KnightWRX
May 2, 05:23 PM
The installer is marked as safe to auto-execute if "open safe files after downloading" is turned on.
This is again just brushing over the issue. You're again not helping. I get all the rest. I even get this part. I want to know more about this part in particular though. What is "an installer" but an executable file and what prevents me from writing "an installer" that does more than just "installing". What is so special about installers that would prevent a malicious payload (without privilege escalation, unless you were to exploit a local privilege escalation bug) from auto-executing ?
This is my point and this is what I'm trying to dissect here. This sentence of yours is the tip of the iceberg. Let's go deeper here. You keep repeating this non-sense that's everywhere on the web and that I've read and told you thousands of times that I understand.
Installers being marked as safe really doesn't increase the likelihood of user level access as the Javascript exploit already provided user level access. I don't understand why you are hung up on this installer being able to auto-execute; it really makes no difference in terms of user level access. The attacker could have deleted your files with just the Javascript exploit.
I don't know of any Javascript DOM manipulation that lets you have write/read access to the local filesystem. This is already sandboxed.
Let's face it, auto-downloads are not a Javascript exploit, they're a feature used on many sites these days : "Your download will auto-start in 5 seconds, click here if it doesn't work". It's not uncommon and quite not the issue here.
The issue is Safari is launching an executable file that sits outside the browser sandbox.
I'm beginning to suspect you don't quite understand what is going on here. I think it's not my technical knowledge that is at issue here, it's your understanding of my point. Again, stop replying to me if all you want to do is discuss the tip of the iceberg covered by the press. I don't care about that, I read that, it raises more questions for me than it answers.
This is again just brushing over the issue. You're again not helping. I get all the rest. I even get this part. I want to know more about this part in particular though. What is "an installer" but an executable file and what prevents me from writing "an installer" that does more than just "installing". What is so special about installers that would prevent a malicious payload (without privilege escalation, unless you were to exploit a local privilege escalation bug) from auto-executing ?
This is my point and this is what I'm trying to dissect here. This sentence of yours is the tip of the iceberg. Let's go deeper here. You keep repeating this non-sense that's everywhere on the web and that I've read and told you thousands of times that I understand.
Installers being marked as safe really doesn't increase the likelihood of user level access as the Javascript exploit already provided user level access. I don't understand why you are hung up on this installer being able to auto-execute; it really makes no difference in terms of user level access. The attacker could have deleted your files with just the Javascript exploit.
I don't know of any Javascript DOM manipulation that lets you have write/read access to the local filesystem. This is already sandboxed.
Let's face it, auto-downloads are not a Javascript exploit, they're a feature used on many sites these days : "Your download will auto-start in 5 seconds, click here if it doesn't work". It's not uncommon and quite not the issue here.
The issue is Safari is launching an executable file that sits outside the browser sandbox.
I'm beginning to suspect you don't quite understand what is going on here. I think it's not my technical knowledge that is at issue here, it's your understanding of my point. Again, stop replying to me if all you want to do is discuss the tip of the iceberg covered by the press. I don't care about that, I read that, it raises more questions for me than it answers.
dante@sisna.com
Oct 26, 11:28 AM
Wow. You must be using some uber version of PS.
I havent managed to break 110% whatever I am doing with my MP.
You have the CS 3 or 4?
Ooooh..
Have you tought that that might be the reason for the high cpu usage? Eh? By any coincidence?
No -- WE DO THIS KIND OF WORK EVERYDAY. We are a production lab with a 20 year history. We have used Photoshop in Isolation on multiple One Gig Files using Actions to process as many as 40 files at one -- so nearly 40 Gig.
Run an RGB to CMYK conversion on a 1 Gig Photoshop file with embedded profiles -- watch activity monitor. See that all four processors kick in for this processes. Many Photoshop processes efficiently use all four processors.
Besides the main point of the original post is that users don't see much improvement with Quad Cores --- this is just plain WRONG.
I havent managed to break 110% whatever I am doing with my MP.
You have the CS 3 or 4?
Ooooh..
Have you tought that that might be the reason for the high cpu usage? Eh? By any coincidence?
