NathanMuir
Mar 25, 02:42 PM
No argument except as to the point. This would only be a relevant criticism if I were holding Catholics responsible for an attitude held by some Christian sects, but not by Catholics themselves. On the contrary, the Catholic attitude towards homosexuality in question is common across much of Christendom.
Sigh, got a quote from the article for me?
This thread is about the Catholic Church, so I name the Catholic Church, but the criticism is properly aimed at the attitude they share ecumenically. The consequences of prejudice against homosexuality as rationalized by Christian dogma are shared among all who promote that prejudice. The Catholic Church is neither singled out (except contextually) nor excused on that account.
Again, where is Christendom mentioned in this context in the article?
As I said, you want to reserve to the church the right to disclaim responsibility for those who act on the principles it promotes.
That's like saying all Republicans support the Tea Party. IMO it's extremely ignorant to hold the mainstream accountable for the actions of an extremist minority.
Shall I hold Obama accountable for Thomas Vail's actions and beliefs as he is self described 'to the left of Obama'? :rolleyes:
I doubt you could find a sect who murdered homosexuals for fun. To return to the analogy, the Klan did not murder black people for fun. They murdered those who stepped out of line, who challenged the social status white people of the era carved out for black people.
So we're to the point where we're going to nit pick examples?
If it makes you feel better, it was suppose to be an over-the-top example. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.
The mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic Church espouses the belief that homosexuals must be made to conform to Catholic prejudice regarding their proper place in society, and that Catholic belief grants them the right to do so. The premise is wrong before we even get to the method. The mainstream Catholic Church pursues this agenda in ways which do not currently involve terrorist action, but they do pursue it. The obscure terrorist sect you've hypothesized would be operating based on the same flawed premise as the "mainstream" church, arguably even more consistently, since a common interpretation of the Bible does demand the death penalty for homosexuals.
As I keep saying, the immorality lies in the idea that one's prejudice gives one the right to force other people to live their own lives within the boundaries of that prejudice, whatever form that force may take.
Again, I could care less what they say.
Let me know when they start to act on what they say.
Again, not some extremist minority, the actual mainstream body of Catholicism.
Sigh, got a quote from the article for me?
This thread is about the Catholic Church, so I name the Catholic Church, but the criticism is properly aimed at the attitude they share ecumenically. The consequences of prejudice against homosexuality as rationalized by Christian dogma are shared among all who promote that prejudice. The Catholic Church is neither singled out (except contextually) nor excused on that account.
Again, where is Christendom mentioned in this context in the article?
As I said, you want to reserve to the church the right to disclaim responsibility for those who act on the principles it promotes.
That's like saying all Republicans support the Tea Party. IMO it's extremely ignorant to hold the mainstream accountable for the actions of an extremist minority.
Shall I hold Obama accountable for Thomas Vail's actions and beliefs as he is self described 'to the left of Obama'? :rolleyes:
I doubt you could find a sect who murdered homosexuals for fun. To return to the analogy, the Klan did not murder black people for fun. They murdered those who stepped out of line, who challenged the social status white people of the era carved out for black people.
So we're to the point where we're going to nit pick examples?
If it makes you feel better, it was suppose to be an over-the-top example. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.
The mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic Church espouses the belief that homosexuals must be made to conform to Catholic prejudice regarding their proper place in society, and that Catholic belief grants them the right to do so. The premise is wrong before we even get to the method. The mainstream Catholic Church pursues this agenda in ways which do not currently involve terrorist action, but they do pursue it. The obscure terrorist sect you've hypothesized would be operating based on the same flawed premise as the "mainstream" church, arguably even more consistently, since a common interpretation of the Bible does demand the death penalty for homosexuals.
As I keep saying, the immorality lies in the idea that one's prejudice gives one the right to force other people to live their own lives within the boundaries of that prejudice, whatever form that force may take.
Again, I could care less what they say.
Let me know when they start to act on what they say.
Again, not some extremist minority, the actual mainstream body of Catholicism.
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...
AppliedVisual
Oct 12, 11:11 AM
Did you just get the 2007 model? If so how do you like it? Can't you lobby sales to give you the credit? You bought while the coupon was in effect - just overlooked it. It's another $96 off man. Worth asking about. Get one first then call sales.
The one I ordered the other day shipped yesterday and I'm expecting delivery on monday. I requested the forum coupon and will see if they will credit me. But I don't know. i'm not planning on going through the brain damage of ordering another monitor with the coupon and sending one back just to save ~$100.
