contained new cooling techniques that were later incorporated into the iMac line after the Cube bombed.
I'll also say this: for every one of the whineys here and elsewhere I hear complaining about a lack of features, I hear just as many like Jennifer L. Eisenberger above saying that they'll be standing in line for theirs the morning it comes out. The same Cingular sales rep quoted above also noted that one man he talked to was going to buy one for everyone in his family, including his two teenage daughters. That is four at least!
Scoff if you like at those early adopters and the ones that will buy Apple products sight unseen, but they kept Apple afloat during the lean years, and others like them now are helping them expand their market share, and create new markets.
You've got it backwards, they're saying that music bought from the ITS can't be played on other music players, which, strictly speaking, is true. One has to burn them onto a Cd and re-rip them back as mp3's to do that.
France tried it by passing a law, this won't work any better.
We tend to make a joke of the Darwin Awards, but it is a sad truth that some people ARE stupid enough so as to remove themselves from the gene pool before contaminating it with their flawed genes. That web site is often joked about, and is looked at a somewhat humorous, but I submit that it is really a sad commentary on the sheer stupidity of some people. Some folks just don't think before acting.
Sometimes they act on impulse, sometimes out of sheer habit.
Unfortunately, the idea of a law to stop them isn't intended to protect the stupid. (There's no point!) It is intended to protect the rest of us from the consequences of that stupid person's unthinking actions, or at least to hold the guilty to account.
In the example above, the bike rider may skate out of that accident without a scratch, but the lorry driver may end up in jail or at least with a traffic citation, and somebody in that shop could die. (or perhaps someone on the sidewalk in front of it.) But chances are the bike rider just calmly continues on his/her way possibly without a clue as to the mayhem just caused due to his/her carelessness.
These laws are intended to hold them accountable, mainly. Stupidity being what it is, the laws often won't actually STOP that illegal behavior, but at least we can hold the stupid accountable for their thoughtless actions.
Remember, ignorance can be fixed. Stupidity is forever!
Yeah, and that's why we just dumped Comcast for Verizon FIOS TV! Got tired of them dropping channels we like for foreign language channels we don't, then jacking the price up.
Now we have 200 channels vs. 130, plus DVR, with a box on each TV for less money than Comcast used to charge. (including most of the channels Comcast dumped!)
Back in the day when people used typewriters, not computers, the shift position over the number 1 had the 'cent' sign instead of the modern exclamation mark(!). That is because one could make an exclamation mark by typing the small vertical mark ' then backspace and type a period. It wasn't until IBM started making the Selectric Typewriters (which had removable balls of different typefaces) that typewriter manufacturers replaced the cent sign with the exclamation mark, because it was determined to be more often used, and the notation $0.0x could be used to denote cents also. So the cent sign has fallen out of common use.
Since it is not immediately apparent to most users how to make a 'cent' sign (looks like a 'c' with a vertical line drawn through it) on modern computers, it is easier to use the notation $0.01 to denote 'one cent'. We don't use the appellation 'one one-hundreth of a dollar" to describe that notation.
Since we learn in math class that the third position to the right of a decimal place is the thousandths position, it is easy to mistakenly say 'two thousandths of a cent" when we see the notation $0.002.
So it is a fault of a disconnect between the manner in which we speak of the way in which we notate dollars and cents now vs. when the actual 'cent' sign was in common use. The written notation for two cents is now written '$0.02' instead of using the now outdated cent sign after the number 2. Our computer systems are ahead of our common verbal usage.
Verizon management should actively train their customer service reps to properly verbalize their prices so such misunderstandings do not take place. Of course, that assumes there is anyone at Verizon that truly understands this problem!
Look, I know it's popular to slam the gov't for spending money. I don't like my taxes, either, but because I am a gov't employee, they take my paycheck out of my own salary. Funny how that works...
@ 2 is right. The government is forced, by the Constitution, to budget money annually. That is why they can approve a project for $500 million and only budget $100 mil per year for, say, 5 years. If the project is ahead of schedule, and you don't want to slow it down (which can cost additional money), you may have to go back and ask for an advance on some of the $400 mil that is allocated for the out years. That can keep you going, and productive. If the additional money is not allowed, the delay can cost you more money to the contractor due to contractual obligations. You don't want that!
