The security update is also available for 10.2.8. I downloaded it and installed it last night. It is apparently different than the one for 10.3.x, though, as the size is about a meg less.
The description says that it updates: "AFP Server,
cd9660.util,
Directory Services,
fetchmail,
fs_usage,
rsync,
System Initialization". I wonder what this does to directory services? Presumably it addresses the security issue raised earlier, but since the issue exploits a configuration that is necessary for NetInstall, I don't think that Apple could just "turn it off." I explicitly checked, but didn't see anything different about Directory Access after the update.
Anyways, it's great that Apple is updating 10.2.x machines still--apparently, they are listening and responding to criticism that they can't end support immediately after a new OS is released--part of their enterprise aims?
Um, I agree. But which do you think it is? Crap QA or noisy userbase? I actually have no idea--but I've seen plenty of both. Non-issues get screamed about, but the iTunes deleting bug was pretty spectacular.
Turning into that? I have no doubt that allowing Bush-friendly firms to overcharge for the reconstruction of Iraq was the plan from the jump. Well, some doubt--but not much. Furthermore, I don't think that Bush ever planned to give any more contracts than possible to foreign corporations; France and Germany's obstinance just gave him a good excuse. Maybe that's too tinfoil hat--but it sure seems like a natural way to pay off Big Texas friends, control the oil market for said friends, and pump tax money back into the US economy without looking like you're just giving it away.
As a Mac user (of the Classic variety) and now a Mac admin, I'm happy to have you, and I welcome you and your perspective to the Mac family. While the UNIX part of the New Mac is an interesting cultural shift for me, it's a learning experience that I'm excited to go through. While I'm sorry that you were scared away from the Mac forum you attempted, I think that there are others that cater to the "Mac-Classic user learning to use UNIX" that are very interested to glean UNIX knowledge; one of which is at Mac OS X Hints, and another at AFP548.
There are certainly two--maybe three, if you count the "Mac Classic users who want to learn Unix"--cultures, but I think Apple has done a pretty good job allowing each to work as they prefer. Except for NetInfo, but that's getting better.:)
A similar twist is available with electronic airline tickets. The electronic ticket saves the airline money, but it also provides a way to evade the fraudulantly obtained restriction on transfering tickets. (It was fraudulantly optained as a way to cut out the second market in tickets, on the basis that it would stop hijacking, when none of the hijackers were buying tickets on the second market.) If you buy an e-ticket, you can transfer it to another person by editting the name in photoshop or in html, and printing it out. When you go to the airport, they scan the barcode and it comes up valid, and then they look that your ID matches the name on the ticket.
Yeah, what the hell is with using a printout of my itinerary as some kind of proof of anything? While it's presence is usually required to get through the metal detector, does the TSA not really recognize that anyone with TextEdit and a printer can create their own credentials?
I think the next time I fly, my itinerary will include a first-class, round trip ticket to the Jovian moons, on Northwest Flight 987. Not that anyone will notice, but it'll give me something to smirk about as I take off my shoes.
What if you said "Hey, I paid for 3 donuts, but you only gave me one!"? By looking at the receipt, they can demonstrate that you in fact only paid for one. Of course, it can't help prove that you only got one donut if you paid for three.
I think receipts are also handed out so that the donut purchase can be expensed, if you're a business traveler. They would be in the minority, though, so I don't understand why the donut shop makes this the default...
And why are you eating three donuts anyways? What are you, Homer?
The kit could then be used for (basic, potentially problematic) paternity testing.
As I'm sure you realize, there are other issues besides the science--unless you can interpret the results as easily as on an EPT test, you'll get more lawsuits than'll be worthwhile.
Free hint: they list all the languages that they have heard about, because recruiters search keywords on the web-based job boards. The goal of a resume is not to prove your skills--the goal of a resume is to get to talk to a recruiter. The interview (or three) is the place to demonstrate your skills.
Anybody who keeps to a strictly modest resume simply hasn''t looked for work in the last three years--getting the recruiter to recognize that you're actually an ideal candidate for a position that they know nothing about is more than half the battle.
That's a pretty interesting idea--if you're looking for a habitable climate in something as vast as the universe, it doesn't pay to explore each potential system individually--so you do the biological equivalent of "throwing spaghetti against a wall to see what sticks". Then wait to hear from the organism that develops.
