.jpg "princess diana car crash")
munkery
May 2, 05:41 PM
What is "an installer" but an executable file and what prevents me from writing "an installer" that does more than just "installing".
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.
I don't know of any Javascript DOM manipulation that lets you have write/read access to the local filesystem. This is already sandboxed.
The scripting engine in the current Safari is not yet sandboxed.
Here is a list of Javascript vulnerabilities:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+Javascript
The issue is Safari is launching an executable file that sits outside the browser sandbox.
In the current Safari, only some plugins are sandboxed, so this wasn't execution outside the sandbox.
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.
Except this:
Switching off or turning down UAC in Windows also equally impacts the strength of MIC (Windows sandboxing mechanism) because it functions based on inherited permissions. Unix DAC in Mac OS X functions via inherited permissions but MAC (mandatory access controls -> OS X sandbox) does not. Windows does not have a sandbox like OS X.
UAC, by default, does not use a unique identifier (password) so it is more susceptible to attacks the rely on spoofing prompts that appear to be unrelated to UAC to steal authentication. If a password is attached to authentication, these spoofed prompts fail to work.
Unix DAC is turned off in OS X in the root user account.
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.
I don't know of any Javascript DOM manipulation that lets you have write/read access to the local filesystem. This is already sandboxed.
The scripting engine in the current Safari is not yet sandboxed.
Here is a list of Javascript vulnerabilities:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+Javascript
The issue is Safari is launching an executable file that sits outside the browser sandbox.
In the current Safari, only some plugins are sandboxed, so this wasn't execution outside the sandbox.
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.
Except this:
Switching off or turning down UAC in Windows also equally impacts the strength of MIC (Windows sandboxing mechanism) because it functions based on inherited permissions. Unix DAC in Mac OS X functions via inherited permissions but MAC (mandatory access controls -> OS X sandbox) does not. Windows does not have a sandbox like OS X.
UAC, by default, does not use a unique identifier (password) so it is more susceptible to attacks the rely on spoofing prompts that appear to be unrelated to UAC to steal authentication. If a password is attached to authentication, these spoofed prompts fail to work.
Unix DAC is turned off in OS X in the root user account.
dante@sisna.com
Oct 30, 02:24 AM
I have to agree there as well. My G5 Quad is one of the nicest computers I've ever owned. Definitely one of the top 3, possibly the best. And that's saying a lot considering the types of PCs and Unix systems I've owned over the years. I've never had one bit of trouble with it and it's still rather powerful compared to what's out there now. Although, I can see why people would want to sell... I've been watching the G5 systems selling on ebay, hoping I could get a deal on another one, but it's not happening. They're going for just as much as a new one did last January. I could probably sell mine (8GB RAM, FX4500, 2x500GB HD) for more than what I paid for it initially.. Very tempting and I may consider that in another month when the 8-core Mac Pros are released. Because while the G5 Quad is an awesome system, the reality is that as soon as all my software goes universal, it becomes obsolete. ...I have no use for Classic or anything that's still PowerPC native. The only software I use that hasn't made the universal/Intel transition is Adobe CS2. And it runs OK as is on my MBP, not great, but at least it's usable and still faster than it was on my older dual G4.
Ouch! You do make an Outstanding Case for that 8 Core MacPro. For Sure. Okay, so maybe I would be tempted to sell my Quad G5. Scary. . ..
Ouch! You do make an Outstanding Case for that 8 Core MacPro. For Sure. Okay, so maybe I would be tempted to sell my Quad G5. Scary. . ..
CaoCao
Mar 26, 06:59 PM
No- according to you, love conquers all until it includes people you don't like. That's not love, it's control.
Jesus never did that to anyone, did he? Nope. Jesus loved everyone no matter what. You are as far from Jesus as you could be. Jesus was nice to whores, even when they continued to be whores. Could you do that?
Your attitude is what turned me off to religion years ago. Jesus was a seriously great person. His fans, suck- nastiest people I've ever met. You don't even know what Jesus was about. Jesus was about unconditional love. Jesus basically said he loved everyone no matter what. That is a beautiful message. Now, it would be nice if the people he talked to would live it, and stop being such jerks.
Who were the whores who continued to whore?
