The Z3 has a register (the "memory" cited in Wikipedia), but does not have memory for storing a program. (They're using the Von Neuman criteria for defining a computer.)
So you really think that because it uses a BSD like kernel interface API, it is just more secure then?
No. OS X is more secure because it keeps proper privilege separation, adheres more closer to certain industry standards and "best practices," and uses sandboxing for suspect apps (among other things). The actual parentage of the kernel has nothing to do with the security, nor did I claim it did--though the proper priviledge separation and sandboxing came to Apple from the BSD community.
Now, once again, if you wish to actually respond to something I wrote rather than to what your prejudices choose to project upon me, you might want to start with my posting history. You'll see i'm not a fanboi of any particular operating system: all of them that I have used have had features I liked, and features I disliked. I am only a "fanboi" of whatever tool it takes to get the job done, and if that tool comes from Richmond, Cupertino, or Helsinki makes not one bit of difference to me.
Un-huh. And no doubt the lurkers agree with you via email.
I've done the research. I stand by my statements--phrased perhaps a bit too informally for your taste, but I stand by them nonetheless. Perhaps one day you'll realize that flinging insults does nothing to actually refute an argument.
And on Win I can't setup my kids' account as a non-Admin: Alpha Centauri would neither install nor run from a non-Admin account.
That does not mean that you can't set your kids up with a limited account--it simply means that due solely to the way Alpha Centauri is written, it won't work with a more secure setup. But that's not Microsoft's fault--complain to Firaxis.
Theoretically good OS, neglectful company that focuses on consumer hardware.
Well, that brings up an interesting observation. The argument over whether or not Apple is primarily a hardware company or a software company has been going on for years, and it's not one that's going to be solved on Slashdot. However, Jobs evidently thinks of Apple as primarily a software company--it would seem to me that if this is the case, then maybe the neglect is one reason for the lack of market share.
The thing though is, Apple doesn't have to do anything about them and they will still have a more secure system then MS.
Not for long. Like Microsoft or hate them, they patch bugs. Sometimes the patch is worse than the bug, admittedly, but they're trying.
Basically, it doesn't matter what Apple does, OS X will always be more secure then Windows in the number of exploited flaws. Because if they aren't exploited, then they don't really matter.
And this is just sheer foolishness. Yes, non-exploited flaws do matter. No, OS X will not necessarily "always be more secure then Windows." Microsoft has proven that they can learn from their mistakes sometimes, and Apple has proven that they can make mistakes--and even completely fuck things up.
And no, fanboi-isms like the ones in your post above really don't make you look cool, no matter what the kool-aid-induced voices keep saying.
Brief POI: war is declared by Congress, not by the President. I have a lot of respect for Carter as a person and as a philanthropist, but in many respects he was the worst president we had in the 20th century.
but I don't believe the US has declared war on anyone since WWII.
That's entirely correct. There have been Congressional authorizations to use military force, and military budgets have to be approved by Congress, but there has not been a declaration of war since WWII.
As for the "wars" on terrorism and drugs--it's not helpful to get rhetoric and actual declarations of war confused.
How many people really belief that Macs are immune, 100% resistant to attacks and 100% bug free?
Anecdotal evidence does not make for a good argument, but back when I was working for Apple, I knew a heck of a lot. (Disclaimer: this was back in the days of OS 9.)
a misconception by Windows apologists that Mca OS X has less attacks due to market share.
That's not so much a misconception as it is "taking an argument too far." Yes, Macs have less market share, and yes, there are less attacks. Macs also have less vulnerabilities to attack, and are more difficult to write attack code for (especially if one is attempting to pwn the actual OS, rather than escalate privileges or some other attack).
OS X has a solid architecture, but all the evidence indicates that Apple has not taken security seriously as a process issue to the same extent that Microsoft has.
I normally don't respond to ACs, but this comment is dead on target.
How can you say that with any certaintity when you don't have the worlds underground hammering at your door every day for years on years?
