GGJstudios
Apr 9, 03:14 PM
Adjust their thinking? With all due respect, I hate this type of (fill in the blank).
So then, if someone can use their Windows laptop on their lap -- while wearing shorts -- without a problem... then they try using a Mac laptop the same way but they burn their legs (or worse)... you would suggest that they just need to adjust their thinking?
Seriously??
Since you can't change the heat characteristics of Mac portables, or the heat conductivity of aluminum enclosures.... yes! It's simple common sense. If it's too hot on bare legs, then common sense says, "don't put it on bare legs!" It's so simple, even a cave man could figure it out.
So then, if someone can use their Windows laptop on their lap -- while wearing shorts -- without a problem... then they try using a Mac laptop the same way but they burn their legs (or worse)... you would suggest that they just need to adjust their thinking?
Seriously??
Since you can't change the heat characteristics of Mac portables, or the heat conductivity of aluminum enclosures.... yes! It's simple common sense. If it's too hot on bare legs, then common sense says, "don't put it on bare legs!" It's so simple, even a cave man could figure it out.
mcrain
Mar 16, 12:35 PM
Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
KnightWRX
May 2, 05:51 PM
Until Vista and Win 7, it was effectively impossible to run a Windows NT system as anything but Administrator. To the point that other than locked-down corporate sites where an IT Professional was required to install the Corporate Approved version of any software you need to do your job, I never knew anyone running XP (or 2k, or for that matter NT 3.x) who in a day-to-day fashion used a Standard user account.
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
Mattie Num Nums
Apr 15, 01:12 PM
LGBTQ teens are at the highest risk factor for suicide among ANY of their peers. That is why videos like this are more important than say "fat bullying."
So now were placing importance based on what? Suicide is suicide.
So now were placing importance based on what? Suicide is suicide.
larrybeo
Mar 18, 09:43 AM
People who complain that your service provider is going to make you follow the ru:eek:les unnerve me with their uncanny ability to disregard all that stands to reason with the sustainability of your "toys." They are like little sissies on the playground crying after a Barbie Doll has been taken from them. Those people should man up and start paying for the footprint they leave on the network.
geofftay
Mar 18, 08:26 PM
Don't care how many times this has been regurgitated...
I paid money for the file. I dont care about the license. I dont own my books, my software, my music, my life, my anything if I sit back and shut up. So the only issue here that bothers me is that short term, this could affect how I get my music and what I pay for it. Long term? It wont make a damn bit of difference... RIAA will eventually lose this war.
I paid money for the file. I dont care about the license. I dont own my books, my software, my music, my life, my anything if I sit back and shut up. So the only issue here that bothers me is that short term, this could affect how I get my music and what I pay for it. Long term? It wont make a damn bit of difference... RIAA will eventually lose this war.
milozauckerman
Jul 12, 08:21 PM
Yeah mister 6" PeeCee, you must've missed where Steve Jobs said something along the lines of, "BMW and Mercedes have about a 14% market share. What's wrong with being a BMW or a Mercedes?"
This is my philosophy as well. I don't drive a Ford. I don't want XP. I don't want an HP. So suck your PC.
There's some irony about your penis envy reference and the rest of this post.
Just sayin'.
This is my philosophy as well. I don't drive a Ford. I don't want XP. I don't want an HP. So suck your PC.
There's some irony about your penis envy reference and the rest of this post.
Just sayin'.
ChrisA
Apr 14, 06:47 PM
If you felt confortable with Linux and its command line, Mac OS X should be no real change for you. Its command line interface is no different. If I remember right, Mac OS X's standard Shell is in bash, but you can change it to the many other popular shells that are used with Unix and linux and even install your own.
Once you are using the shell program in OS X, you will find the not much has changed UNIX wise but remember that OS X is based on BSD and not linux so I guess there are some small (very small) differences.
The shell that interprets your typing into the command line is just another program. There are several different shells and you can install many of them and switch between them if you like. If you see difference between Linux and Mac OS X it is likely because on one system the default shell is /bin/sh and the other it is /bin/csh or /bin/tcsh or whatever. The defaults on both Mac and Linux at set on a per user basis so each user gets his favorite shell. Difference in syntax are subtle and mostly are noticed only if you write shell scripts. It's not a BSD vs. Linux issue, either OS can run either shell or even run different shells in different windows on the same machine
Once you are using the shell program in OS X, you will find the not much has changed UNIX wise but remember that OS X is based on BSD and not linux so I guess there are some small (very small) differences.
