Gelfin
Mar 27, 09:23 AM
If homosexuality were genetic, why are some identical twins born heterosexual when their twins turn out to feel same-sex-attractions?
If homosexuality has no genetic component, why do twins raised separately have a greater chance of sharing an orientation? Why do homosexuals disproportionately display a variety of physical traits from handedness to hair whorls? I suppose lack of masculine identification at precisely two years of age makes men left-handed as well.
But I forget, you're Catholic. You probably still favor beating children until they stop using "the devil's hand" too.
That sounds like an ad hominem attack against Nicolosi. I agree with him and with his coworker who gave the lecture.
You're damned right it is, because sometimes the person earns the attack. Nicolosi is a monster who encourages homophobic parents to commit their children involuntarily to a regimen of religiously-themed brainwashing. He can legitimately claim almost negligible success rates, and his organization is staffed by convicted con artists and desperately self-hating homosexuals who crash spectacularly in public. The "new discoveries" he claims sound strangely identical to rejected post hoc rationalizations of stereotypes formerly applied to homosexuals back when they were a disparaged and poorly understood group. We now understand that homosexuality is not effeminacy, and that when not being tormented by people who hate them and encourage them to hate themselves, homosexuals show no independent signs of psychological distress related to their orientation.
This man is a charlatan. And it is clear you believe him because he tells you what you'd like to hear. You are following the pattern of every follower of quacks and quackery: you cling tenaciously to obscure and debunked ideas, hearing and accepting them without question, but then defend them against criticism by suddenly becoming almost comically hypercritical, citing the slim chance that not only that the overwhelming scientific consensus might be wrong, but that the overwhelming scientific consensus is driven by a massive conspiracy to prevent your huckster from selling his snake oil to the world. Your responses in this thread make it clear you have no intention of undertaking any critical thought. You'll just accept whatever somebody tells you if you feel like it makes it okay for you to not like gay people.
Notice, your APA contradiction contradicts Gelfin's opinion the homosexuality has no psychological/environmental causes. Gelfin says there's no evidence that it has those causes.
Notice, Gelfin said no such damned thing. Do not put words in my mouth.
If homosexuality has no genetic component, why do twins raised separately have a greater chance of sharing an orientation? Why do homosexuals disproportionately display a variety of physical traits from handedness to hair whorls? I suppose lack of masculine identification at precisely two years of age makes men left-handed as well.
But I forget, you're Catholic. You probably still favor beating children until they stop using "the devil's hand" too.
That sounds like an ad hominem attack against Nicolosi. I agree with him and with his coworker who gave the lecture.
You're damned right it is, because sometimes the person earns the attack. Nicolosi is a monster who encourages homophobic parents to commit their children involuntarily to a regimen of religiously-themed brainwashing. He can legitimately claim almost negligible success rates, and his organization is staffed by convicted con artists and desperately self-hating homosexuals who crash spectacularly in public. The "new discoveries" he claims sound strangely identical to rejected post hoc rationalizations of stereotypes formerly applied to homosexuals back when they were a disparaged and poorly understood group. We now understand that homosexuality is not effeminacy, and that when not being tormented by people who hate them and encourage them to hate themselves, homosexuals show no independent signs of psychological distress related to their orientation.
This man is a charlatan. And it is clear you believe him because he tells you what you'd like to hear. You are following the pattern of every follower of quacks and quackery: you cling tenaciously to obscure and debunked ideas, hearing and accepting them without question, but then defend them against criticism by suddenly becoming almost comically hypercritical, citing the slim chance that not only that the overwhelming scientific consensus might be wrong, but that the overwhelming scientific consensus is driven by a massive conspiracy to prevent your huckster from selling his snake oil to the world. Your responses in this thread make it clear you have no intention of undertaking any critical thought. You'll just accept whatever somebody tells you if you feel like it makes it okay for you to not like gay people.
