.Andy
Apr 26, 04:27 PM
In Lanciano, Italy.
http://therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano1.pdf
http://therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano2.pdf
This is absolutely and utterly insane. To believe this is exactly what is wrong with religious people's ability for critical thought. Honestly that in 2011 people can seriously put this stuff out in the public without being absolute laughing stocks astounds me. It's an utter sham and a hoax. Nothing more.
edit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SfXvMlb8u0&feature=related
And this lady just likely has glossitis or could even be a squamous cell carcinoma of her tongue. These people are mental.
http://therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano1.pdf
http://therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano2.pdf
This is absolutely and utterly insane. To believe this is exactly what is wrong with religious people's ability for critical thought. Honestly that in 2011 people can seriously put this stuff out in the public without being absolute laughing stocks astounds me. It's an utter sham and a hoax. Nothing more.
edit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SfXvMlb8u0&feature=related
And this lady just likely has glossitis or could even be a squamous cell carcinoma of her tongue. These people are mental.
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.
ATD
Nov 1, 04:26 PM
Sweet. That's what we needed to know. I believe he has Maya Unlimited so he should be good for the 8 cores no matter how they decide to license it.
Is the ability to render using more than 2 cores a feature of both Maya 7 and Maya 8?
I have Maya Unlimited and I render (mental ray) to 6 cores (a quad and a dual). This works in Maya 7 and 8. It's a pain to setup, easy for 1 computer, a pain for network setups.
Edit, it just so happens that I started hooking up my mental ray satellite as I wrote this post. As expected it was a pain so I had to contact Atuodesk to get help. I noticed that in the setup info it suggested Maya Unlimited 8 gives you 8 additional render licenses on top of the 4 that are standard. I asked the rep if that was correct and he said yes. So that's 12 all together. :D :D :D
Is the ability to render using more than 2 cores a feature of both Maya 7 and Maya 8?
I have Maya Unlimited and I render (mental ray) to 6 cores (a quad and a dual). This works in Maya 7 and 8. It's a pain to setup, easy for 1 computer, a pain for network setups.
Edit, it just so happens that I started hooking up my mental ray satellite as I wrote this post. As expected it was a pain so I had to contact Atuodesk to get help. I noticed that in the setup info it suggested Maya Unlimited 8 gives you 8 additional render licenses on top of the 4 that are standard. I asked the rep if that was correct and he said yes. So that's 12 all together. :D :D :D
inkswamp
May 2, 01:32 PM
As I understand it, Safari will open the zip file since it's a "safe" download. But that doesn't mean it'll execute the code within that zip file, so how is this malware executing without user permission?
That's what I'd like to know. I can't even open HTML pages downloaded from my own website without OS X warning me before opening it, and yet this story makes it sound as if the file contained in the zip is somehow launching on its own without any user notification. Sounds like BS to me. What is the source for this?
Edit: I see. It starts an installer that the user has to go along with willingly, and therefore it's nothing even remotely similar to the stealth install crapware on Windows. Next.
That's what I'd like to know. I can't even open HTML pages downloaded from my own website without OS X warning me before opening it, and yet this story makes it sound as if the file contained in the zip is somehow launching on its own without any user notification. Sounds like BS to me. What is the source for this?
Edit: I see. It starts an installer that the user has to go along with willingly, and therefore it's nothing even remotely similar to the stealth install crapware on Windows. Next.
flopticalcube
Apr 22, 10:58 PM
On other forums, people complain about the word agnostic.
>agnostic theist- I believe in god, but have no knowledge of him.
>agnostic atheist- I don't belief in god, but I don't claim a special source of knowledge for that disbelief
>gnostic theist-I know that is a god!
>gnostic atheist-I know there is no god with the same degree of certainty that the theist knows there is one.
I don't think that many would call themselves a gnostic atheist, I certainly don't.
Dawkins might. As I said before, most atheists are agnostic atheists.
>agnostic theist- I believe in god, but have no knowledge of him.
>agnostic atheist- I don't belief in god, but I don't claim a special source of knowledge for that disbelief
>gnostic theist-I know that is a god!
>gnostic atheist-I know there is no god with the same degree of certainty that the theist knows there is one.
I don't think that many would call themselves a gnostic atheist, I certainly don't.
Dawkins might. As I said before, most atheists are agnostic atheists.
Gelfin
Apr 24, 03:03 PM
In answer to the OP's question, I have long harbored the suspicion (without any clear idea how to test it) that human beings have evolved their penchant for accepting nonsense. On the face of it, accepting that which does not correspond with reality is a very costly behavior. Animals that believe they need to sacrifice part of their food supply should be that much less likely to survive than those without that belief.