I currently have a 30" Dell that I bought last year when Dell first introduced them. I love the thing... My only gripe is 1 stuck pixel, but Dell requires like 7 or more to replace and I didn't swap the monitor within my 30-day window because the pixel didn't show up until after nearly 3 months. :(
I have an Apple 30" on my other G5 quad and I've never had the two side by side, but I think I like the Dell one better. I use a Gefen 4x1 DVI-DL switcher and have the G5 and two PC systems connected to the Dell with an extra cable for my MBP or whatnot if I want to connect that. I ordered the second 30" because I'm going to expand my desktop to dual 30" displays. :D I had to order another Gefen switcher for the second monitor too since the G5 and one of my PC boxes both support dual-link DVI out of both DVI ports as will the Mac Pro I'm planning to buy in the near future.
The one I ordered the other day shipped yesterday and I'm expecting delivery on monday. I requested the forum coupon and will see if they will credit me. But I don't know. i'm not planning on going through the brain damage of ordering another monitor with the coupon and sending one back just to save ~$100.
I currently have a 30" Dell that I bought last year when Dell first introduced them. I love the thing... My only gripe is 1 stuck pixel, but Dell requires like 7 or more to replace and I didn't swap the monitor within my 30-day window because the pixel didn't show up until after nearly 3 months. :(
I have an Apple 30" on my other G5 quad and I've never had the two side by side, but I think I like the Dell one better. I use a Gefen 4x1 DVI-DL switcher and have the G5 and two PC systems connected to the Dell with an extra cable for my MBP or whatnot if I want to connect that. I ordered the second 30" because I'm going to expand my desktop to dual 30" displays. :D I had to order another Gefen switcher for the second monitor too since the G5 and one of my PC boxes both support dual-link DVI out of both DVI ports as will the Mac Pro I'm planning to buy in the near future.
Travisimo
Mar 18, 11:10 AM
Meh... I use MyWi occasionally, meaning only once or twice every TWO months.
Now I would spend an extra $5-10 a month if ATT offered tethering with a 5-10 Gigabyte total data cap on both phone and tethering usage. Spending an extra $25+ to be on a capped 2-4GB plan is BuL*Sh&^ if it means that I have to give up my unlimited plan as well as unrestricted 3G via My3G.
This. I wouldn't mind paying a bit more for tethering, but the $20/mo extra or nothing is really unacceptable. For those of us who only tethering sporadically, it's really a waste of money paying $20/mo. If the carriers really want an extra revenue stream from tethering, they should have different options available.
I would easily pay $5-10 more a month for 1GB of tethering data, and for those who want 2+ gigs for tethering, then $20/mo is fine. They really need a lower option.
Now I would spend an extra $5-10 a month if ATT offered tethering with a 5-10 Gigabyte total data cap on both phone and tethering usage. Spending an extra $25+ to be on a capped 2-4GB plan is BuL*Sh&^ if it means that I have to give up my unlimited plan as well as unrestricted 3G via My3G.
This. I wouldn't mind paying a bit more for tethering, but the $20/mo extra or nothing is really unacceptable. For those of us who only tethering sporadically, it's really a waste of money paying $20/mo. If the carriers really want an extra revenue stream from tethering, they should have different options available.
I would easily pay $5-10 more a month for 1GB of tethering data, and for those who want 2+ gigs for tethering, then $20/mo is fine. They really need a lower option.
Mousse
Apr 25, 06:14 PM
Part of the problem is that God has always been a terrible communicator. ;)
Nope. Unlike Captain Kirk. God is a firm believer in the Prime Directive (http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Prime_Directive).:D
Anyhow, back on topic as why I'm religious? I don't see the need to reinvent the wheel. There's already someone who has perfected the moral system: Jesus. His moral system, IMO, is the best one. It's a hard system to follow, but if--big IF... no HUGE @$$ IF--everyone can follow that system of morals, the world would be a lot better place.
Nope. Unlike Captain Kirk. God is a firm believer in the Prime Directive (http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Prime_Directive).:D
Anyhow, back on topic as why I'm religious? I don't see the need to reinvent the wheel. There's already someone who has perfected the moral system: Jesus. His moral system, IMO, is the best one. It's a hard system to follow, but if--big IF... no HUGE @$$ IF--everyone can follow that system of morals, the world would be a lot better place.