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
My parents had two children. They (mom & dad) were good Christians (not Catholics, though). They hit a "rough patch". До свидание. Your anecdotes are meaningless BS. Religious devotion + children + love < stability.
Many marriages don't get over the rough patch, some don't even try :(
You will say anything to rationalize your prejudice, won't you? I have trouble believing anyone is as dense as you pretend here.
Just in case, though, the government offers legal concessions to men and women who legally (not religiously) commit to a marriage. It refuses to extend those same concessions to same-sex couples, and can demonstrate no legitimate state interest in this discrimination. That is denial of equal treatment under the law, and is unconstitutional.
I'm inarticulate. Well, if it is extending benefits heterosexual marriages then examine why it is doing so and then see what the differences between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage would be.
So why deny gay families this devotion that is needed, the commitment of marriage? Seems your reasoning is based out of malice if you really believe what you said.
Please explain what I said (I probably badly phrased it).
If you really love someone, surely you don't want to be with anyone else? If so, then it would be pretty moronic not to ultimately work out your issues with the other person.
What the problem is some people can't tell between infatuation and love.
There is no good reason why priests are expected to do it. Peter was married, as were many of the apostles and the priests of the early church. Nor was this confined to the early church:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes
The Renaissance was a very dark time for the Church.
Actually you're not, because it's not an arbitrary rule. As someone explained to you earlier, there's at least one reason behind banning copulating in the street.
There is no valid reason for prohibiting same-sex marriages. That is arbitrary, and shameful - particularly since it seems to be antiquated, bigoted dogma (that not everyone shares) that is promoting this prohibition.
What a touching story. Don't know what any of this has to do with homosexuality.
And if you are being beaten in the street, and the police walk by instead of coming to your aid - is that depriving you of liberty, or merely "not supporting" you?
Again, don't know what that has to do with homosexuality.
To be fair, I knew what you meant with your comment, but frankly there wasn't any sarcasm in my statement. You were attempting to defend your earlier poorly-constructed post, and I was bemused by it.
What does being gay have to do with being a priest?
I didn't say in the street
Examine the benefits of heterosexual marriage, examine why they are given and then compare with homosexual couples
Marriages don't need to be about love, they need to be a permanent commitment.
Situation would never happen, police don't walk the beat here anymore (thought it would be nice). Also police are obligated to stop crimes in action while the government isn't obligated to create new rights because a very small demographic demands it.
You agree with a mangled, meaningless phrase of dog Latin? Mirabile dictu.
I guess I need a better dictionary
A sentence is also a phrase: all sentences are phrases, but not all phrases are sentences. However, frater, my Latin does not include either subcribo (unless of course he was looking up "sign" and found the word for to sign beneath or subscribe(!)), or of, or a as an indefinite article, for that matter. You could try Id est signum contradictionis, which might make slightly more sense, even in the Vatican. Actually, the id is optional. Hence dog Latin, frater.
Apologies for the horrible Latin, the only non-English language I am fluent in is Mandarin Chinese (specifically the Beijing dialect).
Jesus never did that to anyone, did he? Nope. Jesus loved everyone no matter what. You are as far from Jesus as you could be. Jesus was nice to whores, even when they continued to be whores. Could you do that?
Your attitude is what turned me off to religion years ago. Jesus was a seriously great person. His fans, suck- nastiest people I've ever met. You don't even know what Jesus was about. Jesus was about unconditional love. Jesus basically said he loved everyone no matter what. That is a beautiful message. Now, it would be nice if the people he talked to would live it, and stop being such jerks.
Who were the whores who continued to whore?
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
My parents had two children. They (mom & dad) were good Christians (not Catholics, though). They hit a "rough patch". До свидание. Your anecdotes are meaningless BS. Religious devotion + children + love < stability.
Many marriages don't get over the rough patch, some don't even try :(
You will say anything to rationalize your prejudice, won't you? I have trouble believing anyone is as dense as you pretend here.
Just in case, though, the government offers legal concessions to men and women who legally (not religiously) commit to a marriage. It refuses to extend those same concessions to same-sex couples, and can demonstrate no legitimate state interest in this discrimination. That is denial of equal treatment under the law, and is unconstitutional.
I'm inarticulate. Well, if it is extending benefits heterosexual marriages then examine why it is doing so and then see what the differences between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage would be.