By comparing the structure and functionality. If we had to wait until a system has been attacked to see how vulnerable it was, we'd all be in REAL trouble.
One basic factor is default user account privileges: Microsoft has all new users default to Admin privileges (a practice that may have stopped with Vista), while Apple (like Linux) has new users default as limited accounts that must be escalated to have Admin. Microsoft's way is more handy (in that even an inexperienced computer owner can set up an account that can do anything), but insecure (because only an inexperienced computer owner would WANT all users to have accounts that can do anything).
There are plenty of vulnerabilities on both sides, but from everything I've seen in 20+ years of working with both Microsoft and Apple products, Apple is in the lead for security. Of course, that may change without notice, if Microsoft tightens up their practices, or Apple adds more vulnerabilities.
Anecdotal evidence (and one-off incidents that rely on the browser) do not a successful argument make. One must look at the entire dataset, not simply the data you prefer.
Oh, but you're an AC. Either grow a pair and post with your username, or stop exciting electrons for no purpose.
OSX is intrinsically more secure than Windows There fixed that for you. Let us not forget Windows also faces much more exposure due to it's market share.
I'm aware that Window's market share makes them the "low-hanging fruit," but even without considering market share, OSX has fewer security holes than Windows.
Most of the difference seems (to me, YMMV) to be remnants of OSX's background in BSD, and the security practices in the BSD world--it seems that Apple has added far more functionality to BSD, but at a cost of lowered security.
But then again anything that's not locked in a room with no network access is going to be vulnerable to one degree or another.
OSX is intrinsically far more secure than Windows, but all systems have their vulnerabilities. For Mac pros to acknowledge that "far more secure" does not equal "completely secure" is a good step in the right direction. Thanks for the review, jsuda.
Ah, but how does one discover that they've been the subject of a secret warrantless wiretap, especially if it was issued with a national security letter gag order? There's no way to prove standing to bring a suit.
Actually, yes you could--if you were arrested or charged based on evidence gained in such a manner. By that time, of course, you've already got some pretty substantial legal problems, so you'd better come out with all your legal "guns" blazing.
Even if you could, you'd have to be independently wealthy to have the leisure and funds to pursue the case to the Supreme Court.
The hard part to finance is the legal team. You'd have to get someone to agree to represent you pro bono to be able to afford it, but it can be done.
I agree that the accusation of treason is spurious, but voting for this kind of malignant legislation shows such casual contempt for the constitution and the American people that it should, at the minimum, put you in line for a severe beating.
Feh. They're politicians. I wouldn't soil my hands with the likes of them. But be assured, if this bill passes, I will remember it come November--and every November afterward.
In the meantime, however, I have a letter to write to my congresscritters.
Almost--I changed the usage of a word to mean something the original author did not intend, in order to support my argument. This is precisely what you did by redefining "treason" in your earlier post. Since you were close (but not quite correct), I can't give you the five points, but here's a gold star for effort.
Here we get into a difference of opinion between what I believe, and what the law defines. By the standards of law, Iran was not our "enemy" during the Reagan Administration: indeed, technically speaking, Iran was not our "enemy" during the Carter administration because the US didn't have the cojones to declare war after the hostages were taken.
So, technically speaking, the Iran-Contra affair was not treason, according to a strict construction of the law.
The last time I saw an "argument" like yours, I was cleaning a catbox.
Rhetoric to the side, it might interest the more reasonable members of this discussion to note that the crafting of an unconstitutional law is not treason. It's not even a crime. It is, however, the reason for judicial review--and those of us who are able to eschew the excesses of rhetoric your post demonstrates are quite aware of this.
The solution to this issue is simple, though not inexpensive. If this law passes, then a person who has been the victim of a warrantless wiretap must bring suit against the telco and the government simultaneously. When the lawsuit is quashed/judged against, if the "immunity law" was used to rule against the original suit, appeal based on constitutionality of the provision.