DavidLeblond
Mar 18, 03:14 PM
Although it's an eye opener to know that itunes itself is what wraps the music with DRM. I'd have thought the music was already DRM'd on the server. But I can see why apple chose that route, so that to get DRM'd songs onto an ipod, you would have to use itunes. I bet they never thought someone would bypass the itunes interface (kind of shortsighted if you ask me, this should have been anticipated).
Actually the reason why it isn't encoded with DRM on the server is that if they did that they would need a copy of every song for every customer they have on the server.
They don't care how you put songs on the iPod anyway... just that you buy an iPod to put the songs on. iTMS is there to sell iPods after all. Therefore if someone breaks the DRM and allows you to put the downloaded songs on ANY MP3 player it most DEFINATELY will not please Apple. The DRM isn't just there to appease the RIAA, it is there to make sure we keep buying iPods.
Actually the reason why it isn't encoded with DRM on the server is that if they did that they would need a copy of every song for every customer they have on the server.
They don't care how you put songs on the iPod anyway... just that you buy an iPod to put the songs on. iTMS is there to sell iPods after all. Therefore if someone breaks the DRM and allows you to put the downloaded songs on ANY MP3 player it most DEFINATELY will not please Apple. The DRM isn't just there to appease the RIAA, it is there to make sure we keep buying iPods.
Sodner
Mar 18, 12:39 PM
LOL yeah Right,
I have dealt with the president of At&t on a serious matter this past year.
I will not get into what Apple does to At&t but it was over my Iphone
anyway, I do not make such calls or demands on At&t and in fact I like at&t over Verizon.
But if you advertise unlimited as At&t does and did, it should be unlimited no matter what (Slimey) lawyer drafts a document meant to swindle people is signed.
2010 Boston Marathon Women#39;s
For us, the Boston Marathon
Boston Marathon in Boston,
oston marathon finish line
Boston Marathon Update
Boston Marathon 2
Sports: The Boston Marathon
The Boston marathon
Runners at the Boston Marathon
Via Kenlu. adidas
Running Boston Marathon in
Boston Marathon
I have dealt with the president of At&t on a serious matter this past year.
I will not get into what Apple does to At&t but it was over my Iphone
anyway, I do not make such calls or demands on At&t and in fact I like at&t over Verizon.
But if you advertise unlimited as At&t does and did, it should be unlimited no matter what (Slimey) lawyer drafts a document meant to swindle people is signed.
ct2k7
Apr 24, 06:32 PM
I would never claim any such thing. If anything, the Quran is more related to the books of the Old Testament, some of which Islam shares, hence the "People of The Book". The Ugaritic chief god, El, of course was the prototype for Yahweh/Jehovah/El/Allah, and the minor gods were kept on as "angels" by all three religions.
I completely agree with you. These Abrahamic religions do have a lot in common.
Edit, a few Christians tried to sue a Muslim representative here. It failed.
I completely agree with you. These Abrahamic religions do have a lot in common.
Edit, a few Christians tried to sue a Muslim representative here. It failed.
gopher
Oct 7, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
These test that this guy puts up are crap! The Athlon is overclocked to be a 2100+, none of the systems have the most current OS. I personally have seen great variations in his tests over the years, and personally, I don't buy it. Why test for single processor functions? The Dual is a DUAL! All of the major Apps are dual aware, as is the OS!
Try that with XP Home.
Well so can the G4 be overclocked. So what's your point? Big whoop, overclock all you like, but we are talking about systems sold by manufacturers. To learn more about overclocking Macs, visit http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/
These test that this guy puts up are crap! The Athlon is overclocked to be a 2100+, none of the systems have the most current OS. I personally have seen great variations in his tests over the years, and personally, I don't buy it. Why test for single processor functions? The Dual is a DUAL! All of the major Apps are dual aware, as is the OS!
Try that with XP Home.
Well so can the G4 be overclocked. So what's your point? Big whoop, overclock all you like, but we are talking about systems sold by manufacturers. To learn more about overclocking Macs, visit http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/
javajedi
Oct 11, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by ddtlm
javajedi:
Admittedly I am getting lost in what all the numbers people have mentioned are for, but looking at these numbers you have here and assuming that they are doing the same task, you can rest assured that the G3/G4 are running far inferior software. AltiVec and SSE2 or not, there is just nothing that can explain this difference other than an unfair playing field. There is no task that a P4 can do 11x or 12x the speed of a G4 (comparing top-end models here). The P4 posseses nothing that runs at 11x or 12x the speed. Not the clock, not the units, the bandwidth to memory and caches are not 11x or 12x as good, it is not 11x better at branch prediction. I absolutely refuse to accept these results without very substantial backing because they contradict reality as I know it. I know a lot about the P4 and the G4, and I know a lot about programming in a fair number of different languages, even some assembly. I insist that these results do not reflect the actual performance of the processors, until irrefutable proof is presented to show how they do.
