I don't really have an answer. I do prefer the way Macs do things with permission and installing things over Windows. Microsoft's solution is to basically lock everything down and makes you answer yes every time you want to do something. OS X asks you for your password to do dangerous things. I'm not defending Safari here - it really needs to be locked down, but everyone should simply uncheck the "open safe files after download". I believe that in ore recent versions it is defaulted to off, but I can't verify that. Personally I use chrome anyway because I just like it better for many subtle reasons. I understand that most of the people in userland are generally clueless when it comes to computers and that this is what criminals prey upon, but I guess I have a hard time feeling sympathy. I mean here it is 2011, I've had countless windows machines, linux boxes and macs hooked up to the internet and I've never contracted a virus or malware. I don't run virus software, but I do have a sophisticated firewall. How many times do people need to be told not to install something if they don't know what it is? I'm sorry but if someone visits a website and ends up with an installer and they click "yes - install" and provide their password, they kinda sorta deserve what they get regardless of the OS.
I worked at getting this to happen this morning, and I finally did. What happens is that you search for an image, click on it, it redirects you to a site like this http://69.50.202.201/f1f7925050f1f83d3b0fc524a72f5af09f55c52837b293fb Which displays a bogus virus scanning screen and downloads a zip file. In safari if you have open safe attachments checked it will unzip the file, anti-malware.zip in this case and run the installer. THis is true. However, this is a social engineering application. YOu still have to click continue and provide your password to install anything. As far as it goes it is very well done, but it is not a drive by install - you MUST EXPLICITLY GIVE PERMISSION to install it. I'm sure a bunch of people will install it, but there's nothing you can do about that. I felt comfortable enough to search this out and try it myself with no ill effects. Turn off open safe attachments in Safari if it bothers you.
I agree. I have a few clients that have not popped for an SSL cert for their site and have people loggin in in the clear. I've explained it to them in detail, in writing. I don't get it, but there you go...
If that's what you mean then I tend to agree. I always put noscript tags in place if there is functionality that wont work without JS, and I always test for cookie support and tell the user that cookies are required rather than breaking things, or at least they will know why things aren't working.
But still, for most companies, anything more than that just isn't worth the effort for the 2%. THere are a lot of huge sites that don't even do that, they just break. And I do mean huge...
Sorry, I don't buy this. Please post the offending link. It might have downloaded and mounted a DMG, but default settings do not allow for auto installation.
Not zero thought about degradation and not bad implementation. This isn't the same as developing for IE for example. It's simply that implementing features two ways - one for JS and one for no, takes more than twice as much effort, so it doesn't get done. I've told clients before about the JS issues, but what it comes down to is the client doesn't want to spend twice as much to service the 2% that turn off JS. Period. They get a message that tells them to enable JS to use those functions. It's cost vs. benefit 101.
Why sad? THe ability to have portions of the page refresh without round-tripping to the server for a whole new page is only one of the highly useful functions provided by JS.
Uh, no. Javascript is required for a significant portion, I'd say most, of the high traffic sites out there. It is simply not feasible, or acceptable to suggest that all users disable a significant portion of the functionality of the web.
I have a Mac and 25 down / 5 up connection. I don't need BluRay. In fact I don't need DVD either. I don't understand why MacBooks still have optical media drives at all. I've probably used the DVD Drive on the Mac maybe 10 times in 3 years. I'd much rather have more battery, or an SSD/HD combo than an optical drive...
I'm actually a bit disappointed. I was hoping for some HD video of a sniper shot. Nothing says job well done like your target's head exploding in a cloud of pink mist.
No. But that's not what they do. THey don't store your "specific location" they store the cell towers and wifi hotspots your phone has been in communication with. That's all. They're not tracking you.
Who's the idiot? The person who doesn't care because they're not being tracked, or the person who doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about (you)
Well, since the data is stored on your device which is presumable under your control, and it isn't sent anywhere, and it server a functional purpose as part of the A in A-GPS, I'd say your blogger was correct.
Agreed. I've been ready for IPv6 for years. All of my machines, mac, windows and linux are configured, my firewall/router/DNS server is configured, my WAP is configured. What's not configured is my ISP who doesn't seem to know what IPv6 is.
If you need a function, we'll work with you to get it done, provided we can legally do so.
If by "work with" you mean that you'll put it on your schedule to happen in six to twelve months, politicize the issue and use it as a reason to ask upper management for additional headcount while simultaneously back-charging my department approximately ten-times the going market rate had I simply been allowed to outsource it, then yeah, I'm sure you will work with me.
I don't fly any longer, because I'm almost certain that I'd get picked for screening and I refuse to submit to the machine or a manual search, and I would assert my 4th amendment rights if they attempted such and probably end up in jail for doing so. The fucking bastards.
If I was an alleged terrorist (and for the record, I'M NOT) the alleged terrorist would get a job at the airport as baggage handler, or as a someone who services the planes. Then the alleged terrorist would put a bomb in some luggage, or some C4 into soda cans or something and get them on the plane - the alleged terrorist wouldn't try to get through security, unless his plan was to blow up the security checkpoint, which would also be good from a terror perspective. Then they can move the security check points outside the terminal, then those get blown up. Then move them off property and check all the people before allowing them in to the airport, then car bomb gets that.