No -- WE DO THIS KIND OF WORK EVERYDAY. We are a production lab with a 20 year history. We have used Photoshop in Isolation on multiple One Gig Files using Actions to process as many as 40 files at one -- so nearly 40 Gig.
Run an RGB to CMYK conversion on a 1 Gig Photoshop file with embedded profiles -- watch activity monitor. See that all four processors kick in for this processes. Many Photoshop processes efficiently use all four processors.
Besides the main point of the original post is that users don't see much improvement with Quad Cores --- this is just plain WRONG.
appleguy123
Apr 22, 08:31 PM
proof?
I wouldn't want to succumb to the accusation made in the first post. :) http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1055916&highlight=
I wouldn't want to succumb to the accusation made in the first post. :) http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1055916&highlight=
emotion
Sep 21, 01:36 PM
Hey at least you guys had U2 before we did.:)
Jeez, and that's a good thing??!
Jeez, and that's a good thing??!
i_am_a_cow
Mar 20, 01:53 PM
Yes.
Probably not, but are you going to whip out a check to pay for it? Software delevelopment is not free.
What a silly thought. Of course it's not free. I'm saying that it is just as unethical for Apple to ignore Linux as it is for DVD Jon to try and play music on Linux. We are not talking about what is technically wrong here. After all, every country has a different set of laws. We are talking about what is the right thing to do. It would hardly be a burden for Apple to port iTunes and open up Airport drivers.
The main concern of mine is Apple's stubborn refusal to adapt to simple standards. They haven't kept up with GNU standards in GCC, they won't port Quicktime or iTunes to Linux, they won't make open drivers available for Airport cards. Apple is losing quite a few fans. I was a huge Apple fan for a long time (3/4 of my life). Now, I am losing respect for Apple's ridiculous money-making stubborness.
And don't try and argue that Mac OS X is just the same as linux. It isn't.
Probably not, but are you going to whip out a check to pay for it? Software delevelopment is not free.
What a silly thought. Of course it's not free. I'm saying that it is just as unethical for Apple to ignore Linux as it is for DVD Jon to try and play music on Linux. We are not talking about what is technically wrong here. After all, every country has a different set of laws. We are talking about what is the right thing to do. It would hardly be a burden for Apple to port iTunes and open up Airport drivers.
The main concern of mine is Apple's stubborn refusal to adapt to simple standards. They haven't kept up with GNU standards in GCC, they won't port Quicktime or iTunes to Linux, they won't make open drivers available for Airport cards. Apple is losing quite a few fans. I was a huge Apple fan for a long time (3/4 of my life). Now, I am losing respect for Apple's ridiculous money-making stubborness.
And don't try and argue that Mac OS X is just the same as linux. It isn't.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 28, 04:47 AM
Huh? What in the world are you talking about? Dude, lay off the communion wine. ;) You're making no sense, seriously.
I should go to bed now. But before I do that, maybe a question will help explain part of my point about the difference between me and a property might gain or lose. If I asked "Who are you?" when we happened to see each other, would you reply that you were gay? I doubt it. You probably would say, "I'm Lee Kohler."
I should go to bed now. But before I do that, maybe a question will help explain part of my point about the difference between me and a property might gain or lose. If I asked "Who are you?" when we happened to see each other, would you reply that you were gay? I doubt it. You probably would say, "I'm Lee Kohler."
skunk
Mar 27, 04:38 AM
That's why you can translate a sentence from one language to another language. If I'm only beginning to learn French, I may say something that may be ungrammatical literally meaningless. But my teacher or another expert in the French language may know what it is I'm trying to say with it. Skunk seems to be talking mostly about a signifier, the group of words, when I'm talking mostly about what Caocao intended to signify with it. You have completely missed the point.
Huntn
Apr 25, 12:30 PM
Absolutely correct. It is irrelevant because it is unknowable so let's not pretend or imagine or try to know the unknowable. Let's live our lives in peace.
This takes responsibility away from what God would want, to what we think is right. I believe this to be a more realistic approach.
I certainly feel that most atheists are what I would call agnostic atheists. They lack belief in a god but leave the question of such a being existing either open and yet to be proved or unknowable and, therefore, pointless to contemplate. Only a so-called gnostic atheist would say they have seen sufficient evidence to convince them there is no god and I have not seen to many of them in my travels. It's more likely that they have yet to see sufficient evidence so, while they do not specifically believe in his existence, they cannot categorically deny it either. The blurry line between atheism and agnosticism is fairly crowded, I think.