I guess the 70 and 90 don't surprise me a lot for the G3/G4, depending on clock speed difference. But all this trendy wandwagon-esque G4-bashing is not correct just cause every one else is doing it. There are things about the G3 that are very nice, but the G4 is no slouch compared to it, and given the higher clock that it's pipeline allows, the G3 really can't keep up. The G4 not only sports a better standard FPU, but it also sports better integer units.
Keep in mind this test does not reflect balanced system performance. The point of this exercise has been to determine how the G4's FPU compares to an assortment of different processors and operating systems.
I'd like to know you you qualify "inferior software" on the x86. If the P4 is some how cheating, then all of the other processors are cheating as well. Again, we ran the exact same code. We even made it into C code on the mac for maximum speed. In fact I'd like for you to check the code out for yourself, so you can see there is no misdirection here. Keep in mind, other people here have ran it on Athlons in Linux and still get sub 10 second times. I've also had a friend of mine (who i can trust) run it under Yellow Dog on a G4, he got 100+ seconds. And I did not tell him the scores we've been getting on the Mac, I had him run the test first and tell me how long it took before I even said anything. The JRE and now Mac OS X have been factored out of this equation.
When you look at operations like these, for example scalar integer ops, that's all register. The fsb, bsb, or anything else doesn't matter. This is a direct comparison between the two units on the G4 vs everything else. Also, my question to you is, in what way are the integer and fpu units "better" in the G4? I did not build the chip so I can't say weather they are better or not better than those in the 750FX, but I can say I've ran a fair benchmark comparing the FPU on the G4 from everything to a P4, Athlon, C3, G3, different operating systems, on x86 Windows and Linux, and on the Mac, Mac OS X and Yellow Dog. The results are consistent across the board. What more "proof" do you want?
javajedi:
Admittedly I am getting lost in what all the numbers people have mentioned are for, but looking at these numbers you have here and assuming that they are doing the same task, you can rest assured that the G3/G4 are running far inferior software. AltiVec and SSE2 or not, there is just nothing that can explain this difference other than an unfair playing field. There is no task that a P4 can do 11x or 12x the speed of a G4 (comparing top-end models here). The P4 posseses nothing that runs at 11x or 12x the speed. Not the clock, not the units, the bandwidth to memory and caches are not 11x or 12x as good, it is not 11x better at branch prediction. I absolutely refuse to accept these results without very substantial backing because they contradict reality as I know it. I know a lot about the P4 and the G4, and I know a lot about programming in a fair number of different languages, even some assembly. I insist that these results do not reflect the actual performance of the processors, until irrefutable proof is presented to show how they do.
I guess the 70 and 90 don't surprise me a lot for the G3/G4, depending on clock speed difference. But all this trendy wandwagon-esque G4-bashing is not correct just cause every one else is doing it. There are things about the G3 that are very nice, but the G4 is no slouch compared to it, and given the higher clock that it's pipeline allows, the G3 really can't keep up. The G4 not only sports a better standard FPU, but it also sports better integer units.
Keep in mind this test does not reflect balanced system performance. The point of this exercise has been to determine how the G4's FPU compares to an assortment of different processors and operating systems.
I'd like to know you you qualify "inferior software" on the x86. If the P4 is some how cheating, then all of the other processors are cheating as well. Again, we ran the exact same code. We even made it into C code on the mac for maximum speed. In fact I'd like for you to check the code out for yourself, so you can see there is no misdirection here. Keep in mind, other people here have ran it on Athlons in Linux and still get sub 10 second times. I've also had a friend of mine (who i can trust) run it under Yellow Dog on a G4, he got 100+ seconds. And I did not tell him the scores we've been getting on the Mac, I had him run the test first and tell me how long it took before I even said anything. The JRE and now Mac OS X have been factored out of this equation.
