So you're still holding onto the "Macs are immune to viruses" line, even though you said in the post I quoted that "Nobody said that macs are immune to viruses". But you are, in fact, saying that "Macs are immune to viruses."
macs are immune to malware that would otherwise be blocked by antivirus
So does this mean that: 1) Flashback is not malware 2) Flashback would not be blocked by AV 3) Macs are immune to Flashback
Taking just one recent example, Flashback. We could also include iWorkS, RSPlug, or Leap/Renopo if you want to talk about how those are not malware, or wouldn't be blocked by AV, or that Macs are immune to them.
Plenty of fan boys have, actually (including you, 2 posts up). And Apple certainly tried to make that implication, with lines like "immune to PC viruses" in their sales pitches. While it's true that Macs don't execute Windows code (wow, really?), Apple still didn't have a problem with blurring that technical line in their advertisements aimed at non-technical people. The reason why there are so many results for "are Macs immune to viruses", and why it looks like the vast majority of results for "are PCs immune to viruses" are articles about Macs, is not because "nobody said that macs are immune to viruses."
macs are not vulnerable to the types of malware that antivirus software could protect against
So if antivirus software protects against viruses, and you're claiming that Macs are not vulnerable to that type of malware, then aren't you claiming that Macs are immune to viruses? Are you just using the same kind of doublespeak that Apple used in their marketing?
Here's a question: if Macs are not vulnerable to viruses, then why are there antivirus programs for Macs? What exactly are those programs protecting against if not viruses? Do they "scan" the machine against an empty threat database and then say it's all clear?
It's like some general took a crayon and with a shaky hand drew it out and said "this remote and distant ocean is now ours".
I bet that's almost exactly what happened. You can tell by the name - "the nine-dashed line". The only name they have for that line is the number of dashes that were used to draw it on the first map, almost as if they didn't think a more permanent name would be necessary.
Also missing is the motivation - possible oil and gas reserves under the South China Sea. China wants to strengthen their territorial claim and then say the entire area is theirs.
You can get a Intel compustick for like $100. Full pc that can simu wifi to a shared folder and play whatever you want, plus as it runs windows or Linux you can do anything you want
A PC that can play Counter-Strike: Global Offensive in high-definition and costs 1/6th as much as my video card? Impressive. Or are you using a slightly loose definition of "play/do whatever you want", more along the lines of "do anything it was designed for?"
Yeah, nothing like using remote desktop to connect a cheap laptop to your high-end gaming machine and then trying to play Counter-Strike: Global Offensive.
Saying that it should be safe because shot is small and doesn't hurt when falling is like saying that it's safe to point a gun at somebody and pull the trigger because you think the chamber is empty.
Granted I've only gone about a quarter of the way through the comments, but so far this is the most stupid statement I've seen. Well done.
My suggestion for dealing with low-flying drones: pool skimmer.
Good idea. It's a well-known fact that every home in the country is equipped with a pool skimmer.
instead grabbing your gun and shooting randomly at everything that you don't like.
Is that what he did? Shot randomly at everything he didn't like?
Does this give people free reign to go randomly shooting at things?
What's with "randomly"? The guy hit his fucking target. That's hardly a random shot.
Also, replace "being a douche" with "breaking the law". The drone pilot was breaking the law. The homeowner stated that he thought the 4 men on the other side of the drone could have been checking out his teenage daughters, or the 16 year old sunbathing neighbor, or maybe casing the place looking for things to steal. All of those are possibilities. So, yeah, the guy was kind of within his rights to shoot the drone which was also technically flying in his exclusive airspace that extends 500 feet above his land as defined by the FAA. Calling the police would not have necessarily allowed anyone to determine who was operating the drone. Now everyone knows who was checking out all of the houses and other private property from the air.
the drone must have been below that, probably more like 50 feet
I'll never understand why people will decide to go and comment on something and then speculate about things that they could just read about, but it's pretty pointless to argue about stuff like that. The article contains all kinds of information that you might be interested in if you're commenting on this story, including things like this:
Well, I came out and it was down by the neighbor's house, about 10 feet off the ground, looking under their canopy that they've got under their back yard
I don't know how someone has a canopy *under* their back yard, but then again I don't live in Kentucky.
