Actual said:Sony is worth 20 billion dollars more than Microsoft. Sony is currently less profitable however.SlasherX said:The vast difference between Sony's resources and Microsoft's is one reason. There is also the fact that Live is a subsidiary of Microsoft. Microsoft, you know one of the largest corporations on Earth owned by the second richest man in the world that you would have to be brain dead to take on or try to hack.
I continue to see people say this. THESE ARE A FEW ACCOUNTS THAT WERE HACKED. Probably Brute force hacked. All you need is to know an an email and password that is it. It's not even that difficult I know a few people who can do it. Sony had everything stolen, all the data everything. Now lets me say thisAzure-Supernova said:Once [http://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/view/17086/xbox-live-policy-directors-account-hacked/]SlasherX said:tl;dr Live wont be hacked.
Twice [http://playsquad.commongate.com/post/Xbox_Live_hacked_accounts_stolen/]
Just two examples thanks to Google. It's a simple fact there: nothing is 100% hack proof. Even precious Xbox Live with its gold plated servers.
Sion_Barzahd said:I was actually a helluva lot surprised by how little security Sony apparently had on those files. Its almost like they were giving them away.
I can at least hope that Microsoft will have better security in place. Though just because Bill Gates has a lot of money doesn't exactly mean that they will do.
I mean i lock my door every night but my rich friend at the other end of town usually doesn't bother. Money isn't equal to security.
At the very least though, i reckon Microsoft are going to be adding a bit of additional security now, after seeing Sony's disaster. At least if i was in charge of it i would be. Nothing screams wake up call like seeing your biggest rival go through a huge disaster like this.
How dare you bring reality into this discussion! Live is invulnerable to all mortal forms of cyber crime!Hubbe said:Anything can be hacked.
Yes, of course. Hackers will try hacking everthing - The Pentagon, CIA, FBI etc. but they won't try to touch Microsoft because they're rich? Errrm yeah, sure.SlasherX said:This wouldn't happen. Not now. Not ever. The vast difference between Sony's resources and Microsoft's is one reason. There is also the fact that Live is a subsidiary of Microsoft. Microsoft, you know one of the largest corporations on Earth owned by the second richest man in the world that you would have to be brain dead to take on or try to hack.
Though, that advertising about the annoyance of Vista constantly asking to confirm things is false.funguy2121 said:
Just a gentle reminder. As a person who abhors marketing in general, I rather love these guys (more so the writers).
So correcting and pointing out flaws and errors in a text is being a jerk? I didn't take any real offense to this, I honestly don't care. I was more making a future reference to OP than taking offence and trying to protect/debase someone.Wabblefish said:No need to take offense and come off as a jerk =/
I really don't see why The Escapist fancies itself as being the maturest place on the Internet.
love you sarcasm, and besides that, he pretty much just bent over and said "put me on probation.... and be sure to spank me while you're at it"zehydra said:Congrats OP, not one of your arguments did not contain a logical fallacy!
Read my Edit.Googooguru said:I disagree completely re: 1999 China hacks Pentagon , 2006 British Hacker hacks Pentagon and NASA , 2007 China Again Hacks the Pentagon... 2008 World bank hacked, 2011 bank of America hacked... it goes on and on.. identity theft and hacking happens all the time
And if you think the Xbox live has better security than the Pentagon and the World bank you sir are a special needs case
.. No Network is 100% secure so what we should learn from the PS debacle is safe guard your personal info and do not store your damn credit info on external servers..
Actually a lot of computer and electronics companies including Microsoft have started contributing to quantum encryption research. The only feasible way to get any data out of that is to be in the same room as the sender or receiver. Upgrade to that and any conventional hacking method is useless.Hubbe said:Anything can be hacked.
Yes, Sony were idiots, but even if they had protected themselves, they could have been hacked.
Probably not as easily and fast, but they could still have been hacked.
There is no such thing as a foolproof system.