When you look at operations like these, for example scalar integer ops, that's all register. The fsb, bsb, or anything else doesn't matter. This is a direct comparison between the two units on the G4 vs everything else. Also, my question to you is, in what way are the integer and fpu units "better" in the G4? I did not build the chip so I can't say weather they are better or not better than those in the 750FX, but I can say I've ran a fair benchmark comparing the FPU on the G4 from everything to a P4, Athlon, C3, G3, different operating systems, on x86 Windows and Linux, and on the Mac, Mac OS X and Yellow Dog. The results are consistent across the board. What more "proof" do you want?
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.
Cheerwino
Apr 9, 08:47 PM
Guys, they hired PR people. I'm a PR person. We promote things that other people create. They are not developers, programmers, designers or even marketers -- they are press and industry promoters. You want folks with contacts in an industry, good at getting press and related placements, who are also good at running a PR department. It's important and useful for companies, part of the marketing mix but not the whole show.
Folks need to realize there are multiple consumer segments in any product category with varying degrees of interest and values around any product. This is true for cereal, furniture, tires, games and just about any consumer product. Thanks to our somewhat free market capitalism we have a choice in products, so companies work hard to figure out the ideal formula to reach certain target groups. Those groups overlap and vary according to the brand and product. This stuff is complex and there aren't easy, clear answers.
I think these hires just show Apple is serious about the gaming market (an all it's variety) and trying to maximize what is possible within the context of their product capabilities. [gag, spoken like a true PR person, I see] :rolleyes:
Folks need to realize there are multiple consumer segments in any product category with varying degrees of interest and values around any product. This is true for cereal, furniture, tires, games and just about any consumer product. Thanks to our somewhat free market capitalism we have a choice in products, so companies work hard to figure out the ideal formula to reach certain target groups. Those groups overlap and vary according to the brand and product. This stuff is complex and there aren't easy, clear answers.
I think these hires just show Apple is serious about the gaming market (an all it's variety) and trying to maximize what is possible within the context of their product capabilities. [gag, spoken like a true PR person, I see] :rolleyes:
adamfilip
Sep 20, 11:54 AM
The hard drive is just to store files while it outputs them to the tv
much easier to cache on the hard drive then play. rather then stream constantly. it also makes it more reliable and less prone to interference
Since there are no inputs on this thing it wont be a PVR
much easier to cache on the hard drive then play. rather then stream constantly. it also makes it more reliable and less prone to interference
Since there are no inputs on this thing it wont be a PVR
citizenzen
Apr 24, 01:53 PM
If I told you I were a homosexual would that discredit or vindicate my views? Would it make them more... acceptable?
I'm just trying to find out how much you really love freedom.
So what is it?
Thumbs up for giving gays the freedom to legally commit themselves to a life-long partnership?
Or thumbs down?
I'm just trying to find out how much you really love freedom.
So what is it?
Thumbs up for giving gays the freedom to legally commit themselves to a life-long partnership?
Or thumbs down?
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=
Multimedia
Oct 13, 09:00 PM
Hmph... I haven't been to the Dell forums in a while or I probably wouldv'e seen that. Oh, well. Already ordered my other 30" display the other day, I'm not going to complain. :cool:The one I ordered the other day shipped yesterday and I'm expecting delivery on monday. I requested the forum coupon and will see if they will credit me. But I don't know. i'm not planning on going through the brain damage of ordering another monitor with the coupon and sending one back just to save ~$100.I currently have a 30" Dell that I bought last year when Dell first introduced them. I love the thing... My only gripe is 1 stuck pixel, but Dell requires like 7 or more to replace and I didn't swap the monitor within my 30-day window because the pixel didn't show up until after nearly 3 months. :(
I have an Apple 30" on my other G5 quad and I've never had the two side by side, but I think I like the Dell one better. I use a Gefen 4x1 DVI DL Switcher (Parallel Control) $899 (http://www.gefen.com/kvm/product.jsp?prod_id=3499) and have the G5 and two PC systems connected to the Dell with an extra cable for my MBP or whatnot if I want to connect that. I ordered the second 30" because I'm going to expand my desktop to dual 30" displays. :D I had to order another Gefen switcher for the second monitor too since the G5 and one of my PC boxes both support dual-link DVI out of both DVI ports as will the Mac Pro I'm planning to buy in the near future.Yeah, rxse7en -- you da man!