So why deny gay families this devotion that is needed, the commitment of marriage? Seems your reasoning is based out of malice if you really believe what you said.
Please explain what I said (I probably badly phrased it).
If you really love someone, surely you don't want to be with anyone else? If so, then it would be pretty moronic not to ultimately work out your issues with the other person.
What the problem is some people can't tell between infatuation and love.
There is no good reason why priests are expected to do it. Peter was married, as were many of the apostles and the priests of the early church. Nor was this confined to the early church:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes
The Renaissance was a very dark time for the Church.
Actually you're not, because it's not an arbitrary rule. As someone explained to you earlier, there's at least one reason behind banning copulating in the street.
There is no valid reason for prohibiting same-sex marriages. That is arbitrary, and shameful - particularly since it seems to be antiquated, bigoted dogma (that not everyone shares) that is promoting this prohibition.
What a touching story. Don't know what any of this has to do with homosexuality.
And if you are being beaten in the street, and the police walk by instead of coming to your aid - is that depriving you of liberty, or merely "not supporting" you?
Again, don't know what that has to do with homosexuality.
To be fair, I knew what you meant with your comment, but frankly there wasn't any sarcasm in my statement. You were attempting to defend your earlier poorly-constructed post, and I was bemused by it.
What does being gay have to do with being a priest?
I didn't say in the street
Examine the benefits of heterosexual marriage, examine why they are given and then compare with homosexual couples
Marriages don't need to be about love, they need to be a permanent commitment.
Situation would never happen, police don't walk the beat here anymore (thought it would be nice). Also police are obligated to stop crimes in action while the government isn't obligated to create new rights because a very small demographic demands it.
You agree with a mangled, meaningless phrase of dog Latin? Mirabile dictu.
I guess I need a better dictionary
A sentence is also a phrase: all sentences are phrases, but not all phrases are sentences. However, frater, my Latin does not include either subcribo (unless of course he was looking up "sign" and found the word for to sign beneath or subscribe(!)), or of, or a as an indefinite article, for that matter. You could try Id est signum contradictionis, which might make slightly more sense, even in the Vatican. Actually, the id is optional. Hence dog Latin, frater.
Apologies for the horrible Latin, the only non-English language I am fluent in is Mandarin Chinese (specifically the Beijing dialect).
HiRez
Sep 26, 05:34 PM
It's not placebo. I am rendering video most of the time. So I'm not wrong.
What I meant is that you're wrong that I have no experience using a quad-core Mac...not so much on your opinion...
You just have a different frame of reference than I. Not trying to be right and calling you wrong - just sharing my experience as I see it. We're both right from our different points of view. I don't use the Adobe suite much at all - mainly only ImageReady. So we don't share experience with a common set of applications.Sorry if I reacted strongly...yes, it really does depend on each individual situation. All else being equal, sure, more cores are better. I'm just saying a lot of people, probably the majority of people, don't need and will rarely put to use more than two of them.
What I meant is that you're wrong that I have no experience using a quad-core Mac...not so much on your opinion...
You just have a different frame of reference than I. Not trying to be right and calling you wrong - just sharing my experience as I see it. We're both right from our different points of view. I don't use the Adobe suite much at all - mainly only ImageReady. So we don't share experience with a common set of applications.Sorry if I reacted strongly...yes, it really does depend on each individual situation. All else being equal, sure, more cores are better. I'm just saying a lot of people, probably the majority of people, don't need and will rarely put to use more than two of them.
BrettJDeriso
Apr 28, 10:41 AM
You're completely wrong, Piggie. Anyone who uses Mac hardware knows that. A Macbook Pro is a completely different animal than a piece of crap made by Dell that sells for half the price. Apple doesn't make junk, and never will. I'm glad. I don't care that Joe Cheapo wants the lowest priced garbage he can find, and doesn't care that its hard drive will fail in a year, that its motherboard will fry, it's underpowered, or that his experience will suck and he won't know the difference. Those of us who buy Macs and choose to spend more for a better made machine appreciate the difference. You get what you pay for - remember that.
And people ARE buying them. In droves.
Precisely.