#23, you can't do it that way. There are rules that gov't contracting officials have to adhere to, and they specify how you can and can't penalize contractors. You don't just drop the amount they are due per month, you tack on penalties, which are tied to due dates. And, no, on most contracts, a contractor doesn't get paid until after he gives the government a deliverable, or finishes a performance within a specified time period, unless he is on a cost plus fixed fee contract. On those, he gets paid for expenses periodically, and the final payment includes his fixed fee. Such contracts are most often performance contracts, which often DO include performance penalties.
But complicated IT contracts, as many of you know, aren't simple animals. Sometimes, the requirements will change. Sometimes, when you find out that technology has changed, the customer wants more to include the new stuff. Then it's back to the drawing board, which costs more $$$. Sometimes you find out halfway through, that you just can't do it that way, and you've gotta change tactics. (Vista, anyone?)
Yes, the FBI deserves a lot of condemnation for blowing the initial contract which bombed. It was badly managed. But asking for what is essentially an advance on future budgeted amounts, isn't necessarily bad.
Ok, let's blow this myth outta the water and get it over with.
The Mac isn't more secure due to low market share. Windows isn't attacked just because it has a bigger market share.
Market share is only PART of the equation. The big thing in malware today is the bot armies. Not the older trojans and viruses of yesteryear that still bloat the AV definitions lists. (and, by the way, the numbers gloated over by some Mac fans)
Today it is all about getting the bots on PCs so they can be used either as DDOS bots, or to steal banking or other financial information.
So, yes, in that sense, PCs are more attractive. NOT because of market share, but because of the ease with which the bots can be placed. There are a LOT of PCs that are not kept up to date. These are the targets. Malware authors want to build bot armies as large as they can, but most really big ones don't go over six figures, and many are only in the five figures. PCs with Windows installed are bigger targets because they aren't always protected by updates.
BUT, Macs are out there in big enough numbers, too. They may not be as large in percentages, but with twenty million installed, there are more than enough to build bot armies around. But as far as we know, there aren't. Why not? Because they aren't as easy to actually get the malware on and running, at least as far as we know now.
Will that change in the future? Maybe, but since Unix, as a system, is more secure than Windows, and requires admin passwords to install software, it'll be a stretch.
Vista should help there, at least a few years in the future as the older PCs with less secure versions of Windows on them die out. But for now, low market share is only PART of the issue. Actual security being built into the system is a bigger part.
I'm really sorry all these Windows fanbois are so disappointed that the "MacBook Hack" didn't turn out to be true.
I guess that's why they have to turn so vitriolic and make such nasty comments...
to paraphrase, Apple: 1, Hackers: 0
I guess that this episode lays to rest the security by obscurity myth. This was just two obscure hackers trying to use the noteriety of being the first Apple hackers to get attention. It worked, but just until their scam got busted.
I agree. I am an IT tech for Uncle Sam, and I tell my customers that they should never put anything in their email they wouldn't want to read on the front page of the Washington Post! That generally makes 'em think...at least a little bit!
On the post: Who Will Protect Teens From This New Obsession With Book Reading?
teens
All three of my daughters (now twenty to thirty yrs old) grew up making their own cash (no allowances), and consequently were able to have more control over what to do with it, thereby learning faster the real meaning of what money is worth.
But why equate those advanced books to teen level reading? At least not until upper level high school, anyway. (and it's "All's QUIET on the Western Front", you left off the "e"...) (just a nitpick...)
On the post: Who Will Protect Teens From This New Obsession With Book Reading?
not just teens...
The brain is like a muscle - exercise it properly and it'll get better at what it does naturally.
On the post: Is The Best Way To Ensure Success To Lock In Your Customers?
BS
Ripping them in the first place puts them into your iTunes library, and they are stored in folders in the iTunes Library folder.
If you want to transfer them to another program to use with another player, since they HAVE NO DRM, you can just move them to that other player's library, or import them using that other player's software. Most will do that. If it won't use AAC, then use iTunes to translate them into mp3's, then transfer them.
There is no need to re-rip them, unless the other player's software forces you to do that, in which case, it's not Apple forcing you, it's that other player.
Lame.
On the post: UK Fines Group For Lost Laptop As US Gov't Keeps Losing Laptops Itself
lack of encryption
I've worked for the gov't for thirty years, and no matter how hard you try, once an Agency gets over a couple of thousand people, keeping track of all of their equipment gets to be a really hard job.
