Google's glasses will be available at gas station stores for 5 bucks each. They will be as appealing as the current stock of styles. They will be owned by 60% of the market.
Apple's iShades will be available at Sunglass Hut and put Oakley and Ray Ban out of business. They will be owned by 20% of the market.
To be exact: Microsoft likely had it running back in 2002, and it was able to GPS navigate you anywhere, it would do web searches, be able to tell you if approximating people are armed, have criminal backgrounds and if you are being followed, between many other things. They would even respect your privacy. BUT the thing was not running Windows so Ballmer killed the project.
SUBJECT: John Doe (Google ID 1312.11.552.874.5) SUBJECT AGE: 24 EVENT: Observation of known person OBJECT: Jael Bate (Google ID 7823.14.461.551.6) Identified by tagged photo, 1,264,243,452 hits, average match 87%, confidence after cross-correlation 99.12% OBJECT AGE: 17 and 11 months DURATION: 2 minutes and 9 seconds total, eye motion analysis breaks down as follows: - face: 2 seconds - posterior: 4 seconds - legs: 3 seconds - chest: 2 minutes
I dare "blindly" guess Alex was an average African Grey. My mother happens to own one and it is honestly as smart as a very young child. It's hard to explain. He knows what kind of words use for anger, happiness, request food, denote you are eating (without requesting food for himself, and actually rejecting it, just because he noted you are eating does not mean he WANTS some,) dance, sing, laugh at jokes on the TV (i think it’s more a matter of intonation on that one than actually understanding the joke) and even tell the dog to get the hell away from him. That on top of many other tiny behavioral things.
I think their learning is mostly hindered or boosted by their teacher. My mother is an elder woman, though, without much science or math skills to go trying to impart that knowledge on the bird.
I can’t help but smile in amazement every other week for some new thing he reacts to intelligently.
My doubt does not lie on them being able to learn, but instead being able to transfer knowledge to their children. It would take insane decades, but I would love to find a species in this planet we can teach to, that in turn teach their children the same skills.
As of yesterday it still did not. From all reports I am taking it Apple will start giving all registered users access to mac certs once the beta window is over.
This is something I do would love to see some confirmation or more info on. On a similar note, it would be amazing if they did similar for iOS, even if certs only allowed you to install your apps from your own machine via xcode.
I dont think its a question. I have two developers IDs, one is free.
The only thing that is open to potential question is if indeed that will be all that is required to get a certificate. Up to this date you still need a Mac Dev Program membership to get a certificate. They have not opened this up for all registered developers with just free DevIDs, but the OS just got into beta and in theory, only people in the paid Mac Dev Program have access to test this anyways.
I disagree with the payment requirement. For this to work properly its better for all honest devs, even if they are school kids with no income at all, to be able to get certificates.
Apple developer IDs are entirely free, not technically.
The way Apple Developer program works is that you first get an Developer ID. Once you have that, you log in and you can subscribe to the iOS Developer program($99/year), the Mac Developer Program ($99/year), or the Safari Developer program (free.)
You only have pay for the Mac Developer program if you want access to software and OS betas and App Store publishing among other things.
Up to this point everyone has stated only a Developer ID is required to get the required certificate. Anyone that goes through said process would know the rest I listed here. Gruber likely thought not everyone would figure Dev IDs are free.
) You already need admin privileges to install software in both macs and windows 2) If you have no admin privileges you have no business installing software on that machine. 3) The message to disable it reads "Choosing 'Anywhere' makes your Mac less secure. Instead you can allow an individual application from an unknown developer by control-clicking it's icon and selecting Open" (my i peed myself after reading that! 4) Double clicking the downloaded, unsigned app, will simply read "XXX is not from an identified developer." Right clicking it and selecting open simply brings a password entry box without additional messages. 5) If such a message scares anyone, that person should not be installing software from the open web to begin with!!! 6) This only affects apps that are downloaded from the internet. If you get the app into the machine from a thumb drive or CD, it will run normally.
Honestly, if you consider this even near "locked down", you dont know much about computers.
With the new OS "blurring the lines between OSX and iOS" it isnt far fetched to wonder if they will eventually make both the same OS and kill the "let me get what I want" feature entirely.
Now you are just trying to save face in the error.
There is a lot of logic behind bringing code signing to the desktop, starting with the fact that’s where it was born.
By virtue of Android and iOS being new platforms they happened to be entirely built around code signing, but Smartphones are little more than cell capable PDAs, devices that allowed you to do anything you wanted. So did Windows Mobile, actually. Code signing requirements are just an evolution in computing, unless you are 12 you would have seen it coming years ago.