It's easy "don't believe" as contrast to "don't know". I think it's a very important distinction for some Atheists who go beyond the "unknown" position into a more definitive negative view regarding deities. The problem as I see it is it is not so much that a deity may exist, it's all the purported rules and regs associated with said deity that makes it easy to cast doubt.
You've just made good points, Huntn. I'm sure that many, maybe even most, people have much the same knee-jerk reaction you have. I pointed out som distinctions, though, because nowadays, when many think unclearly, the ignore those distinctions. Each time I hear someone say "I feel" when he should say "I believe" or "I think," the phrase "I feel" reminds me of subjectivism.
Someone here, Lord Blackadder, I think, told me that I didn't understand the "pluralistic society" idea. I do understand it, and I know that many people disagree with me on many topics. I'm willing to learn from others. I even suspect that my false beliefs outnumber my true ones. But if disagreement among people proves anything, it proves that some people hold some false beliefs. If I believe that there's a God and you believe that there's no God, one of us is wrong. Today too many talk as though the freedom to believe what one wants to believe is more important than the truth.
Sure, it's often better to say "I don't know" rather than "I don't believe" because most people probably haven't learned the distinctions I've described. On the other hand, although knowing that a belief is true implies believing that it's true, believing that it's true doesn't imply knowing that it's true. If believing always implied knowing, everyone would be all-knowing.
Say I've deluded myself into believing that my honorary Brian is still living when he is, in fact, already dead. No one is helping me by saying that "Brian is still alive" is true for Bill but not for Brian's family." If I were deluded, the longer my delusion lasted, the more painful my disillusionment would be. I want to know the truth, even if it's unpleasant.
The problem is that the concept of God is subjective. And if any God exists, then 1)It is a horrible communicator or 2) It does not really care because if it did, it would rely on more than ancient scripts, and it would take more care to ensure those scripts were accurate. (They don't appear accurate to me).
We exist, there may be an afterlife. I really do hope there is a spiritual plane where consciousness may continue. And there maybe judgement but these are huge IFs mostly based on our desire that there is more to life than our meager existence on this planet.
For fun please judge this statement: God can't prove its existence. If anyone disagrees, what real proof would be required? I'm not talking about those very subjective "feelings". ;)
This takes responsibility away from what God would want, to what we think is right. I believe this to be a more realistic approach.
I certainly feel that most atheists are what I would call agnostic atheists. They lack belief in a god but leave the question of such a being existing either open and yet to be proved or unknowable and, therefore, pointless to contemplate. Only a so-called gnostic atheist would say they have seen sufficient evidence to convince them there is no god and I have not seen to many of them in my travels. It's more likely that they have yet to see sufficient evidence so, while they do not specifically believe in his existence, they cannot categorically deny it either. The blurry line between atheism and agnosticism is fairly crowded, I think.
It's easy "don't believe" as contrast to "don't know". I think it's a very important distinction for some Atheists who go beyond the "unknown" position into a more definitive negative view regarding deities. The problem as I see it is it is not so much that a deity may exist, it's all the purported rules and regs associated with said deity that makes it easy to cast doubt.
You've just made good points, Huntn. I'm sure that many, maybe even most, people have much the same knee-jerk reaction you have. I pointed out som distinctions, though, because nowadays, when many think unclearly, the ignore those distinctions. Each time I hear someone say "I feel" when he should say "I believe" or "I think," the phrase "I feel" reminds me of subjectivism.
Someone here, Lord Blackadder, I think, told me that I didn't understand the "pluralistic society" idea. I do understand it, and I know that many people disagree with me on many topics. I'm willing to learn from others. I even suspect that my false beliefs outnumber my true ones. But if disagreement among people proves anything, it proves that some people hold some false beliefs. If I believe that there's a God and you believe that there's no God, one of us is wrong. Today too many talk as though the freedom to believe what one wants to believe is more important than the truth.
