GUI tricks can separate the one queue into two queues, which is all that happens with profiles.
Unfortunately that is not all that happens with profiles. Profiles allow me to create a queue for television series, return an episode disc and be garuanteed another television series. Instead I will now have to micromanage my queue and interweave tv series into movies.
That doesn't even keep into mind the ability to separate ratings, parental controls, etc.
That's part of my problem with this whole cat naming system. It isn't consistent at all. There is no way to know what operating system someone is referring to unless you know.
Why do people insist on referring to their Mac OS with a code name instead of a number?
I have no clue what version of the Mac OS Tiger was versus Puma but I can easily figure out if 10.4 is newer than 10.2.
Also, once you have access to his laptop files it is highly likely that he is already logged in to his social networking sites, gmail, hotmail, etc.
If you're lucky he might have even saved the password.
The vulnerability is that APE installs itself in/Library where its supposed to go./Library is writable by local admins. So a local admin can replace the APE executable and gain root privileges. Read that again. A local admin can replace the APE binary to gain root access.
A local admin, an effective root user account, can gain root access.
Or they could open up NetInfo Manager and enable the root account and enter in a password of their own choosing and then log into the GUI as root. Or they could open up Terminal and run sudo sh and get a root shell.
This is simple revenge. Rosyna called them trolls and linked to an APE fix for one of their bugs. I think Rosyna may be right of the 9 published bugs, 4 of them are not from Apple provided software.
It's not every day though, its once a week after applying patches. I always assumed it was to make sure everyone rebooted fresh after a patch though. Making sure it got applied everywhere simultaneously.
Amen to that. It makes no sense to delete a stub or "unnoatable person" on Wikipedia. The only real justification would be so that people feel special when they are included in Wikipedia and that is conceited.
Me: How may I help you? Customer: Hi, my name is Customer. Me: Hi, how may I help you today? C: I just bought a Powerbook G4 and I can't get it connected to the internet. There are no ports at all, no USB, no Ethernet, no modem. Me: What? Are you sure there are no ports on it? C: Yes, this is the worst purchase I ever made! Can I bring it to you guys to have a look at it and get ports added? Me: This is the first time I ever heard of this! You're sure you flipped down the panel in the back? C: Panel in the back? I don't see a-- I am such an asshole! Thank you so much, I feel so stupid. Me: It's okay, don't worry. I'm glad I could help. C: I am sorry for cursing, thank you so much you just saved me so much money. Me: You're welcome, have a good day. C: You too!
What most majorities don't realise is that minorities need a place where they can be with others in their minority and not have to worry about the majority intruiding.
That's why a Black-only club or Latino-only club can exist but a White-only club cannot. White's have their own "club," it's called the United States.
I wish Blizzard would understand that this is also why a LBGT Guild is not discriminating against heterosexuals. You can't discriminate against hetereosexuals, there is not power structure in place to do such a thing with.
It's the same reason that it's perfectly fine to have Black-only clubs in Colleges or Asian-only fraternities.
These people are forced to live in a white-only world. Whether you like it or not America is overabundantly white. Minorities need a place they can go where they can not be surrounded by others. They need a place to escape. A white only club is not a place to escape, a white only club exists already, it's America.
You can't use circumstantial evidence to infer guilt in a crime but you can use it to build up a case against someone.
From wikipedia:
"A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence. This is only partly true: direct evidence is generally considered more powerful, but successful criminal prosecutions often rely largely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence..."
Most criminals are smart enough not to leave direct evidence. In cases like these circumstantial evidence is all investigators have to go by. Just because it isn't a fingerprint or eye-witness doesn't mean its unimportant.
What if there are no suspects in the case? Should the police be able to subpoena Google for a list of all searches from all IP addresses used in the area with search terms related to water levels and/or breaking someone's neck?