At the end of the day no freedom is being limited in the Mac desktop with this. Entirely the opposite: you are simply gaining more power. The user is getting the tools he needs to be able to say "i only want signed apps to ever run on my computer." He has just as much power to say "let everything run on my computer".
Any hypothesis of Apple locking down the OS just by giving users a strong security tool is just FUD.
Does this ever really happen? Does malware ever get run by someone accidentally clicking on it?
Yes. A lot. Malware apps with icons that look like documents (images/movies) are rather common. A huge number of malware sneaks piggy backing on torrents and email attachments this way.
It's not clicking accidentally, but running a program accidentally because, well, you had no clue it was a program to begin with.
The point now is that the app wont even open up. A stupid user will just scratch his head "uh... well i guess this is a bad file, let me find my porn somewhere else."
I also have read some conflicting info now. Seems that you actually need to enable in a control panel the ability to run unsigned apps and apple will provide developers a service to sign apps free of charge, without needing to go through the App Store or approval process.
Sure, basically anyone, even malware authors may be able to get their apps signed, but then Apple can just invalidate the signature the first time it's encountered in the wild, effectively killing any spreading of the malware (and even killing already installed copies.)
No, we are talking about OSX 10.8's new signed app treatment. Look at the post you replied before, he notes "This has nothing to do with trying to lock down OS X"
Android was brought up because Android treats apps exactly the same way (well almost) that Mac OS X 10.8 will, yet no one calls Android a "walled garden."
A lot of people here are screaming that forcing users into knowing what they are doing to install unsigned apps translates into OS X becoming a draconian walled garden that is going to destroy computing as we know it, despite being exactly what Android does.
Apple is also offering a free-of-charge Apple developer IDs which they can then use to cryptographically sign their applications. The feature by default will not ask for password for any signed app, so this does not force any developer to go exclusively via the App Store, but it may make it necesary to sign your app.
Thats why I buy my mac with the defaults, and upgrade RAM and hard drives via newegg.
Not to mention that fact that MS service packs are free. If you had bought a XP machine in 2001, you were getting a whole lot of free software upgrades with the three service packs.
Despite the quick turnaround, 10.8 actually add a lot of features to OSX. This is not a "Service Pack", it is indeed a full upgrade. Apple seems to be using it's billions to ramp up development on the OS.
Sort of like how Android by default "spreads FUD" about apps not coming from the Android market? Since, you know, you have to check the "other sources" option in order to sideload apps? Yes, even on the vanilla versions of Android from Google it defaults to blocking sideloaded apps.
How dare you bring objective evidence to an Apple argument, sir!!!!:P
True Apple Haters know that Apple stuff are not gadgets, they are [insert degrading fashion term for gadgets here]!!! No geek would like [repeat what I said on previous degrading insert, amp it up by preceding it with the word "shitty"]!!!
To be fair, OSX already tells users not to trust any app that is downloaded from the internet, and asks you a confirmation to run it. If the app attempts to modify certain sectors, access some data, or even save information in some places, you are forced to enter a password to allow the app to do this.
I think this happens every single time the app attempts such modifications. For the most part only installers trigger this password validation now, and they do every time you run them. At least thats where I see them the most often.
This is not new either, has been there since at minimum Leopard (10.5). It appears the main difference here is the need to right-click (or ctrl click) to get the contextual menu that will allow you to open up the app. Makes it harder for people to accidentally click-open malware apps that somehow get downloaded by them clicking on the wrong thing.
Why do that when they can just charge 200 bucks for the initial release, with single computer licenses instead of family licensing like Apple does?
I figured Apple may do something like this when they announced Lion would not only be 30 bucks, but also the license would cover every single computer you own (at home, not for business.)
I’m cool with it also since the update is bringing some nice system apps. Game Center alone I would had paid 30 bucks for. Up to this day Microsoft still cant translate XBox Live to the desktop properly.
My wife works in a hospital. It IS true that a doctor gets rewarded better for cutting a leg than preventing said leg be cut off. However, the key word is "more". The doctor still gets paid darn well. He is not likely going rich, but he is on a comfortable high middle class income with a very nice car and 4 to 5 bedroom home.
Slashdot Mirror
Google's glasses will be available at gas station stores for 5 bucks each. They will be as appealing as the current stock of styles. They will be owned by 60% of the market.
Apple's iShades will be available at Sunglass Hut and put Oakley and Ray Ban out of business. They will be owned by 20% of the market.
The rest of the market will stick to dumbshades.