This is the part that really rubbed me the wrong way:
Since taking office, President Obama has worked with Congress to secure appropriate reforms that balance the protection of civil liberties with the ability of national security professionals to secure information vital to keep Americans safe.
As the President said in announcing recent intelligence reforms, "We have to make some important decisions about how to protect ourselves and sustain our leadership in the world, while upholding the civil liberties and privacy protections that our ideals and our Constitution require."
Here are some of the things Obama said prior to becoming president. This was in 2006:
We need to find a way forward to make sure that we can stop terrorists while protecting the privacy, and liberty, of innocent Americans.... As a nation we have to find the right balance between privacy and security, between executive authority to face threats and uncontrolled power. What protects us, and what distinguishes us, are the procedures we put in place to protect that balance, namely judicial warrants and congressional review.... These are concrete safeguards to make sure surveillance hasn’t gone too far.
He said this during his campaign:
strengthen privacy protections for the digital age and harness the power of technology to hold government and business accountable for violations of personal privacy
He said this while campaigning in 2007:
I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom. That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient
After he critiqued:
the Bush administration's initial policy on warrantless wiretaps because it crossed the line between protecting our national security and eroding the civil liberties of American citizens
He promised to:
update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to provide greater oversight and accountability to the congressional intelligence committees to prevent future threats to the rule of law
He also said he would review the Patriot Act to make sure that necessary protections for constitutional rights were in place.
So, what did he do when he got elected? He renewed the Patriot Act, and didn't do shit about any constitutional overstep until just recently when Rand Paul blocked another renewal of the Patriot Act, and now the White House has the balls to trot out that woman saying what I quoted above, how the president is working sooooo hard on reforms to protect our rights. Yeah, right. This petition hit its mark 2 years ago, why the response now? Because of the actions by Paul and others (most definitely with a massive assist from Snowden) to actually get some sort of dialog going on reforms, and now the White House is trying to take credit for everything. They waited this long to respond to the petition because they had shit to say about it until someone who is not even in the president's party finally gets the ball rolling and they can start taking credit for reforms. It's hollow bullshit. Don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain. This petition response is hollow, it's as hollow as the campaign promises which got me to naively vote for Obama for his first term, and his complete and utter failure to meet any of them is why I didn't vote for him in his second term, so they don't get to claim any sort of high ground on this issue. They did not want these reforms, they were dragged there kicking and screaming the entire way ever since Snowden boarded his
The profit margin is demonstrably larger on the one with bigger NAND.
Right. Maybe, for example, the profit on the larger one was $30, while the smaller one was a loss of $20. Who knows? What I know is that OnePlus is making high-end phones and selling them for half the price of their competitors with comparable hardware, and that they have publicly stated multiple times that the reason for the shipping delays in the past was because they could only afford to manufacture stock that they know will actually sell (i.e., manufacture after they have the orders), that if they made any appreciable amount of product that could not be sold then it would bankrupt them. That's how slim their profit margins are, which is why I'm not raking them over the coals for pricing their ridiculously cheap phone $50 more than they priced their ludicrously cheap phone. And the fact that I have over 45GB free in my 64GB phone means that I'm also not bitching about the lack of an external SD slot. If that was a major problem for me then I would have taken my $350 and bought a phone with slower hardware that gave me an SD slot. My last phone had an SD slot, for example. I bought a top of the line 16GB card and never filled it up either. I don't need a media library in my pocket with anything I might like to watch, 64GB is plenty for me. If it's not enough for you then you are apparently not the target audience for that phone. I really don't know what else to say to you.
Do you deny that the OnePlus One 64GB cost $50 more than its $16GB counterpart, while holding exactly the same specifications aside from an extra 48GB of NAND?
Sorry, are you asking me to confirm or deny facts?
even though we can clearly demonstrate that the hardware does indeed cost less than $50.
So, find the parts that OnePlus put in the One and show the cost that they paid for those parts.
Seriously, there's absolutely no point in you and I arguing about cost, profit, etc. If you have questions then contact OnePlus directly and ask them. They're not a major corporation, they're a small startup with actual people working there who will respond to you. Ask them what their profit margins are on both models, and ask them why the bigger one is $50 more. Assume they did some work and research in coming up with both their specifications and prices, don't just do some Google searches and assume you know their logic and motives.