I don't think such line of reasoning bodes well for our future, though, and is precisely why we're in "listen" mode rather than sending--if such a scenario is true, the ET are more likely than not to say "thanks determining this planet is a proof positive. You're no longer needed" and eradicating us like a petri-dish culture.
That's a good idea, and it would be better if the two accounts were in separate banks--I believe that a bank might use one account to cover shortages in the other; or if there was a dispute about charges in one account they would use the second to cover.
However, I'm too lazy to do such a thing, so for my online shopping + paypal I use a temporary credit card number. It allows me to set a credit card # with a specified amount and expiration date, online, using a secure flash window(?). So I know that I won't be out an amount larger than I've authorized; nice for PayPal transactions, or for shady eBay transactions.
All the corporations that want to communicate with customers will want to upgrade. It's not that corporations that haven't upgraded will not be able to receive from Yahoo; I can't see why an email server would refuse a signed email if it hasn't been upgraded to recognize the signature. However, I can see that an upgraded server would indeed refuse to receive an unsigned email. So it's the corporations that want to send, not necessarily receive. Which means that if request information on a corporations product, and they can't send email to my mail server, they are likely to upgrade pretty damn quick. OTOH, what's the ROI of a worker processing SPAM? Those savings alone would be a reason to upgrade to refuse unsigned email, depending on the cost of implementation.
And, as another poster points out, this probably isn't going to start very draconian. If the largest mail servers upgrade to sign outbound mail--Yahoo, AOL, Hotmail/MSN, Earthlink, all the broadband providers--then another upgraded server will refuse email that appears to come from them, but the signature doesn't match. It will likely continue to receive email, even unsigned, from those that don't have signatures. This will gradually reduce the number of servers that a spammer can send from, until it becomes a standard requirement and is built into all email servers.
From the article: Yahoo said its "Domain Keys" software, which it hopes to launch in 2004, will be made available freely to the developers of the Web's major open-source e-mail software and systems.
But later: Garlinghouse also argued that Yahoo's proposal should be attractive to other e-mail providers because it is free and comes with no special restrictions. Is the GPL considered a "special restriction"? Will it not actually be GPL, just available to open systems?
I'm guessing that you'll need to be a GPL mail server to both require the private key for receipt, and to be able to use the system to give the email the private key for sending. So, what will this do to non-open mail systems?
You could presumably send to a non-open system, as they will simply ignore the key if present, but will still accept email if absent.
Open systems that require the key to receive will presumably refuse email without the key (otherwise what's the point), which means that a mail system that's open that uses this methodology might gain the perception of "being broken" from the end users point of view. Of course, the admin setting up such a system would be well aware that some email will be refused, and will be prepared to handle refusals, either with a "bounce message", a phase in period that just gives a warning, etc.
Senders that use a non-open system that can't use this technology will find an increasing amount of their email being refused; at first they'll blame the recipient, but as this gets more widespread, they'll blame their own sending service. Is that the sound of IIS's mail server being obsoleted?
The end result will be that users of open systems will receive less spam, whereas users of closed systems will find themselves still receiving spam, and increasingly unable to send to others.
Is Yahoo trying to break MicroSoft's mail service? Will this work? What's MSFT's option--reverse this and include it in their system anyways? Switch to an open system for a mail server, like, say, something based on a BSD license? Or ignore it, in an attempt to deprive it of critical mass?
Indeed, this might all be moot; Yahoo might make it free and available to everyone, either on a free system or a non-free system; the article isn't clear as it says both. It could also be that MSFT already uses an OSS mailserver in IIS for all I know about MSFT product. But I suspect this is a power-grab, like everything else these days. And, I have to say, if it is I wish Yahoo the best of luck--this would be another demonstration of the power of OSS; it allows the community to change together on a dime and play well together. Whereas makers of proprietary systems each have to modify their own systems with their own coders.
The important thing is not what you promise, but that when you make a promise you stick to it, whatever it is. That said, realize that this takes time--years. I need to see promise after promise to not be broken, each held commitment increasing the company's credibility in my esteem. You can't do it in just one quarter.
And you need to have consistent management--every senior management change, and you basically start from scratch. And one of the quickest ways to lose control over the process is to go public--don't forget that means that you are selling part of the company off. To investors who don't care about any long-term strategy beyond tomorrow's opening bell. So even if you intend to build credibility, an IPO can derail your best intentions.
Finally, tell me the bad news, in the plainest terms possible, as soon as possible--although I may stay with you as a customer, I need to know the bad news with as much warning as possible, so I can start planning work-arounds.