So, as with my own Agency, you don't try so hard to stop what you can't, you concentrate on protecting what you know you can't afford to lose. In other words, you not only encrypt the hard drive of all laptops, but you set up your systems so that accessing the information is done through secure, encrypted VPN connections to protected servers where the information is kept safely behind firewalls. That way, when (not if, but WHEN) a laptop is lost, there isn't any information there to be compromised. So really, the only info you are protecting on the laptop is your network information.
You'll never be able to stop the loss of portable hardware. You concentrate on protecting your information instead.
We've been doing this for over five years, now.
On the post: RIAA Borrows Jobs' Reality Distortion Field For Their Reponse To His Anti-DRM Manifesto
no lock-in
You're wrong, that's no lock-in. That's the point. Since most people don't have more than an average 22 songs on their iPod, then they are not "locked in" to staying with the iPod. Plus, if you want to burn your ITS music to Cd then re-rip it using the software to your new player, there's nothing to stop you from doing that, either. Apple's EULA to iTunes doesn't prohibit that, either.
Lock-in is a myth, or properly, a straw man used to attack Apple.
He's chosen now because they are re-negotiating with the labels in May, and he's trying to use public and governmental pressure to try to force the labels to back off. Having to develop and maintain the DRM software on the iPod is expensive and adds a layer of complexity to how the unit works. Plus, as he noted, it has been broken before, and not fixing it risks losing the entire big 4's library from the ITS. Not a good business model. Add this to the fact that Steve just HATES not being in full control, and the DRM isn't under his control.
All plenty of reason to pick now.
On the post: RIAA Borrows Jobs' Reality Distortion Field For Their Reponse To His Anti-DRM Manifesto
lockin isn't needed
There IS NO lock-in, regardless of how much the Inquirer wants to spin things. 90% of songs stored and used on iPods have no DRM. They are mostly loaded from customers' owned CDs. Plus any illegally obtained music, which of course, would also have no DRM. So where's the lock-in?
Apple is NOT afraid of competition, they have fared very well in an open market. The iPod was well on its way to popularity even before the ITMS (as it was then known) was launched. How did iPod customers get their music? CDs and shared downloads. Mostly Cds. That's how I started mine. Ripped them into iTunes and then synced my iPod. No store, no DRM. Just me and my music.
Morons.
On the post: Steve Jobs Says Record Labels Should Ditch Their DRM
Huge
First, he states, clearly and unequivocally, that Apple will sell DRM free music when they are allowed to. He didn't hedge that statement.
Second, he directed the EU to go after the labels. His point is well made. I think the main reason he won against Apple Corps is because the LABELS control the licenses for the music; Apple is just a distributor. That means, contractually, the labels have the control, not Apple, and he invites the EU to go after the true owners of the licenses - the ones who really have control of the issue.
He makes Apple's position very clear, they feel that DRM is a waste of resources and doesn't work.
What could be more clear?
On the post: Does Personal Philanthropy Make Executives' Companies Look Better?
moron
The IRS doesn't care what country you owe your allegiance to. If you live in the US and work here (and you'd better have a work visa if you're not a US citizen!) they're gonna expect you to pay taxes according to the US tax code. Not only on your US earnings, but on what you earn overseas, too!
Get your facts straight before you blow off and make yourself look stupid.
On the post: Dell Back At The Top At Dell
dumping founders
Seems like a lot of that going around...
On the post: Microsoft Vista Takes Orders From Anyone Who Yells At It
speech command
I don't think she's alone. I can think of a lot of things I'd like to be able to just speak the commands for without slowing myself down by having to type or use the mouse. Sure, at a certain level of working on the innards of a box you'll need to start typing, but 99% of a user's day could be made much more productive by good speech recognition. (Yeah the guy above is right, there is a world of diff between speech recognition and voice recognition!)
And I think computers will someday be commanded much more by voice than keyboard. Voice is definitely a biometric, and combined with other biometrics, can be a good security system.
On the post: Verizon Implies Cingular's Giving Up Way Too Much To Carry The iPhone
agreed
I agree with you guys. the whineys above do sound like the same whineys that dissed the iPod in the beginning.
Yeah, it does seem to be missing that oh-so-important 3G - which most providers in the US don't provide anyway. Go back and look at the keynote - Steve said very clearly that it will in the future.