Sure, it's often better to say "I don't know" rather than "I don't believe" because most people probably haven't learned the distinctions I've described. On the other hand, although knowing that a belief is true implies believing that it's true, believing that it's true doesn't imply knowing that it's true. If believing always implied knowing, everyone would be all-knowing.
Say I've deluded myself into believing that my honorary Brian is still living when he is, in fact, already dead. No one is helping me by saying that "Brian is still alive" is true for Bill but not for Brian's family." If I were deluded, the longer my delusion lasted, the more painful my disillusionment would be. I want to know the truth, even if it's unpleasant.
The problem is that the concept of God is subjective. And if any God exists, then 1)It is a horrible communicator or 2) It does not really care because if it did, it would rely on more than ancient scripts, and it would take more care to ensure those scripts were accurate. (They don't appear accurate to me).
We exist, there may be an afterlife. I really do hope there is a spiritual plane where consciousness may continue. And there maybe judgement but these are huge IFs mostly based on our desire that there is more to life than our meager existence on this planet.
For fun please judge this statement: God can't prove its existence. If anyone disagrees, what real proof would be required? I'm not talking about those very subjective "feelings". ;)
AP_piano295
Apr 23, 01:04 AM
The ad at the top is calling us out.
>>I'm referring to an ad that says "Learn grammar punctuation."
Haha very possible, as far as grammar goes my primary rule is (does it sound alright? Yeah, well it's probably grammaticality accurate enough ;))
And punctuation, well...
. = end of sentence
, = for throwing in when your sentences look to long to be quite right
? = questions
! = exclamations
as for the rest of them :eek: I know I tend to use a colon when I'm starting a list but that's mostly just because it looks right :D.
Oh well more than half of my college professors speak barely passable English and a fair number of my fellow students as well. So i'm above average...right? :rolleyes:
>>I'm referring to an ad that says "Learn grammar punctuation."
Haha very possible, as far as grammar goes my primary rule is (does it sound alright? Yeah, well it's probably grammaticality accurate enough ;))
And punctuation, well...
. = end of sentence
, = for throwing in when your sentences look to long to be quite right
? = questions
! = exclamations
as for the rest of them :eek: I know I tend to use a colon when I'm starting a list but that's mostly just because it looks right :D.
Oh well more than half of my college professors speak barely passable English and a fair number of my fellow students as well. So i'm above average...right? :rolleyes:
�algiris
May 2, 08:52 AM
"Huge" threat.
akw
Mar 20, 05:50 PM
Echoing a comment I saw elsewhere, why doesn't someone just hire this guy. It probably costs more for Apple to sue each person than it would be to hire them and keep them busy fixing these problems internally.
Maybe he's not for hire. Not everyone can be bought. Or, maybe he's already working for Napster.
Maybe he's not for hire. Not everyone can be bought. Or, maybe he's already working for Napster.
Applespider
Mar 20, 06:29 PM
Furthermore, if you are using iTunes music, and you are using iMovie/iDVD, you CAN use tracks in your videos. They import in and you can use them freely in your projects.
Except there have been threads where people did this and when they sent it to friends to view, their computer had to be authorised to do so.
Except there have been threads where people did this and when they sent it to friends to view, their computer had to be authorised to do so.
Daphtdazz
Oct 7, 11:03 AM
I mean, how else can they be coming up with a 2 year prediction to an accuracy of 0.67%?
You just wonder about the people making these claims. What have they done, exactly? Sat down in front of Excel, typed in a few numbers and then just written out the answer without even thinking about it? I suppose we should be thankful that it wasn't:
iPhone: 13.728285919847%
Android: 14.491509184751%
etc.
It seems like a big leap anyway to predict a 7 fold market share increase, let alone think it will beat the iPhone whose momentum seems very strong.
You just wonder about the people making these claims. What have they done, exactly? Sat down in front of Excel, typed in a few numbers and then just written out the answer without even thinking about it? I suppose we should be thankful that it wasn't:
iPhone: 13.728285919847%
Android: 14.491509184751%
etc.
It seems like a big leap anyway to predict a 7 fold market share increase, let alone think it will beat the iPhone whose momentum seems very strong.
eawmp1
Apr 22, 08:33 PM
Why?
Look up Pascal's wager
Not a fan of Pascal's assumption of Christianity as the basis for his theorem.