Why not? I really can't think of any reason to not allow the police to use every means necessary to investigate and find suspects in a crime. Looking up information on murder techniques is not enough of a reason to incriminate someone but if it helps the police locate suspects I can't think of why I wouldn't want it to occur.
Let's face it, there is such a thing as suspicious behavior and looking up ways to kill someone falls into that category. If you aren't doing anything wrong there isn't anything to fear. In the mean time allowing investigators access to databases that are useful to them helps protect you.
"Should police be able to search through your search history for "questionable" searches..."
Yes they should. I think that using a search engine to research methods of breaking someone's neck and water levels in nearby lakes is evidence that should be available to officers trying to find out who broke someone's neck and dumped them in a lake.
While this evidence alone is not enough to incriminate someone it does provide extra evidence to lead to their future incarcination. Lets face it, things add up and being able to find the pieces of a puzzle is an important part of researching a crime.
You can't arrest someone for looking at certain things but knowing they looked at those things is important in figuring out if they did commit a crime.
...but this is the government we're talking about.
1) Think of the manpower needed to install all those readers. 2) Think of the labor costs to upkeep them.
Furthermore, we'd need on on every street corner. 1,000 corners at 4 per block is only 250 blocks. NYC has so much more than 250 blocks, I'd be shocked if Dallas had that few blocks.
"What's everyone so worked up about? So there's a comet, big deal. It'll burn up in our atmosphere and what's ever left will be no bigger than a Chihuahua's head." - Homer Simpson, 2F11, Bart's Comet
As far as Apple pissing on Real, let's not forget that iTunes and iPod can play non-DRM content like mp3, so it is disingenuous for Real to complain too loudly that Apple's system is closed.
...but it is closed. Real cannot possibly get permission from the RIAA to sell music as MP3s. They do, however, want to make an online music store able to play music with iPods (50% of the market). Apple refuses to let them do this, they refuse to license their DRM to Real.
There is an obvious conflict of interests with Microsoft releasing anti-virus software for their own operating system, but one has to wonder if it is unethical. The two trains of thought I am following are as follows:
Microsoft is not making the viruses that affect their operating system. By making a piece of software to protect their customers from these viruses they are providing a service, this service is not illegal or immoral. What would be immoral is Microsoft abruptly ceasing the release of patches to protect end-users from virus exploits. Many viruses exist only because their is an exploit in the operating system for their taking advantage of. If Microsoft no longer patches these exploits in an effort to make an extra few bucks, they would be acting immorally.
I, however see their anti-virus as a seperate outlet. There are users who don't want to patch their operating system. If you can sell these users anti-virus software which automatically updates its definitions, they won't worry about a need to patch their operating system to protect them from viruses. It will be done through the anti-virus software. Hell, the software can automate Windows Update for them, and patch their system automagically. The rest of us who don't but M$-AV will have to patch the operating system ourselves.
The second train of thought is business oriented. Microsoft is a business, and in the words of my friend James, "...businesses aren't in the habit of accepting a decline in profits." By patching their operating system and allowing persons who do not purchase their anti-virus software to be safe from viruses, Microsoft may not make any profit from their anti-virus software. The conspiracy theorist in me brought the light the idea that Microsoft may actually create exploits or viruses in an effort to help their anti-virus software suceed. This thought is ludacrious. Microsoft would be risking jail time if they created viruses. If they created exploits they would be risking horrible publicity.
Viruses can exist without exploits, macro viruses take advantage of something that cannot be patched, automation. Microsoft just sees an open market and wants to take advantage of it. I see no ethical dilemma at all, just capitalism.
Just because you disagree with a law doesn't mean you are allowed to break it.
If I feel that a law preventing me from drinking and driving is a bad law, does that entitle me the ability to just break it on a whim? No.
There are proper routes you can take in the justice system to get a law like the DMCA repealed, until then breaking it doesn't make you look like anything except a criminal.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately that is not all that happens with profiles. Profiles allow me to create a queue for television series, return an episode disc and be garuanteed another television series. Instead I will now have to micromanage my queue and interweave tv series into movies.
