Taz Mangus
Apr 21, 03:10 PM
still not raking in the huge lion's share of industry profits? apple is, android manufacturers arent.
AndroidfoLife is quite impressed with the fact that Andriod now runs on applicances. I get a good laugh everytime I think about that. Talk about racing to the bottom.
AndroidfoLife is quite impressed with the fact that Andriod now runs on applicances. I get a good laugh everytime I think about that. Talk about racing to the bottom.
javajedi
Oct 13, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by macwannabe
Saying that the 2.8GHz P4 is no good because it is based on 25 year old architecture is nonsense as far as I'm concerned.
Can I take it then that you don't think that any of the cars on the market at the moment are worth having or have been improved at all on the grounds that they are based on an 80 year old design? "I don't think that BMW is any good as it is based on a Ford model T", hmmmmmmmm dodgy logic methinks.
You are absolutely 110% correct. We've allready dismissed BackToTheMac's outlandish fallacies though :)
I think he gets the picture now....
Saying that the 2.8GHz P4 is no good because it is based on 25 year old architecture is nonsense as far as I'm concerned.
Can I take it then that you don't think that any of the cars on the market at the moment are worth having or have been improved at all on the grounds that they are based on an 80 year old design? "I don't think that BMW is any good as it is based on a Ford model T", hmmmmmmmm dodgy logic methinks.
You are absolutely 110% correct. We've allready dismissed BackToTheMac's outlandish fallacies though :)
I think he gets the picture now....
leekohler
Mar 28, 12:41 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?
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?
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 09:59 AM
Piggie, I think Apple is satisfied with their Mac market trend (climbing) and is viewing phones and tablets as the future (and it's where they make the vast majority of their corporate profits now). And when a family in the UK walks into a store and sees the tablet displays, they will find that the best tablet (iPad) is also the tablet that costs no more than the rivals.
Since within ten years the average English family will care more about tablets than about desktop PCs or laptops, Apple is on this trend at the right time. Ten years from now no one will care that Apple only makes high-end desktops and laptops.
Since within ten years the average English family will care more about tablets than about desktop PCs or laptops, Apple is on this trend at the right time. Ten years from now no one will care that Apple only makes high-end desktops and laptops.
Gelfin
Mar 27, 09:23 AM
If homosexuality were genetic, why are some identical twins born heterosexual when their twins turn out to feel same-sex-attractions?
If homosexuality has no genetic component, why do twins raised separately have a greater chance of sharing an orientation? Why do homosexuals disproportionately display a variety of physical traits from handedness to hair whorls? I suppose lack of masculine identification at precisely two years of age makes men left-handed as well.
But I forget, you're Catholic. You probably still favor beating children until they stop using "the devil's hand" too.
That sounds like an ad hominem attack against Nicolosi. I agree with him and with his coworker who gave the lecture.
You're damned right it is, because sometimes the person earns the attack. Nicolosi is a monster who encourages homophobic parents to commit their children involuntarily to a regimen of religiously-themed brainwashing. He can legitimately claim almost negligible success rates, and his organization is staffed by convicted con artists and desperately self-hating homosexuals who crash spectacularly in public. The "new discoveries" he claims sound strangely identical to rejected post hoc rationalizations of stereotypes formerly applied to homosexuals back when they were a disparaged and poorly understood group. We now understand that homosexuality is not effeminacy, and that when not being tormented by people who hate them and encourage them to hate themselves, homosexuals show no independent signs of psychological distress related to their orientation.
This man is a charlatan. And it is clear you believe him because he tells you what you'd like to hear. You are following the pattern of every follower of quacks and quackery: you cling tenaciously to obscure and debunked ideas, hearing and accepting them without question, but then defend them against criticism by suddenly becoming almost comically hypercritical, citing the slim chance that not only that the overwhelming scientific consensus might be wrong, but that the overwhelming scientific consensus is driven by a massive conspiracy to prevent your huckster from selling his snake oil to the world. Your responses in this thread make it clear you have no intention of undertaking any critical thought. You'll just accept whatever somebody tells you if you feel like it makes it okay for you to not like gay people.
