matticus008
Mar 20, 08:41 PM
@eric_n_dfw
Perhaps you should read what you quote:
legal/illegal and right/wrong do not have to line up with each other in the real world.
I know this isn't directed at me, but you're right. Right/wrong and legal/illegal aren't matching binaries. However, all things that are illegal are wrong. Whether they are simultaneously right (that is, morally justified) depends on the issue. Some things that are legal can be wrong while being right as well. In extreme cases, the morally right thing can be in direct conflict with the law, warranting illegal action. In the overwhelming majority of cases, however, something that is "right" while simultaneously against the law is an issue that needs to be dealt with through legitimate change within the system.
That's why democracies exist--to give the people the ability to change the law and prevent the law from infringing on individual or group rights. The law, in this case, is not one of the extreme situations and there is not legitimate harm/reason to break the law except that it's easier and more convenient. There is no moral offense being committed by the law, and undermining the rule of law is not a justifiable offense over something as trivial as music use rights. In other words, it might be morally okay to use songs in your wedding video, but it's not morally okay to break the law in order to put them there when you have legal means of either doing so (which is the case--buy the CD) or to change the law to allow it (unnecessary here).
Perhaps you should read what you quote:
legal/illegal and right/wrong do not have to line up with each other in the real world.
I know this isn't directed at me, but you're right. Right/wrong and legal/illegal aren't matching binaries. However, all things that are illegal are wrong. Whether they are simultaneously right (that is, morally justified) depends on the issue. Some things that are legal can be wrong while being right as well. In extreme cases, the morally right thing can be in direct conflict with the law, warranting illegal action. In the overwhelming majority of cases, however, something that is "right" while simultaneously against the law is an issue that needs to be dealt with through legitimate change within the system.
That's why democracies exist--to give the people the ability to change the law and prevent the law from infringing on individual or group rights. The law, in this case, is not one of the extreme situations and there is not legitimate harm/reason to break the law except that it's easier and more convenient. There is no moral offense being committed by the law, and undermining the rule of law is not a justifiable offense over something as trivial as music use rights. In other words, it might be morally okay to use songs in your wedding video, but it's not morally okay to break the law in order to put them there when you have legal means of either doing so (which is the case--buy the CD) or to change the law to allow it (unnecessary here).
Mattie Num Nums
Apr 15, 01:20 PM
We're placing more importance on the bullying of gays because of the historical and widespread discrimination, hatred, and violence that gays have had to endure (and still endure) that obese people have not. We discussed this 8 pages ago.
So let me get this straight.
Fat people are CONSTANTLY harassed but because the media doesn't report on every fat persons suicide or pain we are now directing to to the Gay community because the media jumps on it. I find this absolutely trash. How about we do something about suicide in America period. Soldiers killing themselves, teens killing themselves over Facebook.
Refers back to my previous post, the Gay community needs to stop singling themselves out.
So let me get this straight.
Fat people are CONSTANTLY harassed but because the media doesn't report on every fat persons suicide or pain we are now directing to to the Gay community because the media jumps on it. I find this absolutely trash. How about we do something about suicide in America period. Soldiers killing themselves, teens killing themselves over Facebook.
Refers back to my previous post, the Gay community needs to stop singling themselves out.
alex_ant
Oct 7, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by barkmonster
I can just see the look of disappointment on everyone's faces when the dual 1.25Ghz mac is slapped silly by both windows systems at practically everything.
Won't happen. To a Mac zealot, if the G4 is slower than anything, either 1) the benchmark was rigged, or 2) "pcheese" and "Windblowz" suck anyway.
The Pentium 5 could come along and deliver 15,000 in SPECfp and all the Mac zealots would be whining about how SPEC isn't a real-world benchmark and how Macs deliver such better real-world performance etc., even when they have nothing to substantiate their claims but the biased and selective evidence from themselves and their Mac-using friends.
I love Macs, but I harbor no illusions about them not generally being just about the slowest thing on the block at the moment.
Alex
I can just see the look of disappointment on everyone's faces when the dual 1.25Ghz mac is slapped silly by both windows systems at practically everything.