Notice, your APA contradiction contradicts Gelfin's opinion the homosexuality has no psychological/environmental causes. Gelfin says there's no evidence that it has those causes.
Notice, Gelfin said no such damned thing. Do not put words in my mouth.
dethmaShine
May 2, 12:55 PM
You and I have different meanings of safe. Opening a zip file that contains malware and then popping-up an installer without user intervention is hardly what I call safe.
Heck, auto-opening any kind of file is wrong as far as a proper security policy goes.
I wasn't talking about directory traversal. Just simple absolute Paths. You can make them using the -jj option to zip. This will store the full volume and path information and if you use unzip to extract the archive, it will try to place the file in that location on the system where you're unarchiving to.
Fortunately, it seems this is not what this is doing as Archive Utility does not honor absolute paths in a zip (I tested and confirmed it after someone came in earlier and spoke up about it), so something else is amiss here. Some people around other forums are suggesting that Archive Utility will automatically execute a .pkg if it is contained in an archive. Now that is unsafe if it is the case.
Not true. Just confirmed.
Heck, auto-opening any kind of file is wrong as far as a proper security policy goes.
I wasn't talking about directory traversal. Just simple absolute Paths. You can make them using the -jj option to zip. This will store the full volume and path information and if you use unzip to extract the archive, it will try to place the file in that location on the system where you're unarchiving to.
Fortunately, it seems this is not what this is doing as Archive Utility does not honor absolute paths in a zip (I tested and confirmed it after someone came in earlier and spoke up about it), so something else is amiss here. Some people around other forums are suggesting that Archive Utility will automatically execute a .pkg if it is contained in an archive. Now that is unsafe if it is the case.
Not true. Just confirmed.
FightTheFuture
Feb 26, 05:31 AM
The thing is, do Apple care about being outpaced sales-wise? They may just be content to make their products smoother and sexier than the better Android phones and be the Mercedes.
If they want to be in the sales race they need to get the 32MB iPhone free on �30 per month contract like other top-end smart phones, not �230 on a �35 per month contract. As Android and Maemo and tothers improve that massve Apple tax won't wash.
They also need an iPhone nano to compete with the HTC hero type phones.the iPhone is getting outpaced in sales by Blackberry and symbian. nothing will change that. if android eats away at symbian sales, they'll definitely be ahead of the iPhone. but what's more important to Apple? selling 8 million iPhones a quarter? or selling the cheapest phone to everyone?
i'm also wondering, do we think there will be a better android based phone than the nexus one? i'm not talking about adding more pixels or an incremental spec bump. where do they plan to go next? i don't know what apple plans for the 4th gen iPhone, but i doubt it'll just be the iPhone 3.0 + "features that Google has."
If they want to be in the sales race they need to get the 32MB iPhone free on �30 per month contract like other top-end smart phones, not �230 on a �35 per month contract. As Android and Maemo and tothers improve that massve Apple tax won't wash.
They also need an iPhone nano to compete with the HTC hero type phones.the iPhone is getting outpaced in sales by Blackberry and symbian. nothing will change that. if android eats away at symbian sales, they'll definitely be ahead of the iPhone. but what's more important to Apple? selling 8 million iPhones a quarter? or selling the cheapest phone to everyone?
i'm also wondering, do we think there will be a better android based phone than the nexus one? i'm not talking about adding more pixels or an incremental spec bump. where do they plan to go next? i don't know what apple plans for the 4th gen iPhone, but i doubt it'll just be the iPhone 3.0 + "features that Google has."
BoyBach
Aug 30, 07:56 AM
I'm a officer (imagery information analyst) for the defence force. In my line of work I get this inanely useless "hippy crap" 24 hour a day 7 days a week
The army is full of hippies? :eek: :D
Or are you spying on hippy communes? <shifty eyes>
:D
The army is full of hippies? :eek: :D
Or are you spying on hippy communes? <shifty eyes>
:D
jiggie2g
Jul 12, 01:48 PM
Jiggy2g - yes its all very 'disturbing'... whatever! calm down dude, the geekness is just too much (whoa man did you see that conroe at 4ghz!!)...
