There is no "September" iPad. That whole line of rumor was created by accident, by Mr. Gruber speculating idly that Apple might want to sync up iPad's annual release cycle with the iPod, in the fall, coupled with his apparently inside information that this spring wouldn't bring a "Retina Display" to the iPad. (This is reasonable speculation based on the notion that, given current iOS, they would need to make a Retina Display on an even multiple of the current pixel density or force developers to support yet another screen type, implying a minium 2x density, and the available mobile GPU designs couldn't handle that. Lion based iOS might alter that assumption, allowing, say, a 1.5x higher pixel density by this fall.) In any case, they're clearly working to beef up the GPU in the iPad, but it will be a while yet before they can power a Retina Display and GPU in the same energy budget. Don't expect that until next spring, at the earliest.
OK, so you've heard the term "chain of custody". You're not thinking this through like an investigator, though. Congress can subpoena the original records and establish that chain. They can even subpoena people who received the emails, and ISP who may have stored them on a server somewhere.
Your sig ("Friendly Reminder: Apple, Google, and Nintendo are the three for-profit corporations a Slashdotter is permitted to like.") confused me, until I realized that most people probably don't realize that Red Hat consider is technically a for-profit corporation.
Well, I am a security professional. These guys make us look bad, and need to be challenged. Not to worry, though. Mac OS X has never been a stationary target. It's security architecture has continued to improve, and will continue to improve. And the Bad Guys (TM) already know the economics of the situation. They'll exploit Mac OS X at their earliest opportunity, and continue to look for ways to do so. Lying about it, or remaining silent when others lie, won't help that.
You're in some strange fantasy world. Corporations are often the target of attacks, but zombie fleets are not much comprised of T3 connected corporate desktop systems. The corporate systems get discovered and cleaned up routinely, so most zombie fleets consist mainly of home user systems. The bottleneck isn't the WiFi connection, it's the DSL or Cable Modem connection, which offers the zombie PC greater bandwidth to the internet than most corporate PCs have anyway. (Not every corporation resembles Google with respect to internet bandwidth to the desktop).
Profit maximizing enterprises would, if they could do so as easily as you suggest, not choose one over the other, they would add Mac OS X systems to their zombie fleets and boost profits by 10%. In fact, even if it cost them $1 million dollars to make the first $2 million, they would do it. That would be a hundred percent profit on the exercise, and the marginal cost of the effort for the next million would be close to zero, at least it is in the Windows exploiting world.
Someone claiming to be you at Slashdot wrote this stupid troll:
"* Using a mac has, for the better part of a decade, been the mark of a toolbag. Developing on one is embarrassing: there's nothing "cool", in a geeky sense, about them."
Uh, where have you been? Have you seen the sea of Apple logos on the MacBook Pros cradled in the arms of developers at hacker development conference any time in oh, say, the past six or seven years? Do you actually *know* any software developers?
One would think it was so obvious that it didn't merit mention, but apparently there are those who will argue against this obvious truth to their last breath.
Why do you think compromising those web servers was so valuable to the cracker? Because it was the gateway to compromising a metric fuck tonne of home and business desktop PC systems, onto which keyloggers were installed, and from which data was harvested. To that end: the systems on the desktop which became parts of giant zombie PC fleets were not running Mac OS X, they were (and are) running Windows. Furthermore, within the context of the web server market, you seem to have failed to understand that platforms with tiny slivers of market share, dwarfed by Mac OS X installations, were routinely compromised. If your beloved "market share theory of OS security" were true, then crackers wouldn't bother with these tiny slivers, they would have been attacking Apache/UNIX, rather than the much smaller market share of IIS/Windows or the then-infintessimle market share of the various BBS systems and database systems which were actually exploited, routinely. System architecture matters, and the system architecture of Mac OS X is holding up pretty well, by comparison in the real wild world of automated exploitation of computer systems.
Roughly 10% of the total PC market is Apple. Apple has roughly 0% (zero percent) of the enterprise PC market, which is roughly half of the overall PC market (the number of installed systems is smaller than the consumer market, but consumers tend to refresh less often). So, Apple apparently has about 20% of the consumer market these days.
There are automated, automatically propagating exploits for obscure BBS systems, for IIS back when it was a tiny sliver of the web server market, for data base systems installed on a tiny fraction of web servers, in numbers utterly dwarfed by the installations of a single model of MacBook Pro.
What's it gonna take for y'all to give up on the "market share" ghost?
No matter how many times you repeat that claim, it's still unsupported by the evidence. Mac OS (7/8/9) had a much smaller market share than Mac OS X has today, and a dramatically smaller user base, and yet there were many virus, aheh, "available" for it, whereas there are none on Mac OS X. Furthermore, it's widely known that Apple takes the lion's share of profits in the PC industry, despite selling far fewer systems. It does this by selling systems at the top end of the market, which it dominates (something like 90% of all laptops for which people are willing to pay more than $1000 are Apple computers). Obviously those people would be a rather more lucrative pool of victims, yet they remain almost entirely unexploited. There are other reasons, but those are sufficient to shatter your claim.