Won't happen. To a Mac zealot, if the G4 is slower than anything, either 1) the benchmark was rigged, or 2) "pcheese" and "Windblowz" suck anyway.
The Pentium 5 could come along and deliver 15,000 in SPECfp and all the Mac zealots would be whining about how SPEC isn't a real-world benchmark and how Macs deliver such better real-world performance etc., even when they have nothing to substantiate their claims but the biased and selective evidence from themselves and their Mac-using friends.
I love Macs, but I harbor no illusions about them not generally being just about the slowest thing on the block at the moment.
Alex
redkamel
Aug 29, 06:57 PM
3 The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. ...
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
man I just had to post....the nerd in me...
Probably (no sarcasm) because most water vapor is naturally produced and can be recycled as rain, while greenhouse gasses usually stay in the atmosphere. CO2 can also be recycled, however it does not recycle itself as water vapor does, it requires another source to convert it to organic carbon.
While nature may produce 3x the CO2 as humans, I do not believe the level of CO2 produced by nature is increasing. Nature also has built in systems to use the CO2 it makes to capture energy, or to store the CO2 as carbon in fossil fuels or matter. Humans only produce CO2 by making energy for themselves to use, and their production is increasing, without a way to draw the CO2 they made back out. Therefore the increase in CO2 that will not be removed is the concern. There are also other chemicals, but CO2 is widely publicized because everyone knows what it is, too.
Its like if you have a storeroom people drop things off in and take things out of, but it happens at pretty much the same rate. Except there is just one guy who only drops stuff off. Eventually all his stuff will take up a noticeable space in the storeroom.
Increases in greenhouses gasses are not immedieatly felt. We are now feeling the effects of gasses from decades ago. Also, although you say 'worldwide pollution has decreased", even though I doubt it is true, you mean our RATE of poullution has decreased, not the total amount of pollution we have put in the air, which is still increasing. When we decrease the amount of net pollution produced by humans, then it is a good sign.
Also to everyone complaining about out environment being ruined, yet want GM crops to grow food to stop starvation...(disclaimer: I am not cold hearted, I am realistic). The problem we have on this planet, as many agree, is too much pollution. Pollution is caused by people. So if we have more people, we will have more pollution. More people=more pollution.
When a system's carrying capacity is reached, the population level declines until resources can recover, then it climbs again. But if you artificially raise the carrying capacity (as humans like to do), then the crash will be bigger....and the resources may not survive as they are deprived of the humans that run, control, and supply them.
Believe it or not, our planet was not designed to sustain 8 billion people. Finding ways to produce food efficiently is great...but it should be used for less resources= same amount of food, NOT same resources=more food. It IS too bad people have to starve. But using that efficiency to make more food for more people will only lead to more people wanting more food, and goods. Eventually it will not be able to be supplied...for some reason or other. And you will have a very, very large crash.
Though experiment: you put a bunch of fish in a small fish tank. Keep feeding them...they reproduce. Clean the water...feed them all, they reproduce. Eventually they waste faster than you clean, or you forget to clean one day...and they all die.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
man I just had to post....the nerd in me...
Probably (no sarcasm) because most water vapor is naturally produced and can be recycled as rain, while greenhouse gasses usually stay in the atmosphere. CO2 can also be recycled, however it does not recycle itself as water vapor does, it requires another source to convert it to organic carbon.
While nature may produce 3x the CO2 as humans, I do not believe the level of CO2 produced by nature is increasing. Nature also has built in systems to use the CO2 it makes to capture energy, or to store the CO2 as carbon in fossil fuels or matter. Humans only produce CO2 by making energy for themselves to use, and their production is increasing, without a way to draw the CO2 they made back out. Therefore the increase in CO2 that will not be removed is the concern. There are also other chemicals, but CO2 is widely publicized because everyone knows what it is, too.
Its like if you have a storeroom people drop things off in and take things out of, but it happens at pretty much the same rate. Except there is just one guy who only drops stuff off. Eventually all his stuff will take up a noticeable space in the storeroom.