Notice, your APA contradiction contradicts Gelfin's opinion the homosexuality has no psychological/environmental causes. Gelfin says there's no evidence that it has those causes.
Notice, Gelfin said no such damned thing. Do not put words in my mouth.
If homosexuality has no genetic component, why do twins raised separately have a greater chance of sharing an orientation? Why do homosexuals disproportionately display a variety of physical traits from handedness to hair whorls? I suppose lack of masculine identification at precisely two years of age makes men left-handed as well.
But I forget, you're Catholic. You probably still favor beating children until they stop using "the devil's hand" too.
That sounds like an ad hominem attack against Nicolosi. I agree with him and with his coworker who gave the lecture.
You're damned right it is, because sometimes the person earns the attack. Nicolosi is a monster who encourages homophobic parents to commit their children involuntarily to a regimen of religiously-themed brainwashing. He can legitimately claim almost negligible success rates, and his organization is staffed by convicted con artists and desperately self-hating homosexuals who crash spectacularly in public. The "new discoveries" he claims sound strangely identical to rejected post hoc rationalizations of stereotypes formerly applied to homosexuals back when they were a disparaged and poorly understood group. We now understand that homosexuality is not effeminacy, and that when not being tormented by people who hate them and encourage them to hate themselves, homosexuals show no independent signs of psychological distress related to their orientation.
This man is a charlatan. And it is clear you believe him because he tells you what you'd like to hear. You are following the pattern of every follower of quacks and quackery: you cling tenaciously to obscure and debunked ideas, hearing and accepting them without question, but then defend them against criticism by suddenly becoming almost comically hypercritical, citing the slim chance that not only that the overwhelming scientific consensus might be wrong, but that the overwhelming scientific consensus is driven by a massive conspiracy to prevent your huckster from selling his snake oil to the world. Your responses in this thread make it clear you have no intention of undertaking any critical thought. You'll just accept whatever somebody tells you if you feel like it makes it okay for you to not like gay people.
Notice, your APA contradiction contradicts Gelfin's opinion the homosexuality has no psychological/environmental causes. Gelfin says there's no evidence that it has those causes.
Notice, Gelfin said no such damned thing. Do not put words in my mouth.
paul4339
Apr 28, 11:04 AM
However the iPad is not a pc, so this report is a bit on the Apple side here.
I see where you are coming from, but these reports has nothing to do what you or I or MR thinks whether the iPad is *technically* a pc ... the reports are used to communicate to an audience interested in understanding where the market is heading so that they can make more money.
These are sales/shipment reports. The reason why the iPad is grouped in is because they compete for the same consumer dollar pool and execs from companies want to understand the direction of market and where the money is going.
If anything there's any criticism, I would like to see a consumer vs enterprise breakdown (since they have different dollar pools).
Also, I think the reason why 'Apple slipped' is because Calendar Q4 quarter is the holiday season and usually consumer electronics sales surges and unlike HP/Dell (who sell alot to enterprise), Apple sell mostly to consumers electronics market.
P.
I see where you are coming from, but these reports has nothing to do what you or I or MR thinks whether the iPad is *technically* a pc ... the reports are used to communicate to an audience interested in understanding where the market is heading so that they can make more money.
These are sales/shipment reports. The reason why the iPad is grouped in is because they compete for the same consumer dollar pool and execs from companies want to understand the direction of market and where the money is going.
If anything there's any criticism, I would like to see a consumer vs enterprise breakdown (since they have different dollar pools).
Also, I think the reason why 'Apple slipped' is because Calendar Q4 quarter is the holiday season and usually consumer electronics sales surges and unlike HP/Dell (who sell alot to enterprise), Apple sell mostly to consumers electronics market.
P.
tiramisu
Sep 20, 04:30 AM
how about 'mac ibox' or 'apple ibox'? :)
itv - well for sure - is a more like a genre name.
itv - well for sure - is a more like a genre name.
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.
dgbowers
Apr 5, 10:59 PM
Can't just hit Delete? Can't move up a level in the directory structure? Yikes.