(the tone of your post just cracked me up) - we are all very 'disappointed' in you.
Point Proven..Noobs like this are the reason why sites like \http://mac-sucks.com/ exist.
uhm, where does that come from?:confused:
so, why should your conroe based machine blow a mac out of the water? we don't know the specs yet. and as you state yourself they are going to use standard intel stuff. so speedwise they should be equal to any other PC. only twice as expensive.:p
Because unlike Apple , getting your own custom motherboard from ASUS / MSI / Gigabyte / DFI. means you have real choices , you can choose different chipsets from Intel , ATI , Nvidia , VIA. NOT JUST STOCK PARTS. I can get that 10 USB , 8 SATA , WiFi , eSATA , Dual PCIe 16x that supports Crossfire or SLI anyway i want it, Apple will never do this , even Dull gives u that much.
Also
aside of that most people here were rather positive towards the intel switch. and most want a conroe based midrange mac. so why this post?:confused:
Apple will never release a Midtower for the simple fact that this market is the most saturated PC market and Apple is not willing to get into a price war where the margins are already paper thin. same reason u will never see a lowend $599 Macbook. That stipped down iMac is a joke
(the tone of your post just cracked me up) - we are all very 'disappointed' in you.
Point Proven..Noobs like this are the reason why sites like \http://mac-sucks.com/ exist.
uhm, where does that come from?:confused:
so, why should your conroe based machine blow a mac out of the water? we don't know the specs yet. and as you state yourself they are going to use standard intel stuff. so speedwise they should be equal to any other PC. only twice as expensive.:p
Because unlike Apple , getting your own custom motherboard from ASUS / MSI / Gigabyte / DFI. means you have real choices , you can choose different chipsets from Intel , ATI , Nvidia , VIA. NOT JUST STOCK PARTS. I can get that 10 USB , 8 SATA , WiFi , eSATA , Dual PCIe 16x that supports Crossfire or SLI anyway i want it, Apple will never do this , even Dull gives u that much.
Also
aside of that most people here were rather positive towards the intel switch. and most want a conroe based midrange mac. so why this post?:confused:
Apple will never release a Midtower for the simple fact that this market is the most saturated PC market and Apple is not willing to get into a price war where the margins are already paper thin. same reason u will never see a lowend $599 Macbook. That stipped down iMac is a joke
beaster
Sep 12, 04:16 PM
But at what quality??? Q1 2007 is as late as end of March. HD-DVD came out in April and BluRay in -- what -- May? So almost a year later Apple introduces a device that will play *near* (i.e. lower than) DVD-quality when the market is finally warming up to HD quality disks.
Regular DVD is 480i. Say that near-dvd quality is 420i. It will look like crap on that "big screen plasma" Jobs talked about.
He's marketing it to someone who will plug it into a $5K+ TV. At that price point, give us HD playback, both optical and streaming/downloaded, legally. I'd be happy to pay double or triple for a box that does it smoothly.
Agreed. If it can't do HD, I'll pass.
-Sean
Regular DVD is 480i. Say that near-dvd quality is 420i. It will look like crap on that "big screen plasma" Jobs talked about.
He's marketing it to someone who will plug it into a $5K+ TV. At that price point, give us HD playback, both optical and streaming/downloaded, legally. I'd be happy to pay double or triple for a box that does it smoothly.
Agreed. If it can't do HD, I'll pass.
-Sean
Bernard SG
May 3, 12:26 PM
You mean running stuff like iphoto?
PC versions of cross platform apps are typically faster, have more features than their mac counterparts. That's if there even is a version for mac. Its viable to not own a PC anymore because macs use PC hardware now and can run windows. PC users have no use for osx at all but many mac users still need to have windows
You're right to some extent but in most cases, you're advocating a philosophy that is one decade late.