Increases in greenhouses gasses are not immedieatly felt. We are now feeling the effects of gasses from decades ago. Also, although you say 'worldwide pollution has decreased", even though I doubt it is true, you mean our RATE of poullution has decreased, not the total amount of pollution we have put in the air, which is still increasing. When we decrease the amount of net pollution produced by humans, then it is a good sign.
Also to everyone complaining about out environment being ruined, yet want GM crops to grow food to stop starvation...(disclaimer: I am not cold hearted, I am realistic). The problem we have on this planet, as many agree, is too much pollution. Pollution is caused by people. So if we have more people, we will have more pollution. More people=more pollution.
When a system's carrying capacity is reached, the population level declines until resources can recover, then it climbs again. But if you artificially raise the carrying capacity (as humans like to do), then the crash will be bigger....and the resources may not survive as they are deprived of the humans that run, control, and supply them.
Believe it or not, our planet was not designed to sustain 8 billion people. Finding ways to produce food efficiently is great...but it should be used for less resources= same amount of food, NOT same resources=more food. It IS too bad people have to starve. But using that efficiency to make more food for more people will only lead to more people wanting more food, and goods. Eventually it will not be able to be supplied...for some reason or other. And you will have a very, very large crash.
Though experiment: you put a bunch of fish in a small fish tank. Keep feeding them...they reproduce. Clean the water...feed them all, they reproduce. Eventually they waste faster than you clean, or you forget to clean one day...and they all die.
Spectrum
Aug 29, 06:07 PM
You know what I hate about crap like this?
People read it, and then point their respective (washed in soap with chemical additives and toxins) fingers at Appple, because it makes them feel good. "Yeah, this Apple stuff is crap!"
Then they go drive a block down the street to get milk from a cow who's waste runoff pollutes the local river, sit down and watch their TV with power generated from a coal-spewing power plant while eating dinner from plastic packaging that came from oil that was refined at a plant that contaminates the environment.
Unless you live on an uninhabited island, catch all your own food and generate your own power, you have no room to talk. None of us do.
I understand your sentiment, but really, there are options. If people don't take them they are just being lazy/irresponsible.
How about starting by:
Buying biodegradable washing liquids/toiletries
Walking to get the milk.
Buying Organic.
Buying your electricity from a vendor that sells renewable energy.
Not buying pre-packaged foods.
Refusing to have what you do buy to be double bagged, thank-you-very-much.
Even - shock horror - take your own bag. Try one of these (http://www.onyabags.co.uk/index.htm)
People read it, and then point their respective (washed in soap with chemical additives and toxins) fingers at Appple, because it makes them feel good. "Yeah, this Apple stuff is crap!"
Then they go drive a block down the street to get milk from a cow who's waste runoff pollutes the local river, sit down and watch their TV with power generated from a coal-spewing power plant while eating dinner from plastic packaging that came from oil that was refined at a plant that contaminates the environment.
Unless you live on an uninhabited island, catch all your own food and generate your own power, you have no room to talk. None of us do.
I understand your sentiment, but really, there are options. If people don't take them they are just being lazy/irresponsible.
How about starting by:
Buying biodegradable washing liquids/toiletries
Walking to get the milk.
Buying Organic.
Buying your electricity from a vendor that sells renewable energy.
Not buying pre-packaged foods.
Refusing to have what you do buy to be double bagged, thank-you-very-much.
Even - shock horror - take your own bag. Try one of these (http://www.onyabags.co.uk/index.htm)
bruinsrme
Oct 7, 02:30 PM
Looking at this from my perspective I can see why.
I do not prefer to have the "Steve Jobs phone" staring at me in the face every time I turn the phne on. I prefer to have the appearance of the icons, background, ringtones and whatever else I feel like changing without having to jump through all the hoops of jailbreaking.
If the Android platforms offer a decent distribution channel for their work, a hassle free user interface, a major carrier (ATT or verizon) and music manager well that is what I am currently looking for.
I think such a platfe available prior to June 2010 when I will be ready to change.
