The difference for me is that MacOS/Linux look to be far less susceptable to the virus/drive-by issues that Windows has been plagued with over the years. There's a big difference between running a random app from the internet to get infected, and happening to stumble across a dodgy site exploiting a buffer overrun in IE.
It's certainly getting a lot better with Win7, but things like MS's desire to support the huge range of legacy apps on Windows mean that there's likely to be many more security holes to come in the Windows space.
Not sure who's been doing the lying about MacOS being 100% secure (it clearly isn't), but it it far, far safer for the average user than Windows is.
The "running random application you've downloaded and typing in your password" threat is pretty much the same for any OS out there (except for the IOS-style walled gardens), and is only smaller on MacOS and Linux due to there being less users to target, and potentially the level of intelligence of the average user.
The virus/drive-by malware threat, OTOH, is much lower on MacOS and Linx than on Windows - both due to the smaller target, but also due to there being far less exploitable holes - or at least far less that have ever been discovered.
The only platforms where this kind of attack would be extremely difficult are the locked-down ecosystems, like (unjailbroken) iOS or most games consoles.
Whilst I'm sure that iOS isn't 100% guaranteed malware free (there's always going to be something exploitable somewhere), it's going to be a whole lot more difficult to do that than simply writing a noddy "Run Me" app that wipes all your data.
There are laws (or at least mandatory standards laid down by Visa and Mastercard) for the protection of credit card data - PCI DSS. If there's any way that the hackers could have got access to card data in any useful way, they Sony are likely to be failing miserably in their obligations under this.
There's not a great deal about China that I would class as left wing.
Socially, there's quite clearly a ruling elite, and they abandoned any pretence of economic equality quite some time ago.
Yes it's better here, but that doesn't mean we should be gloating, given the £3K fine that the UK hasjust imposed for a silly tweet about wanting to blow up an airport.
Not particularly general geek knowledge
on
2010 Geek IQ Test
·
· Score: 1
Doing any action with the primary purpose of manipulating share prices is illegal, and that's what it sounds like was going on here. They sold stocks with the intent of making that system behave stupidly.
And I've done similar with my iPhone. The fact that some large-screen phones sometimes survive hefty drops doesn't really show that they aren't more likely to break in those circumstances.
Not many people were buying Apple II games, and Amiga is a little after when I first started buying games (82/83). If you were into games in the UK, the chances are that you had a Speccy.
Check out the Crash software catalogue http://www.crashonline.org.uk/cat01/index.htm from 1983. Vast majority of prices in the £5-£6 range. There's a few up to around £7 and The Hobbit at £14.95, but that included the book.
£6 in 1983 is (according to the BoE inflation calculator) equivalent to £15 in today's money, far cheaper than the £30-£40 that most of top sellers go for today.
Again, I understand why this is the case, but the point remains that it is the case, - most popular commercial games were a lot cheaper when I first started buying them than they are today, at least in the UK.
I'm not talking about "Indie" games. I'm talking about the biggest releases from the biggest companies of the mid-80s gaming scene (at least in the UK). Companies like Ocean, Imagine, Activision, Ultimate etc.
I understand that there's more cost involved in producing todays games. But that's not the claim in the article. The claim is that game costs haven't risen,and they quite clearly have.
I understand why the prices are higher, but that's not what the article seems to be claiming. To argue that they aren't higher because some types of game were high back in the day as well is pretty misleading, especially given that (from my experience at least) pretty much all gamers I knew at the time had either a Speccy or a C64, and that was where the majority of games purchasing went.
Absolutely. When I started buying Speccy games in about 1984, they were typicaly £4.99 (about £11.95 adjusted for inflation). Some games did start to come out at £9.99 - I remember the shock in magazines at the time, but equally we started to get the £1.99 range at around the same time.
Like you say, obviously most of them are nowhere near as good as the best games released today, but they were the cutting edge at the time, and were far cheaper than today's cutting edge games.
No. Useful being defined as being of practical use. Which your "solution" isn't.
Or read the developer agreement
Do you mean the bit that says "You may obtain development-related digital certificates from Apple, subject to a maximum number as reasonably determined by Apple, that will allow Your Application to be installed and tested on Authorized Test Devices. You may also obtain, during the Term, one or more production digital certificates from Apple, subject to a maximum number as reasonably determined by Apple, to be used for the sole purpose of signing Your Application(s) prior to submission of Your Application to Apple or limited distribution of Your Application for use on Registered Devices."?