To be exact: Microsoft likely had it running back in 2002, and it was able to GPS navigate you anywhere, it would do web searches, be able to tell you if approximating people are armed, have criminal backgrounds and if you are being followed, between many other things. They would even respect your privacy. BUT the thing was not running Windows so Ballmer killed the project.
SUBJECT: John Doe (Google ID 1312.11.552.874.5)
SUBJECT AGE: 24
EVENT: Observation of known person
OBJECT: Jael Bate (Google ID 7823.14.461.551.6)
Identified by tagged photo, 1,264,243,452 hits, average match 87%, confidence after cross-correlation 99.12%
OBJECT AGE: 17 and 11 months
DURATION: 2 minutes and 9 seconds total, eye motion analysis breaks down as follows:
- face: 2 seconds
- posterior: 4 seconds
- legs: 3 seconds
- chest: 2 minutes
PEDOPHILE BEHAVIOR DETECTED, CONTACTING POLICE DEPARTMENT, ELECTRICALLY STUNNING SUBJECT UNTIL POLICE ARRIVAL.
I dare "blindly" guess Alex was an average African Grey. My mother happens to own one and it is honestly as smart as a very young child. It's hard to explain. He knows what kind of words use for anger, happiness, request food, denote you are eating (without requesting food for himself, and actually rejecting it, just because he noted you are eating does not mean he WANTS some,) dance, sing, laugh at jokes on the TV (i think it’s more a matter of intonation on that one than actually understanding the joke) and even tell the dog to get the hell away from him. That on top of many other tiny behavioral things.
I think their learning is mostly hindered or boosted by their teacher. My mother is an elder woman, though, without much science or math skills to go trying to impart that knowledge on the bird.
I can’t help but smile in amazement every other week for some new thing he reacts to intelligently.
My doubt does not lie on them being able to learn, but instead being able to transfer knowledge to their children. It would take insane decades, but I would love to find a species in this planet we can teach to, that in turn teach their children the same skills.
As of yesterday it still did not. From all reports I am taking it Apple will start giving all registered users access to mac certs once the beta window is over.
This is something I do would love to see some confirmation or more info on. On a similar note, it would be amazing if they did similar for iOS, even if certs only allowed you to install your apps from your own machine via xcode.
But I was taught in school that sharing my private stuff openly can result in STDs... Now I must pick between AIDS or Cancer? ACK!!!
I dont think its a question. I have two developers IDs, one is free.
The only thing that is open to potential question is if indeed that will be all that is required to get a certificate. Up to this date you still need a Mac Dev Program membership to get a certificate. They have not opened this up for all registered developers with just free DevIDs, but the OS just got into beta and in theory, only people in the paid Mac Dev Program have access to test this anyways.
I disagree with the payment requirement. For this to work properly its better for all honest devs, even if they are school kids with no income at all, to be able to get certificates.
Apple developer IDs are entirely free, not technically.
The way Apple Developer program works is that you first get an Developer ID. Once you have that, you log in and you can subscribe to the iOS Developer program($99/year), the Mac Developer Program ($99/year), or the Safari Developer program (free.)
You only have pay for the Mac Developer program if you want access to software and OS betas and App Store publishing among other things.
Up to this point everyone has stated only a Developer ID is required to get the required certificate. Anyone that goes through said process would know the rest I listed here. Gruber likely thought not everyone would figure Dev IDs are free.
) You already need admin privileges to install software in both macs and windows
2) If you have no admin privileges you have no business installing software on that machine.
3) The message to disable it reads "Choosing 'Anywhere' makes your Mac less secure. Instead you can allow an individual application from an unknown developer by control-clicking it's icon and selecting Open" (my i peed myself after reading that!
4) Double clicking the downloaded, unsigned app, will simply read "XXX is not from an identified developer." Right clicking it and selecting open simply brings a password entry box without additional messages.
5) If such a message scares anyone, that person should not be installing software from the open web to begin with!!!
6) This only affects apps that are downloaded from the internet. If you get the app into the machine from a thumb drive or CD, it will run normally.
Honestly, if you consider this even near "locked down", you dont know much about computers.
Explain to me: how does an OPTION locks an OS down?
With the new OS "blurring the lines between OSX and iOS" it isnt far fetched to wonder if they will eventually make both the same OS and kill the "let me get what I want" feature entirely.
In short: FUD.
Now you are just trying to save face in the error.
There is a lot of logic behind bringing code signing to the desktop, starting with the fact that’s where it was born.
By virtue of Android and iOS being new platforms they happened to be entirely built around code signing, but Smartphones are little more than cell capable PDAs, devices that allowed you to do anything you wanted. So did Windows Mobile, actually. Code signing requirements are just an evolution in computing, unless you are 12 you would have seen it coming years ago.