I had been considering getting another one of these 30" Dell monitors since I love the one I've got and as big as it is, when working on compositing images from two or three 1080p sources, doubling my desktop space would be a dream. I pulled the trigger on one the other day with the recent price drop plus Dell's 15% off. Then this coupon came along. I called up Dell and they refused to apply the coupon at first so I just threw at them, well how about I cancel my order, refuse shipment and order another monitor with the coupon. ;) The guy thought about it for a bit and then decided to adjust my order.
It should be here monday, but I still have to get a sales tax issue cleared up... They charged me too much tax to begin with and then also didn't adjust it when altering my invoice. So I live in an area where I'm supposed to pay a max of 4.6% yet I'm getting charged nearly 8% of the pre-adjusted amount. Ouch. :mad:I am so glad you tried and succeeded in getting that discount. That's great. Hope you didn't suffer too much brain damage ripping on that sales rep. Wish I could have heard that. lol. :p
Want to have a contest to see who can have their 8-Core Mac Pro delivered first? I will have to drive to Santa Clara 35 miles to buy an Apple gift card so I can complete my online purchase so you might be able to beat me.
Please share with us what config you will buy and why. I plan on buying only the 1GB model and buying my RAM from Omni Optival - only 2 more GB. So far it looks like my multi-threaded apps do not use much ram at all while using up to 4 cores EACH. So they're RAM stingy and Core HOGS. I am not getting this for Photoshop but for compressing video in 2 to 4 simultaneous applications.
I have an Apple 30" on my other G5 quad and I've never had the two side by side, but I think I like the Dell one better. I use a Gefen 4x1 DVI DL Switcher (Parallel Control) $899 (http://www.gefen.com/kvm/product.jsp?prod_id=3499) and have the G5 and two PC systems connected to the Dell with an extra cable for my MBP or whatnot if I want to connect that. I ordered the second 30" because I'm going to expand my desktop to dual 30" displays. :D I had to order another Gefen switcher for the second monitor too since the G5 and one of my PC boxes both support dual-link DVI out of both DVI ports as will the Mac Pro I'm planning to buy in the near future.Yeah, rxse7en -- you da man!
I had been considering getting another one of these 30" Dell monitors since I love the one I've got and as big as it is, when working on compositing images from two or three 1080p sources, doubling my desktop space would be a dream. I pulled the trigger on one the other day with the recent price drop plus Dell's 15% off. Then this coupon came along. I called up Dell and they refused to apply the coupon at first so I just threw at them, well how about I cancel my order, refuse shipment and order another monitor with the coupon. ;) The guy thought about it for a bit and then decided to adjust my order.
It should be here monday, but I still have to get a sales tax issue cleared up... They charged me too much tax to begin with and then also didn't adjust it when altering my invoice. So I live in an area where I'm supposed to pay a max of 4.6% yet I'm getting charged nearly 8% of the pre-adjusted amount. Ouch. :mad:I am so glad you tried and succeeded in getting that discount. That's great. Hope you didn't suffer too much brain damage ripping on that sales rep. Wish I could have heard that. lol. :p
Want to have a contest to see who can have their 8-Core Mac Pro delivered first? I will have to drive to Santa Clara 35 miles to buy an Apple gift card so I can complete my online purchase so you might be able to beat me.
Please share with us what config you will buy and why. I plan on buying only the 1GB model and buying my RAM from Omni Optival - only 2 more GB. So far it looks like my multi-threaded apps do not use much ram at all while using up to 4 cores EACH. So they're RAM stingy and Core HOGS. I am not getting this for Photoshop but for compressing video in 2 to 4 simultaneous applications.
Caharin
Apr 8, 10:14 PM
Great news. Bring on more Infinity Blade-esque games! :D
FSUSem1noles
Mar 18, 08:13 AM
Bye, Bye, MyWi and TetherMe...
Zwopple
Oct 7, 03:53 PM
Ridiculous? The majority of people with developer/programming skills are more familiar with Windows or Linux than Mac OS. The need of first buying a Mac and then learning how to use it, the SDK and Objective-C will stop too many great developers from giving it a try. I suppose Apple could solve this by allowing Mac OS to run on a virtual machine, e.g. VirtualBox, including the SDK. But they don't.
And the same can be said vice versa. Anyone that wants to program for Windows will need to use .Net and a Windows Box. What is this "because I'm a PC I will complain I can't dev for iPhone" crap?