So the Android platform already has at least 3 potential customers
I do not prefer to have the "Steve Jobs phone" staring at me in the face every time I turn the phne on. I prefer to have the appearance of the icons, background, ringtones and whatever else I feel like changing without having to jump through all the hoops of jailbreaking.
If the Android platforms offer a decent distribution channel for their work, a hassle free user interface, a major carrier (ATT or verizon) and music manager well that is what I am currently looking for.
I think such a platfe available prior to June 2010 when I will be ready to change.
So the Android platform already has at least 3 potential customers
skunk
Apr 23, 04:01 PM
I'm not saying that I'm a devout Christian or anything of the sort, I'm agnostic, but it's based on Reason.It's good to hear that, unlike anybody else, you have a reason for your stance. Otherwise we might have to put you down as "intellectually lazy", too.
stcanard
Mar 18, 08:41 PM
Apple sells music only to sell iPods. People are locked into their iPods because their iTunes music can't be played on any other brand of player.
And if you look at the number of iPods sold compared to the number of ITMS songs sold, it is plainly obvious this statement is pure bull.
And if you look at the number of iPods sold compared to the number of ITMS songs sold, it is plainly obvious this statement is pure bull.
AtomBoy
Oct 7, 07:49 PM
This is my first post but I think I can comment on this thread because my wife and I use both a Mac and a PC in our business.
People get hung up on bench tests but, for me, the real 'speed' difference between a Mac and a PC is uptime.
When my wife's hogging the Mac and I'm stuck on the PC she will be sailing through her work while I'm having to to reboot every couple of hours or so. While the PC is stalling and crashing, the Mac just keeps on working. Benchmarks, more often than not, deal in seconds whereas crashes and reboots are wasting minutes at a time.
On the whole, I use resource-intensive programs, for image/video/audio editing. If I used mainly office programs or if I was a gamer, I'd probably stick to a PC for reasons of cost.
As it is, I'm simply waiting for G5 developements next year to do away with the last PC I'll ever own.
People get hung up on bench tests but, for me, the real 'speed' difference between a Mac and a PC is uptime.
When my wife's hogging the Mac and I'm stuck on the PC she will be sailing through her work while I'm having to to reboot every couple of hours or so. While the PC is stalling and crashing, the Mac just keeps on working. Benchmarks, more often than not, deal in seconds whereas crashes and reboots are wasting minutes at a time.
On the whole, I use resource-intensive programs, for image/video/audio editing. If I used mainly office programs or if I was a gamer, I'd probably stick to a PC for reasons of cost.
As it is, I'm simply waiting for G5 developements next year to do away with the last PC I'll ever own.
tsboy69
Nov 15, 01:10 AM
I was very happy with the IPhone 4 vs. my 3G - much less dropped calls, faster, etc. etc. This was in June
For the past few months though, the service seems to have gotten worse in the Los Angeles area - I drop a ton these days.....
That being said, I will admit I have a Vapor case on the phone and that is probably part of the issue....
For the past few months though, the service seems to have gotten worse in the Los Angeles area - I drop a ton these days.....
That being said, I will admit I have a Vapor case on the phone and that is probably part of the issue....
Aduntu
Apr 15, 01:06 PM
The problem is, and maybe I misread, that it only counts as "rape" if the woman fights back. All rapes are different, just as all women are, a rape victim I know personally, went into a catatonic state during the sexual assault. So, by that definition, she was "consenting" and should be stoned as well. In some cases, the assailant will threaten death of the victim/victim's family to ensure submission. So do these count as rape, since they're not fighting back?
I wanted to make it clear that a person would need to be in a state of awareness that allowed them to resist. This may not always be the case. Like your example, some people may not be in a state that they are able to resist. The point of those examples in the bible were not to define rape or the final verdicts for cases of rape. They weren't written to judge whether a person was truly raped or not. Every situation is different, and it's in no way implying that a person hasn't been raped because they didn't demonstrate that they were resisting.
The point of my original response to another commenter was to clarify that the bible doesn't simply instruct people to stone a women to death because she was raped.