Your concept of computing is valid for a small subset of the population that need sophisticated, 'professional' software.
It's really rare that someone needs to use the most advanced functionality of MS Excel that puts it 'ahead' of Numbers.
PC versions of cross platform apps are typically faster, have more features than their mac counterparts. That's if there even is a version for mac. Its viable to not own a PC anymore because macs use PC hardware now and can run windows. PC users have no use for osx at all but many mac users still need to have windows
You're right to some extent but in most cases, you're advocating a philosophy that is one decade late.
Your concept of computing is valid for a small subset of the population that need sophisticated, 'professional' software.
It's really rare that someone needs to use the most advanced functionality of MS Excel that puts it 'ahead' of Numbers.
PghLondon
Apr 29, 04:05 AM
Not in many cases, but I'm glad it works for you.
Wow, you guys are desperate. Can your mom tell when you're this upset? Do you sulk around the house, refusing to cook the dinner she made for you?
Wow, you guys are desperate. Can your mom tell when you're this upset? Do you sulk around the house, refusing to cook the dinner she made for you?
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.
legacyb4
Jul 12, 01:55 PM
The MacBooks sound so underpowered (even though that's really not the case) with the new announcement...
mac jones
Mar 12, 03:58 AM
Hey, I've been hanging out on the forum for the iPad. But frankly i'm a little confused right now about what i just saw. From appearances (I mean appearances), the nuke plant in Japan BLEW UP, and they are lying about it if they say it's a minor issue. I don't want to believe this . You can see it with your own eyes, but i'm not sure exactly what i'm seeing. Certainly it isn't a small explosion.
Until I know what's really happening I'm officially, totally, freaked out......Any takers? :D
Until I know what's really happening I'm officially, totally, freaked out......Any takers? :D
KnightWRX
May 2, 05:51 PM
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.
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...
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.
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.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
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).
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.
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.
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.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
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.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
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...
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.
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.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
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).
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.
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.
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.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
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.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
aricher
Aug 29, 10:57 AM
It's a very sad reality indeed.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 02:47 PM
It's a homonym... :)
I like a joke. So thanks, skunk. But I'm still waiting for you to tell me exactly what point I missed. Whatever it was, it wasn't a punchline.
I like a joke. So thanks, skunk. But I'm still waiting for you to tell me exactly what point I missed. Whatever it was, it wasn't a punchline.
iBug2
Apr 20, 08:16 PM
unless you really really want widgets and Flash, otherwise I can't think of anything better on Android.
Btw: my Prius gets much better gas mileage than a Ferrari. :)
True, I forgot about gas mileage totally. :) And the hell with Flash on a phone, even if my phone opened flash, I'd disable it :)
Btw: my Prius gets much better gas mileage than a Ferrari. :)
True, I forgot about gas mileage totally. :) And the hell with Flash on a phone, even if my phone opened flash, I'd disable it :)
cmaier
Apr 21, 08:25 AM
You must live in a alternate univerise if think that Apple users are tech savy. You average user is very happy to have Apple control thier experience, ie they are techtards. And frankly owning an Apple product is the best thing for them, with a PC etc they will just get themselves into trouble.
If your still under some illusion of how tech savy they are read through the macrumors forums...... and remeber they are the more tech savy ones!
I have moved every family member over to mac who has no idea about computer, they are happy. The people I know who work in IT, develop and are really tech savy, still have a PC (and an android, some have both android and iphone)
I own 3 macs and 5 advices. I have a PhD in electrical engineering and designed microprocessors for 14 years, including microprocessors used in many PCs. I've written millions of lines of source code in C, assembler, C++, etc.
And most of the folks I know who use Linux or solaris all day at work to design chips use macs at home and carry iPhones. I don't know a single one of them who uses an android phone (many carry blackberries however).