Ya know what? These may all be little things individually, but collectively as a whole I think they'd drive me nuts.
I'm still on Vista... maybe going to Windows 7 might be the smarter move in my particular case.
Thanks for your help everyone, I sincerely appreciate your input.
Gotta do some serious thinking about this...
As far as the whole delete thing, just do CMD+Delete, and BAM! it goes straight in the trashcan. Also, CMD+SHIFT+Delete empties the trashcan.
Also the columns view in finder is the only view i ever use, it shows you all of the levels of the directory structure.
Ya know what? These may all be little things individually, but collectively as a whole I think they'd drive me nuts.
I'm still on Vista... maybe going to Windows 7 might be the smarter move in my particular case.
Thanks for your help everyone, I sincerely appreciate your input.
Gotta do some serious thinking about this...
As far as the whole delete thing, just do CMD+Delete, and BAM! it goes straight in the trashcan. Also, CMD+SHIFT+Delete empties the trashcan.
Also the columns view in finder is the only view i ever use, it shows you all of the levels of the directory structure.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 27, 09:52 AM
Exactly what I was going to say.
<high five>
That particular assumption is one of my pet peeves. :D
(The assumption that God is the Christian version.)
<high five>
That particular assumption is one of my pet peeves. :D
(The assumption that God is the Christian version.)
emotion
Sep 24, 03:52 AM
If Apple does force the thing to need a computer, I think they need to come out with an 'iTunes server' box that can fufill the same role, and it has to be cheap.
Mac Mini? I suspect that's exactly what Apple wants to drive sales of.
I know, they need to be cheaper.
Mac Mini? I suspect that's exactly what Apple wants to drive sales of.
I know, they need to be cheaper.
*LTD*
Apr 28, 08:05 AM
Then they should include it in such #'s when it WILL be one not while it's not don't you think?
PowerPoint Slide Makeover:
Thank you for your continued
thank you images for ppt.
Thank you everyone who
Free PowerPoint Backgrounds
PowerPoint Presentation Tips
animated photo album
srxtr
Apr 20, 06:56 PM
so glad you think stealing an artists work is a proper and moral thing to do, plz stay on your platform, the rest of us will take the high road and pay an enormous fee of .99 to 1.29 per song...geez
+1
+1
cartwagon
Sep 20, 01:32 AM
I hate to be the first to post a negative but here it is. I don't think this will be overly expensive, but I also think we will be underwhelmed with it's features. Wireless is not that important to me. There are many wires back there already. It sounds like it will not have HDMI or TiVo features, and it will play movies out of iTunes, which screams to me that it will only play .mp4 and .m4v files much like my 5G iPod. If it cannot browse my my mac or firedrive, cannot stream from them, cannot play .avi, .wmw, .rm or VCD, then it will not replace my 4 year old xbox. Which itself has a 120Gig drive and a remote. Unless we are all sorely mistaken about what iTV will end up being, and it ends up adding these features (as someone above me noted, hoping Apple would read this forum) I will wait. Honestly, I am far more excited over the prospect of the MacBook Pros hopefully switching to Core 2 Duos before year end. Then I will have a much more powerful machine slung to my firedrive, router, xbox and tv. :)
Edit:
@Ino: Yes, you are correct, I wrote this yesterday before seeing that diagram. However, it has an HDMI output, but the iTunes store only puts out normal TV quality(currently). In essence, unless you are using Handbrake to make your own rips above 640x480, you can use your HDMI output and it does not matter. Since Job's whole plan here is to make us buy iTV and then only be able to buy from iTunes, this is very relevant. I know this release is months away and things may change before then. Whom do you think apple will bed with, HD-DVD or Blu-Ray?