My hunch, however, is that the willingness to play along with certain kinds of nonsense games, including religion and other ritualized activities, is a social bonding mechanism in humans so deeply ingrained that it is difficult for us to step outside ourselves and recognize it for a game. One's willingness to play along with the rituals of a culture signifies that his need to be a part of the community is stronger than his need for rational justification. Consenting to accept a manufactured truth is an act of submission. It generates social cohesion and establishes shibboleths. In a way it is a constant background radiation of codependence and enablement permeating human existence.
If I go way too far out on this particular limb, I actually suspect that the ability to prioritize rational justification over social submission is a more recent development than we realize, and that this development is still competing with the old instincts for social cohesion. Perhaps this is the reason that atheists and skeptics are typically considered more objectionable than those with differing religious or supernatural beliefs. Playing the game under slightly different rules seems less dangerous than refusing to play at all.
Think of the undertones of the intuitive stereotype many people have of skeptics: many people automatically imagine a sort of bristly, unfriendly loner who isn't really happy and is always trying to make other people unhappy too. There is really no factual basis for this caricature, and yet it is almost universal. On this account, when we become adults we do not stop playing games of make-believe. Instead we just start taking our games of make-believe very seriously, and our intuitive sense is that someone who rejects our games is rejecting us. Such a person feels untrustworthy in a way we would find hard to justify.
Religions are hardly the only source of this sort of game. I suspect they are everywhere, often too subtle to notice, but religions are by far the largest, oldest, most obtrusive example.
My hunch, however, is that the willingness to play along with certain kinds of nonsense games, including religion and other ritualized activities, is a social bonding mechanism in humans so deeply ingrained that it is difficult for us to step outside ourselves and recognize it for a game. One's willingness to play along with the rituals of a culture signifies that his need to be a part of the community is stronger than his need for rational justification. Consenting to accept a manufactured truth is an act of submission. It generates social cohesion and establishes shibboleths. In a way it is a constant background radiation of codependence and enablement permeating human existence.
If I go way too far out on this particular limb, I actually suspect that the ability to prioritize rational justification over social submission is a more recent development than we realize, and that this development is still competing with the old instincts for social cohesion. Perhaps this is the reason that atheists and skeptics are typically considered more objectionable than those with differing religious or supernatural beliefs. Playing the game under slightly different rules seems less dangerous than refusing to play at all.
Think of the undertones of the intuitive stereotype many people have of skeptics: many people automatically imagine a sort of bristly, unfriendly loner who isn't really happy and is always trying to make other people unhappy too. There is really no factual basis for this caricature, and yet it is almost universal. On this account, when we become adults we do not stop playing games of make-believe. Instead we just start taking our games of make-believe very seriously, and our intuitive sense is that someone who rejects our games is rejecting us. Such a person feels untrustworthy in a way we would find hard to justify.
Religions are hardly the only source of this sort of game. I suspect they are everywhere, often too subtle to notice, but religions are by far the largest, oldest, most obtrusive example.
twoodcc
Sep 20, 09:36 AM
well i'm very glad that you can hook up or put in a hard drive. maybe it will be worth me buying after all
Multimedia
Oct 25, 10:39 PM
I am so there with the cash ready a willing to fly out the window to Apple's account sooner than Apple can say:
"8-Core Mac Pro Available At the Apple Online Store For Ordering." :)
"8-Core Mac Pro Available At the Apple Online Store For Ordering." :)
CaoCao
Mar 26, 10:40 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kris_Kime
That is appalling, what idiot tells police to stay outside a riot zone..
That is appalling, what idiot tells police to stay outside a riot zone..
cambox
Apr 13, 12:20 PM
Well it was rumoured for some time and we all waited with baited breath but was Apple seriously going to end the pro app that started them off to stardom? Sadly yes they have. What genius decides to make a pro app accessible to the masses? We who use FCP have to make money from our business, so we need a little bit of smoke and mirrors to make our business needed, otherwise our clients will just get a 16 year old in off the street, download FCP (sorry imovie Pro or whatever they have decided to call it) and there you go we are out of work!
I can see the business sense for Apple but they have now taken it all away from us who stayed by them for all these years.. Thanks Apple for the kick in the teeth. I am a ''Pro'' app user and have been for well over a decade and will be sad to move over to a new system but alas nothing lasts for ever.