Besides, just how much further below $600 does a computer have to be before it satisfies Joe Cheapo's definition of "low end"? My first Apple was a mini and cost less (and ran four times longer) than every single POS Dell, Compaq, Packard Bell, and Acer home-grown bargain bin Door stop I tried to buy or build on the cheap. I can't speak to it's ultimate demise, because I sold it -fully functional and every bit as capable- to another eager owner four years after I first absorbed the horrendous, unjust, impoverishing $500 sticker price.
And people ARE buying them. In droves.
Precisely.
Besides, just how much further below $600 does a computer have to be before it satisfies Joe Cheapo's definition of "low end"? My first Apple was a mini and cost less (and ran four times longer) than every single POS Dell, Compaq, Packard Bell, and Acer home-grown bargain bin Door stop I tried to buy or build on the cheap. I can't speak to it's ultimate demise, because I sold it -fully functional and every bit as capable- to another eager owner four years after I first absorbed the horrendous, unjust, impoverishing $500 sticker price.
twoodcc
Sep 20, 09:36 AM
well i'm very glad that you can hook up or put in a hard drive. maybe it will be worth me buying after all
leekohler
Mar 26, 01:28 AM
I'm commenting on arbitrary rules
relationships built on love in general are less stable, cf. US divorce rate.
Marriage should be about more than love, the people should be fully committed to working through problems instead of divorce. My Grandfather's wedding was arranged, this year they are celebrating 50 years of marriage and they love each other. Love can grow or even start if nurtured.
However it isn't tyranny because the government isn't actually depriving them of liberty, merely not supporting them.
I'm sorry, but did you really just say that relationships built on love are not stable? REALLY? Because I was always told that love conquers all. And I do believe that, because it does.
Love in it's purest form is what makes humans great. You don't even know what that word means. All you can think of is what "Love" excludes. How sad.
relationships built on love in general are less stable, cf. US divorce rate.
Marriage should be about more than love, the people should be fully committed to working through problems instead of divorce. My Grandfather's wedding was arranged, this year they are celebrating 50 years of marriage and they love each other. Love can grow or even start if nurtured.
However it isn't tyranny because the government isn't actually depriving them of liberty, merely not supporting them.
I'm sorry, but did you really just say that relationships built on love are not stable? REALLY? Because I was always told that love conquers all. And I do believe that, because it does.
Love in it's purest form is what makes humans great. You don't even know what that word means. All you can think of is what "Love" excludes. How sad.
dethmaShine
May 2, 09:13 AM
Actually there's been malware for OS X since it was introduced. There is malware for every operating system.
Nothing can defend against user stupidity.
Well, that's true.
Thanks for correcting me.
Nothing can defend against user stupidity.
Well, that's true.
Thanks for correcting me.
Huntn
Apr 25, 12:45 PM
Comma added, because my brain was starting to hurt. ;)
And I agree, but then 'power' is lost, and that just won't do, now will it? :rolleyes:
No not really especially when power is often held by those placing themselves in the position of interpreting what God thinks and wants...
I do think it was a bad call when God decided that strapping on explosives and blowing up the local market and it's customers was appropriate. ;)
And I agree, but then 'power' is lost, and that just won't do, now will it? :rolleyes:
No not really especially when power is often held by those placing themselves in the position of interpreting what God thinks and wants...
I do think it was a bad call when God decided that strapping on explosives and blowing up the local market and it's customers was appropriate. ;)
kresh
Sep 20, 06:14 AM
Oh please, yes. For me, iTV will only truly be the final piece of the jigsaw if I can also watch my recorded (and possibly live) EyeTV content through it.
A hook-up between Apple and Elgato sounds the most natural thing. Elgato should continue to make hardware for all the various TV standards (terrestrial / cable / sat / digital / etc etc), but perhaps use some Apple desigers to make their boxes a bit more "Apple-looking". Then, Apple can take the EyeTV 2.x software and integrate it with iTunes.
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.
Regds
SL
I was hoping that's the purpose of the USB port. I know many are thinking it's for the iPod, but I'm hoping you can plug a tuner in :)
edit: in addition to the plug-in tuner, I hope it streams backwards to the computer harddrive.
A hook-up between Apple and Elgato sounds the most natural thing. Elgato should continue to make hardware for all the various TV standards (terrestrial / cable / sat / digital / etc etc), but perhaps use some Apple desigers to make their boxes a bit more "Apple-looking". Then, Apple can take the EyeTV 2.x software and integrate it with iTunes.