Oxygen might be worth a shot. I like having Cyanogenmod preinstalled on my OnePlus One, but it would be nice if the people who wrote the OS and apps actually used phones. For example, it would be fantastic if the default messaging app would send pictures at a resolution above the minimum, or at the very least if they added an option for that. The default messaging app has some cool features but I still need to install some crap like Hangouts or whatever else if I want to send pictures at higher than 461x615.
They don't want you storing videos, pictures, music, and audio books on SD card; they want you to pay over 3x as much for that same SD card.
Right, that's why they're selling an unlocked top-shelf phone for $329, because they're all about making as much profit as possible and they really want to control exactly how you use the device. That's why the OnePlus One shipped immediately also, because they had massive inventory.
Wait, sorry, that didn't happen. People needed to get invites to even purchase the OnePlus One and then wait a while for delivery because their profit margins are so thin that they cannot afford to manufacture inventory that isn't going to be sold, and then they ended up selling 10 times what they estimated and had to ramp production up mid-run.
And you think they didn't include a removable SD card because of some profit motive. I bet its the other way, I bet they're trying to keep costs down. I bet it's the same reason they didn't include NFC: because the majority of people don't use it.
Literally exactly the same that it sounded before this was announced. I'm going through my list of all of the reasons why I don't have an iPhone, and this announcement doesn't seem to have changed even a single one of those reasons.
I believe that the technology to do something like that exists, yes. But if people are listening to music through their browser they probably aren't looking at that tab also, it's just in the background.
Slashdot Mirror
Are Macs immune to viruses or not?
So you're still holding onto the "Macs are immune to viruses" line, even though you said in the post I quoted that "Nobody said that macs are immune to viruses". But you are, in fact, saying that "Macs are immune to viruses."
macs are immune to malware that would otherwise be blocked by antivirus
So does this mean that:
1) Flashback is not malware
2) Flashback would not be blocked by AV
3) Macs are immune to Flashback
Taking just one recent example, Flashback. We could also include iWorkS, RSPlug, or Leap/Renopo if you want to talk about how those are not malware, or wouldn't be blocked by AV, or that Macs are immune to them.
Nobody said that macs are immune to viruses
Plenty of fan boys have, actually (including you, 2 posts up). And Apple certainly tried to make that implication, with lines like "immune to PC viruses" in their sales pitches. While it's true that Macs don't execute Windows code (wow, really?), Apple still didn't have a problem with blurring that technical line in their advertisements aimed at non-technical people. The reason why there are so many results for "are Macs immune to viruses", and why it looks like the vast majority of results for "are PCs immune to viruses" are articles about Macs, is not because "nobody said that macs are immune to viruses."
macs are not vulnerable to the types of malware that antivirus software could protect against
So if antivirus software protects against viruses, and you're claiming that Macs are not vulnerable to that type of malware, then aren't you claiming that Macs are immune to viruses? Are you just using the same kind of doublespeak that Apple used in their marketing?
Here's a question: if Macs are not vulnerable to viruses, then why are there antivirus programs for Macs? What exactly are those programs protecting against if not viruses? Do they "scan" the machine against an empty threat database and then say it's all clear?
I'm sure that it's not all that unusual for intelligence agencies to look for communication to/from ISIS.
It's like some general took a crayon and with a shaky hand drew it out and said "this remote and distant ocean is now ours".
I bet that's almost exactly what happened. You can tell by the name - "the nine-dashed line". The only name they have for that line is the number of dashes that were used to draw it on the first map, almost as if they didn't think a more permanent name would be necessary.
Once the material settles I'm sure they're as durable as any other island of comparable size.
Also missing is the motivation - possible oil and gas reserves under the South China Sea. China wants to strengthen their territorial claim and then say the entire area is theirs.
I tend to just pronounce them. Boys and life jackets are still missing, seven exclamation marks.
I just have a desktop PC which I use for most of the stuff I do (gaming, video, work, etc.)
Gaming, video, work, etc using a remote (as in not wired) display, sound, and input devices. It's not a difficult concept.