Look up Pascal's wager
Not a fan of Pascal's assumption of Christianity as the basis for his theorem.
Evangelion
Jul 13, 08:19 AM
Like I said, my laptop has a hotter CPU in it. I've yet to hear a good argument as to why a Conroe is too hot to put in an iMac when they had G5's in them not so long ago. If a Macbook can handle 35W then the much much bigger and thicker iMac can handle 65W.
Well, MacBook can barely handle that 35W CPU. Everyone is complaining how hot the MBP runs. 65W is a lot hotter, and while iMac is thicker, remember that some of that thickness is taken by the screen. So the actual space for components might not be that much bigger in the end.
Personally, being a consumer and not Steve Jobs, I couldn't care less if it's more work for them to design a new MoBo for Conroe. I put my money where the best performance is, not what's easiest for Apple.
More work = higher price.
Like I said, Conroes are cheaper than Meroms for the performance you can get. It would be sheer stupidity of Apple to put meroms in their desktop because it would cost them just as much to put them in there and they'd be getting lower performance. Which means iMacs would be over-priced and under-performing compared to any other desktop.
iMacs are using mobile processors as we speak. Are they "overpriced" and "underperforming"? According to you, they are.
The current iMac isn't competitive, and you'd be mad not to admit that. 512Mb RAM standard? Underclocked X1600 128Mb?
Sure it's competetive. It's selling very well, and you actually get quite a lot for your money.
It's also less powerful and more expensive (per Mhz) than Conroe. So it's logical for Apple to put a less powerful, more expensive CPU in their computers? Funny deffinition of logic.
you sound like performance is the only thing that matters. There's also the design-effort (substantial with Conroe, minimal with Merom) and power-consumption and heat-output (both which Merom excel at).
If it's possible for apple to put Conroe in the iMac (and it is) then they will, because it makes economic sense to pay the same and get a better product for both Apple and consumers. I think the effort of designing a new MoBo would be more than worth that.
What makes you think that it would be better? "because it's faster!". There are more to "goodness" of the design than performance. Merom will offer more than enough performance, while running cool and quietly.
And when there are cheaper desktops with 2.4 and 2.6Ghz Conroes in them what will consumers buy? It doesn't make sense to pay more and get less, no matter how pretty the packaging is.
You can't really compare iMac to some generic tower-PC from Dell. Those tower-PC's will always be more versatile and cheaper than the iMac is, while being faster. That is a fact.
I intend to buy an iMac when I can get a 2.4Ghz Conroe in it. If they get Merom I simply will not buy one and buy a PC instead
Go right ahead. And if you onloy care for raw performance, you should have switched to PC's long ago.
You aren't really making any sense with your arguments. In fact, you only argument is that "Conroe is faster!". Well whoop-de-doo! Merom is almost as fast, and it's a drop-in replacement for their current CPU, and it runs cooler than Conroe does. I would rather have a good Merom in iMac than underclocked Conroe.
Well, MacBook can barely handle that 35W CPU. Everyone is complaining how hot the MBP runs. 65W is a lot hotter, and while iMac is thicker, remember that some of that thickness is taken by the screen. So the actual space for components might not be that much bigger in the end.
Personally, being a consumer and not Steve Jobs, I couldn't care less if it's more work for them to design a new MoBo for Conroe. I put my money where the best performance is, not what's easiest for Apple.
More work = higher price.
Like I said, Conroes are cheaper than Meroms for the performance you can get. It would be sheer stupidity of Apple to put meroms in their desktop because it would cost them just as much to put them in there and they'd be getting lower performance. Which means iMacs would be over-priced and under-performing compared to any other desktop.
iMacs are using mobile processors as we speak. Are they "overpriced" and "underperforming"? According to you, they are.
The current iMac isn't competitive, and you'd be mad not to admit that. 512Mb RAM standard? Underclocked X1600 128Mb?
Sure it's competetive. It's selling very well, and you actually get quite a lot for your money.
It's also less powerful and more expensive (per Mhz) than Conroe. So it's logical for Apple to put a less powerful, more expensive CPU in their computers? Funny deffinition of logic.
you sound like performance is the only thing that matters. There's also the design-effort (substantial with Conroe, minimal with Merom) and power-consumption and heat-output (both which Merom excel at).