As for Exchange integration - what part of CONSUMER don't you understand? Exchange is for business, and this is NOT a business phone. It is intended for the high end consumer, not the business consumer.
As for the rest (voice dialing, etc.) wait a bit - this was just a first look, and Apple often reserves the details for later, just before the product is released. We've got until June, for Pete's sake!
If they release it in June without, for instance, voice dialing, then you've got every reason to gripe, and I'll be right next to you, too.
Go back and look at the CNBC interview Steve did that Tuesday afternoon. He clearly noted that he expects the price to come down after noting something about economies of scale. It'll clearly depend on how many of these things they sell. The more they sell, the lower they can drop the price over time. Again, look at the Razr, same deal.
I would note as well a quote on another site (sorry, don't remember which one) of a Cingular sales rep that told a journalist that from inquiries he's gotten about the iPhone, he could sell 100 a day easily.
And, yes, Apple often adds features to later models. First versions often aren't the best - they're just the teaser to open the market, something that can be easily dumped if it doesn't sell well. Look at the Cube. It was a beautifully crafted machine, but was too high in price for the lack of expandability, but contained new cooling techniques that were later incorporated into the iMac line after the Cube bombed.
I'll also say this: for every one of the whineys here and elsewhere I hear complaining about a lack of features, I hear just as many like Jennifer L. Eisenberger above saying that they'll be standing in line for theirs the morning it comes out. The same Cingular sales rep quoted above also noted that one man he talked to was going to buy one for everyone in his family, including his two teenage daughters. That is four at least!
Scoff if you like at those early adopters and the ones that will buy Apple products sight unseen, but they kept Apple afloat during the lean years, and others like them now are helping them expand their market share, and create new markets.
On the post: Norway Says Apple's FairPlay DRM Isn't So Fair
backwards
You've got it backwards, they're saying that music bought from the ITS can't be played on other music players, which, strictly speaking, is true. One has to burn them onto a Cd and re-rip them back as mp3's to do that.
France tried it by passing a law, this won't work any better.
On the post: You Can't Ban Stupidity, No Matter How Hard You Try
darwin
We tend to make a joke of the Darwin Awards, but it is a sad truth that some people ARE stupid enough so as to remove themselves from the gene pool before contaminating it with their flawed genes. That web site is often joked about, and is looked at a somewhat humorous, but I submit that it is really a sad commentary on the sheer stupidity of some people. Some folks just don't think before acting.
Sometimes they act on impulse, sometimes out of sheer habit.
Unfortunately, the idea of a law to stop them isn't intended to protect the stupid. (There's no point!) It is intended to protect the rest of us from the consequences of that stupid person's unthinking actions, or at least to hold the guilty to account.
In the example above, the bike rider may skate out of that accident without a scratch, but the lorry driver may end up in jail or at least with a traffic citation, and somebody in that shop could die. (or perhaps someone on the sidewalk in front of it.) But chances are the bike rider just calmly continues on his/her way possibly without a clue as to the mayhem just caused due to his/her carelessness.
These laws are intended to hold them accountable, mainly. Stupidity being what it is, the laws often won't actually STOP that illegal behavior, but at least we can hold the stupid accountable for their thoughtless actions.
Remember, ignorance can be fixed. Stupidity is forever!
On the post: It's Hard For Customers To Care About Comcast Services That Don't Exist
Re: Comcast offerings
Now we have 200 channels vs. 130, plus DVR, with a box on each TV for less money than Comcast used to charge. (including most of the channels Comcast dumped!)
Viva la competition!
On the post: Verizon Draws More Attention To Telco's Dubious Math Skills
confusing
Back in the day when people used typewriters, not computers, the shift position over the number 1 had the 'cent' sign instead of the modern exclamation mark(!). That is because one could make an exclamation mark by typing the small vertical mark ' then backspace and type a period. It wasn't until IBM started making the Selectric Typewriters (which had removable balls of different typefaces) that typewriter manufacturers replaced the cent sign with the exclamation mark, because it was determined to be more often used, and the notation $0.0x could be used to denote cents also. So the cent sign has fallen out of common use.
Since it is not immediately apparent to most users how to make a 'cent' sign (looks like a 'c' with a vertical line drawn through it) on modern computers, it is easier to use the notation $0.01 to denote 'one cent'. We don't use the appellation 'one one-hundreth of a dollar" to describe that notation.