You can get a Intel compustick for like $100. Full pc that can simu wifi to a shared folder and play whatever you want, plus as it runs windows or Linux you can do anything you want
A PC that can play Counter-Strike: Global Offensive in high-definition and costs 1/6th as much as my video card? Impressive. Or are you using a slightly loose definition of "play/do whatever you want", more along the lines of "do anything it was designed for?"
Yeah, nothing like using remote desktop to connect a cheap laptop to your high-end gaming machine and then trying to play Counter-Strike: Global Offensive.
But what can - say - Gisele Bündchen do if some obnoxious prat has a camera-carrying drone hovering over her home?
I suppose she could get Tom to deflate one of his balls and throw it at the drone.
How come it is okay for criminals to use deadly force to take your stuff
It's OK for criminals to use deadly force to take your stuff? Jesus Christ, we should pass a law making that illegal.
He also stated that the cops agreed with him. It wouldn't surprise me if the cops gave him specific charges which they knew he would be able to beat.
Saying that it should be safe because shot is small and doesn't hurt when falling is like saying that it's safe to point a gun at somebody and pull the trigger because you think the chamber is empty.
Granted I've only gone about a quarter of the way through the comments, but so far this is the most stupid statement I've seen. Well done.
My suggestion for dealing with low-flying drones: pool skimmer.
Good idea. It's a well-known fact that every home in the country is equipped with a pool skimmer.
You're on a roll here.
instead grabbing your gun and shooting randomly at everything that you don't like.
Is that what he did? Shot randomly at everything he didn't like?
Does this give people free reign to go randomly shooting at things?
What's with "randomly"? The guy hit his fucking target. That's hardly a random shot.
Also, replace "being a douche" with "breaking the law". The drone pilot was breaking the law. The homeowner stated that he thought the 4 men on the other side of the drone could have been checking out his teenage daughters, or the 16 year old sunbathing neighbor, or maybe casing the place looking for things to steal. All of those are possibilities. So, yeah, the guy was kind of within his rights to shoot the drone which was also technically flying in his exclusive airspace that extends 500 feet above his land as defined by the FAA. Calling the police would not have necessarily allowed anyone to determine who was operating the drone. Now everyone knows who was checking out all of the houses and other private property from the air.
the drone must have been below that, probably more like 50 feet
I'll never understand why people will decide to go and comment on something and then speculate about things that they could just read about, but it's pretty pointless to argue about stuff like that. The article contains all kinds of information that you might be interested in if you're commenting on this story, including things like this:
Well, I came out and it was down by the neighbor's house, about 10 feet off the ground, looking under their canopy that they've got under their back yard
I don't know how someone has a canopy *under* their back yard, but then again I don't live in Kentucky.
This is the part that really rubbed me the wrong way:
Since taking office, President Obama has worked with Congress to secure appropriate reforms that balance the protection of civil liberties with the ability of national security professionals to secure information vital to keep Americans safe.
As the President said in announcing recent intelligence reforms, "We have to make some important decisions about how to protect ourselves and sustain our leadership in the world, while upholding the civil liberties and privacy protections that our ideals and our Constitution require."
Here are some of the things Obama said prior to becoming president. This was in 2006:
We need to find a way forward to make sure that we can stop terrorists while protecting the privacy, and liberty, of innocent Americans. ... As a nation we have to find the right balance between privacy and security, between executive authority to face threats and uncontrolled power. What protects us, and what distinguishes us, are the procedures we put in place to protect that balance, namely judicial warrants and congressional review. ... These are concrete safeguards to make sure surveillance hasn’t gone too far.
He said this during his campaign:
strengthen privacy protections for the digital age and harness the power of technology to hold government and business accountable for violations of personal privacy
He said this while campaigning in 2007:
I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom. That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient
After he critiqued:
the Bush administration's initial policy on warrantless wiretaps because it crossed the line between protecting our national security and eroding the civil liberties of American citizens
He promised to:
update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to provide greater oversight and accountability to the congressional intelligence committees to prevent future threats to the rule of law
He also said he would review the Patriot Act to make sure that necessary protections for constitutional rights were in place.