The worst thing we ever did was change our behavior and way of life after the hijackings in the 70's and obviously after 9/11. We showed the people who would do such things that we will modify our behavior in a predicable fashion based on their actions - a very bad idea. We are now in a reactive posture. The thing that's even worse is listening to the morons who travel talk about how the "security" measures make them feel safe. Really? I have a tiger repelling rock I'd like to sell you...
I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life.
The preceding is a real quote, many of you know who said it, but if not, Google it...
And for the record, fuck the TSA. By all means, investigate me. I have the ACLU's phone number right here ready to go... I've said as much directly to my congressman and senators
I read that twice. I don't think it says what you imply that it says. There are numerous contradictions within the article itself. There is also a lot of correlation but no proved causation. For example, this little nugget: "We’re not quibbling with most of that. A Treasury Department analysis found that the tax cuts prompted the creation of jobs and increased the gross domestic product". So there is no dispute that lower taxes do in fact increase the GDP. The question is do they increase the GDP enough to offset the decrease in tax revenue to see a net increase in tax revenue? In this specific case, yes.
Federal revenue normally increases every year. In fact, revenues have declined in only five years since 1962. The 35 percent growth between 2003 and 2006 is significant – the last major growth in revenue was between 1997 and 2000, when the economy was booming and federal receipts rose 28.2 percent. But the recent three-year period also comes after three years of decreases, a drop Viard attributes to the 2001 tax cuts and the start of a recession that same year.
The economy does not turn quickly. A huge recession started after the dot com bubble popped, then the tax cuts came in 2001. It takes time for that kind of change to see an economic impact. In the short term there will be none, in fact in the short term you will simply see a reduction in revenue. in the mid term, a year or two later you sill see the increase.
Three years after the tax cuts, the tax revenue returned to the 40 year average of 18.4% of GDP, with the lower rates So, no, lowering taxes will not immediately raise revenue, but it will increase GDP and help lower unemployment, which is what you need in a recession. The fact that they lowered the rates but are still collecting the same percentage of an increased GDP tells me that lowering taxes did in fact increase revenue, because historically the feds collect about 18% of GDP as taxes.
Summary: They lowered the tax rate, GDP grew and they still got their 18%. Sounds good to me.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't really have an answer. I do prefer the way Macs do things with permission and installing things over Windows. Microsoft's solution is to basically lock everything down and makes you answer yes every time you want to do something. OS X asks you for your password to do dangerous things. I'm not defending Safari here - it really needs to be locked down, but everyone should simply uncheck the "open safe files after download". I believe that in ore recent versions it is defaulted to off, but I can't verify that. Personally I use chrome anyway because I just like it better for many subtle reasons. I understand that most of the people in userland are generally clueless when it comes to computers and that this is what criminals prey upon, but I guess I have a hard time feeling sympathy. I mean here it is 2011, I've had countless windows machines, linux boxes and macs hooked up to the internet and I've never contracted a virus or malware. I don't run virus software, but I do have a sophisticated firewall. How many times do people need to be told not to install something if they don't know what it is? I'm sorry but if someone visits a website and ends up with an installer and they click "yes - install" and provide their password, they kinda sorta deserve what they get regardless of the OS.
Society for the most part has always punished intelligent people unless that intelligence is coupled with wealth or power.
Because the user gave permission by clicking the checkbox in preferences?
I worked at getting this to happen this morning, and I finally did. What happens is that you search for an image, click on it, it redirects you to a site like this http://69.50.202.201/f1f7925050f1f83d3b0fc524a72f5af09f55c52837b293fb Which displays a bogus virus scanning screen and downloads a zip file. In safari if you have open safe attachments checked it will unzip the file, anti-malware.zip in this case and run the installer. THis is true. However, this is a social engineering application. YOu still have to click continue and provide your password to install anything. As far as it goes it is very well done, but it is not a drive by install - you MUST EXPLICITLY GIVE PERMISSION to install it. I'm sure a bunch of people will install it, but there's nothing you can do about that. I felt comfortable enough to search this out and try it myself with no ill effects. Turn off open safe attachments in Safari if it bothers you.
I agree. I have a few clients that have not popped for an SSL cert for their site and have people loggin in in the clear. I've explained it to them in detail, in writing. I don't get it, but there you go...
If that's what you mean then I tend to agree. I always put noscript tags in place if there is functionality that wont work without JS, and I always test for cookie support and tell the user that cookies are required rather than breaking things, or at least they will know why things aren't working.
But still, for most companies, anything more than that just isn't worth the effort for the 2%. THere are a lot of huge sites that don't even do that, they just break. And I do mean huge...
Sorry, I don't buy this. Please post the offending link. It might have downloaded and mounted a DMG, but default settings do not allow for auto installation.