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.
Regds
SL
I was hoping that's the purpose of the USB port. I know many are thinking it's for the iPod, but I'm hoping you can plug a tuner in :)
edit: in addition to the plug-in tuner, I hope it streams backwards to the computer harddrive.
lifeinhd
Apr 12, 10:25 PM
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/10/22/timeline-tweak-returns-imovie-11-to-old-school/
...oh. Of course I have '09 :rolleyes:
...oh. Of course I have '09 :rolleyes:
latergator116
Mar 21, 06:44 AM
My comments were about the people who wrote the software, not those that just use it. It's the PyMusique programmers that may face legal troubles, while those who merely use the software may or may not face consequences (I suspect that the worse for them might be termination of their iTunes account, in which case they won't have to worry any longer about iTunes DRM).
Thanks for clearing that up, but I still don't undertsand why the creator(s) of PhMusique sohuld face legal charges. What have they done illegaly?
Thanks for clearing that up, but I still don't undertsand why the creator(s) of PhMusique sohuld face legal charges. What have they done illegaly?
iindigo
May 2, 12:11 PM
Uh huh. And OSX doesn't ask you to manually enter a password every time you install or change something? Windows only asks you to authorize...which is technically more "annoying"?
I don't know about you, but once I have my Mac set up (apps and updates installed) about the only thing I enter my password for is to unlock the screen saver. Maybe for the occasional random app I install or when I need to change an otherwise permissions-locked file. It's not a super common thing and if a password dialog pops up for seemingly no reason it sends up a red flag.
As for which is more obnoxious, I'd have to say UAC by far. As noted previously, the user is prompted with UAC for many things you'd never see a password dialog in OS X or Linux for. This is partially because due to a design flaw in Windows, many third-party applications won't even run unless they have administrator access (silly, no?).
I actually don't know anyone who has ever disabled UAC.
Our experiences differ, then. A good half or more of the students at my college have theirs disabled. The reason always cited is, "because it was annoying".
I don't know about you, but once I have my Mac set up (apps and updates installed) about the only thing I enter my password for is to unlock the screen saver. Maybe for the occasional random app I install or when I need to change an otherwise permissions-locked file. It's not a super common thing and if a password dialog pops up for seemingly no reason it sends up a red flag.
As for which is more obnoxious, I'd have to say UAC by far. As noted previously, the user is prompted with UAC for many things you'd never see a password dialog in OS X or Linux for. This is partially because due to a design flaw in Windows, many third-party applications won't even run unless they have administrator access (silly, no?).
I actually don't know anyone who has ever disabled UAC.
Our experiences differ, then. A good half or more of the students at my college have theirs disabled. The reason always cited is, "because it was annoying".
Speedy2
Oct 7, 05:28 PM
Yes, I have. Several times. Things have changed, but the base premise of the article still applies - Microsoft Got Lucky - there is no way to suggest that Apple can pull that off in this day in age when the world depends too much on Microsoft.
Well I think the original argument was not about Apple copying MSs success. I think we all agree that indeed MS got extremely lucky (but also showed a lot of skill and ruthlessness in exploiting that luck). However, the original argument was more about whether Mac OS would enjoy a higher market share if it were open to PCs. It probably would if Apple supported only "certified systems" to avoid driver issues. In any case, it is extremly unlikely that this is going to happen and therefore pure, rather meaningless speculation. :)
Well I think the original argument was not about Apple copying MSs success. I think we all agree that indeed MS got extremely lucky (but also showed a lot of skill and ruthlessness in exploiting that luck). However, the original argument was more about whether Mac OS would enjoy a higher market share if it were open to PCs. It probably would if Apple supported only "certified systems" to avoid driver issues. In any case, it is extremly unlikely that this is going to happen and therefore pure, rather meaningless speculation. :)
nagromme
Aug 29, 11:03 AM
Boo hoo. its a business, waht do they realistically expect?
They expect them to do better--at least as well as other companies do, and ultimately better than that.
And we should thank Greenpeace et al for putting this kind of pressure on companies: it helps all of us. These are serious issues, and they are issues that CAN be solved without companies ceasing to do business ;)
I'm glad for what Apple has done so far, and I'm glad people are pushing them to do more.