Since we learn in math class that the third position to the right of a decimal place is the thousandths position, it is easy to mistakenly say 'two thousandths of a cent" when we see the notation $0.002.
So it is a fault of a disconnect between the manner in which we speak of the way in which we notate dollars and cents now vs. when the actual 'cent' sign was in common use. The written notation for two cents is now written '$0.02' instead of using the now outdated cent sign after the number 2. Our computer systems are ahead of our common verbal usage.
Verizon management should actively train their customer service reps to properly verbalize their prices so such misunderstandings do not take place. Of course, that assumes there is anyone at Verizon that truly understands this problem!
On the post: Nature Shuts Down Open Wikipedia-Like Peer Review; If You Build A Wiki, It Doesn't Mean Anyone Will Edit It
re: wiki
On the post: If We've Already Thrown Away Hundreds Of Millions On Useless FBI Computer Systems, What's An Extra $50 Million?
make sense
@ 2 is right. The government is forced, by the Constitution, to budget money annually. That is why they can approve a project for $500 million and only budget $100 mil per year for, say, 5 years. If the project is ahead of schedule, and you don't want to slow it down (which can cost additional money), you may have to go back and ask for an advance on some of the $400 mil that is allocated for the out years. That can keep you going, and productive. If the additional money is not allowed, the delay can cost you more money to the contractor due to contractual obligations. You don't want that!
#23, you can't do it that way. There are rules that gov't contracting officials have to adhere to, and they specify how you can and can't penalize contractors. You don't just drop the amount they are due per month, you tack on penalties, which are tied to due dates. And, no, on most contracts, a contractor doesn't get paid until after he gives the government a deliverable, or finishes a performance within a specified time period, unless he is on a cost plus fixed fee contract. On those, he gets paid for expenses periodically, and the final payment includes his fixed fee. Such contracts are most often performance contracts, which often DO include performance penalties.
But complicated IT contracts, as many of you know, aren't simple animals. Sometimes, the requirements will change. Sometimes, when you find out that technology has changed, the customer wants more to include the new stuff. Then it's back to the drawing board, which costs more $$$. Sometimes you find out halfway through, that you just can't do it that way, and you've gotta change tactics. (Vista, anyone?)
Yes, the FBI deserves a lot of condemnation for blowing the initial contract which bombed. It was badly managed. But asking for what is essentially an advance on future budgeted amounts, isn't necessarily bad.
It does, however, merit watching!
On the post: Even Security Breaches Are Easier On Macs
market share
The Mac isn't more secure due to low market share. Windows isn't attacked just because it has a bigger market share.
Market share is only PART of the equation. The big thing in malware today is the bot armies. Not the older trojans and viruses of yesteryear that still bloat the AV definitions lists. (and, by the way, the numbers gloated over by some Mac fans)
Today it is all about getting the bots on PCs so they can be used either as DDOS bots, or to steal banking or other financial information.
So, yes, in that sense, PCs are more attractive. NOT because of market share, but because of the ease with which the bots can be placed. There are a LOT of PCs that are not kept up to date. These are the targets. Malware authors want to build bot armies as large as they can, but most really big ones don't go over six figures, and many are only in the five figures. PCs with Windows installed are bigger targets because they aren't always protected by updates.
BUT, Macs are out there in big enough numbers, too. They may not be as large in percentages, but with twenty million installed, there are more than enough to build bot armies around. But as far as we know, there aren't. Why not? Because they aren't as easy to actually get the malware on and running, at least as far as we know now.
Will that change in the future? Maybe, but since Unix, as a system, is more secure than Windows, and requires admin passwords to install software, it'll be a stretch.
Vista should help there, at least a few years in the future as the older PCs with less secure versions of Windows on them die out. But for now, low market share is only PART of the issue. Actual security being built into the system is a bigger part.
On the post: Smug Mac User: 1, Hackers: 0
such disappointment!
I guess that's why they have to turn so vitriolic and make such nasty comments...
to paraphrase, Apple: 1, Hackers: 0
I guess that this episode lays to rest the security by obscurity myth. This was just two obscure hackers trying to use the noteriety of being the first Apple hackers to get attention. It worked, but just until their scam got busted.
Anybody wanna try again?
On the post: That Email You Wrote Won't Damage Your Career... Sometimes... Maybe
Re: E-Mail Bad
That generally makes 'em think...at least a little bit!
Next >>