If your still under some illusion of how tech savy they are read through the macrumors forums...... and remeber they are the more tech savy ones!
I have moved every family member over to mac who has no idea about computer, they are happy. The people I know who work in IT, develop and are really tech savy, still have a PC (and an android, some have both android and iphone)
I own 3 macs and 5 advices. I have a PhD in electrical engineering and designed microprocessors for 14 years, including microprocessors used in many PCs. I've written millions of lines of source code in C, assembler, C++, etc.
And most of the folks I know who use Linux or solaris all day at work to design chips use macs at home and carry iPhones. I don't know a single one of them who uses an android phone (many carry blackberries however).
DMann
Jul 14, 02:16 PM
2003: "In 12 months, we'll be at 3GHz".
Mid 2006: "I want to talk about 2.66GHz" although 4 cores running at 2.66GHz (Yum! :D ).
Now, that is FUNNY!
However, based on availability, Apple could get up to 3GHz if they
really wanted to:
Dual Core Intel� Xeon� Processors 5160 (4MB L2 Cache, 3 GHz 1333MHz FSB)
Perhaps "one more thing......"
Mid 2006: "I want to talk about 2.66GHz" although 4 cores running at 2.66GHz (Yum! :D ).
Now, that is FUNNY!
However, based on availability, Apple could get up to 3GHz if they
really wanted to:
Dual Core Intel� Xeon� Processors 5160 (4MB L2 Cache, 3 GHz 1333MHz FSB)
Perhaps "one more thing......"
iMikeT
Sep 26, 07:16 AM
I'll be holding my Mac Pro purchase off for a while...
Now that I think about it, an 8-core system would work great when 10.5 arrives. Imagine using the "Spaces" feature in Leopard and each space running a separate application. A Mac with this much power would be perfect doing such a task.;)
Now that I think about it, an 8-core system would work great when 10.5 arrives. Imagine using the "Spaces" feature in Leopard and each space running a separate application. A Mac with this much power would be perfect doing such a task.;)
undheim
Nov 5, 10:43 AM
I don't think that the cost of buying a mac is the problem, it's the availability of the initial experience with the SDK. 125,000 developers already signed up - I think that there would be at least twice that if the SDK could be used from Windows.
I agree, I did not run out buying a mac when I found out I wanted to try to make a mobile game. I did it on the Android sdk, halfway through Google had still not sorted out publishing paid apps from my country so I bought a macbook, an iPhone 3G (which I love) ported the game and published on the app store. Today I am thankful that google delayed. Android and Java is a dog compared to the iphone. Help people see the light! :D
I agree, I did not run out buying a mac when I found out I wanted to try to make a mobile game. I did it on the Android sdk, halfway through Google had still not sorted out publishing paid apps from my country so I bought a macbook, an iPhone 3G (which I love) ported the game and published on the app store. Today I am thankful that google delayed. Android and Java is a dog compared to the iphone. Help people see the light! :D
cwelsh
Apr 21, 08:42 AM
So you can steal artists property. Tell me how you can justify that? Nothing to do with android or ios but please tell me how you can justify stealing. Its the same as going into a shop and taking something. Sure nothing will happen immediately but I guarantee you will pay for it.
Sorry that's like saying I only steal from big manufactures like Heinz or Kellogs.
YOU ARE STILL A THIEF.
I agree with everything you just said, it's the same concept as tethering without paying the mandatory fee. People will try to justify stealing in any way possible.
On topic, i am very disappointed with the LTE announcement but regardless my 3GS is slowly dying, so it looks like i'll be getting the iphone 5 anyhow.
Sorry that's like saying I only steal from big manufactures like Heinz or Kellogs.
YOU ARE STILL A THIEF.
I agree with everything you just said, it's the same concept as tethering without paying the mandatory fee. People will try to justify stealing in any way possible.