RIP FCP
Born 2000 died 2011
I can see the business sense for Apple but they have now taken it all away from us who stayed by them for all these years.. Thanks Apple for the kick in the teeth. I am a ''Pro'' app user and have been for well over a decade and will be sad to move over to a new system but alas nothing lasts for ever.
RIP FCP
Born 2000 died 2011
R.Perez
Mar 16, 01:35 PM
Apparently five-point has never heard of Hubbert's Peak.
The more you drill for oil, the faster you drill for oil, the sooner you begin to run out of it. Talk about economic catastrophe.
All the easy oil and gas in the world has pretty much been found. Now comes the harder work in finding and producing oil from more challenging environments and work areas. �
osama in laden terrorist
Osama in Laden
Osama Bin Laden, the terrorist
shows Osama in Laden,
osama in laden sightings
US - terrorism. Bin Laden
Osama in; osama in laden
Osama+in+laden+terrorist+
The more you drill for oil, the faster you drill for oil, the sooner you begin to run out of it. Talk about economic catastrophe.
All the easy oil and gas in the world has pretty much been found. Now comes the harder work in finding and producing oil from more challenging environments and work areas. �
Shivetya
Apr 28, 12:29 PM
Its not like the market for $1000+ computers is inexhaustible. They had to throw in tablets while they can to maintain market position because once the cheap tablets start coming out (and they will, it took a while for notebooks to get cheap and look at where they are now).
skunk
Mar 15, 07:35 PM
The way to fill our energy needs is a death by a thousand cuts, which will include conservation and new technologies.I would describe that as life by a thousand stitches. :)
If they really can afford to take them off the grid, then why are they running? Perhaps they are selling the energy to other countries and don't want to lose the revenue? Or maybe the German government is unwilling to remove a domestic power-producing option in favor of fuels they have to import from elsewhere?I think it's more likely that being in possession of valid nuclear technology is of great import to the self-image of the German State.
If they really can afford to take them off the grid, then why are they running? Perhaps they are selling the energy to other countries and don't want to lose the revenue? Or maybe the German government is unwilling to remove a domestic power-producing option in favor of fuels they have to import from elsewhere?I think it's more likely that being in possession of valid nuclear technology is of great import to the self-image of the German State.
ddrueckhammer
Sep 12, 04:10 PM
This may be a great piece of hardware but until they lower download prices, be they buy or rent, I'm not really interested. This box makes the Apple offering more interesting than Amazon but the ability to rent for $4 makes the Amazon offering far more economical. Neither one will replace my Netflix account but the Amazon service comes alot closer...Anyone who pays these prices without extras or physical media is a fool IMO...
r0k
Apr 11, 09:41 AM
Not that this really matters much, but just for the record:
I was one of the first to own the original iPhone and have an iPhone 4 now. I bought an iPhone 4 for my wife and an iPod Touch for my son. I got my mom an iPad and I'm about to buy one for myself. So I'm certainly not anti-Apple. I'm just not sure I see a clear advantage FOR ME to get a Mac computer over a Windows machine.
But, who knows... maybe some day.
We started with Windows and Linux. Windows was buggy, crashy and the opposite of trouble free while Linux "just works." I had a Palm smartphone and it worked equally well with Windows, Linux. Because I liked Linux, I decided to try OS X. I found that my Palm smartphone worked as well with OS X as it had worked with Linux. One thing I remembered through this process is that Windows phones would only work natively with Windows and I had already decided to put that OS in my rear view mirror.
Then I got a Blackberry phone and had all kinds of sync problems. To be honest, I blame those sync problems on Apple and iSync but I knew that if I went to an iThing my sync problems would go away. Sure enough, I carried an iPod Touch and a Blackberry for about a year and my iPod Touch was always in sync but it was a knock down drag out fight to keep my BB in sync. I was relying on MobileMe to keep things in sync and the only down side is that it is a paid service versus google which is free.
When it came time to replace my aging BB, I considered Android but settled on iPhone so I could bring all my apps and data over from my iPod Touch. Bottom line: I could have chosen to live with a multi platform environment but living in an all Apple environment has provided a flawless end to end user experience for me.
If you like your iPhone and have a desire for an Apple computer, I can tell you the two play very well together. In fact, I can testify from experience that Apple is better at making any two Apple devices play well together than is Microsoft. Heck I remember the days when I was hosting lan parties that WinME, Win2K and WinXP couldn't see one another on a network because of incompatibilities in MS implementation of networking across the 3 OS. And these were similar devices.