I wanted to make it clear that a person would need to be in a state of awareness that allowed them to resist. This may not always be the case. Like your example, some people may not be in a state that they are able to resist. The point of those examples in the bible were not to define rape or the final verdicts for cases of rape. They weren't written to judge whether a person was truly raped or not. Every situation is different, and it's in no way implying that a person hasn't been raped because they didn't demonstrate that they were resisting.
The point of my original response to another commenter was to clarify that the bible doesn't simply instruct people to stone a women to death because she was raped.
Stella
Aug 29, 10:58 PM
You sound like George Bush...
Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Period.
Exactly, George Bush is a complete and utter moran. He thinks that ( american ) people shouldn't change their life styles.
Well, a few more Caterinas ( spelling ) will change their views.
The seas are heating up which means more hurricanes.... and I'm a firm believer that humans are in part ( not totally ) responsible for global warming ( that may actually result in Global Cooling ) - you've only got to look at weather statistics since the first industrial revolution. Patterns of weather, seasons have significantly changed since then.
Why is it that the majority of scientists have come forward with positive data proving global warming ( human influenced ), and then GW Bush with his small band of 'advisors' come along and reject their findings...
... :rolleyes: ...
Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Period.
Exactly, George Bush is a complete and utter moran. He thinks that ( american ) people shouldn't change their life styles.
Well, a few more Caterinas ( spelling ) will change their views.
The seas are heating up which means more hurricanes.... and I'm a firm believer that humans are in part ( not totally ) responsible for global warming ( that may actually result in Global Cooling ) - you've only got to look at weather statistics since the first industrial revolution. Patterns of weather, seasons have significantly changed since then.
Why is it that the majority of scientists have come forward with positive data proving global warming ( human influenced ), and then GW Bush with his small band of 'advisors' come along and reject their findings...
... :rolleyes: ...
fifthworld
Mar 18, 08:40 AM
I believe nobody is abusing the system; instead, it's the system -unlimited, 2GB, 4Gb, whatever- that is unable to cope with the different needs. As AT&T can monitor the usage of the databand, just give us a plan where we pay based in usage, for example $5 for each block of 1GB, and be done with it!
jettredmont
May 3, 03:44 PM
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...
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
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.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
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.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
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.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
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.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
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.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
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.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
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.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
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.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
OllyW
Apr 21, 07:28 AM
Wondering why Android users are on a Mac forum?
Perhaps they also own Macs, after all a lot of iPhone owners have Windows PCs.
Perhaps they also own Macs, after all a lot of iPhone owners have Windows PCs.
ubersoldat
Jun 5, 05:08 PM
Not sure this is a good test...
I'm beginning to see that while ATT is the bigger culprit, the iphone itself may play a role in what happens with dropped calls...
My service (as is well documented in these forums) at home was/is terrible.
I recently purchased the microcell, from ATT, and I can now make calls in my house!! Except, when I move exactly 20 feet away from the microcell into my kitchen, my iPhone struggles with itself to pick up the 2 bar distant tower that was the guilty party in dropping my calls... so now, in my house iPhone juggles between a 5 bar microcell and a 1-2 bar tower (which still drops calls). It also drops every call that I'm on if i leave my house during a call, or arrive at my house during a call.
it's absolutely ridiculous that you have to buy a microcell (at&t should provide you one free of charge) to get 5 bars. the technology is there as here in germany we have 5 bars (2G and 3G) without issues even in buildings with tons of armored concrete...
I'm beginning to see that while ATT is the bigger culprit, the iphone itself may play a role in what happens with dropped calls...
My service (as is well documented in these forums) at home was/is terrible.
I recently purchased the microcell, from ATT, and I can now make calls in my house!! Except, when I move exactly 20 feet away from the microcell into my kitchen, my iPhone struggles with itself to pick up the 2 bar distant tower that was the guilty party in dropping my calls... so now, in my house iPhone juggles between a 5 bar microcell and a 1-2 bar tower (which still drops calls). It also drops every call that I'm on if i leave my house during a call, or arrive at my house during a call.
it's absolutely ridiculous that you have to buy a microcell (at&t should provide you one free of charge) to get 5 bars. the technology is there as here in germany we have 5 bars (2G and 3G) without issues even in buildings with tons of armored concrete...