On topic, i am very disappointed with the LTE announcement but regardless my 3GS is slowly dying, so it looks like i'll be getting the iphone 5 anyhow.
Piggie
Apr 10, 04:46 AM
Trying to use a finger controlled touch screen as the new answer to everything, and young people thinking this is right, in a way reminds me of being at work.
We have a company that's been around for 60 or 70 years and has many systems in place to run smoothly that have been perfected over the decades as proven ways of doing things.
Many years later the original management retire etc, and very young, fresh faced managers straight from school come in, and want to "make their mark" they then set about rubbishing all the "old ways" of doing things, for no really reason other than THEY don't like them, and they are things of the past, hence they must be wrong for just this reason.
Old = Wrong, New = right.
They then implemented for force through their new systems, ignoring people who tell them "this won't work" and "you can't do it like that" as, in these young eyes, these people are just stick in the muds resistant to change.
Move forward a few years of this and everything is a mess, things are way more complicated than they every were, paperwork is much more and things that used to be simple are now causing people all sorts of issues.
But still the young managers refuse to admit they might be wrong and the ways things used to be done were better, and all the "workers" are struggling having the keep the new systems working.
A little like, someone saying, Oh a round steering wheel in a car? How old that design is, it has to be wrong, from now on all our cars won't have steering wheels, that's for old people, we are moving forward to a flat touch screen panel in the car, much more modern, and those people who don't like them, or think a car is harder to control are just old people who can't understand the possibilities that this will bring.
We have a company that's been around for 60 or 70 years and has many systems in place to run smoothly that have been perfected over the decades as proven ways of doing things.
Many years later the original management retire etc, and very young, fresh faced managers straight from school come in, and want to "make their mark" they then set about rubbishing all the "old ways" of doing things, for no really reason other than THEY don't like them, and they are things of the past, hence they must be wrong for just this reason.
Old = Wrong, New = right.
They then implemented for force through their new systems, ignoring people who tell them "this won't work" and "you can't do it like that" as, in these young eyes, these people are just stick in the muds resistant to change.
Move forward a few years of this and everything is a mess, things are way more complicated than they every were, paperwork is much more and things that used to be simple are now causing people all sorts of issues.
But still the young managers refuse to admit they might be wrong and the ways things used to be done were better, and all the "workers" are struggling having the keep the new systems working.
A little like, someone saying, Oh a round steering wheel in a car? How old that design is, it has to be wrong, from now on all our cars won't have steering wheels, that's for old people, we are moving forward to a flat touch screen panel in the car, much more modern, and those people who don't like them, or think a car is harder to control are just old people who can't understand the possibilities that this will bring.
joepunk
Mar 13, 01:09 AM
A before-and-after photo gallery on Australia's ABC News (http://www.abc.net.au/news/events/japan-quake-2011/beforeafter.htm) shows just how badly areas of the north-eastern coast were affected by the tsunami.
grue
Apr 13, 01:29 AM
I was wracking my brain trying to figure out what the hell the face recognition feature would be used for. That makes sense, sports. Sadly we shoot a ton of skiing and snowboarding, so it probably won't work well for us since everyone is wearing hats/helmets and goggles.
It'll be excellent for film and TV work as well, being able to search by actor when making promo reels, trailers, etc.
It'll be excellent for film and TV work as well, being able to search by actor when making promo reels, trailers, etc.
LagunaSol
Apr 20, 10:10 PM
No, of course not. I just find it interesting that someone who clearly dislikes a company and its products so much has so much free time to spend on a board for people who do enjoy said company and products.
If more people added the chronic agitators to their Ignore list, no one would see their drivel, hence no one would respond to it, hence those of us who had long ago added them to our Ignore list wouldn't have to see their quoted drivel.
If more people added the chronic agitators to their Ignore list, no one would see their drivel, hence no one would respond to it, hence those of us who had long ago added them to our Ignore list wouldn't have to see their quoted drivel.
0 comments:
Post a Comment