If it's possible for apple to put Conroe in the iMac (and it is) then they will, because it makes economic sense to pay the same and get a better product for both Apple and consumers. I think the effort of designing a new MoBo would be more than worth that.
What makes you think that it would be better? "because it's faster!". There are more to "goodness" of the design than performance. Merom will offer more than enough performance, while running cool and quietly.
And when there are cheaper desktops with 2.4 and 2.6Ghz Conroes in them what will consumers buy? It doesn't make sense to pay more and get less, no matter how pretty the packaging is.
You can't really compare iMac to some generic tower-PC from Dell. Those tower-PC's will always be more versatile and cheaper than the iMac is, while being faster. That is a fact.
I intend to buy an iMac when I can get a 2.4Ghz Conroe in it. If they get Merom I simply will not buy one and buy a PC instead
Go right ahead. And if you onloy care for raw performance, you should have switched to PC's long ago.
You aren't really making any sense with your arguments. In fact, you only argument is that "Conroe is faster!". Well whoop-de-doo! Merom is almost as fast, and it's a drop-in replacement for their current CPU, and it runs cooler than Conroe does. I would rather have a good Merom in iMac than underclocked Conroe.
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...
ChrisA
Sep 26, 01:46 AM
man whats next 32 cores?
You can buy a 32 core machine today. Sun sells them. They are not cheap. I'm waiting for the day when we see "kilo-cores" and people add them like RAM, a thousand cores at a time.
You can buy a 32 core machine today. Sun sells them. They are not cheap. I'm waiting for the day when we see "kilo-cores" and people add them like RAM, a thousand cores at a time.
kugino
Sep 20, 02:18 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. :)
dude, do a little research before droning on and on with misinformation. many of your concerns were addressed by steve in the keynote and by reading some of the other threads on the subject. :rolleyes:
dude, do a little research before droning on and on with misinformation. many of your concerns were addressed by steve in the keynote and by reading some of the other threads on the subject. :rolleyes:
matticus008
Mar 19, 04:35 PM
Does iTunes really only sell you a license to the track? Is this in writing anywhere?
It's not just iTunes, but all copyright law. A CD is a license to use the track, not ownership of the song's music or lyrics. An AAC from iTunes is the same. Same with movies and software, etc. In any situation, you are buying a license to use the song, not to take ownership of the song (unless you're buying the *rights* to a song, then you really do own it).
It's not just iTunes, but all copyright law. A CD is a license to use the track, not ownership of the song's music or lyrics. An AAC from iTunes is the same. Same with movies and software, etc. In any situation, you are buying a license to use the song, not to take ownership of the song (unless you're buying the *rights* to a song, then you really do own it).
res1233
May 2, 10:28 AM
It is safer to run under an administrator account all the time in OS X than in Windows. On Windows, the administrator is almost the equivalent to the root account on *nixes and as such has unrestricted access to any and all files on the system.
On OS X and other *nix systems, however, the administrator account still can't do all that much without entering the root password. Admin accounts can't touch anything in the System folder. About the worst malware can do, even under an admin account in OS X, is one of the following:
1) Install itself in your user account Library folder
2) Install itself in the system's secondary Library folder (/Library/)
In both cases, the offending executables/libraries/whatever are easily removed - In the case of #1, create a new account and copy your old stuff over. In the case of #2, check the startup folder within, perhaps frameworks in some cases (though I have never seen malware that makes use of the OS X framework system) and delete the malware files. The files and folders contained in the Library folder are all nicely, neatly labeled and any malware should stick out like a sore thumb - it can't hide as something like EXPLORE32.EXE.
Yep. This is what Unix security means. Tight permissions control. Permission checking needs to at some point become a background service though, because the way it is, if some badly written application with root access changes the permissions on a folder for whatever reason, it's possible for malware written to look for these permission problems to take advantage of it. But other than that, yes, there is no way to access files outside of /Library and /Users/[username] without permission.