@ Project: Quicktime can do .wmv with Flip4Mac, but cannot play .avi. (or .bin or .rm) . The 3ivx codec patch only works for some avi files. There is a convoluted way to use DivX doctor to make .mov files, but there is no reason to bother. MPlayer and VLC take care of everything. My point is that I don't think I need to pay $299US for something that does only a third of what my xbox already does, and I also don't need to pay this exorbitant amount for the privilege of boxing myself into a corner where I can only buy movies from the iTunes store. Even if I wasn't using my xbox to stream and play everything, I'd still save my money and press play on MPlayer and then sit down. Know what I mean? We all have a way of playing media on our TVs already, even if it's a total welfare solution like $6 worth of RCA cable. I am usually pretty pro-apple, but I need to be more impressed to drop that kind of money on something like this.
Much love for you all,
cartwagon
Edit:
@Ino: Yes, you are correct, I wrote this yesterday before seeing that diagram. However, it has an HDMI output, but the iTunes store only puts out normal TV quality(currently). In essence, unless you are using Handbrake to make your own rips above 640x480, you can use your HDMI output and it does not matter. Since Job's whole plan here is to make us buy iTV and then only be able to buy from iTunes, this is very relevant. I know this release is months away and things may change before then. Whom do you think apple will bed with, HD-DVD or Blu-Ray?
@ Project: Quicktime can do .wmv with Flip4Mac, but cannot play .avi. (or .bin or .rm) . The 3ivx codec patch only works for some avi files. There is a convoluted way to use DivX doctor to make .mov files, but there is no reason to bother. MPlayer and VLC take care of everything. My point is that I don't think I need to pay $299US for something that does only a third of what my xbox already does, and I also don't need to pay this exorbitant amount for the privilege of boxing myself into a corner where I can only buy movies from the iTunes store. Even if I wasn't using my xbox to stream and play everything, I'd still save my money and press play on MPlayer and then sit down. Know what I mean? We all have a way of playing media on our TVs already, even if it's a total welfare solution like $6 worth of RCA cable. I am usually pretty pro-apple, but I need to be more impressed to drop that kind of money on something like this.
Much love for you all,
cartwagon
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 08:41 PM
In science when there is a dearth of evidence for something, you fail to reject the null hypothesis (which is that hypothesis x is incorrect).
If I wanted to make a claim about something, say that two bricks tied together will fall at the same rate as a single brick, I first have to make this my working hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that what I'm asserting is not true (in this case the null is that the bricks will fall at different rates). It's up to me to provide the evidence. If there isn't enough (or any) evidence, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.
When it comes to religion, it is the theologian who is making the claim. Thus, his working hypothesis is, "God exists." In searching for evidence, however, we come up with nothing. Thus we must fail to reject the null hypothesis, which is, "God does not exist."
Agnosticism is really the position that the an affirmative statement on the matter of deities is impossible to know. It doesn't have a rational basis in logic or science, thought it might make some people more comfortable with their skepticism.
Atheism is the position that, based on currently available evidence, there is no basis to consider any deity to be real. This could change as new evidence comes to light, of course. That is a quality you will not find in theism or agnosticism.
As I said in my first post, most atheists that I speak to don't put this much thought and care into their atheism. They just take it for granted that it won't be challenged.
How can you prove something's existence that exists outside of time and space? I don't think it's possible except through pure reason.
If I wanted to make a claim about something, say that two bricks tied together will fall at the same rate as a single brick, I first have to make this my working hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that what I'm asserting is not true (in this case the null is that the bricks will fall at different rates). It's up to me to provide the evidence. If there isn't enough (or any) evidence, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.
When it comes to religion, it is the theologian who is making the claim. Thus, his working hypothesis is, "God exists." In searching for evidence, however, we come up with nothing. Thus we must fail to reject the null hypothesis, which is, "God does not exist."
Agnosticism is really the position that the an affirmative statement on the matter of deities is impossible to know. It doesn't have a rational basis in logic or science, thought it might make some people more comfortable with their skepticism.
Atheism is the position that, based on currently available evidence, there is no basis to consider any deity to be real. This could change as new evidence comes to light, of course. That is a quality you will not find in theism or agnosticism.
As I said in my first post, most atheists that I speak to don't put this much thought and care into their atheism. They just take it for granted that it won't be challenged.