That doesn't even keep into mind the ability to separate ratings, parental controls, etc.
That's part of my problem with this whole cat naming system. It isn't consistent at all. There is no way to know what operating system someone is referring to unless you know.
Numbers increase numerically. Cat names do not.
Why do people insist on referring to their Mac OS with a code name instead of a number? I have no clue what version of the Mac OS Tiger was versus Puma but I can easily figure out if 10.4 is newer than 10.2.
Also, once you have access to his laptop files it is highly likely that he is already logged in to his social networking sites, gmail, hotmail, etc. If you're lucky he might have even saved the password.
The vulnerability is that APE installs itself in /Library where its supposed to go. /Library is writable by local admins. So a local admin can replace the APE executable and gain root privileges. Read that again. A local admin can replace the APE binary to gain root access.
A local admin, an effective root user account, can gain root access.
Or they could open up NetInfo Manager and enable the root account and enter in a password of their own choosing and then log into the GUI as root. Or they could open up Terminal and run sudo sh and get a root shell.
This is simple revenge. Rosyna called them trolls and linked to an APE fix for one of their bugs. I think Rosyna may be right of the 9 published bugs, 4 of them are not from Apple provided software.
Sorry but
is not valid HTML. The proper way to write that line of HTML is:
It's not every day though, its once a week after applying patches. I always assumed it was to make sure everyone rebooted fresh after a patch though. Making sure it got applied everywhere simultaneously.
Amen to that. It makes no sense to delete a stub or "unnoatable person" on Wikipedia. The only real justification would be so that people feel special when they are included in Wikipedia and that is conceited.
The TARDIS is a fictional time machine and spacecraft in the British science fiction television programme Doctor Who. (Thanks Wikipedia!)
Me: How may I help you?
Customer: Hi, my name is Customer.
Me: Hi, how may I help you today?
C: I just bought a Powerbook G4 and I can't get it connected to the internet. There are no ports at all, no USB, no Ethernet, no modem.
Me: What? Are you sure there are no ports on it?
C: Yes, this is the worst purchase I ever made! Can I bring it to you guys to have a look at it and get ports added?
Me: This is the first time I ever heard of this! You're sure you flipped down the panel in the back?
C: Panel in the back? I don't see a-- I am such an asshole! Thank you so much, I feel so stupid.
Me: It's okay, don't worry. I'm glad I could help.
C: I am sorry for cursing, thank you so much you just saved me so much money.
Me: You're welcome, have a good day.
C: You too!
What most majorities don't realise is that minorities need a place where they can be with others in their minority and not have to worry about the majority intruiding.
That's why a Black-only club or Latino-only club can exist but a White-only club cannot. White's have their own "club," it's called the United States.
I wish Blizzard would understand that this is also why a LBGT Guild is not discriminating against heterosexuals. You can't discriminate against hetereosexuals, there is not power structure in place to do such a thing with.
It's the same reason that it's perfectly fine to have Black-only clubs in Colleges or Asian-only fraternities. These people are forced to live in a white-only world. Whether you like it or not America is overabundantly white. Minorities need a place they can go where they can not be surrounded by others. They need a place to escape. A white only club is not a place to escape, a white only club exists already, it's America.
Super Smash Bros: Melee has gotten way too much usage out of my GameCube. I still haven't collected all the trophies and I've owned it for 3+ years.
You can't use circumstantial evidence to infer guilt in a crime but you can use it to build up a case against someone.
From wikipedia:
"A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence. This is only partly true: direct evidence is generally considered more powerful, but successful criminal prosecutions often rely largely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence..."
Most criminals are smart enough not to leave direct evidence. In cases like these circumstantial evidence is all investigators have to go by. Just because it isn't a fingerprint or eye-witness doesn't mean its unimportant.