That's what judicial review is all about, Morgan. Correcting unconstitutional laws is not accomplished by spouting useless rhetoric about "Enemies" and "declaring War"--it's accomplished by actually working within the legal system.
Slashdot Mirror
The Z3 has a register (the "memory" cited in Wikipedia), but does not have memory for storing a program. (They're using the Von Neuman criteria for defining a computer.)
Zuse's machine didn't have memory, which is part of how they're defining "modern computer."
More accurately--the kid just ruined his own life completely. Taking responsibility for choices we make is all part of growing up.
No. OS X is more secure because it keeps proper privilege separation, adheres more closer to certain industry standards and "best practices," and uses sandboxing for suspect apps (among other things). The actual parentage of the kernel has nothing to do with the security, nor did I claim it did--though the proper priviledge separation and sandboxing came to Apple from the BSD community.
Now, once again, if you wish to actually respond to something I wrote rather than to what your prejudices choose to project upon me, you might want to start with my posting history. You'll see i'm not a fanboi of any particular operating system: all of them that I have used have had features I liked, and features I disliked. I am only a "fanboi" of whatever tool it takes to get the job done, and if that tool comes from Richmond, Cupertino, or Helsinki makes not one bit of difference to me.
So why don't you read what I actually WROTE, instead of chiding me for arguments I'm not making?
I've placed a few examples in the thread. Follow them up for yourself.
Un-huh. And no doubt the lurkers agree with you via email.
I've done the research. I stand by my statements--phrased perhaps a bit too informally for your taste, but I stand by them nonetheless. Perhaps one day you'll realize that flinging insults does nothing to actually refute an argument.
That does not mean that you can't set your kids up with a limited account--it simply means that due solely to the way Alpha Centauri is written, it won't work with a more secure setup. But that's not Microsoft's fault--complain to Firaxis.
Well, that brings up an interesting observation. The argument over whether or not Apple is primarily a hardware company or a software company has been going on for years, and it's not one that's going to be solved on Slashdot. However, Jobs evidently thinks of Apple as primarily a software company--it would seem to me that if this is the case, then maybe the neglect is one reason for the lack of market share.
Not for long. Like Microsoft or hate them, they patch bugs. Sometimes the patch is worse than the bug, admittedly, but they're trying.
Basically, it doesn't matter what Apple does, OS X will always be more secure then Windows in the number of exploited flaws. Because if they aren't exploited, then they don't really matter.And this is just sheer foolishness. Yes, non-exploited flaws do matter. No, OS X will not necessarily "always be more secure then Windows." Microsoft has proven that they can learn from their mistakes sometimes, and Apple has proven that they can make mistakes--and even completely fuck things up.
And no, fanboi-isms like the ones in your post above really don't make you look cool, no matter what the kool-aid-induced voices keep saying.
ME is worse that having one's pecker nailed to a struggling jellyfish. But not by much.
Brief POI: war is declared by Congress, not by the President. I have a lot of respect for Carter as a person and as a philanthropist, but in many respects he was the worst president we had in the 20th century.
but I don't believe the US has declared war on anyone since WWII.That's entirely correct. There have been Congressional authorizations to use military force, and military budgets have to be approved by Congress, but there has not been a declaration of war since WWII.
As for the "wars" on terrorism and drugs--it's not helpful to get rhetoric and actual declarations of war confused.
Anecdotal evidence does not make for a good argument, but back when I was working for Apple, I knew a heck of a lot. (Disclaimer: this was back in the days of OS 9.)
a misconception by Windows apologists that Mca OS X has less attacks due to market share.That's not so much a misconception as it is "taking an argument too far." Yes, Macs have less market share, and yes, there are less attacks. Macs also have less vulnerabilities to attack, and are more difficult to write attack code for (especially if one is attempting to pwn the actual OS, rather than escalate privileges or some other attack).
Dear Sir or Madam:
There is this little invention called "humor"....
Heh. Let's hope the metamods catch that one--I thought it was hilarious!
I normally don't respond to ACs, but this comment is dead on target.