The shell that interprets your typing into the command line is just another program. There are several different shells and you can install many of them and switch between them if you like. If you see difference between Linux and Mac OS X it is likely because on one system the default shell is /bin/sh and the other it is /bin/csh or /bin/tcsh or whatever. The defaults on both Mac and Linux at set on a per user basis so each user gets his favorite shell. Difference in syntax are subtle and mostly are noticed only if you write shell scripts. It's not a BSD vs. Linux issue, either OS can run either shell or even run different shells in different windows on the same machine
peharri
Sep 21, 08:34 AM
Apple's point is that your computer more or less has that capability (ok with an Elgato dongle), and in any case they don't want to follow that business model. I guess you're not the target audience.
Only time will tell if anyone buys this.
I think the focus should be on the business model than the "you can always use a computer". Apple is reinventing TV. If you assume that an iTV user will be downloading pretty much everything they watch, then a DVR just becomes redundant.
Indeed, I think the lack of a DVR tells us a lot about Apple's thinking. It would certainly help shift boxes in the short term if they made a DVR an option, but in the long term it would essentially mean Apple would be shouting "We're co-existing with cable."
Of course, at this stage, it's too early to tell. For all we know, iTV will be launched in January (1G iPod 5Gb), and then in April we'll see it replaced with three variants (2G iPods - iPod 10Gb, iPod 15Gb, iPod 20Gb), one with more disk space, one with a DVR, and one that integrates with CableCards. I don't see them doing that, but I'm less certain of that than I am of them not releasing an iPhone.
Only time will tell if anyone buys this.
I think the focus should be on the business model than the "you can always use a computer". Apple is reinventing TV. If you assume that an iTV user will be downloading pretty much everything they watch, then a DVR just becomes redundant.
Indeed, I think the lack of a DVR tells us a lot about Apple's thinking. It would certainly help shift boxes in the short term if they made a DVR an option, but in the long term it would essentially mean Apple would be shouting "We're co-existing with cable."
Of course, at this stage, it's too early to tell. For all we know, iTV will be launched in January (1G iPod 5Gb), and then in April we'll see it replaced with three variants (2G iPods - iPod 10Gb, iPod 15Gb, iPod 20Gb), one with more disk space, one with a DVR, and one that integrates with CableCards. I don't see them doing that, but I'm less certain of that than I am of them not releasing an iPhone.
ABernardoJr
Apr 20, 09:37 PM
Is that a prerequisite? I have Apple battery charger.
lol It is not a prerequisite, but it might become a bit problematic when assumptions like these are made:
I don't. I just don't have OS/X. I just assumed that OS/X might not have it since some OS/X users here were confused about Windows hiding system files. :)
I'm not saying the assumption was true or false but assumptions on things that can be clarified by having the product certainly make it seem that it might help lol
lol It is not a prerequisite, but it might become a bit problematic when assumptions like these are made:
I don't. I just don't have OS/X. I just assumed that OS/X might not have it since some OS/X users here were confused about Windows hiding system files. :)
I'm not saying the assumption was true or false but assumptions on things that can be clarified by having the product certainly make it seem that it might help lol
fishkorp
Mar 18, 05:47 AM
I'm waiting for the class action lawsuit as this is wrong. The service that people have bought is not somehow giving them more bandwidth or a higher amount of download data simply because they are tethering through the phone. The phone can only download so fast to begin with so any device you connect to it will still be limited.
Will never happen. The contract you signed with AT&T specifically says the required data plan cannot be tethered without an additional fee. You agreed not to do it, they have every right to punish those that break the contract.
Will never happen. The contract you signed with AT&T specifically says the required data plan cannot be tethered without an additional fee. You agreed not to do it, they have every right to punish those that break the contract.
flopticalcube
Apr 22, 08:56 PM
Because it's harder to imagine that an intelligent designer had a hand in it than it is to imagine that everything happened by chance?