So the question is: are they playing Splinter Cell, or Dance Dance Revolution? Wouldn't you get tired of getting shot at in RL, that simulating it just wouldn't be the same?
Note that the guy was turned down during his security clearance check. I guess maybe they had a good reason to suspect that he would not be able to keep secrets?
Hm. Interesting point. But, as another poster pointed out, Apple has been making FAT formatted media before the signing of that deal. And, the significant terms of the deal have expired: IE and Office support on the Mac were only guaranteed for 5 years, which has now elapsed. I wonder if cross-licensing patents such as you mention would have expired along with those?
I think you overlooked CDs and Flash media sticks. Especially the latter; we have lots of users that format their USB flash media with FAT, save their PowerPoint for Mac files on it, and then take it to a conference room that only has a PC set up for projection.
Hm...since Apple's Disk Utility will let you format pretty much any writable media in FAT, will Apple have to pay Microsoft for that privilege? Will they choose to do so, or will they drop the ability?
Note to manufacturers: this will make your Mac formatted media actually cheaper to produce, so even if you don't give the consumer a discount, that's just one more reason to continue to produce Mac-compatible product...
These people were simply "charged", and not convicted of the crime. If you charge me, print my name in the paper, and I am found "Not Guilty"--I'm going to sue you for defamation of character and slander. Sure, the article truthfully recounts that these people were simply "charged"--but I'll bet you that I could argue that there is no difference in perception or the repercussions that'll be felt by me.
OTOH, I have no issue with convicted lawbreakers being made public. But too often the line is crossed between "deliberated upon by a Jury of my Peers, and found Guilty" and "cop didn't like my looks".
If you can find it, I think you'd both like Marathon. Really more of a puzzle than a FPS--it's not nearly as competitive as, say, Unreal--it has a nice blend of "How do I open that door" with twitch fragging. I would often clear a level, and then go back to figure out all the puzzles. Really, one of the best games of it's class, although now the graphics are dated. It gave a Mac-gamer hope in a dark day...but I'm not going to believe Halo is actually shipping for the Mac until I install it.
(Marathon also was available for the PC, but not nearly as widely known as it was on the Mac. And, good luck finding it, especially for the PC--but I'll warrant any Mac user from 98 still has a copy lying around somewhere.)
Slashdot Mirror
The security update is also available for 10.2.8. I downloaded it and installed it last night. It is apparently different than the one for 10.3.x, though, as the size is about a meg less.
The description says that it updates: "AFP Server, cd9660.util, Directory Services, fetchmail, fs_usage, rsync, System Initialization". I wonder what this does to directory services? Presumably it addresses the security issue raised earlier, but since the issue exploits a configuration that is necessary for NetInstall, I don't think that Apple could just "turn it off." I explicitly checked, but didn't see anything different about Directory Access after the update.
Anyways, it's great that Apple is updating 10.2.x machines still--apparently, they are listening and responding to criticism that they can't end support immediately after a new OS is released--part of their enterprise aims?
Um, I agree. But which do you think it is? Crap QA or noisy userbase? I actually have no idea--but I've seen plenty of both. Non-issues get screamed about, but the iTunes deleting bug was pretty spectacular.
That's great news! I hadn't seen that with the developer builds, but I didn't look for it either. I'll install it just for this reason alone.
even if it looks like it is turning into that
Turning into that? I have no doubt that allowing Bush-friendly firms to overcharge for the reconstruction of Iraq was the plan from the jump. Well, some doubt--but not much. Furthermore, I don't think that Bush ever planned to give any more contracts than possible to foreign corporations; France and Germany's obstinance just gave him a good excuse. Maybe that's too tinfoil hat--but it sure seems like a natural way to pay off Big Texas friends, control the oil market for said friends, and pump tax money back into the US economy without looking like you're just giving it away.
As a Mac user (of the Classic variety) and now a Mac admin, I'm happy to have you, and I welcome you and your perspective to the Mac family. While the UNIX part of the New Mac is an interesting cultural shift for me, it's a learning experience that I'm excited to go through. While I'm sorry that you were scared away from the Mac forum you attempted, I think that there are others that cater to the "Mac-Classic user learning to use UNIX" that are very interested to glean UNIX knowledge; one of which is at Mac OS X Hints, and another at AFP548.