Rt&Dzine
Mar 12, 11:27 AM
The main island of Japan, the complete land mass, has moved sideways by eight feet (about 2.5 metres). And the earth, the entire planet, has shifted on its axis by about four inches (10cm)... according to geophysicists reported over at CNN. (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/12/japan.earthquake.tsunami.earth/index.html)
This earthquake ranks 5th for strongest earthquakes accurately recorded.
It shifted the Earth four inches on its axis. If I understand correctly the 2010 Chilean earthquake actually shifted the Earth's axis. I wonder how often either of these events happen.
EDIT: The JPL now thinks that the Japan earthquake shifted the Earth's axis. I've found out this occurrence is somewhat "common".
This earthquake ranks 5th for strongest earthquakes accurately recorded.
It shifted the Earth four inches on its axis. If I understand correctly the 2010 Chilean earthquake actually shifted the Earth's axis. I wonder how often either of these events happen.
EDIT: The JPL now thinks that the Japan earthquake shifted the Earth's axis. I've found out this occurrence is somewhat "common".
diamornte
Apr 13, 02:50 AM
Wait, what happened to all that talk of iPad integration? Another Macrumorfanboy wet dream?
calvin66
Aug 29, 01:31 PM
While I'm sure Apple and everyone else has a long way to go with regard to clean manufacturing practices, I'm not sold on Greenpeace's approach to the ratings.
If you look at their scoring system, it is a compilation of Greenpeace's subjective evaluation of a variety of practices by each company. Much of what Dell gets credit for is timelines for changing its business practices, and openness with regard to information on hazardous substances in the manufacturing process. When you look at what they are doing (rather than what they are saying), Dell and Apple score the same--a +2 (partially good) on amounts recycled, and a 0 (bad) for PVC & BFR free products. The report doesn't say how it quantifies these rankings, nor the underlying data regarding the score....which is kinda funny given their harping on full disclosure for all the companies mentioned.
It turns out Greenpeace is like everybody else--manipulating the data to support its goals. It sure doesn't help their credibility.
If you look at their scoring system, it is a compilation of Greenpeace's subjective evaluation of a variety of practices by each company. Much of what Dell gets credit for is timelines for changing its business practices, and openness with regard to information on hazardous substances in the manufacturing process. When you look at what they are doing (rather than what they are saying), Dell and Apple score the same--a +2 (partially good) on amounts recycled, and a 0 (bad) for PVC & BFR free products. The report doesn't say how it quantifies these rankings, nor the underlying data regarding the score....which is kinda funny given their harping on full disclosure for all the companies mentioned.
It turns out Greenpeace is like everybody else--manipulating the data to support its goals. It sure doesn't help their credibility.
chown33
Apr 10, 04:29 PM
-No Directory path... Well there is. inside of finder you can turn on 2 options. One to show the folder structure at the bottom of the finder window (like a status bar) and navigate up/down a folder tree. open up finder, go to View> select show PAth bar.
2. customize the finder tool bar and add a path icon. This adds a trop down button which shows the path and lets you jump back.
3. Terminal command which shows the directory path right at the top of a finder window. This replaces the current directory name with the path.
4. Cmd-click on the title in the title-bar. A drop-down appears showing the entire path to the folder. You can then select any item in the drop-down and that folder will show. Or click anywhere else and the drop-down disappears.
As of 10.5 Leopard a right-click (secondary click) does the same thing. Cmd-click has existed since 10.0.
Oh, and it works in many applications, too. Cmd-click or right-click the title in the title-bar, and the path drop-down appears. Choose a folder and it opens in Finder.
2. customize the finder tool bar and add a path icon. This adds a trop down button which shows the path and lets you jump back.
3. Terminal command which shows the directory path right at the top of a finder window. This replaces the current directory name with the path.