The odds favor chance.
The odds favor chance.
citizenzen
Mar 15, 10:39 PM
you might want to rethink what I mean by contained ...
It's too undefined...
Contained to the reactor?
Contained to the plant?
Contained to the locality?
Contained to the island?
Contained in the hemisphere?
Contained to the Earth?
It's too undefined...
Contained to the reactor?
Contained to the plant?
Contained to the locality?
Contained to the island?
Contained in the hemisphere?
Contained to the Earth?
starflyer
Apr 15, 10:58 AM
and 8 morons hit the "negative" button. That's why videos like this are necessary. Because there are a lot of stupid people out there who don't understand the world as it is.
Maybe they hit negative because they think it's sad that something like this even has to exist.
Maybe they hit negative because they think it's sad that something like this even has to exist.
alent1234
Apr 21, 10:41 AM
1. What "punch"? If we're going to use arbitrary words, iPhones beat Android to the "desert". FACT
2. Phone carriers selling Android devices and offering incentives helps the needs of those who do not afford to buy an iPhone but need a smartphone. I fixed it for you.
3. No, they aren't. Please link some sources stating so?
4. Sure, I'll give you that if you want to say it's a ripoff. This is a whole other issue.
5. Sure. It's bound to.
6. That tends to be the way of the Open Source area.
7. I'd hope so. Any competitors selling iPhones should probably be sued, since you know, that'd be a blatant rip off.
8. Sure.
9. Yes, yes and yes.
10. They're really just as bad as Apple's fanboys. I've noticed that the only difference in comments from the huge Apple fanboys and anti Apple fanboys are generally the words "Best" and "Worst" get flip flopped.
HTC's earnings are growing faster than apple's earnings. came out last week and i think they tripled over last year
HTC basically releases the exact same phone every few months except with different screen sizes and they alternate radio/CPU/GPU upgrades. the phone names are different but the internals are the same just like with different iphone versions
2. Phone carriers selling Android devices and offering incentives helps the needs of those who do not afford to buy an iPhone but need a smartphone. I fixed it for you.
3. No, they aren't. Please link some sources stating so?
4. Sure, I'll give you that if you want to say it's a ripoff. This is a whole other issue.
5. Sure. It's bound to.
6. That tends to be the way of the Open Source area.
7. I'd hope so. Any competitors selling iPhones should probably be sued, since you know, that'd be a blatant rip off.
8. Sure.
9. Yes, yes and yes.
10. They're really just as bad as Apple's fanboys. I've noticed that the only difference in comments from the huge Apple fanboys and anti Apple fanboys are generally the words "Best" and "Worst" get flip flopped.
HTC's earnings are growing faster than apple's earnings. came out last week and i think they tripled over last year
HTC basically releases the exact same phone every few months except with different screen sizes and they alternate radio/CPU/GPU upgrades. the phone names are different but the internals are the same just like with different iphone versions
Hellhammer
Mar 13, 12:35 PM
Of course you would say that, Finland gets ~30% of its energy from nuclear. Olkiluoto isn't exactly coming in under budget, is it?
Nothing stays in budget here. At least nuclear provides energy all around the year; solar, wind or water energy wouldn't.
It's not just a matter whether it is safe in your country, it's also a matter of whether it's safe for your neighbors. If I remember correctly, y'all had to throw away a lot of caribou meat after Chernobyl.
I had not even been born when Chernobyl happened so I know very little about how it affected us. Like others have said, it's safe as long as it is used by responsible country. From what I've read, Chernobyl used ancient and much more vulnerable technology than today's plants use plus they were performing some kind of an experiment which fought against safety rules.
Nothing stays in budget here. At least nuclear provides energy all around the year; solar, wind or water energy wouldn't.
It's not just a matter whether it is safe in your country, it's also a matter of whether it's safe for your neighbors. If I remember correctly, y'all had to throw away a lot of caribou meat after Chernobyl.
I had not even been born when Chernobyl happened so I know very little about how it affected us. Like others have said, it's safe as long as it is used by responsible country. From what I've read, Chernobyl used ancient and much more vulnerable technology than today's plants use plus they were performing some kind of an experiment which fought against safety rules.
citizenzen
Mar 14, 07:34 PM
The equation has to be considered in its entirety.