By comparing the structure and functionality. If we had to wait until a system has been attacked to see how vulnerable it was, we'd all be in REAL trouble.
One basic factor is default user account privileges: Microsoft has all new users default to Admin privileges (a practice that may have stopped with Vista), while Apple (like Linux) has new users default as limited accounts that must be escalated to have Admin. Microsoft's way is more handy (in that even an inexperienced computer owner can set up an account that can do anything), but insecure (because only an inexperienced computer owner would WANT all users to have accounts that can do anything).
There are plenty of vulnerabilities on both sides, but from everything I've seen in 20+ years of working with both Microsoft and Apple products, Apple is in the lead for security. Of course, that may change without notice, if Microsoft tightens up their practices, or Apple adds more vulnerabilities.
Anecdotal evidence (and one-off incidents that rely on the browser) do not a successful argument make. One must look at the entire dataset, not simply the data you prefer.
Oh, but you're an AC. Either grow a pair and post with your username, or stop exciting electrons for no purpose.
AC = Electron Tease. :D
Eek! I've been Vista-ed. :D
I'm aware that Window's market share makes them the "low-hanging fruit," but even without considering market share, OSX has fewer security holes than Windows.
Most of the difference seems (to me, YMMV) to be remnants of OSX's background in BSD, and the security practices in the BSD world--it seems that Apple has added far more functionality to BSD, but at a cost of lowered security.
But then again anything that's not locked in a room with no network access is going to be vulnerable to one degree or another.Don't forget to unplug it, too! :D
OSX is intrinsically far more secure than Windows, but all systems have their vulnerabilities. For Mac pros to acknowledge that "far more secure" does not equal "completely secure" is a good step in the right direction. Thanks for the review, jsuda.
Actually, yes you could--if you were arrested or charged based on evidence gained in such a manner. By that time, of course, you've already got some pretty substantial legal problems, so you'd better come out with all your legal "guns" blazing.
Even if you could, you'd have to be independently wealthy to have the leisure and funds to pursue the case to the Supreme Court.The hard part to finance is the legal team. You'd have to get someone to agree to represent you pro bono to be able to afford it, but it can be done.
I agree that the accusation of treason is spurious, but voting for this kind of malignant legislation shows such casual contempt for the constitution and the American people that it should, at the minimum, put you in line for a severe beating.Feh. They're politicians. I wouldn't soil my hands with the likes of them. But be assured, if this bill passes, I will remember it come November--and every November afterward.
In the meantime, however, I have a letter to write to my congresscritters.
Almost--I changed the usage of a word to mean something the original author did not intend, in order to support my argument. This is precisely what you did by redefining "treason" in your earlier post. Since you were close (but not quite correct), I can't give you the five points, but here's a gold star for effort.
Here we get into a difference of opinion between what I believe, and what the law defines. By the standards of law, Iran was not our "enemy" during the Reagan Administration: indeed, technically speaking, Iran was not our "enemy" during the Carter administration because the US didn't have the cojones to declare war after the hostages were taken.
So, technically speaking, the Iran-Contra affair was not treason, according to a strict construction of the law.
I know--five points if you can discern why I made that shift. ;)
The last time I saw an "argument" like yours, I was cleaning a catbox.
Rhetoric to the side, it might interest the more reasonable members of this discussion to note that the crafting of an unconstitutional law is not treason. It's not even a crime. It is, however, the reason for judicial review--and those of us who are able to eschew the excesses of rhetoric your post demonstrates are quite aware of this.
The solution to this issue is simple, though not inexpensive. If this law passes, then a person who has been the victim of a warrantless wiretap must bring suit against the telco and the government simultaneously. When the lawsuit is quashed/judged against, if the "immunity law" was used to rule against the original suit, appeal based on constitutionality of the provision.
That's what judicial review is all about, Morgan. Correcting unconstitutional laws is not accomplished by spouting useless rhetoric about "Enemies" and "declaring War"--it's accomplished by actually working within the legal system.