The "never criticize a business, their profit matters more than anything in the world" attitude is a little extreme if you stop to think about it. By that logic, we should accept products without warranties, toys that shatter into sharp pieces, batteries that catch fire, poisons in foods, slave labor, pollution... ANYTHING so long as it is in some corporations interest.
But corporations aren't the only thing that matters (despite their hold on certain governing bodies ;) ).
They expect them to do better--at least as well as other companies do, and ultimately better than that.
And we should thank Greenpeace et al for putting this kind of pressure on companies: it helps all of us. These are serious issues, and they are issues that CAN be solved without companies ceasing to do business ;)
I'm glad for what Apple has done so far, and I'm glad people are pushing them to do more.
The "never criticize a business, their profit matters more than anything in the world" attitude is a little extreme if you stop to think about it. By that logic, we should accept products without warranties, toys that shatter into sharp pieces, batteries that catch fire, poisons in foods, slave labor, pollution... ANYTHING so long as it is in some corporations interest.
But corporations aren't the only thing that matters (despite their hold on certain governing bodies ;) ).
moose.boy
Aug 29, 02:00 PM
How the hell can nokia be one of the top companies - here in the UK, the phones it makes are seen as throw-away. If you get the average pay as you go user upgrading every 9 months or so, the amount of waste produced is ridiculous.
Also nokia is based Scandinavian country (finland i think) and i'm sure there are tougher laws on environmental issues over there than the US/UK. Therefore, is what nokia does because of it's own volition, or because they are forced to.
Also nokia is based Scandinavian country (finland i think) and i'm sure there are tougher laws on environmental issues over there than the US/UK. Therefore, is what nokia does because of it's own volition, or because they are forced to.
Sydde
Apr 22, 08:50 PM
Atheists often, rightly or wrongly, seem to count agnostics in their number much as Blues is of classified as a part of Jazz (wrongly, IMO).
This document from census.gov (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0075.pdf) looks to me like it is showing a fairly steady increase in unbelief, which can only be a good thing.
On this forum, there only appear to be a lot of atheists because they tend to be outspoken, put forth strong arguments (the strength of which may be a matter of opinion), and respond quickly to religious nonsense.
This document from census.gov (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0075.pdf) looks to me like it is showing a fairly steady increase in unbelief, which can only be a good thing.
On this forum, there only appear to be a lot of atheists because they tend to be outspoken, put forth strong arguments (the strength of which may be a matter of opinion), and respond quickly to religious nonsense.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 28, 12:28 AM
You just quoted me as saying something I did not say. Please correct it.
I'm sorry. I will correct it.
I'm sorry. I will correct it.
koobcamuk
Apr 8, 11:24 PM
Great news. Bring on more Infinity Blade-esque games! :D
Yeah, a million FPS clones on a 3.5" touchscreen sounds just greeaaat :rolleyes:
Yeah, a million FPS clones on a 3.5" touchscreen sounds just greeaaat :rolleyes:
Bill McEnaney
Mar 28, 12:50 AM
Amazing. Not a word in response.
Bill, all gay people want is to be accepted for what we are, not what you want us to be.
Not so different from what you want, is it?
I was just replying to your previous note, Lee. But I stopped writing because I wanted to reconsider what I was saying and to ensure that I expressed my thoughts as politely as I could express them.
I accept same-sex-attracted people as they are. But I won't accept some things that many of them do.
If I harm others, I want them to tell me what harm I did. Then I'll try to make amends for what I've don't. But I need to say something that others may hate to hear, I'll say it.
Bill, all gay people want is to be accepted for what we are, not what you want us to be.
Not so different from what you want, is it?
I was just replying to your previous note, Lee. But I stopped writing because I wanted to reconsider what I was saying and to ensure that I expressed my thoughts as politely as I could express them.
I accept same-sex-attracted people as they are. But I won't accept some things that many of them do.
If I harm others, I want them to tell me what harm I did. Then I'll try to make amends for what I've don't. But I need to say something that others may hate to hear, I'll say it.
KnightWRX
May 2, 11:07 AM
To the end user it makes no difference. It's fine if you know, but to a novice quickly correcting them on the difference between a virus, a trojan, or whatever else contributes approximately zero percent towards solving the problem.