On OS X and other *nix systems, however, the administrator account still can't do all that much without entering the root password. Admin accounts can't touch anything in the System folder. About the worst malware can do, even under an admin account in OS X, is one of the following:
1) Install itself in your user account Library folder
2) Install itself in the system's secondary Library folder (/Library/)
In both cases, the offending executables/libraries/whatever are easily removed - In the case of #1, create a new account and copy your old stuff over. In the case of #2, check the startup folder within, perhaps frameworks in some cases (though I have never seen malware that makes use of the OS X framework system) and delete the malware files. The files and folders contained in the Library folder are all nicely, neatly labeled and any malware should stick out like a sore thumb - it can't hide as something like EXPLORE32.EXE.
Yep. This is what Unix security means. Tight permissions control. Permission checking needs to at some point become a background service though, because the way it is, if some badly written application with root access changes the permissions on a folder for whatever reason, it's possible for malware written to look for these permission problems to take advantage of it. But other than that, yes, there is no way to access files outside of /Library and /Users/[username] without permission.
*LTD*
Apr 9, 12:51 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) Mobile/8G4)
These people are fleeing the "yellow light of death� on PS3 or "red ring of death' on 360.
That's a complete joke, surely? There's no way you can compare console gaming, in basically a home arcade, to swiping your fingers around on a 3.5" screen. No way. I am a gamer, and always will be.
Gaming on the iPhone is good for 2-minute bursts, such as when sitting on the toilet. It's not a great games device. Most of the games are cheap with no replay value.
Oops. Looks like someone hasn't visited the App Store in like, never.
Since you're still in can you grab me a Palm Centro? I'm feelin nostalgic.
These people are fleeing the "yellow light of death� on PS3 or "red ring of death' on 360.
That's a complete joke, surely? There's no way you can compare console gaming, in basically a home arcade, to swiping your fingers around on a 3.5" screen. No way. I am a gamer, and always will be.
Gaming on the iPhone is good for 2-minute bursts, such as when sitting on the toilet. It's not a great games device. Most of the games are cheap with no replay value.
Oops. Looks like someone hasn't visited the App Store in like, never.
Since you're still in can you grab me a Palm Centro? I'm feelin nostalgic.
bpaluzzi
Apr 28, 08:49 AM
I meant "installed base" more than shipments.
Ahh. Any proof, or just making up stuff?
Ahh. Any proof, or just making up stuff?
iMeowbot
Sep 26, 12:01 AM
But seriously how many cores does anyone REALLY need?
Software makers are in for a rude shock here. One big thread is nearly obsolete today, and even the common one-big-lump-with-little-ancillary-threads model is going to start looking tired fast. I hope that everyone is up to the job, this is something people have been avoiding for as long as multiprocessors were still uncommon, expensive beasts.
So say I’m using my 8-core Mac Pro for CPU intensive digital audio recording. Would I be able to assign two cores the main program, two to virtual processing, two to auxiliary “re-wire” applications, and two to the general system? If so, I guess I need to hold out on my impending Mac Pro purchase!
Most likely you'll have about as much control over this as you have over memory, which is to say, not a lot. It will be up to the OS to schedule things in a smart way.
Software makers are in for a rude shock here. One big thread is nearly obsolete today, and even the common one-big-lump-with-little-ancillary-threads model is going to start looking tired fast. I hope that everyone is up to the job, this is something people have been avoiding for as long as multiprocessors were still uncommon, expensive beasts.
So say I’m using my 8-core Mac Pro for CPU intensive digital audio recording. Would I be able to assign two cores the main program, two to virtual processing, two to auxiliary “re-wire” applications, and two to the general system? If so, I guess I need to hold out on my impending Mac Pro purchase!
Most likely you'll have about as much control over this as you have over memory, which is to say, not a lot. It will be up to the OS to schedule things in a smart way.
devman
Sep 21, 09:25 AM
Actually, Steve noted that the iTV WILL do HD. It does have an HDMI port out, doesn't it? The issue now is that the ITS doesn't have that content yet. But if YOU have something you've managed to record on your Mac or PC that IS HD, then, by all means, buy the iTV (or whatever they'll call it) and watch your stuff...
Excellent. Thanks for clarifying. I misinterpreted Iger's comments.
Excellent. Thanks for clarifying. I misinterpreted Iger's comments.
No comments:
Post a Comment