At the end of the day no freedom is being limited in the Mac desktop with this. Entirely the opposite: you are simply gaining more power. The user is getting the tools he needs to be able to say "i only want signed apps to ever run on my computer." He has just as much power to say "let everything run on my computer".
Any hypothesis of Apple locking down the OS just by giving users a strong security tool is just FUD.
I didnt mention ios...
Does this ever really happen? Does malware ever get run by someone accidentally clicking on it?
Yes. A lot. Malware apps with icons that look like documents (images/movies) are rather common. A huge number of malware sneaks piggy backing on torrents and email attachments this way.
It's not clicking accidentally, but running a program accidentally because, well, you had no clue it was a program to begin with.
The point now is that the app wont even open up. A stupid user will just scratch his head "uh... well i guess this is a bad file, let me find my porn somewhere else."
I also have read some conflicting info now. Seems that you actually need to enable in a control panel the ability to run unsigned apps and apple will provide developers a service to sign apps free of charge, without needing to go through the App Store or approval process.
Sure, basically anyone, even malware authors may be able to get their apps signed, but then Apple can just invalidate the signature the first time it's encountered in the wild, effectively killing any spreading of the malware (and even killing already installed copies.)
No, we are talking about OSX 10.8's new signed app treatment. Look at the post you replied before, he notes "This has nothing to do with trying to lock down OS X"
Android was brought up because Android treats apps exactly the same way (well almost) that Mac OS X 10.8 will, yet no one calls Android a "walled garden."
A lot of people here are screaming that forcing users into knowing what they are doing to install unsigned apps translates into OS X becoming a draconian walled garden that is going to destroy computing as we know it, despite being exactly what Android does.
Apple is also offering a free-of-charge Apple developer IDs which they can then use to cryptographically sign their applications. The feature by default will not ask for password for any signed app, so this does not force any developer to go exclusively via the App Store, but it may make it necesary to sign your app.
You are not voiding the warranty by disabling this feature on Mac OS X either. And reading on the feture, it turns out you can disable it entirely.
Thats why I buy my mac with the defaults, and upgrade RAM and hard drives via newegg.
Not to mention that fact that MS service packs are free. If you had bought a XP machine in 2001, you were getting a whole lot of free software upgrades with the three service packs.
Despite the quick turnaround, 10.8 actually add a lot of features to OSX. This is not a "Service Pack", it is indeed a full upgrade. Apple seems to be using it's billions to ramp up development on the OS.
Sort of like how Android by default "spreads FUD" about apps not coming from the Android market? Since, you know, you have to check the "other sources" option in order to sideload apps? Yes, even on the vanilla versions of Android from Google it defaults to blocking sideloaded apps.
How dare you bring objective evidence to an Apple argument, sir!!!! :P
Not new. It has ALWAYS done this. From way before the App Store in the iPhone itself existed.
True Apple Haters know that Apple stuff are not gadgets, they are [insert degrading fashion term for gadgets here]!!! No geek would like [repeat what I said on previous degrading insert, amp it up by preceding it with the word "shitty"]!!!
To be fair, OSX already tells users not to trust any app that is downloaded from the internet, and asks you a confirmation to run it. If the app attempts to modify certain sectors, access some data, or even save information in some places, you are forced to enter a password to allow the app to do this.
I think this happens every single time the app attempts such modifications. For the most part only installers trigger this password validation now, and they do every time you run them. At least thats where I see them the most often.
This is not new either, has been there since at minimum Leopard (10.5). It appears the main difference here is the need to right-click (or ctrl click) to get the contextual menu that will allow you to open up the app. Makes it harder for people to accidentally click-open malware apps that somehow get downloaded by them clicking on the wrong thing.
Why do that when they can just charge 200 bucks for the initial release, with single computer licenses instead of family licensing like Apple does?
I figured Apple may do something like this when they announced Lion would not only be 30 bucks, but also the license would cover every single computer you own (at home, not for business.)
I’m cool with it also since the update is bringing some nice system apps. Game Center alone I would had paid 30 bucks for. Up to this day Microsoft still cant translate XBox Live to the desktop properly.
I guess they'll have to start cutting off limbs to make ends meet.
My wife works in a hospital. It IS true that a doctor gets rewarded better for cutting a leg than preventing said leg be cut off. However, the key word is "more". The doctor still gets paid darn well. He is not likely going rich, but he is on a comfortable high middle class income with a very nice car and 4 to 5 bedroom home.
It's hard enough for doctors to make a living with Medicare cutbacks, insurance cuts, etc.
How can those poor souls survive in messily 200k salary now? The torture!!!!