peharri
Sep 21, 02:58 PM
The first question is a doozy. Personally, I think Apple's choice is a bit unwieldy. Have your entertainment network rely on your Mac/PC is fine; except when you need to restart after installing software (could the hard disk in the iTV buffer enough content to keep going until the Mac restarts? Possibly). Another problem is if your home PC is a laptop, which might not be in the home, or will sleep if inadvertently shut.
I'm 99% sure you have it wrong. The point of these most recent statements is that the iTV will be a standalone device. It'll be able to make use of networked iTunes libraries, but it will also work by itself, with no need to own a separate computer. This is one reason why it has a hard disk, for instance.
I agree that it'd be unwieldy if it required use of a computer. Which is one reason why I think, given none of the facts so far suggest use of a computer is necessary, it doesn't need one.
I'm 99% sure you have it wrong. The point of these most recent statements is that the iTV will be a standalone device. It'll be able to make use of networked iTunes libraries, but it will also work by itself, with no need to own a separate computer. This is one reason why it has a hard disk, for instance.
I agree that it'd be unwieldy if it required use of a computer. Which is one reason why I think, given none of the facts so far suggest use of a computer is necessary, it doesn't need one.
mhar4
Oct 26, 01:40 AM
That is ridiculous. More proof, if any more was needed, that Apple made a big mistake in changing over to Intel.
hulugu
Mar 14, 11:28 PM
There is absolutely no need to be insulting. Quote your "studies", first of all, but I find your assertion pretty bizarre as originally stated - mostly because Death Valley is almost entirely subsumed within Death Valley National Park. Unless you something we don't know, there is zero chance that you are going to be installing a 100 square mile solar array in the park. Not to mention the mountainous topography.
You're correct. It's useful to think of the area needed for solar power, but subsuming Death Valley with solar panels isn't a realistic solution.
Solar panels are a useful supplement to other power sources in certain regions where favorable environmental conditions exist. But no more than that I'm afraid.
I'm not sure why alternative energy sources are required to be a silver bullet in a way that other sources like nuclear, coal, and natural gas are not. The way to fill our energy needs is a death by a thousand cuts, which will include conservation and new technologies.
Energy should be localized to some degree, thus Iceland can use geothermal to its advantage, England can use wind and tidal, and Australia can use solar.
Finally, there is tremendous social, political, and economic pressure to continue using fossil fuels and nuclear energy rather than the alternatives. Even though alternatives are now more prevalent than before and enjoy increasing popularity, fossil fuel and nuclear energy are going to be used heavily until all the fuel is exhausted.
You're correct. It's useful to think of the area needed for solar power, but subsuming Death Valley with solar panels isn't a realistic solution.
Solar panels are a useful supplement to other power sources in certain regions where favorable environmental conditions exist. But no more than that I'm afraid.
I'm not sure why alternative energy sources are required to be a silver bullet in a way that other sources like nuclear, coal, and natural gas are not. The way to fill our energy needs is a death by a thousand cuts, which will include conservation and new technologies.
Energy should be localized to some degree, thus Iceland can use geothermal to its advantage, England can use wind and tidal, and Australia can use solar.
Finally, there is tremendous social, political, and economic pressure to continue using fossil fuels and nuclear energy rather than the alternatives. Even though alternatives are now more prevalent than before and enjoy increasing popularity, fossil fuel and nuclear energy are going to be used heavily until all the fuel is exhausted.
kingtj
May 6, 09:27 AM
Ultimately, yes - that's probably the only realistic solution AT&T has, and they *are* adding new cell towers all the time. I got SMS messages a couple of times announcing new ones they put online in my city, over the last year or so.
But there's a technology battle here they're on the losing end of, as well. The CDMA network providers have an advantage automatically, because the frequencies they use penetrate structures better than the GSM network frequencies used by AT&T and T-Mobile. (Note that T-Mobile was the other carrier with equal customer dissatisfaction to AT&T in the bar graph ranking that metric.)
I have Verizon and I think I've had two dropped calls in years.
AT&T really needs to get more towers up, that's the only solution in my mind.
Kayle
But there's a technology battle here they're on the losing end of, as well. The CDMA network providers have an advantage automatically, because the frequencies they use penetrate structures better than the GSM network frequencies used by AT&T and T-Mobile. (Note that T-Mobile was the other carrier with equal customer dissatisfaction to AT&T in the bar graph ranking that metric.)