I'm not starting a PC vs MAC war I'm just stating that it's fairly obvious that 99% of the time you will have to be developing on the operating system that you're developing for. iPhone OS is a limited version of Mac OS X and it's really no surprise it requires you to use XCode which is Mac Only.
Oh and you CAN dev iPhone apps on windows. If you really REALLY want to you can set up all the compiler settings and command line tools to do it. It's just not worth the time.
And the same can be said vice versa. Anyone that wants to program for Windows will need to use .Net and a Windows Box. What is this "because I'm a PC I will complain I can't dev for iPhone" crap?
I'm not starting a PC vs MAC war I'm just stating that it's fairly obvious that 99% of the time you will have to be developing on the operating system that you're developing for. iPhone OS is a limited version of Mac OS X and it's really no surprise it requires you to use XCode which is Mac Only.
Oh and you CAN dev iPhone apps on windows. If you really REALLY want to you can set up all the compiler settings and command line tools to do it. It's just not worth the time.
NT1440
Mar 16, 01:39 PM
I'm glad you understand the nuclear is a good solution. You're a bit off base regarding drilling though...
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
First off, the past is the past on this topic. Drilling ten years ago may mean some slight impact on oil prices domestically now, but again, the infrastructure would just be finally settling into place. It's neither here nor there.
Yes this country does have massive amounts of resources...but that doesn't mean they make sense both environmentally and economically (not to mention that we simply could not meet domestic demand with what we have). Much of the natural gas is tough to get to, and we've seen the major issues techniques such as "fracking" lead to.
Our biggest untapped oil is what is called shale oil, and it is extremely energy intensive to make it even remotely usable, so thats a lost cause to begin with.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
First off, the past is the past on this topic. Drilling ten years ago may mean some slight impact on oil prices domestically now, but again, the infrastructure would just be finally settling into place. It's neither here nor there.
Yes this country does have massive amounts of resources...but that doesn't mean they make sense both environmentally and economically (not to mention that we simply could not meet domestic demand with what we have). Much of the natural gas is tough to get to, and we've seen the major issues techniques such as "fracking" lead to.
Our biggest untapped oil is what is called shale oil, and it is extremely energy intensive to make it even remotely usable, so thats a lost cause to begin with.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
Huntn
Mar 14, 02:16 PM
You need to separate capacity from demand. Capacity is just the maximum power a station can theoretically produce. In practice, most of these renewable stations never reach that max. I've checked the stats at my utility's wind farm and that thing is usually around 9% of capacity. Considering a wind farm costs 4 times as much money as a natural gas generator to build for the same capacity, efficiency-wise, the station is a joke.
What's more important is demand - being able to produce enough energy when we need it. This is where solar and wind fall short. They don't generate when we want them to, they only generate when mother nature wants them to. It would be fine if grid energy storage (IE batteries) technology was developed enough to be able to store enough energy to power a service area through an entire winter (in the case of solar). But last I checked, current grid energy storage batteries can only store a charge for 8-12 hours before they start losing charge on their own. They're also the size of buildings, fail after 10 years, and cost a ton of money.
This is why a lot of utilities have gone to nuclear to replace coal and why here in the US, we still rely on coal to provide roughly 50% of our electricity and most of our base load. There are few options.
It would require a multi-tiered approach. We have abundant coal which I believe can be made to burn cleanly although I'm not necessarily advocating that. And none of these sources if they break down (except nuclear) threaten huge geographical areas with basically permanent radioactivity. In case of worst case accidents, it could be plowed under but we'd still have substantial problems. The thing about nuclear power if it was perfect it would be a great power source, but it is far from perfect and the most dangerous.
What's more important is demand - being able to produce enough energy when we need it. This is where solar and wind fall short. They don't generate when we want them to, they only generate when mother nature wants them to. It would be fine if grid energy storage (IE batteries) technology was developed enough to be able to store enough energy to power a service area through an entire winter (in the case of solar). But last I checked, current grid energy storage batteries can only store a charge for 8-12 hours before they start losing charge on their own. They're also the size of buildings, fail after 10 years, and cost a ton of money.
This is why a lot of utilities have gone to nuclear to replace coal and why here in the US, we still rely on coal to provide roughly 50% of our electricity and most of our base load. There are few options.