4. Cmd-click on the title in the title-bar. A drop-down appears showing the entire path to the folder. You can then select any item in the drop-down and that folder will show. Or click anywhere else and the drop-down disappears.
As of 10.5 Leopard a right-click (secondary click) does the same thing. Cmd-click has existed since 10.0.
Oh, and it works in many applications, too. Cmd-click or right-click the title in the title-bar, and the path drop-down appears. Choose a folder and it opens in Finder.
alexf
Aug 29, 12:02 PM
Greenpeace can suck my left toe.
Thank you for the very intelligent and enlightening comment. People like you (who don't give a rat's a$$ about environmental issues) are exactly what the world needs more of at this point in time.
Thank you for the very intelligent and enlightening comment. People like you (who don't give a rat's a$$ about environmental issues) are exactly what the world needs more of at this point in time.
Lone Deranger
Mar 14, 05:10 AM
Can you use nuclear warheads to disperse a tsunami?
With today's high yeild nuclear bombs, given enough time, can you detonate a nuke to vaporize/disperse the ripple of a tsunami? I know one tactic of fleet warfare is like to vaporize the water under the ships to make them "fall" or something like that.
I mean, I don't know how many megatons this will take or how much of the tsunami will be vaporized and sent up into the air, but maybe at some point it will reduce the force and profile of the incomming wave? :)
I'd advise you watch less of Hollywood's finest.
With today's high yeild nuclear bombs, given enough time, can you detonate a nuke to vaporize/disperse the ripple of a tsunami? I know one tactic of fleet warfare is like to vaporize the water under the ships to make them "fall" or something like that.
I mean, I don't know how many megatons this will take or how much of the tsunami will be vaporized and sent up into the air, but maybe at some point it will reduce the force and profile of the incomming wave? :)
I'd advise you watch less of Hollywood's finest.
DavidLeblond
Mar 18, 08:50 PM
And if you look at the number of iPods sold compared to the number of ITMS songs sold, it is plainly obvious this statement is pure bull.
How does that matter? Last I heard, iPods didn't cost $.99. Plus Apple doesn't get $.99 per song, they get roughly $.34. iTMS makes Apple money, sure... but compared to the amount of money iPods make them there is no comparison.
I've said it over and over again, and so has plenty of others... iTMS exists to sell iPods.
How does that matter? Last I heard, iPods didn't cost $.99. Plus Apple doesn't get $.99 per song, they get roughly $.34. iTMS makes Apple money, sure... but compared to the amount of money iPods make them there is no comparison.
I've said it over and over again, and so has plenty of others... iTMS exists to sell iPods.
UnixMac
Oct 8, 10:41 AM
OS X being 25 years old (actually, UNIX is much older) is a GOOD thing, Software (Read OS) can evolve much more easily than hardware. Unix is a work in progress to this day, and this is why it is years (literally years) ahead of windows.
As for X86 being great. I think that sure, the top X86 at 2.8Ghz is faster than the top G4 at 1.25Ghz, but not 2.2 times faster, as the clock would have you think. And when you add Altivec coded software like Photoship, then you actually get more IPC's than the P4. So the archtecture of the G4 is superior, However the P4 is faster by a small margin due to the significant speed advantage and its long pipeline.
I think a G5 with multicore process and a bump in clock will eclips the X86 entirely. AMD is the best bet against the G5 and when that day comes, as it will, this arguement will be moot.
I for one am still waiting on Apple to make a PB worth my $3500 investment. That I think is long overdue.
As for X86 being great. I think that sure, the top X86 at 2.8Ghz is faster than the top G4 at 1.25Ghz, but not 2.2 times faster, as the clock would have you think. And when you add Altivec coded software like Photoship, then you actually get more IPC's than the P4. So the archtecture of the G4 is superior, However the P4 is faster by a small margin due to the significant speed advantage and its long pipeline.
I think a G5 with multicore process and a bump in clock will eclips the X86 entirely. AMD is the best bet against the G5 and when that day comes, as it will, this arguement will be moot.
I for one am still waiting on Apple to make a PB worth my $3500 investment. That I think is long overdue.
0 comments:
Post a Comment