Thank you for calling BS on this numbers game. Sure, a 10x market share could explain 100x viruses and botnets. It does not explain zero.

I think you are missing a key figure in your math! The ROI(Windows) has to be divided the among all the competition in the crowded malware space, whereas the ROI(Mac) is all on the table, especially for the first mover.

Also, V(Mac) >> V(Windows) since those consumers are spending more on their computers, it logically follows that those users have more disposable income (on average) available to be stolen. Plus the V(Mac) is much higher since it is an untapped market.

Even so, your preferred numbers are only enough to explain why there is more malware for Windows than OS X by several factors, say 10x or even 100x. Your speculation does not explain zero OS X specific viruses.

The only way for your math to explain the observed $0 ROI(Mac) situation is if C(Mac) is hugely disproportionate, say $100M instead of your $10K.

Are you open to the implications of your own reasoning? Or are you only interested in the math if it confirms your world view?

I want to give due credit to Cyndi Rowland at WebAIM for the summary. I did not link to them in submission as their site probably would not stand up to the /. effect. I share the sentiment though. This is fantastic news, and anyone who hopes to get old should be grateful.

The asshat leadership is just part of the problem though. I came to realize that the mental accommodations I had made in order to believe in a deity which was compatible with science (let alone, souls, heaven, Christ, etc.) resulted in a theology that was all but indistinguishable from wishing thinking. There is lots that I like and miss about church, but it is hard to get over the apparent fact of religion being pure invention.

Thanks guys for an interesting and education exchange! Here is the only bit I could verify myself:
http://www.google.com/search?q=qbox+exploit+UPnP

Actually, the iPhone is argueably the most useable smartphones for the blind.

What does the Department of Energy have to do with this?

Or did you meant the the Department of Education!

Please mod parent up. Please mod grandparent down.

Nice exposition. Thanks!

> I remember people talking about the iPhone and how they were planning to get one

Correct me if I am wrong, but was that not after the iPhone has been demonstrated on stage?

> why can I not find anyone talking about the Apple tablet now?

I think it is too early for that kind of buzz. Iff the iSlate is announced but won't be shipping until months after the first demonstration, then the comparisons to the iPhone launch can be made.

> Its primary target was the little kids

As the review points out rather humorously, films targeted to children give dialogs on tariffs less screen time! Lucas' target audience was fanbois. From a financial perspective, he was successful. Money and feeding his ego are his only motivation. Lucas gives lip service to artistic vision, but he is not credible when making such claims.

Do you are understand that web accessibility is really not hard?

I mean, the web and computers are inherently 'visual' mediums.

Incorrect. The web is an information medium. As far as the computer goes, the display and keyboard are really kind of arbitrary, the compelling action takes place between those two!

I mean, I feel for the handicapped, and appreciate making things as accessible as possible, but, isn't it going a bit far on things that just are naturally aimed for normal people?

So, do you think it is a good practice for the Federal government to build (or pay for) things that create obstacles to citizens with disabilities? Or for the Feds to build/pay for applications that provide an obstacle to their current (and future) employees with disabilities?

I'm thinking geez... what a crock. NONE of the people needing training were handicapped... yet the rules still applied...

Some random observations:

1. Accomdations are still easier to provide in-person than remotely.
2. Odds are that with remote training, there would have been more participants, and likely some with disabilites.
3. The remote conferencing systems are way behind the ball on 508, and will never get their act together if they are not pressured by potential Federal customers to do so.

Why should it necessarily be that more efficient == less expensive, especially in the short term? Fossil fuels means taking advance of a resource that has taken literally millions of years to accumulate.

I think renewable implies efficient, at least enough for you to let the grandparent comment slide.