When I picked up my iPad, and later my iPhone 4, I had all my contacts and calendar on the devices before walking out of the Apple store. I was not only impressed. I was delighted and I remain delighted in the way my iThings work. I think you can get Mobile Me free on windows (buy purchasing a $99 annual subscription) but as I've never tried it, I don't know how well it works. I don't dislike Outlook but I do resent the fact that unlike Contact.app and Mail.app it is not included with the OS.
BTW, while I've taken an "all Apple" approach, I don't think that's necessary but I do think it is better because of Apple's dedication to a quality end to end user experience.
I was one of the first to own the original iPhone and have an iPhone 4 now. I bought an iPhone 4 for my wife and an iPod Touch for my son. I got my mom an iPad and I'm about to buy one for myself. So I'm certainly not anti-Apple. I'm just not sure I see a clear advantage FOR ME to get a Mac computer over a Windows machine.
But, who knows... maybe some day.
We started with Windows and Linux. Windows was buggy, crashy and the opposite of trouble free while Linux "just works." I had a Palm smartphone and it worked equally well with Windows, Linux. Because I liked Linux, I decided to try OS X. I found that my Palm smartphone worked as well with OS X as it had worked with Linux. One thing I remembered through this process is that Windows phones would only work natively with Windows and I had already decided to put that OS in my rear view mirror.
Then I got a Blackberry phone and had all kinds of sync problems. To be honest, I blame those sync problems on Apple and iSync but I knew that if I went to an iThing my sync problems would go away. Sure enough, I carried an iPod Touch and a Blackberry for about a year and my iPod Touch was always in sync but it was a knock down drag out fight to keep my BB in sync. I was relying on MobileMe to keep things in sync and the only down side is that it is a paid service versus google which is free.
When it came time to replace my aging BB, I considered Android but settled on iPhone so I could bring all my apps and data over from my iPod Touch. Bottom line: I could have chosen to live with a multi platform environment but living in an all Apple environment has provided a flawless end to end user experience for me.
If you like your iPhone and have a desire for an Apple computer, I can tell you the two play very well together. In fact, I can testify from experience that Apple is better at making any two Apple devices play well together than is Microsoft. Heck I remember the days when I was hosting lan parties that WinME, Win2K and WinXP couldn't see one another on a network because of incompatibilities in MS implementation of networking across the 3 OS. And these were similar devices.
When I picked up my iPad, and later my iPhone 4, I had all my contacts and calendar on the devices before walking out of the Apple store. I was not only impressed. I was delighted and I remain delighted in the way my iThings work. I think you can get Mobile Me free on windows (buy purchasing a $99 annual subscription) but as I've never tried it, I don't know how well it works. I don't dislike Outlook but I do resent the fact that unlike Contact.app and Mail.app it is not included with the OS.
BTW, while I've taken an "all Apple" approach, I don't think that's necessary but I do think it is better because of Apple's dedication to a quality end to end user experience.
Heilage
Apr 15, 09:48 AM
yeah that is kind of been my issue with this at well. They focus on the LGBT community but complete side track what I am willing to be is a larger group of striaght kids who get bullied and have long term emotional problems from bullies. That be the fact kids, kids with random disability or just easy targets for one reason or another but they are straight so they do not get focuses on by the media..
I'm a straight, white, middle class kid. And even I felt that was relevant to my own life and experiences. While they specifically talk about being gay, the message of how to deal with hardships when you grow up is still relevant.
I'm a straight, white, middle class kid. And even I felt that was relevant to my own life and experiences. While they specifically talk about being gay, the message of how to deal with hardships when you grow up is still relevant.
d0minick
Mar 18, 06:02 AM
Poor thing... he doesn't realize napster and limewire are history. Also, once the data hits my device, it's mine to do with as I please. Thank you very much.
>laughing_girls.jpg.tiff.
You did pay for the amount of data you signed for!
>laughing_girls.jpg.tiff.
You did pay for the amount of data you signed for!
deus_ex_machina
Apr 21, 04:40 AM
I live in a country of excess. Excuse me if I don't weep at night because Kanye West or Lil Wayne are missing out on my $1+ for their songs.
If an artist isn't mainstream, I'll gladly pay for their music to support it. But since my musical tastes tend to gravitate towards major artists, I don't think twice when I torrent their albums.
No worries gwangung - anyone who admits to listening to Lil Wayne isn't worth your time lol
If an artist isn't mainstream, I'll gladly pay for their music to support it. But since my musical tastes tend to gravitate towards major artists, I don't think twice when I torrent their albums.
No worries gwangung - anyone who admits to listening to Lil Wayne isn't worth your time lol
Edge100
Apr 15, 12:11 PM
What are you talking about? Don't blame your ignorance on semantics. Try understanding what you read first.
