brianfinkel

This is so inspiring, magnificent.

I also object to the suggestion that either gender is superior. Girls are our "greatest resource?" Really? What about boys? How would people respond if I made a video suggesting that boys are greatest? After all, they're bigger and stronger, and have had more scientific achievements.

I'm not an expert, but I actually think that there is current data to suggest that boys today are having much more trouble learning and focusing than girls. I think there might even be more girls enrolled in college than boys.

Also, if you're going to eschew the princess thing, then why adopt the princess palette?

I don't think the color is a problem, other than it appears to be the chief innovation from this company. It seems to me that if you want your daughter to get traction with STEM, you need to provide her with interesting, high quality materials and spend time exploring them with her. Maybe I'm missing something, but i think there are already superior, better priced materials than these, so where is the value here?

Yes. Parents who really want their girls to appreciate STEM can simply sit down with them, do something technical that is age appropriate, and encourage them to work hard at understanding things. And that's exactly what boys need, too!

I don't get this company. Encouraging girls to do technical stuff is awesome (just as awesome as encouraging boys!), but why are their building toys all purple and pink and girlie? That seems like a contradiction to me.

We have a 5 yo daughter and immerse her in all kinds of technical stuff (along with our 2 yo son), like building toys, 3d puzzles, math games, chess, etc. I would love for her to be a killer engineer!

But I have no interest in these pink building toys. There are so many far better gender-free toys. Knex, Superstructs, Legos, Magnatiles, Tegu blocks, etc., are just a few that are far more appealing to me as a parent.

As a society, we do seem to have a "princess problem," but I just don't see how pink building toys can solve it.

Great work, Jason... I'm impressed.

My word choice is more colorful than the source, but I think it's a fair characterization of the message in the source material, and not a proposition I am making myself.

For EFF to issue a sweeping recommendation that users should "avoid Microsoft products where possible" is completely ridiculous and might cause many readers, if they believe EFF to be credible, to conclude that Microsoft is a piece of shit. After all, it would be pretty shitty for a major software company with tens of thousands of employees, many of whom are brilliant, and $2B per month in earnings, to be completely unable to deliver software that does not so imperil users that the general advice is for them to avoid using the products at all. So, given its implications, I think the advice given by EFF is just outrageous.

Saying that IE and Outlook are difficult to secure is not in itself inflammatory, except when coupled with the general recommendation to avoid Microsoft. ANY Internet-connected software is difficult to secure and audit, so why single out Microsoft? Are the other vendors that much better? I doubt it. Can you show me some kind of real data demonstrating that products similar in functionality to the latest versions of IE and Outlook are truly less difficult to secure?

The argument that "adversaries tend to attack popular platforms" is common sense but not useful, and no more compelling than saying "The vendor with the largest installed base, the most smart developers, and the most cash, will do the best job, over time, of securing their platform." In reality, the size of the user base, and the size of the company, provide nothing more than a rationale, as opposed to real information about the security of the platform.

So, in my opinion, EFF is not making a "fair assessment."

This is not you and me having a debate over beers at a bar. This is the EFF saying, flat out, MS products are to be avoided, and one reason for that is their popularity. For most people, this translates to, "Use a Mac instead. They are inherently more secure and less of a target because they aren't as popular." And while there are lots of great reasons to use a Mac, I think this line of thinking is flimsy.

Finally, the MS bashing fest is totally pervasive. It's firmly in the zeitgeist right now, and I totally object to the herd mentality it demonstrates. Last week there was a much-debated post on HN by a company indicating that an experienced .NET programmer is "ruined" and very unlikely to be a good programmer in general.

There are absolutely valid criticisms of Microsoft. But when every jackass, and "credible" sources, too, develop the reflex that Microsoft is shit, it offends my sensibilities.

Very interesting data, but how does it demonstrate that MS is, as of now, any slower at addressing vulnerabilities than any other vendor? The report is more than two years old (it says the data is from Feb 2009), and it is based on vulnerabilities discovered over the life of each product. That puts MS at an obvious disadvantage because it includes their "slow start" in fixing a host of early vulnerabilities, while excluding their more recent efforts, which are surely more respectable.

Do you know of any data covering 2009 to now? That would be more useful.

"Avoid Microsoft products where possible." "Minimize the number of Microsoft Internet applications you use." Are you kidding me? This advice is completely outrageous on so many levels. Microsoft has made many mistakes, and they have a whole lot of problems to fix, but for the love of god, the company is not a piece of shit.

NO software is guaranteed immune to malware, and MS has done at least as good a job of patching and securing their software as any vendor in the industry.

Given what they have to lose from vulnerabilities in their software, given the resources they have committed to the challenge, and given their track record thus far, I think it is clear that updated, regularly patched software from MS is a very safe bet for security -- at least as good of a bet as sw from anywhere else.

If you think that "avoiding MS products" will make you secure, you are dreaming, and you are also missing out on all of the fantastic attributes that make MS products desirable.

It has clearly become fashionable to bash MS at every turn, but these otherwise interesting "security guidelines" take it to a whole new level.