It would require a multi-tiered approach. We have abundant coal which I believe can be made to burn cleanly although I'm not necessarily advocating that. And none of these sources if they break down (except nuclear) threaten huge geographical areas with basically permanent radioactivity. In case of worst case accidents, it could be plowed under but we'd still have substantial problems. The thing about nuclear power if it was perfect it would be a great power source, but it is far from perfect and the most dangerous.
chrono1081
May 2, 08:52 PM
Mac OS X fanboys really need to stop clinging to the mentality that "viruses" don't exist for OS X and that "malware" is a Windows-only problem. Who cares if viruses don't exist for OS X? News flash: viruses aren't all that common on Windows anymore. They just aren't. Phishing, Spear Phishing, trojans, and social engineering are much more cost- and time-effective ways to breach a computer's security.
So no matter what you call "MACDefender," it's a problem. One that's not likely to be caught by a user who has been fed the Koolaid that malware is a Windows problem and that they don't need to be aware.
Can you for once write something truthful? Why are you even here. Windows viruses are more rampant than ever before, trust me I remove them for a living and it eats up a good chunk of my work week.
As for your constant "fanboy" comments I think calling people "fanboys" should get you the ban hammer. No one wants to hear it anymore. They just don't. Oh, and for the "koolaid" cliche? Real original :rolleyes: Haven't heard that a million times.
You obviously know nothing about Windows or Mac if you honestly believe the FUD you constantly put on this forum.
So no matter what you call "MACDefender," it's a problem. One that's not likely to be caught by a user who has been fed the Koolaid that malware is a Windows problem and that they don't need to be aware.
Can you for once write something truthful? Why are you even here. Windows viruses are more rampant than ever before, trust me I remove them for a living and it eats up a good chunk of my work week.
As for your constant "fanboy" comments I think calling people "fanboys" should get you the ban hammer. No one wants to hear it anymore. They just don't. Oh, and for the "koolaid" cliche? Real original :rolleyes: Haven't heard that a million times.
You obviously know nothing about Windows or Mac if you honestly believe the FUD you constantly put on this forum.
NathanMuir
Mar 25, 12:32 PM
You misspeak and mischaracterize.
This is a thread on the Vatican correct? So far as I know, the Vatican is the leadership hierarchy for the Catholic Church. Please correct me if that's not right.
A conservative member of this board has already narrowed the discussion from "hate" to "specific acts of violence linked diretly to the catholic church". A distinction that gives a massive amount of "stretch" and eliminates things like a Roman Catholic pastor in Texas comparing homosexuals to rapists or Mexican catholic priests fomenting hate in the wake of a same-sex marriage bill. And yet we are working within his narrowed definition.
I can't and don't speak for that member. I've already presented my views on why I think that speech is different from physical acts.
This is a thread on the Vatican correct? So far as I know, the Vatican is the leadership hierarchy for the Catholic Church. Please correct me if that's not right.
A conservative member of this board has already narrowed the discussion from "hate" to "specific acts of violence linked diretly to the catholic church". A distinction that gives a massive amount of "stretch" and eliminates things like a Roman Catholic pastor in Texas comparing homosexuals to rapists or Mexican catholic priests fomenting hate in the wake of a same-sex marriage bill. And yet we are working within his narrowed definition.
I can't and don't speak for that member. I've already presented my views on why I think that speech is different from physical acts.
aristobrat
Mar 18, 01:09 PM
Who cares?
I dont give a crap. My speeds are great even with all that.
Oh, OK. You're one of those "hey, everything is great for *me*, so what the hell are YOU complaining about people". Cool.
I work in a decent sized office building where 3G speed isn't consistently great. I also know of at least four people that bring their personal laptops and torrent via MyWi here during the day so that they don't get the DMCA notifications (and risk of getting their service canceled) from their home broadband provider (Cox Cable).
If these people want to pony up and pay for the bandwidth that they're using here, that's fine. But I bet they wont. And I also bet that overall speed for the AT&T 3G coverage where I spend the majority of my waking hours increases if they don't.
I dont give a crap. My speeds are great even with all that.
Oh, OK. You're one of those "hey, everything is great for *me*, so what the hell are YOU complaining about people". Cool.
I work in a decent sized office building where 3G speed isn't consistently great. I also know of at least four people that bring their personal laptops and torrent via MyWi here during the day so that they don't get the DMCA notifications (and risk of getting their service canceled) from their home broadband provider (Cox Cable).
If these people want to pony up and pay for the bandwidth that they're using here, that's fine. But I bet they wont. And I also bet that overall speed for the AT&T 3G coverage where I spend the majority of my waking hours increases if they don't.
No comments:
Post a Comment