I have Verizon and I think I've had two dropped calls in years.
AT&T really needs to get more towers up, that's the only solution in my mind.
Kayle
deannnnn
May 6, 10:07 PM
For christ's sake -- Arn, why not make a sticky for people who's phones work?
It's difficult for people who do not live in New York City to understand this issue. You should be happy that your iPhone works for you where you live, not upset at people who have difficulties with it.
It's difficult for people who do not live in New York City to understand this issue. You should be happy that your iPhone works for you where you live, not upset at people who have difficulties with it.
Thunderbird
Mar 13, 05:49 PM
Government officials are government officials-- they will never outright tell you the truth, because 9 times out of 10 they're uninformed about it or were told to say something they may not necessarily believe. They usually try to cover their bases-- see this way the government is covered in case something does happen.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
This is what I dislike. Not to get all political here, but alternative energy, however nice, is nowhere even close to providing the power we need.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live.
Windmills cannot ever meet energy demand; we're talking about a 5% fill if we put them everywhere. They're also too costly at this point for their given power output. Solar energy, though promising, still has a piss poor efficiency, and thus isn't ready for prime usage for some time. There's really no other alternatives.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
MySpace Sky Blue And White
Download This Wallpaper
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
This is what I dislike. Not to get all political here, but alternative energy, however nice, is nowhere even close to providing the power we need.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live.
Windmills cannot ever meet energy demand; we're talking about a 5% fill if we put them everywhere. They're also too costly at this point for their given power output. Solar energy, though promising, still has a piss poor efficiency, and thus isn't ready for prime usage for some time. There's really no other alternatives.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Xenious
Aug 29, 01:03 PM
Greenpeace ranks #1 in psycho environmentalist organizations... film at 11.
sinsin07
Apr 9, 09:11 AM
Nope didn't escape me, I just don't agree with you or think it's worth discuss products that don't exist yet and comparing them to ones that do. That's not a "it's not fair" issue, that's a "stop suggesting a product you can't buy is better than one you can". You've not used one for any period of time that is meaningful, stop listing it as a better gaming experience.
Blue C4D Wallpaper by
iPhone Wallpapers
sky blue cloudy serene picture
Blue Sky iPad Wallpaper 4:
Sky Blue Wallpaper. on lue
Picture of lue skies over of
Seagull in lue sky wallpaper
lue sky wallpapers.jpg
Blue sky wallpaper SCREENSHOTS
4 Sky blue at 1024 pixels
Blue Sky wallpaper
The Beatles
Apr 21, 02:06 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
But just like Windows, it's practically impossible to have any problems unless you do something stupid.
Another analogy - if you buy a car and put the wrong type of oil in it or inflate the tyres to the wrong pressure, bad things will probably happen.
If you don't know what you're doing with your own devices then maybe you need Apple to hold your hand.
The average user is stupid when it comes to using Windows, installing random programs, clicking yes to popups in porn sites.
Using your analogy, Apple tends to like to check the type of oil before it goes into the car, to avoid bad things from happening.
Most people don't know what they're doing and they DO like having Apple hold their hands.
Hell yeah I want apple to watch my back. Nothing wrong with having someone capable to deal with minutia while I focus on my life. "Apple holding hands" is just someones attempt to make iPhone owners feel bad. I see it as sad or childish depending on age of the person saying it. He'll yeah apple, watch my back and thank you.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Ive had macs sine the late 90's, ipad, all iphones etc.
But this summer im getting the galaxy s2. But i like to customize stuff. I feel the iphone is generic. Everyone is the same with a different background.
I feel they can do so much more with their os. And yes apple fanboys will say just wait for ios 5.0. Problem is we have this disucussion last year to.
Also with honeycomb android actually made a tablet os. I hate that theipad is just a scaled version of the iphone os. Use the screenspace.
Dont get me wrong. I love apple. But they have their shortcomings. Dunno why the iphone 5 (rumors) will get delayed. Then android will get a surge the next months.
Also i feel sorry for those who are mindeless zombies and just buy whatever the company makes. That goes for both parts ofcourse.
I jusr love the open feel of android. Play a 1080p mkv if i want. Download torrrnts. File system. Widgets, cusromaztion. And i love the apple ecosystem, just not how closed the experienced gets.