How can you prove something's existence that exists outside of time and space? I don't think it's possible except through pure reason.
iJohnHenry
Apr 24, 11:02 AM
Come on, Lee, you just enjoy spending your time surrounded by young, fit redheads guys. :)
Do you think they make him change in the closet? :)
Do you think they make him change in the closet? :)
Stella
Aug 29, 03:28 PM
And it may still happen. If the north atlantic Gulf Stream ceases, northern Europe will be in an effective ice age. Currently, its behaviour is changing...
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=north+atlantic+keep+warm&btnG=Search&meta=
30 years ago climate scientists warned us to expect an imminent ice age....it even made the cover of Time, if I'm not mistaken.
Even if, which I doubt, your theory of water vapour is correct - that does not give us the excuse to pollute this planet as we see fit. All industry and humans must clean up their act - literally.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=north+atlantic+keep+warm&btnG=Search&meta=
30 years ago climate scientists warned us to expect an imminent ice age....it even made the cover of Time, if I'm not mistaken.
Even if, which I doubt, your theory of water vapour is correct - that does not give us the excuse to pollute this planet as we see fit. All industry and humans must clean up their act - literally.
~loserman~
Mar 20, 06:28 PM
It is wrong? How so? If I burn a track for my wedding video, yes, I'm technically breakeing the law, but there is nothing immoral about doing that. No one is losing out on any money. No one is being hurt. He isn't stealing anything. He's breaking a copyright law that makes no sense in that case.
If you add it to your wedding video for your own use then you are not. If you make copies of the video and give them to the wedding guests then you are.
If you add it to your wedding video for your own use then you are not. If you make copies of the video and give them to the wedding guests then you are.
T-Bone
Sep 12, 04:16 PM
I bought a DVI->S-Video adapter for $15 and an S-Video cable for about $20. Guess what. I can watch TV shows and movies downloaded to my hard drive on my TV. Sooooo.... $35 vs. $300. Let me see.
I realize they are saying that you're getting high-def, and it's wireless, but I have a hard time believing that a movie you can download in a half hour will be as good of quality as a DVD which is nearly 8gb in size. And yes, I realize part of those 8gb are extras and such, which of course you won't be getting even though you are paying close to what you would pay for a brand new DVD. Also, I have wires running all over the place already (cable, phone, speakers, electrical, etc.) so one more wire isn't killing me.
I'm sure there will be people that buy into this. How many? I predict very few.
I realize they are saying that you're getting high-def, and it's wireless, but I have a hard time believing that a movie you can download in a half hour will be as good of quality as a DVD which is nearly 8gb in size. And yes, I realize part of those 8gb are extras and such, which of course you won't be getting even though you are paying close to what you would pay for a brand new DVD. Also, I have wires running all over the place already (cable, phone, speakers, electrical, etc.) so one more wire isn't killing me.
I'm sure there will be people that buy into this. How many? I predict very few.
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.
dudemac
Mar 20, 10:23 AM
from what i see on it's website tis a *nix programme... ie not windows.. ;)
it runs on windows too you just to have the GTK installed also. Its on the website. see my post to page 3 first post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=115997&page=3&pp=25)
But as of yesterday morning I could no longer purchase songs this way, I can log in and browse, but it will not finalize the sale.
it runs on windows too you just to have the GTK installed also. Its on the website. see my post to page 3 first post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=115997&page=3&pp=25)
But as of yesterday morning I could no longer purchase songs this way, I can log in and browse, but it will not finalize the sale.
Liquorpuki
Mar 14, 08:50 PM
That might be my point.
What's your point? Circular reasoning?
That's like arguing the problem with medicine is that the patients are diagnosed by doctors
The problem with education is the students are taught by teachers
etc
What's your point? Circular reasoning?
That's like arguing the problem with medicine is that the patients are diagnosed by doctors
The problem with education is the students are taught by teachers
etc
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 10:11 AM
No. What I wanted to say is that fat persons CAN do something against that condition, but homosexuals can't. Obviously. So they deserve such actions like It Gets Better more than fat people. In my honest opinion.
But are you saying homosexuals should change it if they could?