That, and I recall seeing something about using light. It has something to do with sending data through light, and if anyone but the intended recipient views the data, it is destroyed.Zantos said:Actually a lot of computer and electronics companies including Microsoft have started contributing to quantum encryption research. The only feasible way to get any data out of that is to be in the same room as the sender or receiver. Upgrade to that and any conventional hacking method is useless.Hubbe said:Anything can be hacked.
Yes, Sony were idiots, but even if they had protected themselves, they could have been hacked.
Probably not as easily and fast, but they could still have been hacked.
There is no such thing as a foolproof system.
All of that is circumstantial. Some people find Macs more user friendly, others PC. But, as I stated earlier, I don't know a single Mac owner who has had issues with malware, whereas nearly every PC owner I knew during the Vista period had numerous issues, with several computers shutting down for good. The videos were made to point out the flaws in the OP's logic that Microsoft's XBL is un-sinkable. Both Vista and Internet Explorer prove that Microsoft is far from perfect, especially regarding online security. I'm anticipating a techie swooping in to tell me that all of my friends and I are idiots because we're not virus geniuses, but my stories are far more universal than circumstantial.Sonic Doctor said:Though, that advertising about the annoyance of Vista constantly asking to confirm things is false.
Yes it does ask for some things but it has never asked me for everything. From experience I would say that Mac's OS is worse.
A couple years ago I had the unfortunate chore of helping my friend's sister install software onto her new Mac laptop. She bought it new, but for some stupid reason it didn't come with the word-processing software preloaded on the thing, it just came with it on a disc. She wanted help because she wasn't well versed in how to do even the simplest of things like install software. The reason my friend didn't help her was that he said, "With how messed up Macs are, I'm liable to throw it out the window with how bad they are."
After my experience, I would agree. I put in the disc for the word-processing software, and it to three confirmations before it even started to install it(Do you want to install this software? Are you sure you want to install this software? It is installing this software, do you want to let it continue?). It might not have been those exact words but that was what it was doing. It did that for all the stuff we put on it that day. I would add that that machine was constructed stupidly too. When one constructs/designs a laptop, the ejection button should for the disc drive should be place right next to where the disc comes out. It wasn't labeled either. I sat their pressing buttons to find out which one did it, and of course the last one I chose did it, because I wasn't expecting it to be all the way on the opposite side away from where the disc comes out.
It also asked an are you sure question when we tried to open the word-processing program to see if it worked. So that makes 4 times it asked for confirmation. And as I said, it did that for all the programs we installed, 4 times.
With my Vista, it asks once for install and around only half the time for opening programs.
So yeah, that Mac advertising is false.
After all that, I told my friend's sister that she should go to a more upstanding college. The only reason she had to get a Mac was because the whole campus was stupidly going entirely to an all Mac campus, so if she wanted to do any work not on her computer, she would be using a Mac, and would have to have a Mac if she wanted to easily transfer documents with and problems or hassle.
From now on, if somebody asks me to work on or help them out with a Mac, I will decline and tell them to do themselves a favor and take it back to the store, and not to bring it to me, because I will throw it out a window. They are just an expensive paper weight, that one that my friend's sister had, didn't last more than a year before it totally broke down and had to spend almost as much money to fix it as it would cost to just a buy a new and durable PC laptop. Macs are shit.
I followed your links, disregarding that the NYSE does not = the NASDAQ, and noticed three things right off the bat: they only cover the past 3 days (which include the weekend), 218.16 billion was not mentioned anywhere in either link, and Sony's stocks are worth roughly $3 more than Microsoft stocks. Am I missing something, or did you rush your homework?SlasherX said:Actual said:Sony is worth 20 billion dollars more than Microsoft. Sony is currently less profitable however.SlasherX said:The vast difference between Sony's resources and Microsoft's is one reason. There is also the fact that Live is a subsidiary of Microsoft. Microsoft, you know one of the largest corporations on Earth owned by the second richest man in the world that you would have to be brain dead to take on or try to hack.
Let me stop you right there there.
http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NYSE:SNE Sony: 28.19 billion
http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:MSFT Microsoft: 218.16 billion
Wow, stocks, those are complicated right?