I just hope we can respect people for having different taste, and jusr enjoy our purchase. And dont pick on eachother
I absolutely respect your decision. I think the disrespect comes from immature posts not necessarily the opinions coming from respectful individs. I like the iPhone cause it does what I need. I don't need/want all the tinkering, torrents and such. Especially on a phone or tablet. Those devices for me are email, web, consumption and they do it very well with Apple quality. I use to customize my computer but it got old after a while. To me it's the philosophy/thinking behind Apples products. Now if I was a tinkerer then I'd jail break or go android but the iOS has always allowed me to do whatever I've tried to do.
I am interested in peoples experiences with tier mobile software so make sure you come back and tell us all about your experience.
But just like Windows, it's practically impossible to have any problems unless you do something stupid.
Another analogy - if you buy a car and put the wrong type of oil in it or inflate the tyres to the wrong pressure, bad things will probably happen.
If you don't know what you're doing with your own devices then maybe you need Apple to hold your hand.
The average user is stupid when it comes to using Windows, installing random programs, clicking yes to popups in porn sites.
Using your analogy, Apple tends to like to check the type of oil before it goes into the car, to avoid bad things from happening.
Most people don't know what they're doing and they DO like having Apple hold their hands.
Hell yeah I want apple to watch my back. Nothing wrong with having someone capable to deal with minutia while I focus on my life. "Apple holding hands" is just someones attempt to make iPhone owners feel bad. I see it as sad or childish depending on age of the person saying it. He'll yeah apple, watch my back and thank you.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Ive had macs sine the late 90's, ipad, all iphones etc.
But this summer im getting the galaxy s2. But i like to customize stuff. I feel the iphone is generic. Everyone is the same with a different background.
I feel they can do so much more with their os. And yes apple fanboys will say just wait for ios 5.0. Problem is we have this disucussion last year to.
Also with honeycomb android actually made a tablet os. I hate that theipad is just a scaled version of the iphone os. Use the screenspace.
Dont get me wrong. I love apple. But they have their shortcomings. Dunno why the iphone 5 (rumors) will get delayed. Then android will get a surge the next months.
Also i feel sorry for those who are mindeless zombies and just buy whatever the company makes. That goes for both parts ofcourse.
I jusr love the open feel of android. Play a 1080p mkv if i want. Download torrrnts. File system. Widgets, cusromaztion. And i love the apple ecosystem, just not how closed the experienced gets.
I just hope we can respect people for having different taste, and jusr enjoy our purchase. And dont pick on eachother
I absolutely respect your decision. I think the disrespect comes from immature posts not necessarily the opinions coming from respectful individs. I like the iPhone cause it does what I need. I don't need/want all the tinkering, torrents and such. Especially on a phone or tablet. Those devices for me are email, web, consumption and they do it very well with Apple quality. I use to customize my computer but it got old after a while. To me it's the philosophy/thinking behind Apples products. Now if I was a tinkerer then I'd jail break or go android but the iOS has always allowed me to do whatever I've tried to do.
I am interested in peoples experiences with tier mobile software so make sure you come back and tell us all about your experience.
macUser2007
Feb 22, 05:37 PM
The iPhone is great, IMO.
BUT, Android 2+ is getting to be a real contender. Donut may just be the one to take it to the next level. Notably, the new Androids have not been cheap clones, but rather well-thought out, feature-rich sets, like the Nexus One. With AMOLED screens larger than the iPhone's and robust hardware (e.g. better on-board GPS than the iPhone), I wouldn't be surprised if they take market-share aware from the iPhone.
I also think the "killer app" for the general population will be Flash, when it becomes available on the new sets. Suddenly, the iPhone will be the only large screen smartphone without access to the the full web.
For the iPad the lack of Flash will be a much larger problem. There are a bunch of tablets coming out, some sporting Android 2.x, all of which will run full Flash, and be able to access the full web. On larger screens, mobile versions of major sites suck, and some do not work at all.
And the general consumers don't really care when some sweaty geek foams at the mouth how much he hates Flash. They just want to be able to see all of the web, in its full Flash glory.
BUT, Android 2+ is getting to be a real contender. Donut may just be the one to take it to the next level. Notably, the new Androids have not been cheap clones, but rather well-thought out, feature-rich sets, like the Nexus One. With AMOLED screens larger than the iPhone's and robust hardware (e.g. better on-board GPS than the iPhone), I wouldn't be surprised if they take market-share aware from the iPhone.
I also think the "killer app" for the general population will be Flash, when it becomes available on the new sets. Suddenly, the iPhone will be the only large screen smartphone without access to the the full web.
For the iPad the lack of Flash will be a much larger problem. There are a bunch of tablets coming out, some sporting Android 2.x, all of which will run full Flash, and be able to access the full web. On larger screens, mobile versions of major sites suck, and some do not work at all.
And the general consumers don't really care when some sweaty geek foams at the mouth how much he hates Flash. They just want to be able to see all of the web, in its full Flash glory.
CalBoy
Apr 22, 10:41 PM
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.
I haven't seen that in my experience. Most atheists put a great deal of deliberative thought into their position. "Casual" atheists are more commonly, in my experience, agnostics with a poor vocabulary. In fact, the very idea of holding a position without substantiation is an anathema to what atheists hold above all else: the triumph of reason over "intuition."
I realize the capricious nature of something like this since people are free to label themselves however they please. However, I think you'll find that those who affirmatively state what they don't believe will have a thought out answer, much like the self-described atheists in this thread. Granted there are some who have a reduced grasp of science and the scientific method, but that's no different than a Catholic who has doesn't know the Eighth Commandment. There are always going to be better prepared members of any sub-group.
I also don't think there is an atheist who isn't challenged all the time about their beliefs. People (especially in the US) have a deep distrust of atheists and it isn't something people usually wear on their sleeves; it's a scarlet letter that always needs to be "justified."
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.
I'm not even sure you can use pure reason to establish any deity. What would be the logical construction of that argument?
No, I don't think I'm confusing anything actually.
Yes, you did. You lumped up three distinct theories about three different aspects of cosmic, geological, and biological history, all because they were an affront to your beliefs (or to your incredulity, whichever fits better).
"Exploding" only applies to the Big Bang Theory (and barely at that). Planetary formation and cell formation are radically different and quite complex, as is the Big Bang Theory. Trying to lump them all into one "explosion" from which your current reality directly came to be only shows your scientific illiteracy, not an inherent weakness in any one of these well-tested ideas.
I haven't seen that in my experience. Most atheists put a great deal of deliberative thought into their position. "Casual" atheists are more commonly, in my experience, agnostics with a poor vocabulary. In fact, the very idea of holding a position without substantiation is an anathema to what atheists hold above all else: the triumph of reason over "intuition."
I realize the capricious nature of something like this since people are free to label themselves however they please. However, I think you'll find that those who affirmatively state what they don't believe will have a thought out answer, much like the self-described atheists in this thread. Granted there are some who have a reduced grasp of science and the scientific method, but that's no different than a Catholic who has doesn't know the Eighth Commandment. There are always going to be better prepared members of any sub-group.
I also don't think there is an atheist who isn't challenged all the time about their beliefs. People (especially in the US) have a deep distrust of atheists and it isn't something people usually wear on their sleeves; it's a scarlet letter that always needs to be "justified."
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.
I'm not even sure you can use pure reason to establish any deity. What would be the logical construction of that argument?
No, I don't think I'm confusing anything actually.
Yes, you did. You lumped up three distinct theories about three different aspects of cosmic, geological, and biological history, all because they were an affront to your beliefs (or to your incredulity, whichever fits better).
"Exploding" only applies to the Big Bang Theory (and barely at that). Planetary formation and cell formation are radically different and quite complex, as is the Big Bang Theory. Trying to lump them all into one "explosion" from which your current reality directly came to be only shows your scientific illiteracy, not an inherent weakness in any one of these well-tested ideas.
kdarling
Jun 14, 02:31 PM
If you want to program for the iPhone without buying a Mac or learning Objective-C, you can use DragonFire:
http://www.dragonfiresdk.com
It's a very (very) abbreviated C++ like API with screen and button and image suppoert, that you can use to program under free Visual Studio on a PC. Even has an iPhone emulator.
Then you click a button and it apparently sends a internally translated C to Objective-C source up to their Mac servers, which compile it for the iPhone and sends it back signed with their developer tag.
The SDK itself is something like $50 for a local-test-only version, and $100 for the full compile-for-the-real-device version.
For a small price you can submit it under their name to the App Store. Or something like that. Haven't tried it yet.
http://www.dragonfiresdk.com
It's a very (very) abbreviated C++ like API with screen and button and image suppoert, that you can use to program under free Visual Studio on a PC. Even has an iPhone emulator.
Then you click a button and it apparently sends a internally translated C to Objective-C source up to their Mac servers, which compile it for the iPhone and sends it back signed with their developer tag.
The SDK itself is something like $50 for a local-test-only version, and $100 for the full compile-for-the-real-device version.
For a small price you can submit it under their name to the App Store. Or something like that. Haven't tried it yet.
steadysignal
Apr 28, 10:33 AM
However the iPad is not a pc, so this report is a bit on the Apple side here.
agreed. take the ipad out and the numbers look more in line. and thats ok.
agreed. take the ipad out and the numbers look more in line. and thats ok.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 26, 12:41 PM
I agree with you, brother. God bless you.
Is est a subcribo of contradictio frater
Is est a subcribo of contradictio frater
R.Perez
Mar 13, 04:00 PM
The biggest wind farm in the world provides around 2MW/km^2. Your 100milesX100miles plant would only provide around 52 000MW (52GW) of power with same ratio. USA's power consumption in 2005 was 29PWh. I don't know how exactly this things can be converted but Fukushima I has installed power of 4.7GW and provides 25.8GWh each year while the biggest wind farm has installed capacity of 781MW. The plant you described would be around 10 times more powerful than the Fukushima but even then, it could provide around 250GWh which is a fraction of 29PWh.
If someone knows how to convert these things properly or has more info on this, please educate me/us.
Did I say at any point time that we should rely on just wind? or solar, or tidal for that matter? A combination of all three is in order here. On top of that re-thinking infrastructure so that at least some of the power can be generated from the home or building itself is in order. i.e. putting solar panels on all new construction. This would reduce the amount of energy needed from centralized sources. Also shifting towards smarter energy consumption would help as well, i.e. using geo-thermal to generate heat instead of oil or electricity and mandating more efficient lightbulbs and appliances.
If someone knows how to convert these things properly or has more info on this, please educate me/us.
Did I say at any point time that we should rely on just wind? or solar, or tidal for that matter? A combination of all three is in order here. On top of that re-thinking infrastructure so that at least some of the power can be generated from the home or building itself is in order. i.e. putting solar panels on all new construction. This would reduce the amount of energy needed from centralized sources. Also shifting towards smarter energy consumption would help as well, i.e. using geo-thermal to generate heat instead of oil or electricity and mandating more efficient lightbulbs and appliances.
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.
javajedi
Oct 9, 10:33 PM
Absolutely. That's why I felt it was so important to comment. The Apple hardware has been standstill. I don't like this anymore than the other guy, but unfortunately it's an inescapable fact. A select few of the people here have become complacent over status-quo, old technology and don't even realize it. These people are doing both themselves and Apple a disservice.
I also think it's very important in this day in age to keep an open mind. If we look back at history, the m68k machines lagged behind x86. Then along came the 601/604, that turned the tables. Today Mac users are once again behind the times in hardware. Don�t worry though, it won�t always be like this. By the time you are ready to buy a new desktop I�m optimistic that Apple will have a solution to the G4 problem. Also keep in mind that within that 1 year Mac OS X will continue to evolve, it�s only going to get better.
But also keep in mind, (and I don�t think this will be the case) but if that does not happen, and in a year from now you see the Mac platform stuck in the same boat as it is today, it would be incredibly foolish to invest thousands of your hard earned dollars on one.
Good luck!
I also think it's very important in this day in age to keep an open mind. If we look back at history, the m68k machines lagged behind x86. Then along came the 601/604, that turned the tables. Today Mac users are once again behind the times in hardware. Don�t worry though, it won�t always be like this. By the time you are ready to buy a new desktop I�m optimistic that Apple will have a solution to the G4 problem. Also keep in mind that within that 1 year Mac OS X will continue to evolve, it�s only going to get better.
But also keep in mind, (and I don�t think this will be the case) but if that does not happen, and in a year from now you see the Mac platform stuck in the same boat as it is today, it would be incredibly foolish to invest thousands of your hard earned dollars on one.
Good luck!
Eraserhead
Mar 27, 05:25 PM
Many liberals seem to love ambiguity. Ambiguity confuses me thoroughly.
But that is how the world really is I'm afraid.
But that is how the world really is I'm afraid.
econgeek
Apr 12, 11:14 PM
Adobe Photoshop and After Effects are not 'pro'
We're talking video editing software, and you didn't mention Photoshop, but you bring it up now.
I was expressing my personal opinion, and yes, I think Premier and After Effects are absolute junk. I know many people love them and after sufficient training can get good stuff out of them, much like people love windows and are able to make it work.
But I have trouble taking anyone seriously as an "expert" who argues that Windows, with its terrible UI-- is "professional" while the mac is "a toy". Though of course, back in the day, many did so.
I feel the same way about After Effects (And Premier to a lesser extent). They are so poorly designed that to call them superior makes me question the motivations and perspective (and professionalism) of the person doing so-- as a blanket statement. Making more specific statements, however, I'll likely not dispute. (Eg: a particular algorithm being better, sure.)
A professional seeks tools that allow them to accomplish the job in question with minimum wasted effort, time and resources. The low usability of Adobe solutions (in video) undermines this goal. Seeing somethign that allows one to more quikly develop a professional product as being "toylike" *because* it is more efficient, in favor of poor quality tools, is not a perspective that I associate with those of a professional-- who is more concerned with the end result than protecting sunk educational costs invested to overcome terrible usability.
We're talking video editing software, and you didn't mention Photoshop, but you bring it up now.
I was expressing my personal opinion, and yes, I think Premier and After Effects are absolute junk. I know many people love them and after sufficient training can get good stuff out of them, much like people love windows and are able to make it work.
But I have trouble taking anyone seriously as an "expert" who argues that Windows, with its terrible UI-- is "professional" while the mac is "a toy". Though of course, back in the day, many did so.
I feel the same way about After Effects (And Premier to a lesser extent). They are so poorly designed that to call them superior makes me question the motivations and perspective (and professionalism) of the person doing so-- as a blanket statement. Making more specific statements, however, I'll likely not dispute. (Eg: a particular algorithm being better, sure.)
A professional seeks tools that allow them to accomplish the job in question with minimum wasted effort, time and resources. The low usability of Adobe solutions (in video) undermines this goal. Seeing somethign that allows one to more quikly develop a professional product as being "toylike" *because* it is more efficient, in favor of poor quality tools, is not a perspective that I associate with those of a professional-- who is more concerned with the end result than protecting sunk educational costs invested to overcome terrible usability.
rasmasyean
Mar 14, 06:49 PM
I forgot the name of the project but they are looking at using advanced high temperature superconductors to carry power from like some "mega power plant" type of setup.
EDIT: memory a little off. Tres Amigas Superstation is supposed to connect and share distributed power.
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-tres-amigas-superstation-on-track-for-2014/
EDIT: memory a little off. Tres Amigas Superstation is supposed to connect and share distributed power.
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-tres-amigas-superstation-on-track-for-2014/
jettredmont
May 2, 05:35 PM
Is your info from like 1993 ? Because this little known version of Windows dubbed "New Technology" or NT for short brought along something called the NTFS (New Technology File System) that has... *drumroll* ACLs and strict permissions with inheritance...
Unless you're running as administrator on a Windows NT based system, you're as protected as a "Unix/Linux" user. Of course, you can also run as root all the time under Unix, negating this "security".
Until Vista and Win 7, it was effectively impossible to run a Windows NT system as anything but Administrator. To the point that other than locked-down corporate sites where an IT Professional was required to install the Corporate Approved version of any software you need to do your job, I never knew anyone running XP (or 2k, or for that matter NT 3.x) who in a day-to-day fashion used a Standard user account.
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
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.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
Absolutely. I think it is absolutely critical to discern between a social-engineering attack (ie, one that requires a user to take some action unwittingly) from an automated attack (a classic virus or worm). The latter is certainly less common these days (although the "big boys" wanting to send Iranian nuclear reactors into convulsions seem to be keeping the dark art of worming alive and well), and so a typical user is much more likely to fall victim to a phishing scam than to get something nasty like the Asuza virus which wipes out their hard drive after an incubation period.
From the main "security firms", though, the money is in making all malware seem automated and thus only able to be countered by an automated virus detection/isolation utility. There just isn't much money in telling people to not click "Install" when MACDefender's installer comes up while looking through Google Images.
Unless you're running as administrator on a Windows NT based system, you're as protected as a "Unix/Linux" user. Of course, you can also run as root all the time under Unix, negating this "security".
Until Vista and Win 7, it was effectively impossible to run a Windows NT system as anything but Administrator. To the point that other than locked-down corporate sites where an IT Professional was required to install the Corporate Approved version of any software you need to do your job, I never knew anyone running XP (or 2k, or for that matter NT 3.x) who in a day-to-day fashion used a Standard user account.
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
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.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
Absolutely. I think it is absolutely critical to discern between a social-engineering attack (ie, one that requires a user to take some action unwittingly) from an automated attack (a classic virus or worm). The latter is certainly less common these days (although the "big boys" wanting to send Iranian nuclear reactors into convulsions seem to be keeping the dark art of worming alive and well), and so a typical user is much more likely to fall victim to a phishing scam than to get something nasty like the Asuza virus which wipes out their hard drive after an incubation period.
From the main "security firms", though, the money is in making all malware seem automated and thus only able to be countered by an automated virus detection/isolation utility. There just isn't much money in telling people to not click "Install" when MACDefender's installer comes up while looking through Google Images.
Spectrum
Aug 29, 01:09 PM
And do I care? Nah. Not one bit.
That doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Send my regards to your great-grandchildren will you?
That doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Send my regards to your great-grandchildren will you?
MacCoaster
Oct 9, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Dude, I am a microsoft certified professional and spend all day dealing with PC problems. I have worked on the slowest ones and the fastest ones. The dual power macs fly! On top of that they do not run winblows. PC's suck because of the OS period. My mind will never be changed on that because I have almost 2 decades of dealing with Microsoft's crap!
Then use FreeBSD on the PC. FreeBSD ****in' flies. PCs don't suck. A particular OS does.
Dude, I am a microsoft certified professional and spend all day dealing with PC problems. I have worked on the slowest ones and the fastest ones. The dual power macs fly! On top of that they do not run winblows. PC's suck because of the OS period. My mind will never be changed on that because I have almost 2 decades of dealing with Microsoft's crap!
Then use FreeBSD on the PC. FreeBSD ****in' flies. PCs don't suck. A particular OS does.
djfern
Sep 12, 03:51 PM
Well, i see it like this. iTV is just the beginning of something quite new and quite big for apple. Compare it to the release of the original iPod - black and white, audio only, expensive, small capacity. The killer thing about the iPod was less about it's features than it's interface and operability with itunes. It made something - portable music player - easier and more elegant.
And that's what iTV is. Today, if you want to play movies you've downloaded, you need a multi-media DVD player (with divx and mpeg support) and you need to burn discs. Play a CD on the stereo? Hook up your ipod or laptop to a cable. Etc.. This device eliminates the need to burn discs for video and makes it easier to view content - however acquired - that's already on your computer. Bravo. Simple. It's not trying to be everybody's everything. Like i said, the original iPod only played audio. That was enough for a start.
Will they add a hard drive? Probably. Will you be able to download HD quality movies from the internet with this thing? Eventually. But Apple's gonna do it one step at a time. They'll introduce a basic device at first, see what people think and how it does, and add features carefully and slowly over time. This recipe worked wonders with the iPod. I think it will work here too.
And that's what iTV is. Today, if you want to play movies you've downloaded, you need a multi-media DVD player (with divx and mpeg support) and you need to burn discs. Play a CD on the stereo? Hook up your ipod or laptop to a cable. Etc.. This device eliminates the need to burn discs for video and makes it easier to view content - however acquired - that's already on your computer. Bravo. Simple. It's not trying to be everybody's everything. Like i said, the original iPod only played audio. That was enough for a start.
Will they add a hard drive? Probably. Will you be able to download HD quality movies from the internet with this thing? Eventually. But Apple's gonna do it one step at a time. They'll introduce a basic device at first, see what people think and how it does, and add features carefully and slowly over time. This recipe worked wonders with the iPod. I think it will work here too.
No comments:
Post a Comment