Did they attack your reading comprehension skills too?
The meanies. :(
Did they attack your reading comprehension skills too?
The meanies. :(
p!7!BOBMVzDuwtN!~~_12.JPG "BMW 530 i for sale with mods!")
leekohler
Mar 28, 04:18 AM
I want to be accepted as I am. But my heterosexuality is not who I am. It's not my identity. It's a property I have. If I became gay, the homosexuality wouldn't change me into someone else. I wouldn't become, say, Jussi Bjorling, my favorite singer. But if I did become gay, I would have a property I never had before.
Huh? What in the world are you talking about? Dude, lay off the communion wine. ;) You're making no sense, seriously.
On this very weird note, I'm going to bed. I've been up too late, but I played hockey earlier tonight and have a difficult time sleeping after, the brain just does not want to shut down, and I'm off all this week getting rid of carryover vacation.
Huh? What in the world are you talking about? Dude, lay off the communion wine. ;) You're making no sense, seriously.
On this very weird note, I'm going to bed. I've been up too late, but I played hockey earlier tonight and have a difficult time sleeping after, the brain just does not want to shut down, and I'm off all this week getting rid of carryover vacation.
UfLJHN%2BBMVzDgkg4!~~_12.JPG "BMW 530 i for sale with mods!")
Sounds Good
Apr 5, 06:21 PM
Under the Apple menu on the top toolbar, you can access both recently used programs and recently used files just the same as in the Windows Start menu.
Ahh, good. Thanks. Are we able to put our "favorite" programs or files there too, like on the Windows Start menu? (even if they are not the most recently used?)
It's essentially the same thing, but better.
Why / how is it better?
Ahh, good. Thanks. Are we able to put our "favorite" programs or files there too, like on the Windows Start menu? (even if they are not the most recently used?)
It's essentially the same thing, but better.
Why / how is it better?
Evangelion
Jul 13, 02:56 AM
This may be the case for say HP or Gateway , however Apple is Intel's new Darling and gets the best deal in the industry , so good infact that it prompted Dell to no longer feature Intel as it's exclusive chip vendor and as a resuld Dell will be introducing AMD based Desktops in August just to spite Intel for doing this.
Intel will give Apple volume-discounts. it does matter that do they order 100.000 CPU's or 800.000 CPU's
No matter how u configure a machine a Single CPU Woodcrest will never be as cost effiecient as a Conroe. Not to mention the need for ECC-ram , and expensive EPS12 PSU and Server Mobo.
Which is why I believe that macPro's will be all dual-duals. single Woodcrest makes no sense, and splitting MacPro-lineup between Woodcrest and Conroes doesn't make much sense either. Remember: MacPro's are hi-end workstations. so dual-dual makes sense there.
Intel will give Apple volume-discounts. it does matter that do they order 100.000 CPU's or 800.000 CPU's
No matter how u configure a machine a Single CPU Woodcrest will never be as cost effiecient as a Conroe. Not to mention the need for ECC-ram , and expensive EPS12 PSU and Server Mobo.
Which is why I believe that macPro's will be all dual-duals. single Woodcrest makes no sense, and splitting MacPro-lineup between Woodcrest and Conroes doesn't make much sense either. Remember: MacPro's are hi-end workstations. so dual-dual makes sense there.
KnightWRX
May 2, 12:45 PM
What makes you think MacOS X still contains directory traversal vulnerabilities that were reported in 2005? Do you really think MacOS X hasn't included the known fixes that were added six years ago? Opening a zip file on MacOS X _is_ safe. Of course that zip file can contain malware, which will then by on your Mac, exactly as if you had downloaded it directly. You still have to start the malware yourself, and you will still be asked by the OS if you really, really want to run the malware.
You and I have different meanings of safe. Opening a zip file that contains malware and then popping-up an installer without user intervention is hardly what I call safe.
Heck, auto-opening any kind of file is wrong as far as a proper security policy goes.
I wasn't talking about directory traversal. Just simple absolute Paths. You can make them using the -jj option to zip. This will store the full volume and path information and if you use unzip to extract the archive, it will try to place the file in that location on the system where you're unarchiving to.