Steeming the panic contributes greatly to solving the problem. Half the problem is the panic around it. Once we've educated the user about the difference between different kinds of malware, we can effectively target the actual problem and solve it instead of going "panic mode" and putting in place many "solutions" that don't actually address the problem.
Education is the best prevention for many malwares. Anti-malware companies want to sell you Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt so they can cash in. Fighting this FUD means the users can better protect themselves, rather than spending cash for something that doesn't even address the core issue.
So you're quite wrong.
While I generally agree with whqt your saying, most XP machines I've seen the primary account the owner uses is an Administrator account that allows any application full access to anything on the machine. Very few unix types do that.
You'd be amazed how many Linux distributions still make creating a user account an optional step of installation and how many users just go "with the flow" and just use root all the time.
That's fine, but that's not what most fanboys espouse. "THERE ARE NO VIRUSES FOR OS X!!!" is not the same as "There is no malware for OS X," which confuses the uninformed user.
I have seen no one in this thread do what you say. I have however seen you claim there are viruses for Mac, which is just FUD. I have seen a lot of Mac users here claim that there is Malware for Mac, but that the malware is not viruses.
Frankly, you seem to be part of the problem you describe. Keep the users dumb and spread the FUD my friend.
I'm well aware of UAC. UAC also just happens to be "that annoying popup thing" that has become extremely popular for users to disable entirely since the debut of Vista.
You mean like the OS X pop up that asks for your password for the umpteenth time ? ;)
Users are as conditioned to just enter it on OS X as they are on clicking Allow on Windows.
Steeming the panic contributes greatly to solving the problem. Half the problem is the panic around it. Once we've educated the user about the difference between different kinds of malware, we can effectively target the actual problem and solve it instead of going "panic mode" and putting in place many "solutions" that don't actually address the problem.
Education is the best prevention for many malwares. Anti-malware companies want to sell you Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt so they can cash in. Fighting this FUD means the users can better protect themselves, rather than spending cash for something that doesn't even address the core issue.
So you're quite wrong.
While I generally agree with whqt your saying, most XP machines I've seen the primary account the owner uses is an Administrator account that allows any application full access to anything on the machine. Very few unix types do that.
You'd be amazed how many Linux distributions still make creating a user account an optional step of installation and how many users just go "with the flow" and just use root all the time.
That's fine, but that's not what most fanboys espouse. "THERE ARE NO VIRUSES FOR OS X!!!" is not the same as "There is no malware for OS X," which confuses the uninformed user.
I have seen no one in this thread do what you say. I have however seen you claim there are viruses for Mac, which is just FUD. I have seen a lot of Mac users here claim that there is Malware for Mac, but that the malware is not viruses.
Frankly, you seem to be part of the problem you describe. Keep the users dumb and spread the FUD my friend.
I'm well aware of UAC. UAC also just happens to be "that annoying popup thing" that has become extremely popular for users to disable entirely since the debut of Vista.
You mean like the OS X pop up that asks for your password for the umpteenth time ? ;)
Users are as conditioned to just enter it on OS X as they are on clicking Allow on Windows.
ghostface147
May 2, 09:24 AM
I am not concerned with malware that requires user intervention and a few clicks to install things. I am more concerned with malware that installs silently without you seeing any pop-ups or stuff like that.
Kind of like those pwn2own contests I think are over-rated. "Pwn" my machine without me having to click anything, visit any website or anything. I'll just boot my machine, leave it at the login screen and let you do your thing. You can't touch it physically, just find a way in.
Kind of like those pwn2own contests I think are over-rated. "Pwn" my machine without me having to click anything, visit any website or anything. I'll just boot my machine, leave it at the login screen and let you do your thing. You can't touch it physically, just find a way in.
redAPPLE
Sep 12, 04:07 PM
where is the pre-order list, where i can register? :D
Eidorian
Sep 26, 10:29 AM
Pardon Me But Would You Please Track Down The Link To That Card And IM Me and post it here? I need it NOW! Thanks.
I will be on this thread until the Mac Pro Clovertown option ships. :D
This is the Mac Pro I have been waiting for.http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2480
I know they're making a PCI Express, DDR2, SATA II version though. Old news to me...
I will be on this thread until the Mac Pro Clovertown option ships. :D
This is the Mac Pro I have been waiting for.http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2480
I know they're making a PCI Express, DDR2, SATA II version though. Old news to me...
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה