citizenzen
Apr 24, 01:30 PM
I'll support any group (religious or secular) that:
A: Doesn't try to curtail my freedom and liberty and
B: Acts as a bulwark against any group which does seek to curtail my freedom and liberty.
I sure hope you're pro gay marriage.
A: Doesn't try to curtail my freedom and liberty and
B: Acts as a bulwark against any group which does seek to curtail my freedom and liberty.
I sure hope you're pro gay marriage.
techy298
May 2, 08:26 PM
If anyone has information on how to download this file, as well as an apple id, please visit this page (https://discussions.apple.com/message/15116673)
thanks
thanks
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.
LagunaSol
Apr 28, 08:39 AM
I wonder if those people who complain about iPads not being included in smart phone market share will also complain that the iPad is included in pc sales market share?
The complaint isn't that iPads aren't being included in the smart phone market. The complaint is that there is a sole focus on smart phones when comparing Android vs. iOS market share when clearly the iPad and iPod Touch are very significant portions of the iOS platform.
This is not a "smart phone" platform battle. This is a new mobile computing platform battle. But since Android has no viable competitors to the iPad or iPhone Touch, people (Fandroids and analysts alike) conveniently like to leave those devices out of the equation.
The complaint isn't that iPads aren't being included in the smart phone market. The complaint is that there is a sole focus on smart phones when comparing Android vs. iOS market share when clearly the iPad and iPod Touch are very significant portions of the iOS platform.
This is not a "smart phone" platform battle. This is a new mobile computing platform battle. But since Android has no viable competitors to the iPad or iPhone Touch, people (Fandroids and analysts alike) conveniently like to leave those devices out of the equation.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 09:17 PM
The goal of any ethical psychological treatment is only to treat the conflict that causes pain. The patient is considered healthy when his thoughts and behaviors do not interfere with his ability to lead a fulfilling life, not when he changes his thoughts and behaviors to ones endorsed by the therapist. Anything else is abuse of the patient and psychological malpractice.
But what if changed thoughts and changed behaviors would make people even happier than than they would be without the changes?
To tell someone who is in conflict over his sexual orientation that he must change it to be well is no different than telling an anorexic to lose more weight so she doesn't feel so fat. It is indulging the conflict to produce conforming behavior rather than treating the conflict to produce a healthy patient.
Not even Nicolosi tells his clients that they need to change their sexual orientation. He says that NARTH is for people who want to change it. In a video I posted to this discussion, he says that therapy doesn't work well for clients who tell him they want to change because the Bible teaches that they shouldn't have homosexual sex. You may already have read my post about Fr. John Harvey's apostolate to people who feel same-sex attraction. Again, that organization doesn't try to change anyone's sexual orientation.
But what if changed thoughts and changed behaviors would make people even happier than than they would be without the changes?
To tell someone who is in conflict over his sexual orientation that he must change it to be well is no different than telling an anorexic to lose more weight so she doesn't feel so fat. It is indulging the conflict to produce conforming behavior rather than treating the conflict to produce a healthy patient.
Not even Nicolosi tells his clients that they need to change their sexual orientation. He says that NARTH is for people who want to change it. In a video I posted to this discussion, he says that therapy doesn't work well for clients who tell him they want to change because the Bible teaches that they shouldn't have homosexual sex. You may already have read my post about Fr. John Harvey's apostolate to people who feel same-sex attraction. Again, that organization doesn't try to change anyone's sexual orientation.
thejadedmonkey
Sep 12, 04:24 PM
It needs DVR recording for this price point. As someone else mentioned earlier, I can use a $5 cable to connect my computer to my TV. It need something else that will make me want to spend the extra $244 on it. Either that, or apple needs to stop touting the iMac as a media PC because the TV will compete with it.
ct2k7
Apr 24, 03:33 PM
People from Pakistan and Bangladesh blame a lot of "bad habits" on cultural influence from India (I., B. and P. used to be one country). However, I have never heard of Indians behaving like that in Western countries. How come it seems so easy for Indians to integrate in Western societies, yet so hard for Pakistanis/Bangladeshis? It used to be one country, so there must be something other than just "culture"... care to tell me what it is? I already have an idea and you know very well what it is, so I'm asking you now. What is the big difference here?
To the contrary, having spoken to many Pakistani and Bangladeshi people, most of those I spoke to felt that the counties had taken a literal and poignant view of the framework provided. The same view is not supported by the majority of the population.
One thing that is apparent is that there has been a lot of innovation somewhere in the mix, which has spread towards Pakistan and Bangladesh.
India is much more diversified than Pakistan and Bangladesh, such that the population of Muslims is much less. However, that does not mean that honour killings don't happen in India - they certainly do. e.g. Punjab. I can tell you know as a fact that the majority of honour killings there are not within Muslim families.
To the contrary, having spoken to many Pakistani and Bangladeshi people, most of those I spoke to felt that the counties had taken a literal and poignant view of the framework provided. The same view is not supported by the majority of the population.
One thing that is apparent is that there has been a lot of innovation somewhere in the mix, which has spread towards Pakistan and Bangladesh.
India is much more diversified than Pakistan and Bangladesh, such that the population of Muslims is much less. However, that does not mean that honour killings don't happen in India - they certainly do. e.g. Punjab. I can tell you know as a fact that the majority of honour killings there are not within Muslim families.
amin
Oct 8, 08:48 AM
...With the Clovertowns, the system was 20% faster than the Woodies (even at 800 MHz slower per core), at almost exactly the same wattage (1 or 2 watts more)...
Faster at what? I'm too lazy to find the part in the keynote where they showed this. Was it 20% faster at something designed to use all 8 cores?
Faster at what? I'm too lazy to find the part in the keynote where they showed this. Was it 20% faster at something designed to use all 8 cores?
Bill McEnaney
Mar 26, 03:19 AM
Care to elaborate?
To reply sarcastically about my post about Matthew 5:10-12, someone posted this :rolleyes: smily. To answer lightheartedly, I said that I liked that emoticon. I was not writing about anyone's face.
To reply sarcastically about my post about Matthew 5:10-12, someone posted this :rolleyes: smily. To answer lightheartedly, I said that I liked that emoticon. I was not writing about anyone's face.
matticus008
Mar 20, 06:33 PM
Is there anybody here who has ever changed their mind about digital rights management, i.e., accepted and then rejected it or rejected it and then accepted it over time? We've heard many members trying to convince others and I wonder if everybody has their mind permanently made up.
Has anybody ever "switched" on this issue?
Actually, I have. I'd been vehemently opposed to both the DMCA and DRM for the past several years (what's a good liberal to do?). I always held the opinion that it wasn't really doing anyone any real harm. I buy music, and the music I downloaded was probably not music I'd buy anyway, so I didn't see it harming sales. But then I came across more people like many in this thread, who believe that they are entitled to more than they agreed to or paid for, and who justify and rationalize their piracy to the point where it's just absolutely ridiculous, and now I see why DRM exists--because people don't actually want "fair use" or a way to preview music before buying it and supporting the artists they like. All they want is free music that they can pretend they own and control in a manner to which they've never been allowed by law.
Before digital files, no one would have argued that copying a CD and giving it away was wrong. But now the scale is much larger and it's much easier, and there are people pretending that it's legal or that it's now okay because the RIAA is somehow more corrupt than it was 10 years ago when filesharing was a niche activity for technophiles.
Has anybody ever "switched" on this issue?
Actually, I have. I'd been vehemently opposed to both the DMCA and DRM for the past several years (what's a good liberal to do?). I always held the opinion that it wasn't really doing anyone any real harm. I buy music, and the music I downloaded was probably not music I'd buy anyway, so I didn't see it harming sales. But then I came across more people like many in this thread, who believe that they are entitled to more than they agreed to or paid for, and who justify and rationalize their piracy to the point where it's just absolutely ridiculous, and now I see why DRM exists--because people don't actually want "fair use" or a way to preview music before buying it and supporting the artists they like. All they want is free music that they can pretend they own and control in a manner to which they've never been allowed by law.
Before digital files, no one would have argued that copying a CD and giving it away was wrong. But now the scale is much larger and it's much easier, and there are people pretending that it's legal or that it's now okay because the RIAA is somehow more corrupt than it was 10 years ago when filesharing was a niche activity for technophiles.
Denarius
Mar 16, 09:38 AM
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/electricalgeneration.png
Nuclear is the only non-fossil fuel which has proven itself capable of producing sizable amounts of electricity. Wind, solar, etc. are a complete joke as of today. Instead of the OP, I guess the question you really need to answer is, should we make decisions based on sound reality based scientific data, or short-term, panic-mode, irrational reactions to the effects of an extremely rare national emergency which could have been better prepared for (like not putting the plant on the ****** BEACH!)
For those of you advocating the elimination or reduction of nuke power, just realize that the only feasible alternative currently is...
Drill baby, drill!
Spot on.
Nuclear is the only non-fossil fuel which has proven itself capable of producing sizable amounts of electricity. Wind, solar, etc. are a complete joke as of today. Instead of the OP, I guess the question you really need to answer is, should we make decisions based on sound reality based scientific data, or short-term, panic-mode, irrational reactions to the effects of an extremely rare national emergency which could have been better prepared for (like not putting the plant on the ****** BEACH!)
For those of you advocating the elimination or reduction of nuke power, just realize that the only feasible alternative currently is...
Drill baby, drill!
Spot on.
evilgEEk
Sep 20, 10:21 AM
That's pretty much my question too. The iTV is a mini without DVD, storage, OS, or advanced interface? I guess I just don't see a market for this at $300. Waste of time, unless I'm missing something.
But I don't need DVD, storage or an OS. Why would I want to spend $600 when I can spend $300 on exactly what I need/want?
But I don't need DVD, storage or an OS. Why would I want to spend $600 when I can spend $300 on exactly what I need/want?
peharri
Sep 20, 09:59 AM
This is good news. When they announced it, I was pretty convinced they weren't talking about a box that required an additional computer, although USB storage or a dedicated server box seemed likely based upon the absense of evidence for an in-built hard disk.
So it's actually confirmed it can be used standalone. The missing piece is complete. This is iTunes for the rest of us. For those who don't want cable, who want to be able to subscribe to (and fund) specific TV shows and order movies on demand, this is for you. No computer required. Go home, flop on the couch, and watch what you want. Want something more powerful? Well, it'll integrate with your computers and presumably if someone wants to create devices that export iTunes libraries, like some sort of networked DVR, then it'll work with that too.
Wonderful. This deserves to be a success.
So it's actually confirmed it can be used standalone. The missing piece is complete. This is iTunes for the rest of us. For those who don't want cable, who want to be able to subscribe to (and fund) specific TV shows and order movies on demand, this is for you. No computer required. Go home, flop on the couch, and watch what you want. Want something more powerful? Well, it'll integrate with your computers and presumably if someone wants to create devices that export iTunes libraries, like some sort of networked DVR, then it'll work with that too.
Wonderful. This deserves to be a success.
alex_ant
Oct 11, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
And I care why? It doesn't matter how fast you can surf on your PC. I can get around fast enough on my Mac. People who say Mac's are too slow are the same people that never take the time to watch a sunset or spend a day with their kid.
Or perhaps the people who say Macs are too slow are the ones who would like more time to watch a sunset or spend a day with their kid?
And I care why? It doesn't matter how fast you can surf on your PC. I can get around fast enough on my Mac. People who say Mac's are too slow are the same people that never take the time to watch a sunset or spend a day with their kid.
Or perhaps the people who say Macs are too slow are the ones who would like more time to watch a sunset or spend a day with their kid?
gugy
Aug 29, 02:50 PM
It isnt absolutley 100% false. There is an extreme amount of people on this planet. Look at that rathole of a place China. And in america, the immigrants. There are a hell of a lot of people and my solution: Nuke the middle-east.
and he said 40 years ago not 30 go back to 66 from NOW
What an intelligent statement.:rolleyes:
and he said 40 years ago not 30 go back to 66 from NOW
What an intelligent statement.:rolleyes:
ET007
Mar 18, 02:48 PM
Just because a company makes you sign their TOS, it does not make the TOS a Holy Grail law. TOS are only written in the best interest of a company and they are very often faulty.
Unfortunately in some countries, people forget to use common sense and reasoning and take everything the way it is BECAUSE it was written in the TOS, as so many people keep quoting in this forum.There is no such thing as a perfect TOS and even if you sign it, it does not mean you cannot challenge it.
Just because the TOS says so and you sign it, it does not make it right or the law. If it did, a lot of legal professionals would be unemployed and a lot of average Joes/Janes would be in jail.
AT&T is in the business to make money. They will take whatever they can get and however they can get it. AT&T is just as unethical as ......(you get to fill in the blanks ;)). It is up to the consumer to challenge AT&T's faulty TOS instead of just being passive, quoting and accepting it. It is amazing and worrisome how accepting some people are in this forum. I guess they do not teach critical thinking anymore in schools and/or colleges.
The sad part is that big companies are in bed with the politicians (republicans and democrats in the US) so the government will never step in to protect the interest of consumers.:mad:
Unfortunately in some countries, people forget to use common sense and reasoning and take everything the way it is BECAUSE it was written in the TOS, as so many people keep quoting in this forum.There is no such thing as a perfect TOS and even if you sign it, it does not mean you cannot challenge it.
Just because the TOS says so and you sign it, it does not make it right or the law. If it did, a lot of legal professionals would be unemployed and a lot of average Joes/Janes would be in jail.
AT&T is in the business to make money. They will take whatever they can get and however they can get it. AT&T is just as unethical as ......(you get to fill in the blanks ;)). It is up to the consumer to challenge AT&T's faulty TOS instead of just being passive, quoting and accepting it. It is amazing and worrisome how accepting some people are in this forum. I guess they do not teach critical thinking anymore in schools and/or colleges.
The sad part is that big companies are in bed with the politicians (republicans and democrats in the US) so the government will never step in to protect the interest of consumers.:mad:
slinger1968
Nov 3, 09:45 PM
I wrote that whole scenario to refute your opinion Software is behind Hardware and show that the opposite is true.Well try reading what you are responding to, before you get your panties in a bunch. I was clearly talking about most software for the masses, not all software. Most software is currently behind the hardware because most software is not written for more than 2 cores yet.
They aren't. That's my whole point.Well, You are wrong, most software is behind the current hardware. The hardware is only still weak for a small niche market of power users. You are a power user but the majority of people out there, especially iMac buyers are not using their computers for the same tasks. Read any of the computer hardware sites and the reviews on the quad core processors. They all say that these are currently enthusiast or power level parts not aimed at the general consumer.
They aren't because they can't because the hardware is too weak. That was the entire point of my above post. That's why all these 8, 16 and then 32 core processors are so needed ASAP.The hardware is only weak for a small niche group of power users. It's rediculous to think that the average user is doing 3D modeling or high powered video processing. It's just silly.
I have a dedicated bittorrent/music playing computer for live uncopywritten music. I've downloaded/uploaded over 1 terabyte of data and have specific computing needs for this. I'm just smart enough to recognize that my usage isn't normal.
Again, Read any of the computer hardware sites and the reviews on the quad core processors. They all say that these are currently enthusiast or power level parts not aimed at the general consumer.
They aren't. That's my whole point.Well, You are wrong, most software is behind the current hardware. The hardware is only still weak for a small niche market of power users. You are a power user but the majority of people out there, especially iMac buyers are not using their computers for the same tasks. Read any of the computer hardware sites and the reviews on the quad core processors. They all say that these are currently enthusiast or power level parts not aimed at the general consumer.
They aren't because they can't because the hardware is too weak. That was the entire point of my above post. That's why all these 8, 16 and then 32 core processors are so needed ASAP.The hardware is only weak for a small niche group of power users. It's rediculous to think that the average user is doing 3D modeling or high powered video processing. It's just silly.
I have a dedicated bittorrent/music playing computer for live uncopywritten music. I've downloaded/uploaded over 1 terabyte of data and have specific computing needs for this. I'm just smart enough to recognize that my usage isn't normal.
Again, Read any of the computer hardware sites and the reviews on the quad core processors. They all say that these are currently enthusiast or power level parts not aimed at the general consumer.
SolarJ
Apr 6, 02:21 PM
Try holding down SHIFT and clicking the green plus button it should full screen any app.
Try Divvy. Its awesome
Try Divvy. Its awesome
Edge100
Apr 15, 12:11 PM
What are you talking about? Don't blame your ignorance on semantics. Try understanding what you read first.
If you are talking about an unmarried straight couple, then yes, you can have same-sex sex and it's "just as OK", i.e., equally not OK.
And the difference is that the heterosexual couple can get married, while the homosexual couple can't. And that is an inequality that your church has helped to create.
If you are talking about an unmarried straight couple, then yes, you can have same-sex sex and it's "just as OK", i.e., equally not OK.
And the difference is that the heterosexual couple can get married, while the homosexual couple can't. And that is an inequality that your church has helped to create.
gopher
Oct 7, 09:22 AM
http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html
As I've always said, it is in the software!
As I've always said, it is in the software!
roland.g
Sep 12, 04:46 PM
who thinks it will be 802.11g or will it be 802.11n?
will that mean that all new macs Q1 07 also come with 802.11n as well?
or will the streaming from a 802.11g mac to the iTV just be crap?
if that's the case what will everyone with a current mac do, dongle it?
Steve should have been more explicit about the 802.11 or at least assured us that 802.11g macs will stream to it just fine.
Does anyone know if 802.11g can handle streaming video at that resolution?
will that mean that all new macs Q1 07 also come with 802.11n as well?
or will the streaming from a 802.11g mac to the iTV just be crap?
if that's the case what will everyone with a current mac do, dongle it?
Steve should have been more explicit about the 802.11 or at least assured us that 802.11g macs will stream to it just fine.
Does anyone know if 802.11g can handle streaming video at that resolution?
nagromme
Aug 29, 11:03 AM
Boo hoo. its a business, waht do they realistically expect?
They expect them to do better--at least as well as other companies do, and ultimately better than that.
And we should thank Greenpeace et al for putting this kind of pressure on companies: it helps all of us. These are serious issues, and they are issues that CAN be solved without companies ceasing to do business ;)
I'm glad for what Apple has done so far, and I'm glad people are pushing them to do more.
The "never criticize a business, their profit matters more than anything in the world" attitude is a little extreme if you stop to think about it. By that logic, we should accept products without warranties, toys that shatter into sharp pieces, batteries that catch fire, poisons in foods, slave labor, pollution... ANYTHING so long as it is in some corporations interest.
But corporations aren't the only thing that matters (despite their hold on certain governing bodies ;) ).
They expect them to do better--at least as well as other companies do, and ultimately better than that.
And we should thank Greenpeace et al for putting this kind of pressure on companies: it helps all of us. These are serious issues, and they are issues that CAN be solved without companies ceasing to do business ;)
I'm glad for what Apple has done so far, and I'm glad people are pushing them to do more.
The "never criticize a business, their profit matters more than anything in the world" attitude is a little extreme if you stop to think about it. By that logic, we should accept products without warranties, toys that shatter into sharp pieces, batteries that catch fire, poisons in foods, slave labor, pollution... ANYTHING so long as it is in some corporations interest.
But corporations aren't the only thing that matters (despite their hold on certain governing bodies ;) ).
LegendKillerUK
Mar 18, 08:24 AM
I pour water over my head = Data through tethering
Don't even get me started on how ridiculous that sounds.
Don't even get me started on how ridiculous that sounds.
faroZ06
May 2, 10:21 PM
Just another reason for people to use Firefox. Safari is bloated in my opinion anyways.
But regardless, this is hardly a threat and I don't see what the big deal over it is. From what I can tell, this malware is downloaded on user error. Not only do you have to have Safari open "safe" files, but you also have to visit the site in order to download it, which by now I assume Safari will warn you about anyways.
If this is the result of computer geniuses trying their attempt at a Mac virus, then I'm not worried about the future security of my Mac at all.
In addition, you have to click through an installer and enter your password then enter your credit card :rolleyes:
But regardless, this is hardly a threat and I don't see what the big deal over it is. From what I can tell, this malware is downloaded on user error. Not only do you have to have Safari open "safe" files, but you also have to visit the site in order to download it, which by now I assume Safari will warn you about anyways.
If this is the result of computer geniuses trying their attempt at a Mac virus, then I'm not worried about the future security of my Mac at all.
In addition, you have to click through an installer and enter your password then enter your credit card :rolleyes:
No comments:
Post a Comment