There are certainly two--maybe three, if you count the "Mac Classic users who want to learn Unix"--cultures, but I think Apple has done a pretty good job allowing each to work as they prefer. Except for NetInfo, but that's getting better.
A similar twist is available with electronic airline tickets. The electronic ticket saves the airline money, but it also provides a way to evade the fraudulantly obtained restriction on transfering tickets. (It was fraudulantly optained as a way to cut out the second market in tickets, on the basis that it would stop hijacking, when none of the hijackers were buying tickets on the second market.) If you buy an e-ticket, you can transfer it to another person by editting the name in photoshop or in html, and printing it out. When you go to the airport, they scan the barcode and it comes up valid, and then they look that your ID matches the name on the ticket.
Yeah, what the hell is with using a printout of my itinerary as some kind of proof of anything? While it's presence is usually required to get through the metal detector, does the TSA not really recognize that anyone with TextEdit and a printer can create their own credentials?
I think the next time I fly, my itinerary will include a first-class, round trip ticket to the Jovian moons, on Northwest Flight 987. Not that anyone will notice, but it'll give me something to smirk about as I take off my shoes.
What if you said "Hey, I paid for 3 donuts, but you only gave me one!"? By looking at the receipt, they can demonstrate that you in fact only paid for one. Of course, it can't help prove that you only got one donut if you paid for three.
I think receipts are also handed out so that the donut purchase can be expensed, if you're a business traveler. They would be in the minority, though, so I don't understand why the donut shop makes this the default...
And why are you eating three donuts anyways? What are you, Homer?
I would say 1357 Gerbils/CPU should do it. Don't forget to grease the wheels, or you'll go mad the next time you have to install an OS.
The kit could then be used for (basic, potentially problematic) paternity testing.
As I'm sure you realize, there are other issues besides the science--unless you can interpret the results as easily as on an EPT test, you'll get more lawsuits than'll be worthwhile.
Only if you list it twice!
Free hint: they list all the languages that they have heard about, because recruiters search keywords on the web-based job boards. The goal of a resume is not to prove your skills--the goal of a resume is to get to talk to a recruiter. The interview (or three) is the place to demonstrate your skills.
Anybody who keeps to a strictly modest resume simply hasn''t looked for work in the last three years--getting the recruiter to recognize that you're actually an ideal candidate for a position that they know nothing about is more than half the battle.
The second ping could be a doozy.
I guess it would be a portscan next, eh?
That's a pretty interesting idea--if you're looking for a habitable climate in something as vast as the universe, it doesn't pay to explore each potential system individually--so you do the biological equivalent of "throwing spaghetti against a wall to see what sticks". Then wait to hear from the organism that develops.
I don't think such line of reasoning bodes well for our future, though, and is precisely why we're in "listen" mode rather than sending--if such a scenario is true, the ET are more likely than not to say "thanks determining this planet is a proof positive. You're no longer needed" and eradicating us like a petri-dish culture.
That's a good idea, and it would be better if the two accounts were in separate banks--I believe that a bank might use one account to cover shortages in the other; or if there was a dispute about charges in one account they would use the second to cover.
However, I'm too lazy to do such a thing, so for my online shopping + paypal I use a temporary credit card number. It allows me to set a credit card # with a specified amount and expiration date, online, using a secure flash window(?). So I know that I won't be out an amount larger than I've authorized; nice for PayPal transactions, or for shady eBay transactions.
Only if they come with shock collars, too.
All the corporations that want to communicate with customers will want to upgrade. It's not that corporations that haven't upgraded will not be able to receive from Yahoo; I can't see why an email server would refuse a signed email if it hasn't been upgraded to recognize the signature. However, I can see that an upgraded server would indeed refuse to receive an unsigned email. So it's the corporations that want to send, not necessarily receive. Which means that if request information on a corporations product, and they can't send email to my mail server, they are likely to upgrade pretty damn quick. OTOH, what's the ROI of a worker processing SPAM? Those savings alone would be a reason to upgrade to refuse unsigned email, depending on the cost of implementation.
And, as another poster points out, this probably isn't going to start very draconian. If the largest mail servers upgrade to sign outbound mail--Yahoo, AOL, Hotmail/MSN, Earthlink, all the broadband providers--then another upgraded server will refuse email that appears to come from them, but the signature doesn't match. It will likely continue to receive email, even unsigned, from those that don't have signatures. This will gradually reduce the number of servers that a spammer can send from, until it becomes a standard requirement and is built into all email servers.