Or how about in the bit that says "Applications developed under this Agreement may be distributed in two ways: (1) through the App Store, if selected by Apple, and (2) distribution for use on a limited number of Registered Devices"
For reference, "limited number of registered devices" refers to "Distribution on Registered Devices (Ad Hoc Distribution)
Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, You may also distribute Your Applications to individuals within Your company, organization, educational institution, group, or who are otherwise affiliated with You "
And "No Other Distribution Authorized Under this Agreement
Except for the distribution of freely available Licensed Applications and the distribution of Applications for use on Registered Devices as set forth in Sections 7.1 and 7.2 above, no other distribution of programs or applications developed using the Apple Software is authorized or permitted hereunder. In the absence of a separate agreement with Apple, You agree not to distribute Your Application to third parties via other distribution methods or to enable or permit others to do so."
Do you want to read those statements and see whether you can spot anywhere that Apple might be doing something to limit your distribution of apps outside the App Store? If I want to develp an app and make it available to the general public to download outside the App Store, do you think the above licence allows me to do that?
I'm not sure why I need to jump through hoops to be convincing to someone who refuses to even read the basic information that I point him to
Maybe you might want to read it before providing it as evidence.
I can provide Steve Jobs himself saying you can do it
Please feel free. I always find it amusing when people provide links to articles that directly contradict their own claims (that "The only thing Apple is refusing to do is provide storage, distribution, and payment systems for apps they don't approve of", in case you've lost track).
Again, I want to make it clear - I'm not saying that Apple is necessarily wrong for doing this. But they do it. Unless you want to breach Apple's terms of use, you are tightly restricted in your right to distribute apps.
No. What I'm saying is that Apple don't offer an ad hoc distribution method for their platform, despite what the parent poster was claiming.
I gave no opinion as to whether this was a good or a bad thing.
But that's a restriction that Apple have placed on the platform.
Regardless, this is still quite clearly not a sensible or practical way of distributing an app on any useful scale. I believe it's also a breach of the developer terms of use if you're not using it for beta testing, so I'm not sure how this is really meant to be convincing me that Apple allow real ad hoc distribution.
I deliberately avoided saying whether I thought this was good or bad - in fact I pointed out that people can argue that it is a good thing. Personally, I'm torn. I understand the benefits, and I think that the fragmentation of Android, both at plaform and app level, is likely to harm it in the long term. But I still get frustrated as hell when there's a handy app out there (like SBSettings) that I'm not allowed to install without jailbreaking.
My point was that it's stupid to try to simply claim this control does't exist on the iOS plaform, which the message I replied to was doing.
So your idea of an acceptable way of ad hoc distribution to potentially many thousands of people is to get every one of them to send you their device ID and to create a new version of your app every hundred users, making sure that you've sent the correct version of that app to each of the people that you've entered their device id for?
You are joking right?
All of the links that this pulls back is to the beta programme (which is limited to 100 people prepared to give you their device id), so I assume you're not referring to this.
Any more clues?
Slashdot Mirror
The difference for me is that MacOS/Linux look to be far less susceptable to the virus/drive-by issues that Windows has been plagued with over the years. There's a big difference between running a random app from the internet to get infected, and happening to stumble across a dodgy site exploiting a buffer overrun in IE. It's certainly getting a lot better with Win7, but things like MS's desire to support the huge range of legacy apps on Windows mean that there's likely to be many more security holes to come in the Windows space.
Not sure who's been doing the lying about MacOS being 100% secure (it clearly isn't), but it it far, far safer for the average user than Windows is. The "running random application you've downloaded and typing in your password" threat is pretty much the same for any OS out there (except for the IOS-style walled gardens), and is only smaller on MacOS and Linux due to there being less users to target, and potentially the level of intelligence of the average user. The virus/drive-by malware threat, OTOH, is much lower on MacOS and Linx than on Windows - both due to the smaller target, but also due to there being far less exploitable holes - or at least far less that have ever been discovered.
The only platforms where this kind of attack would be extremely difficult are the locked-down ecosystems, like (unjailbroken) iOS or most games consoles. Whilst I'm sure that iOS isn't 100% guaranteed malware free (there's always going to be something exploitable somewhere), it's going to be a whole lot more difficult to do that than simply writing a noddy "Run Me" app that wipes all your data.
