With every improvement to defensive equipment/strategy you reduce the number of attacks you can receive.

It's the same with software. With every improvement you reduce the threat level. Just means a higher level of expertise is required and this means more time before the next break in. I remember in the 90s when everybody and their uncle could easily break into a web server using Telnet. You didn't even have to cover your tracks that well because many of the devices didn't log in/outs and if they did the log was short lived. Exploits will continue to get more complex and difficult to execute hence reducing the overall number of attacks.

But that's what Uber is. They are a company that is trying to bend the rules or avoid the rules to make money while delivering an inferior service. The rules in this case aren't a moving target and contrary to belief they weren't implemented to protect taxi drivers. Instead they were implemented to protect the public.

The Uber service is great. All they are missing is the licensing. If they did that from the beginning they could have enticed actual licensed taxi drivers to join them instead of having to work for these cut throat companies who monopolize the market and give back very little to the drivers. Instead, the drivers are now helping said companies to push Uber out.

Yes, absolutely. Unfortunately most people don't see past that what they read or are told by an ill informed techy.

Why would it be obvious?

MS has sunk itself numerous time by trying to please every little fuck up on earth. The result has been a crap load of legacy garbage to maintain over the course of many OSs. For the first time MS looks like it's putting it's pants on and telling you how it's going to be. In case you didn't notice, Apple and Google have already been forcing customers into "their way" so no harm done here.

Citation please.

See, that's the real problem with IE. The past is still in the present where as with Firefox and Chrome the past goes away once a version comes out. IE will always be plagued with this disadvantage which I consider to be MS's fault. Will Spartan be separate from the OS? Maybe, but at what cost?

I agree and clearly remember this. But who's fault is this really? The customer and Microsoft's in my opinion. Microsoft should have taken a stronger position and forced changes on the customers. Unfortunately they tried to keep the customers happy which resulted in the exact opposite. The fact is, developers would have complained regardless. MS was never good at telling the customer what is right for them. Google and Apple took very different approaches in that regard.

Look. I'm more than willing to believe it but I'll need to see evidence of this. The rumor mill ran strong amongst web developers back then.

MS is a big player in the software market and maybe they were right, maybe they were wrong. In this case they ended up wrong because they failed to make the standard change by flexing their power. Look at Google. How many times did they flex their power for change?

The fully patched version of IE7 rendered the same on both platforms.

Here is what I think the IE history is:
IE all the way to version 6 (inclusive) sucked because they didn't integrate W3 standards property but in their defense neither did any of the other browsers at the time. All browsers had problems rendering content because they all didn't integrate the standard properly either because it was loose or because they didn't fully understand it. This wasn't a problem except IE was integrated into the OS significantly slowing down it's dev cycle (don't ask me why their dev cycles for IE sucked so much since I don't know).

Regardless, the competition (Firefox) did really good at getting it right and became a standard amongst web content developer (prior to Chrome). This means anytime a page didn't render properly in IE it was automatically IE's fault. IE's rendering became much better as of version 7 but I really think the version that made it more than acceptable is version 8. Problem is that content developers got so used to complaining about IE that it was always IEs fault whenever content didn't render properly regardless of their poor coding skills. In my experience most cases I encountered were developer mistakes that were being covered by either Chrome or Firefox's engine since they had a different default interpretation of the miss information in the html/css code.

I have been developing web applications that use HTML, CSS, Javacript, JSON and Ajax for over 7 years now. IE6 was garbage and caused me trouble but IE7 and on didn't cause me any trouble.

So my point is that IE will always have a stain because of past and changing it's name may erase those stains because we expect it to be a new beginning.

Next time you achieve something at work your boss can stroll in and say: "Jimmy here just stopped our servers from crashing every hour and instead they crash every 3 hours now. Jimmy's work is done here. He can go home early for such great work!"

Positive reinforcement is a much better motivator than to bash the progress no matter how little it appears to be. News like this makes me realize the small changes I made and that my company made actually helped.

Interesting story. I still remember when my favorite computer component shop was pushing OCZ products hard. I purchased a gaming mouse from them which didn't last long.

My first SSD drive was a Samsung just because they had proven themselves as a reliable flash memory device manufacturer. Storage for desktops, servers and any IT infrastructure are areas I don't hesitate to spend the money to avoid unneeded risks. I stick to companies with a good track record. To date that philosophy has paid off.

But is this really bad if properly implemented?

Oh yeah! Look at that! Didn't even know but somehow they are still operating.

MS had a large portion of the market so big players trying to launch products on a tight schedule or low budget will quickly ignore specs they don't believe will be required for the launch. In this case Windows forces a lower spec. The problem with that is you'll rarely see companies go back and address the issue until there's a fire burning under their behind.

I think better backup strategies apply here. If someone steals your computer you got just as much warning as the SSD drive. Just saying.

Where did you get those numbers? I've worked for a manufacturer of computer retail products such as OCZ and knowing the market I know that 10% would have killed the business.