Fortunately, it seems this is not what this is doing as Archive Utility does not honor absolute paths in a zip (I tested and confirmed it after someone came in earlier and spoke up about it), so something else is amiss here. Some people around other forums are suggesting that Archive Utility will automatically execute a .pkg if it is contained in an archive. Now that is unsafe if it is the case.
You and I have different meanings of safe. Opening a zip file that contains malware and then popping-up an installer without user intervention is hardly what I call safe.
Heck, auto-opening any kind of file is wrong as far as a proper security policy goes.
I wasn't talking about directory traversal. Just simple absolute Paths. You can make them using the -jj option to zip. This will store the full volume and path information and if you use unzip to extract the archive, it will try to place the file in that location on the system where you're unarchiving to.
Fortunately, it seems this is not what this is doing as Archive Utility does not honor absolute paths in a zip (I tested and confirmed it after someone came in earlier and spoke up about it), so something else is amiss here. Some people around other forums are suggesting that Archive Utility will automatically execute a .pkg if it is contained in an archive. Now that is unsafe if it is the case.
archipellago
May 2, 04:47 PM
Really? Find a source that makes the statements you suggest above that is unbiased. By unbiased, I mean a source that doesn't sell vulnerabilities to ZDI which then produces and markets specific hardware security appliances to generate revenue.
Hooking the APIs to log protected passwords in Mac OS X requires privilege escalation.
unbiased as opposed to a Mac site.... yeah right!
Mac users tend to be a better target for old fashioned phishing/vishing because...well, 'nothing bad happens on a Mac..' right?
Hooking the APIs to log protected passwords in Mac OS X requires privilege escalation.
unbiased as opposed to a Mac site.... yeah right!
Mac users tend to be a better target for old fashioned phishing/vishing because...well, 'nothing bad happens on a Mac..' right?
Squire
Sep 20, 07:45 AM
To those that say that Apple won't allow this because it would hit their own TV show revenues from the iTunes store... I disagree. They'll have to give in sooner or later, because EyeTV isn't going to go away. Would iTunes/iPod have been such a success if they'd have made us purchase all our music from iTunes, even the stuff we alread had on CD?
I'm not going to pay �3 (or whatever) for an Episode of Lost if I could have recorded on EyeTV last night... especially when C4 repeat each episode about 6 times per week anyway.
I see your point but maybe you're not seeing the big picture-- the future as Apple, perhaps, sees it. (And you are paying for that "Lost" episode whether you watch it or not, aren't you?)
A few minutes ago, I was thinking, Gee...if Apple got enough content on iTunes, a guy could just buy all the stuff he wanted to see and to hell with the rest. I see this as replacing cable TV in the not-too-distant future. Customized, commercial-free TV delivered to your computer and then sent to your iTV box. Why pay for that afternoon soap opera that you never watch?
This model probably would not make financial sense for people who watch a lot of TV but, for those who only watch a select few shows, it might be a good alternative to cable TV.
-Squire
I'm not going to pay �3 (or whatever) for an Episode of Lost if I could have recorded on EyeTV last night... especially when C4 repeat each episode about 6 times per week anyway.
I see your point but maybe you're not seeing the big picture-- the future as Apple, perhaps, sees it. (And you are paying for that "Lost" episode whether you watch it or not, aren't you?)
A few minutes ago, I was thinking, Gee...if Apple got enough content on iTunes, a guy could just buy all the stuff he wanted to see and to hell with the rest. I see this as replacing cable TV in the not-too-distant future. Customized, commercial-free TV delivered to your computer and then sent to your iTV box. Why pay for that afternoon soap opera that you never watch?
This model probably would not make financial sense for people who watch a lot of TV but, for those who only watch a select few shows, it might be a good alternative to cable TV.
-Squire
ender78
Sep 26, 04:03 PM
:D Now that's a render farm!!
2nd Story: Pixar announces that it is increasing its movie release schedule from one movie every two years to a movie every two days :)
2nd Story: Pixar announces that it is increasing its movie release schedule from one movie every two years to a movie every two days :)
No comments:
Post a Comment