From the article: Yahoo said its "Domain Keys" software, which it hopes to launch in 2004, will be made available freely to the developers of the Web's major open-source e-mail software and systems.
But later: Garlinghouse also argued that Yahoo's proposal should be attractive to other e-mail providers because it is free and comes with no special restrictions. Is the GPL considered a "special restriction"? Will it not actually be GPL, just available to open systems?
I'm guessing that you'll need to be a GPL mail server to both require the private key for receipt, and to be able to use the system to give the email the private key for sending. So, what will this do to non-open mail systems?
Is Yahoo trying to break MicroSoft's mail service? Will this work? What's MSFT's option--reverse this and include it in their system anyways? Switch to an open system for a mail server, like, say, something based on a BSD license? Or ignore it, in an attempt to deprive it of critical mass?
Indeed, this might all be moot; Yahoo might make it free and available to everyone, either on a free system or a non-free system; the article isn't clear as it says both. It could also be that MSFT already uses an OSS mailserver in IIS for all I know about MSFT product. But I suspect this is a power-grab, like everything else these days. And, I have to say, if it is I wish Yahoo the best of luck--this would be another demonstration of the power of OSS; it allows the community to change together on a dime and play well together. Whereas makers of proprietary systems each have to modify their own systems with their own coders.
The important thing is not what you promise, but that when you make a promise you stick to it, whatever it is.
That said, realize that this takes time--years. I need to see promise after promise to not be broken, each held commitment increasing the company's credibility in my esteem. You can't do it in just one quarter.
And you need to have consistent management--every senior management change, and you basically start from scratch. And one of the quickest ways to lose control over the process is to go public--don't forget that means that you are selling part of the company off. To investors who don't care about any long-term strategy beyond tomorrow's opening bell. So even if you intend to build credibility, an IPO can derail your best intentions.
Finally, tell me the bad news, in the plainest terms possible, as soon as possible--although I may stay with you as a customer, I need to know the bad news with as much warning as possible, so I can start planning work-arounds.
So the question is: are they playing Splinter Cell, or Dance Dance Revolution? Wouldn't you get tired of getting shot at in RL, that simulating it just wouldn't be the same?
Note that the guy was turned down during his security clearance check. I guess maybe they had a good reason to suspect that he would not be able to keep secrets?
She could of, course, be using PhotoShop, ImageReady, and still "get root." I hate to be obvious, but I think you overlooked it.
Hm. Interesting point. But, as another poster pointed out, Apple has been making FAT formatted media before the signing of that deal. And, the significant terms of the deal have expired: IE and Office support on the Mac were only guaranteed for 5 years, which has now elapsed. I wonder if cross-licensing patents such as you mention would have expired along with those?
I think you overlooked CDs and Flash media sticks. Especially the latter; we have lots of users that format their USB flash media with FAT, save their PowerPoint for Mac files on it, and then take it to a conference room that only has a PC set up for projection.
Hm...since Apple's Disk Utility will let you format pretty much any writable media in FAT, will Apple have to pay Microsoft for that privilege? Will they choose to do so, or will they drop the ability?
Note to manufacturers: this will make your Mac formatted media actually cheaper to produce, so even if you don't give the consumer a discount, that's just one more reason to continue to produce Mac-compatible product...
These people were simply "charged", and not convicted of the crime. If you charge me, print my name in the paper, and I am found "Not Guilty"--I'm going to sue you for defamation of character and slander. Sure, the article truthfully recounts that these people were simply "charged"--but I'll bet you that I could argue that there is no difference in perception or the repercussions that'll be felt by me.
OTOH, I have no issue with convicted lawbreakers being made public. But too often the line is crossed between "deliberated upon by a Jury of my Peers, and found Guilty" and "cop didn't like my looks".
If you can find it, I think you'd both like Marathon. Really more of a puzzle than a FPS--it's not nearly as competitive as, say, Unreal--it has a nice blend of "How do I open that door" with twitch fragging. I would often clear a level, and then go back to figure out all the puzzles. Really, one of the best games of it's class, although now the graphics are dated. It gave a Mac-gamer hope in a dark day...but I'm not going to believe Halo is actually shipping for the Mac until I install it.
(Marathon also was available for the PC, but not nearly as widely known as it was on the Mac. And, good luck finding it, especially for the PC--but I'll warrant any Mac user from 98 still has a copy lying around somewhere.)