Better than merely reducing the attack surface of the platform by not including Java, Apple has also begun working with Oracle/Sun and contributed to OpenJDK. This should provide more timely updates to folk using Java on Mac OS X.
I hate to break up a good pizza party, but I've been wondering if LLVM and Clang might help rescue Itanium as hinted by this 2005 paper which suggests a few compiler enhancements to help Itanium.
Light Peak is designed to be what the minimal Intel marketing on Light Peak calls "multi-protocol" capable, which most observers have taken to mean "it can serve as the transport layer for other protocols" in the same way that FireWire can serve as a TCP/IP connection on the Mac, today. The exact capabilities do not seem to be public information, just yet. The public demonstrations of Light Peak which Intel has performed clearly indicate that one intended use case is a remote "hub" which can have Light Peak as well as other connection types on it, such as the USB and Light Peak hub demonstrated in this Intel demonstration of Light Peak.
Granted, the information which has been made public by Intel is not sufficient to allow outsiders to speak authoritatively on this points, but LightPeak appears to be a fully functional device connection standard in its own right, more akin to (or a superset of) FireWire in its capability. The fact that it can carry other protocols like USB is not evidence that it's not fully capable of being the "native" connection type (it almost certainly is thusly capable).
The Quad Core CPUs apparently are not yet shipping. Furthermore, they apparently will pump out an extra 10 watts of heat (35 Watts for dual core, 45 for quad core parts). I'll be more excited for a quad core laptop when they get it into a thermal envelope that won't endanger future generations.
Assuming there is a new connection type, and assuming it's copper based, and assuming it's in the neighborhood of 10Gbps and full duplex, and otherwise based on LightPeak, it should be pretty keen. The world needs a decent copper based high speed i/o connection. It will probably co-exist for many years with the fibre based version to come. With luck, it will feature a decent connector plug and kill off USB3.
Well, judging by what other manufacturers are promising to maybe think about possibly shipping one day real soon now, the iPad premium is roughly -$100 to -$150.
Slashdot Mirror
The Orion capsule is intended to be the baseline for both missions.
There is no "September" iPad. That whole line of rumor was created by accident, by Mr. Gruber speculating idly that Apple might want to sync up iPad's annual release cycle with the iPod, in the fall, coupled with his apparently inside information that this spring wouldn't bring a "Retina Display" to the iPad. (This is reasonable speculation based on the notion that, given current iOS, they would need to make a Retina Display on an even multiple of the current pixel density or force developers to support yet another screen type, implying a minium 2x density, and the available mobile GPU designs couldn't handle that. Lion based iOS might alter that assumption, allowing, say, a 1.5x higher pixel density by this fall.) In any case, they're clearly working to beef up the GPU in the iPad, but it will be a while yet before they can power a Retina Display and GPU in the same energy budget. Don't expect that until next spring, at the earliest.
OK, so you've heard the term "chain of custody". You're not thinking this through like an investigator, though. Congress can subpoena the original records and establish that chain. They can even subpoena people who received the emails, and ISP who may have stored them on a server somewhere.
Not to mention, there probably isn't anything you can do with RATKit (or whatever it's called) that you can't do with a one-line perl invocation.
Your sig ( "Friendly Reminder: Apple, Google, and Nintendo are the three for-profit corporations a Slashdotter is permitted to like." ) confused me, until I realized that most people probably don't realize that Red Hat consider is technically a for-profit corporation.
/me: ducks
Well, I am a security professional. These guys make us look bad, and need to be challenged. Not to worry, though. Mac OS X has never been a stationary target. It's security architecture has continued to improve, and will continue to improve. And the Bad Guys (TM) already know the economics of the situation. They'll exploit Mac OS X at their earliest opportunity, and continue to look for ways to do so. Lying about it, or remaining silent when others lie, won't help that.
Well, my "stats" are not particularly controversial. Do your own homework, and prove me wrong, if you think I'm wrong.
You're in some strange fantasy world. Corporations are often the target of attacks, but zombie fleets are not much comprised of T3 connected corporate desktop systems. The corporate systems get discovered and cleaned up routinely, so most zombie fleets consist mainly of home user systems. The bottleneck isn't the WiFi connection, it's the DSL or Cable Modem connection, which offers the zombie PC greater bandwidth to the internet than most corporate PCs have anyway. (Not every corporation resembles Google with respect to internet bandwidth to the desktop).
Profit maximizing enterprises would, if they could do so as easily as you suggest, not choose one over the other, they would add Mac OS X systems to their zombie fleets and boost profits by 10%. In fact, even if it cost them $1 million dollars to make the first $2 million, they would do it. That would be a hundred percent profit on the exercise, and the marginal cost of the effort for the next million would be close to zero, at least it is in the Windows exploiting world.