So, what did he do when he got elected? He renewed the Patriot Act, and didn't do shit about any constitutional overstep until just recently when Rand Paul blocked another renewal of the Patriot Act, and now the White House has the balls to trot out that woman saying what I quoted above, how the president is working sooooo hard on reforms to protect our rights. Yeah, right. This petition hit its mark 2 years ago, why the response now? Because of the actions by Paul and others (most definitely with a massive assist from Snowden) to actually get some sort of dialog going on reforms, and now the White House is trying to take credit for everything. They waited this long to respond to the petition because they had shit to say about it until someone who is not even in the president's party finally gets the ball rolling and they can start taking credit for reforms. It's hollow bullshit. Don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain. This petition response is hollow, it's as hollow as the campaign promises which got me to naively vote for Obama for his first term, and his complete and utter failure to meet any of them is why I didn't vote for him in his second term, so they don't get to claim any sort of high ground on this issue. They did not want these reforms, they were dragged there kicking and screaming the entire way ever since Snowden boarded his
The profit margin is demonstrably larger on the one with bigger NAND.
Right. Maybe, for example, the profit on the larger one was $30, while the smaller one was a loss of $20. Who knows? What I know is that OnePlus is making high-end phones and selling them for half the price of their competitors with comparable hardware, and that they have publicly stated multiple times that the reason for the shipping delays in the past was because they could only afford to manufacture stock that they know will actually sell (i.e., manufacture after they have the orders), that if they made any appreciable amount of product that could not be sold then it would bankrupt them. That's how slim their profit margins are, which is why I'm not raking them over the coals for pricing their ridiculously cheap phone $50 more than they priced their ludicrously cheap phone. And the fact that I have over 45GB free in my 64GB phone means that I'm also not bitching about the lack of an external SD slot. If that was a major problem for me then I would have taken my $350 and bought a phone with slower hardware that gave me an SD slot. My last phone had an SD slot, for example. I bought a top of the line 16GB card and never filled it up either. I don't need a media library in my pocket with anything I might like to watch, 64GB is plenty for me. If it's not enough for you then you are apparently not the target audience for that phone. I really don't know what else to say to you.
Do you deny that the OnePlus One 64GB cost $50 more than its $16GB counterpart, while holding exactly the same specifications aside from an extra 48GB of NAND?
Sorry, are you asking me to confirm or deny facts?
even though we can clearly demonstrate that the hardware does indeed cost less than $50.
So, find the parts that OnePlus put in the One and show the cost that they paid for those parts.
Seriously, there's absolutely no point in you and I arguing about cost, profit, etc. If you have questions then contact OnePlus directly and ask them. They're not a major corporation, they're a small startup with actual people working there who will respond to you. Ask them what their profit margins are on both models, and ask them why the bigger one is $50 more. Assume they did some work and research in coming up with both their specifications and prices, don't just do some Google searches and assume you know their logic and motives.
Oxygen might be worth a shot. I like having Cyanogenmod preinstalled on my OnePlus One, but it would be nice if the people who wrote the OS and apps actually used phones. For example, it would be fantastic if the default messaging app would send pictures at a resolution above the minimum, or at the very least if they added an option for that. The default messaging app has some cool features but I still need to install some crap like Hangouts or whatever else if I want to send pictures at higher than 461x615.
They don't want you storing videos, pictures, music, and audio books on SD card; they want you to pay over 3x as much for that same SD card.
Right, that's why they're selling an unlocked top-shelf phone for $329, because they're all about making as much profit as possible and they really want to control exactly how you use the device. That's why the OnePlus One shipped immediately also, because they had massive inventory.
Wait, sorry, that didn't happen. People needed to get invites to even purchase the OnePlus One and then wait a while for delivery because their profit margins are so thin that they cannot afford to manufacture inventory that isn't going to be sold, and then they ended up selling 10 times what they estimated and had to ramp production up mid-run.
And you think they didn't include a removable SD card because of some profit motive. I bet its the other way, I bet they're trying to keep costs down. I bet it's the same reason they didn't include NFC: because the majority of people don't use it.
How's that iPhone sounding about now?
Literally exactly the same that it sounded before this was announced. I'm going through my list of all of the reasons why I don't have an iPhone, and this announcement doesn't seem to have changed even a single one of those reasons.
You misunderstood my post, but whatever.
Advertisers found a way to disable it without javascript
Why hasn't that bug been fixed?
I believe that the technology to do something like that exists, yes. But if people are listening to music through their browser they probably aren't looking at that tab also, it's just in the background.