What if there are no suspects in the case? Should the police be able to subpoena Google for a list of all searches from all IP addresses used in the area with search terms related to water levels and/or breaking someone's neck?
Why not? I really can't think of any reason to not allow the police to use every means necessary to investigate and find suspects in a crime. Looking up information on murder techniques is not enough of a reason to incriminate someone but if it helps the police locate suspects I can't think of why I wouldn't want it to occur.
Let's face it, there is such a thing as suspicious behavior and looking up ways to kill someone falls into that category. If you aren't doing anything wrong there isn't anything to fear. In the mean time allowing investigators access to databases that are useful to them helps protect you.
"Should police be able to search through your search history for "questionable" searches..."
Yes they should. I think that using a search engine to research methods of breaking someone's neck and water levels in nearby lakes is evidence that should be available to officers trying to find out who broke someone's neck and dumped them in a lake.
While this evidence alone is not enough to incriminate someone it does provide extra evidence to lead to their future incarcination. Lets face it, things add up and being able to find the pieces of a puzzle is an important part of researching a crime.
You can't arrest someone for looking at certain things but knowing they looked at those things is important in figuring out if they did commit a crime.
...but this is the government we're talking about.
1) Think of the manpower needed to install all those readers.
2) Think of the labor costs to upkeep them.
Furthermore, we'd need on on every street corner. 1,000 corners at 4 per block is only 250 blocks. NYC has so much more than 250 blocks, I'd be shocked if Dallas had that few blocks.
I really wish they'd release a Mac version, but honestly it is great enough that I only use my PC to manage photos right now.
I keep importing photos onto my Mac in iPhoto for legacy reasons, but otherwise Picasa is where I am at.
"What's everyone so worked up about? So there's a comet, big deal. It'll burn up in our atmosphere and what's ever left will be no bigger than a Chihuahua's head." - Homer Simpson, 2F11, Bart's Comet
There is an obvious conflict of interests with Microsoft releasing anti-virus software for their own operating system, but one has to wonder if it is unethical. The two trains of thought I am following are as follows:
Microsoft is not making the viruses that affect their operating system. By making a piece of software to protect their customers from these viruses they are providing a service, this service is not illegal or immoral. What would be immoral is Microsoft abruptly ceasing the release of patches to protect end-users from virus exploits. Many viruses exist only because their is an exploit in the operating system for their taking advantage of. If Microsoft no longer patches these exploits in an effort to make an extra few bucks, they would be acting immorally.
I, however see their anti-virus as a seperate outlet. There are users who don't want to patch their operating system. If you can sell these users anti-virus software which automatically updates its definitions, they won't worry about a need to patch their operating system to protect them from viruses. It will be done through the anti-virus software. Hell, the software can automate Windows Update for them, and patch their system automagically. The rest of us who don't but M$-AV will have to patch the operating system ourselves.
The second train of thought is business oriented. Microsoft is a business, and in the words of my friend James, "...businesses aren't in the habit of accepting a decline in profits." By patching their operating system and allowing persons who do not purchase their anti-virus software to be safe from viruses, Microsoft may not make any profit from their anti-virus software. The conspiracy theorist in me brought the light the idea that Microsoft may actually create exploits or viruses in an effort to help their anti-virus software suceed. This thought is ludacrious. Microsoft would be risking jail time if they created viruses. If they created exploits they would be risking horrible publicity.
Viruses can exist without exploits, macro viruses take advantage of something that cannot be patched, automation. Microsoft just sees an open market and wants to take advantage of it. I see no ethical dilemma at all, just capitalism.
Yes, they look like total asses at the beginning, but by the second page they actually provided useful help.
Has anyone tried to compile this on Mac OS X? What were your results?
If I feel that a law preventing me from drinking and driving is a bad law, does that entitle me the ability to just break it on a whim? No.
There are proper routes you can take in the justice system to get a law like the DMCA repealed, until then breaking it doesn't make you look like anything except a criminal.
Don't you need to be British to become a knight?