If you are talking about an unmarried straight couple, then yes, you can have same-sex sex and it's "just as OK", i.e., equally not OK.
And the difference is that the heterosexual couple can get married, while the homosexual couple can't. And that is an inequality that your church has helped to create.
If you are talking about an unmarried straight couple, then yes, you can have same-sex sex and it's "just as OK", i.e., equally not OK.
And the difference is that the heterosexual couple can get married, while the homosexual couple can't. And that is an inequality that your church has helped to create.
ddtlm
Oct 12, 06:40 PM
The result for my OSX 10.2 DP 800 G4 on the floating test is 85.56 seconds. I used -O and -funroll-loops as flags.
So this is about 45% the speed of my P3-Xeon 700. Not very good at all, but it falls within the ream of believeability.
So this is about 45% the speed of my P3-Xeon 700. Not very good at all, but it falls within the ream of believeability.
chasemac
Apr 13, 12:16 AM
A bad workman always blames his tools. ;)
Cheers!!
But it seems to me the man who uses tools is just a fool!:D Great song BTW! Songs of Yesterday
Cheers!!
But it seems to me the man who uses tools is just a fool!:D Great song BTW! Songs of Yesterday
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.
snoopy
Oct 11, 12:01 PM
Hate to drop in late like this, but the G3 had the same FPU as the 603, not the better one in the 604. When Motorola built the G4, they did not upgrade the FPU, but added AltiVec. This is what I understand. So, yes, double precision floating point does run poorly, with that old 603 FPU.
MrNomNoms
Apr 21, 06:16 PM
Wondering why Android users are on a Mac forum?
The discussion of who has the better device is useless.
Whatever works for you is fine. Whatever works for me is fine.
The day something really good comes out on either platform the media will report it , we will see advertising and we can read reviews and check things out and decide what to buy next.
Do I feel ghz or chip envy about standby time, camera resolution mp, or app availability?
Couldn't care less, if my device does what I want it to do.
So, Android guys, you have the best device if you decide so.
No need to look at what Apple does. It will come to your device too, just a little later when the copies are ready.
Perhaps they also own Macs, after all a lot of iPhone owners have Windows PCs.
I have a Windows Phone 7 device and I own two Mac's - there seems to be this idea out there that if you own a Mac you must be 100% Apple in all devices used. Actually funny enough the positive experience I've had so far it might actually convert me to Windows 8 when it is released if Apple keeps getting distracted by pandering to the iOS crowd.
What is wrong with Lil Wayne?
Everything.
It is as bad as one person complaining about iTunes organising of their files given most of their music is 'herp feat. derp'. I think there are greater issues at stake than how iTunes organises ones music.
I keep hearing this, but in just over 10 years now, I have yet to see one virus -- you know, a self-propagating piece of software (not counting trojans or user-initiated apps). For all the IT "geniuses" on this board, you obviously ALL failed statistics (because OS X should not have a virus count == 0, but it does).
Unfortunately we have a whole heap of 'computer experts' on this forum who attach 'virus' onto anything they want whilst ignoring there is a huge difference between a malware and a virus.
The discussion of who has the better device is useless.
Whatever works for you is fine. Whatever works for me is fine.
The day something really good comes out on either platform the media will report it , we will see advertising and we can read reviews and check things out and decide what to buy next.
Do I feel ghz or chip envy about standby time, camera resolution mp, or app availability?
Couldn't care less, if my device does what I want it to do.
So, Android guys, you have the best device if you decide so.
No need to look at what Apple does. It will come to your device too, just a little later when the copies are ready.
Perhaps they also own Macs, after all a lot of iPhone owners have Windows PCs.
I have a Windows Phone 7 device and I own two Mac's - there seems to be this idea out there that if you own a Mac you must be 100% Apple in all devices used. Actually funny enough the positive experience I've had so far it might actually convert me to Windows 8 when it is released if Apple keeps getting distracted by pandering to the iOS crowd.
What is wrong with Lil Wayne?
Everything.
It is as bad as one person complaining about iTunes organising of their files given most of their music is 'herp feat. derp'. I think there are greater issues at stake than how iTunes organises ones music.
I keep hearing this, but in just over 10 years now, I have yet to see one virus -- you know, a self-propagating piece of software (not counting trojans or user-initiated apps). For all the IT "geniuses" on this board, you obviously ALL failed statistics (because OS X should not have a virus count == 0, but it does).
Unfortunately we have a whole heap of 'computer experts' on this forum who attach 'virus' onto anything they want whilst ignoring there is a huge difference between a malware and a virus.