I, unlike you, are not a fucking idiot.
Not zero thought about degradation and not bad implementation. This isn't the same as developing for IE for example. It's simply that implementing features two ways - one for JS and one for no, takes more than twice as much effort, so it doesn't get done. I've told clients before about the JS issues, but what it comes down to is the client doesn't want to spend twice as much to service the 2% that turn off JS. Period. They get a message that tells them to enable JS to use those functions. It's cost vs. benefit 101.
Why sad? THe ability to have portions of the page refresh without round-tripping to the server for a whole new page is only one of the highly useful functions provided by JS.
Uh, no. Javascript is required for a significant portion, I'd say most, of the high traffic sites out there. It is simply not feasible, or acceptable to suggest that all users disable a significant portion of the functionality of the web.
I have a Mac and 25 down / 5 up connection. I don't need BluRay. In fact I don't need DVD either. I don't understand why MacBooks still have optical media drives at all. I've probably used the DVD Drive on the Mac maybe 10 times in 3 years. I'd much rather have more battery, or an SSD/HD combo than an optical drive...
I'm actually a bit disappointed. I was hoping for some HD video of a sniper shot. Nothing says job well done like your target's head exploding in a cloud of pink mist.
No. But that's not what they do. THey don't store your "specific location" they store the cell towers and wifi hotspots your phone has been in communication with. That's all. They're not tracking you.
Who's the idiot? The person who doesn't care because they're not being tracked, or the person who doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about (you)
Well, since the data is stored on your device which is presumable under your control, and it isn't sent anywhere, and it server a functional purpose as part of the A in A-GPS, I'd say your blogger was correct.
At $50 to $75 a month per subscriber they can afford it.
Agreed. I've been ready for IPv6 for years. All of my machines, mac, windows and linux are configured, my firewall/router/DNS server is configured, my WAP is configured. What's not configured is my ISP who doesn't seem to know what IPv6 is.
What did you expect? /. is populated by IT workers who clearly spend too much time posting here, and not enough time working...
If you need a function, we'll work with you to get it done, provided we can legally do so.
If by "work with" you mean that you'll put it on your schedule to happen in six to twelve months, politicize the issue and use it as a reason to ask upper management for additional headcount while simultaneously back-charging my department approximately ten-times the going market rate had I simply been allowed to outsource it, then yeah, I'm sure you will work with me.
You're an idiot.
Oh, sweet irony.
I don't fly any longer, because I'm almost certain that I'd get picked for screening and I refuse to submit to the machine or a manual search, and I would assert my 4th amendment rights if they attempted such and probably end up in jail for doing so. The fucking bastards.
If I was an alleged terrorist (and for the record, I'M NOT) the alleged terrorist would get a job at the airport as baggage handler, or as a someone who services the planes. Then the alleged terrorist would put a bomb in some luggage, or some C4 into soda cans or something and get them on the plane - the alleged terrorist wouldn't try to get through security, unless his plan was to blow up the security checkpoint, which would also be good from a terror perspective. Then they can move the security check points outside the terminal, then those get blown up. Then move them off property and check all the people before allowing them in to the airport, then car bomb gets that.
The worst thing we ever did was change our behavior and way of life after the hijackings in the 70's and obviously after 9/11. We showed the people who would do such things that we will modify our behavior in a predicable fashion based on their actions - a very bad idea. We are now in a reactive posture. The thing that's even worse is listening to the morons who travel talk about how the "security" measures make them feel safe. Really? I have a tiger repelling rock I'd like to sell you...
I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life.
The preceding is a real quote, many of you know who said it, but if not, Google it...
And for the record, fuck the TSA. By all means, investigate me. I have the ACLU's phone number right here ready to go... I've said as much directly to my congressman and senators
Shoot the tiger from 500 yards away with a scope sighted 30-06 and you have no tiger, and maybe a few good steaks.
if not there's always Rosie O'donnell.
Federal revenue normally increases every year. In fact, revenues have declined in only five years since 1962. The 35 percent growth between 2003 and 2006 is significant – the last major growth in revenue was between 1997 and 2000, when the economy was booming and federal receipts rose 28.2 percent. But the recent three-year period also comes after three years of decreases, a drop Viard attributes to the 2001 tax cuts and the start of a recession that same year.
The economy does not turn quickly. A huge recession started after the dot com bubble popped, then the tax cuts came in 2001. It takes time for that kind of change to see an economic impact. In the short term there will be none, in fact in the short term you will simply see a reduction in revenue. in the mid term, a year or two later you sill see the increase.
Three years after the tax cuts, the tax revenue returned to the 40 year average of 18.4% of GDP, with the lower rates So, no, lowering taxes will not immediately raise revenue, but it will increase GDP and help lower unemployment, which is what you need in a recession. The fact that they lowered the rates but are still collecting the same percentage of an increased GDP tells me that lowering taxes did in fact increase revenue, because historically the feds collect about 18% of GDP as taxes.
Summary: They lowered the tax rate, GDP grew and they still got their 18%. Sounds good to me.