But are you saying homosexuals should change it if they could?
el-John-o
Apr 15, 09:41 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
I have a couple problems with this approach. There's so much attention brought to this issue of specifically gay bullying that it's hard to see this outside of the framework of identity politics.
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied? Aren't they suicidal, too, or are we saying here that gays have a particular emotional defect and weakness? They're not strong enough to tough this out? Is that the image the gay community wants to promote?
Man, being a fat kid in high school. That was rough. There were a number of cool, popular gay guys in my school. I'm sure they took some crap from some people, but oh how I would have rather been one of them! But hey, I'm still here, I'm still alive.
Bullying is a universal problem that affects just about anyone with some kind of difference others choose to pick on. It seems like everyone is just ignoring all that for this hip, trendy cause.
Gotta agree with you there. Im sure they get bullied like everyone else, but I remember in high school an experience where I was harassed and picked on, beat up, hit in the head with a chair, etc, etc, and the administration did nothing. I was bigger than this guy, but I really didn't want to fight him, violence doesn't solve violence, finally the principal gave him a warning, which he laughed about.
Then I remember a gay kid, who was a friend of mine, who was called a ********t, the kid who called him that was suspended for two weeks for "sexual harassment".
So that's what I got out of it, if your straight your expected to fight, nevermind in the "real world" its called assault and the appropriate thing is to call law enforcement, fighting can land YOU in jail, even if they started it in most states. BUT, if you are a less common victim, then all they need to do is say a mean word to you and BAM suspension, requires counselling, and becoming a social outcast for being bigoted and insensitive.
Do I disagree with the school suspending them? Nope, not at all, I do, however, wish pop culture didn't have such an effect on the way schools are run. Pop culture has taken on the gay cause, good for them, but they continue to ignore all of the others, I think it's just stuck in their head that someone can't pick on someone bigger than them. They watch that video of that Australian kid and basically say "its your fault unless you fight back like him". Kids shouldn't have to fight back in school, they should learn and grow, it's not prison. School officials should stop ALL bullying, no matter how the issue is "stacked".
I have a couple problems with this approach. There's so much attention brought to this issue of specifically gay bullying that it's hard to see this outside of the framework of identity politics.
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied? Aren't they suicidal, too, or are we saying here that gays have a particular emotional defect and weakness? They're not strong enough to tough this out? Is that the image the gay community wants to promote?
Man, being a fat kid in high school. That was rough. There were a number of cool, popular gay guys in my school. I'm sure they took some crap from some people, but oh how I would have rather been one of them! But hey, I'm still here, I'm still alive.
Bullying is a universal problem that affects just about anyone with some kind of difference others choose to pick on. It seems like everyone is just ignoring all that for this hip, trendy cause.
Gotta agree with you there. Im sure they get bullied like everyone else, but I remember in high school an experience where I was harassed and picked on, beat up, hit in the head with a chair, etc, etc, and the administration did nothing. I was bigger than this guy, but I really didn't want to fight him, violence doesn't solve violence, finally the principal gave him a warning, which he laughed about.
Then I remember a gay kid, who was a friend of mine, who was called a ********t, the kid who called him that was suspended for two weeks for "sexual harassment".
So that's what I got out of it, if your straight your expected to fight, nevermind in the "real world" its called assault and the appropriate thing is to call law enforcement, fighting can land YOU in jail, even if they started it in most states. BUT, if you are a less common victim, then all they need to do is say a mean word to you and BAM suspension, requires counselling, and becoming a social outcast for being bigoted and insensitive.
Do I disagree with the school suspending them? Nope, not at all, I do, however, wish pop culture didn't have such an effect on the way schools are run. Pop culture has taken on the gay cause, good for them, but they continue to ignore all of the others, I think it's just stuck in their head that someone can't pick on someone bigger than them. They watch that video of that Australian kid and basically say "its your fault unless you fight back like him". Kids shouldn't have to fight back in school, they should learn and grow, it's not prison. School officials should stop ALL bullying, no matter how the issue is "stacked".
No comments:
Post a Comment