Uh, where have you been? Have you seen the sea of Apple logos on the MacBook Pros cradled in the arms of developers at hacker development conference any time in oh, say, the past six or seven years? Do you actually *know* any software developers?
One would think it was so obvious that it didn't merit mention, but apparently there are those who will argue against this obvious truth to their last breath.
Why do you think compromising those web servers was so valuable to the cracker? Because it was the gateway to compromising a metric fuck tonne of home and business desktop PC systems, onto which keyloggers were installed, and from which data was harvested. To that end: the systems on the desktop which became parts of giant zombie PC fleets were not running Mac OS X, they were (and are) running Windows. Furthermore, within the context of the web server market, you seem to have failed to understand that platforms with tiny slivers of market share, dwarfed by Mac OS X installations, were routinely compromised. If your beloved "market share theory of OS security" were true, then crackers wouldn't bother with these tiny slivers, they would have been attacking Apache/UNIX, rather than the much smaller market share of IIS/Windows or the then-infintessimle market share of the various BBS systems and database systems which were actually exploited, routinely. System architecture matters, and the system architecture of Mac OS X is holding up pretty well, by comparison in the real wild world of automated exploitation of computer systems.
Roughly 10% of the total PC market is Apple. Apple has roughly 0% (zero percent) of the enterprise PC market, which is roughly half of the overall PC market (the number of installed systems is smaller than the consumer market, but consumers tend to refresh less often). So, Apple apparently has about 20% of the consumer market these days.
There are automated, automatically propagating exploits for obscure BBS systems, for IIS back when it was a tiny sliver of the web server market, for data base systems installed on a tiny fraction of web servers, in numbers utterly dwarfed by the installations of a single model of MacBook Pro.
What's it gonna take for y'all to give up on the "market share" ghost?
No matter how many times you repeat that claim, it's still unsupported by the evidence. Mac OS (7/8/9) had a much smaller market share than Mac OS X has today, and a dramatically smaller user base, and yet there were many virus, aheh, "available" for it, whereas there are none on Mac OS X. Furthermore, it's widely known that Apple takes the lion's share of profits in the PC industry, despite selling far fewer systems. It does this by selling systems at the top end of the market, which it dominates (something like 90% of all laptops for which people are willing to pay more than $1000 are Apple computers). Obviously those people would be a rather more lucrative pool of victims, yet they remain almost entirely unexploited. There are other reasons, but those are sufficient to shatter your claim.
Better than merely reducing the attack surface of the platform by not including Java, Apple has also begun working with Oracle/Sun and contributed to OpenJDK. This should provide more timely updates to folk using Java on Mac OS X.
I hate to break up a good pizza party, but I've been wondering if LLVM and Clang might help rescue Itanium as hinted by this 2005 paper which suggests a few compiler enhancements to help Itanium.
That has since changed. It would appear that Intel didn't list them as available parts because Apple bought the initial production run of them. All.
It's derived from a prior expression: "There's no tools to fix stupid."
Regardless, in the most generous case, "Light Peak" gives you only an erroneous idea of how an electron based connection type would work.
Oh, and conceptually, that remote hub is intended to be built into other devices, like a monitor.
Light Peak is designed to be what the minimal Intel marketing on Light Peak calls "multi-protocol" capable, which most observers have taken to mean "it can serve as the transport layer for other protocols" in the same way that FireWire can serve as a TCP/IP connection on the Mac, today. The exact capabilities do not seem to be public information, just yet. The public demonstrations of Light Peak which Intel has performed clearly indicate that one intended use case is a remote "hub" which can have Light Peak as well as other connection types on it, such as the USB and Light Peak hub demonstrated in this Intel demonstration of Light Peak.
Granted, the information which has been made public by Intel is not sufficient to allow outsiders to speak authoritatively on this points, but LightPeak appears to be a fully functional device connection standard in its own right, more akin to (or a superset of) FireWire in its capability. The fact that it can carry other protocols like USB is not evidence that it's not fully capable of being the "native" connection type (it almost certainly is thusly capable).
The Quad Core CPUs apparently are not yet shipping. Furthermore, they apparently will pump out an extra 10 watts of heat (35 Watts for dual core, 45 for quad core parts). I'll be more excited for a quad core laptop when they get it into a thermal envelope that won't endanger future generations.
Assuming there is a new connection type, and assuming it's copper based, and assuming it's in the neighborhood of 10Gbps and full duplex, and otherwise based on LightPeak, it should be pretty keen. The world needs a decent copper based high speed i/o connection. It will probably co-exist for many years with the fibre based version to come. With luck, it will feature a decent connector plug and kill off USB3.
Well, judging by what other manufacturers are promising to maybe think about possibly shipping one day real soon now, the iPad premium is roughly -$100 to -$150.