Does Linux do anything (or at least anything more than MacOS) to protect against this type of attack?
There are laws (or at least mandatory standards laid down by Visa and Mastercard) for the protection of credit card data - PCI DSS. If there's any way that the hackers could have got access to card data in any useful way, they Sony are likely to be failing miserably in their obligations under this.
There's not a great deal about China that I would class as left wing. Socially, there's quite clearly a ruling elite, and they abandoned any pretence of economic equality quite some time ago.
Yes it's better here, but that doesn't mean we should be gloating, given the £3K fine that the UK hasjust imposed for a silly tweet about wanting to blow up an airport.
Seems to be mostly "Sys Admin Geek IQ Test".
A bit like the entire Windows Phone platform...
I hope you're not British, otherwise you may be getting a knock on the door pretty soon...
Samsung for a start.
Doing any action with the primary purpose of manipulating share prices is illegal, and that's what it sounds like was going on here. They sold stocks with the intent of making that system behave stupidly.
Whether it should be illegal is another matter...
And I've done similar with my iPhone. The fact that some large-screen phones sometimes survive hefty drops doesn't really show that they aren't more likely to break in those circumstances.
Not many people were buying Apple II games, and Amiga is a little after when I first started buying games (82/83). If you were into games in the UK, the chances are that you had a Speccy.
Check out the Crash software catalogue http://www.crashonline.org.uk/cat01/index.htm from 1983. Vast majority of prices in the £5-£6 range. There's a few up to around £7 and The Hobbit at £14.95, but that included the book.
£6 in 1983 is (according to the BoE inflation calculator) equivalent to £15 in today's money, far cheaper than the £30-£40 that most of top sellers go for today.
Again, I understand why this is the case, but the point remains that it is the case, - most popular commercial games were a lot cheaper when I first started buying them than they are today, at least in the UK.
I'm not talking about "Indie" games. I'm talking about the biggest releases from the biggest companies of the mid-80s gaming scene (at least in the UK). Companies like Ocean, Imagine, Activision, Ultimate etc. I understand that there's more cost involved in producing todays games. But that's not the claim in the article. The claim is that game costs haven't risen,and they quite clearly have.
I understand why the prices are higher, but that's not what the article seems to be claiming. To argue that they aren't higher because some types of game were high back in the day as well is pretty misleading, especially given that (from my experience at least) pretty much all gamers I knew at the time had either a Speccy or a C64, and that was where the majority of games purchasing went.
Absolutely. When I started buying Speccy games in about 1984, they were typicaly £4.99 (about £11.95 adjusted for inflation). Some games did start to come out at £9.99 - I remember the shock in magazines at the time, but equally we started to get the £1.99 range at around the same time.
Like you say, obviously most of them are nowhere near as good as the best games released today, but they were the cutting edge at the time, and were far cheaper than today's cutting edge games.
Do you mean the bit that says "You may obtain development-related digital certificates from Apple, subject to a maximum number as reasonably determined by Apple, that will allow Your Application to be installed and tested on Authorized Test Devices. You may also obtain, during the Term, one or more production digital certificates from Apple, subject to a maximum number as reasonably determined by Apple, to be used for the sole purpose of signing Your Application(s) prior to submission of Your Application to Apple or limited distribution of Your Application for use on Registered Devices."?
Or how about in the bit that says "Applications developed under this Agreement may be distributed in two ways: (1) through the App Store, if selected by Apple, and (2) distribution for use on a limited number of Registered Devices"
For reference, "limited number of registered devices" refers to "Distribution on Registered Devices (Ad Hoc Distribution) Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, You may also distribute Your Applications to individuals within Your company, organization, educational institution, group, or who are otherwise affiliated with You "
And "No Other Distribution Authorized Under this Agreement Except for the distribution of freely available Licensed Applications and the distribution of Applications for use on Registered Devices as set forth in Sections 7.1 and 7.2 above, no other distribution of programs or applications developed using the Apple Software is authorized or permitted hereunder. In the absence of a separate agreement with Apple, You agree not to distribute Your Application to third parties via other distribution methods or to enable or permit others to do so."
Do you want to read those statements and see whether you can spot anywhere that Apple might be doing something to limit your distribution of apps outside the App Store? If I want to develp an app and make it available to the general public to download outside the App Store, do you think the above licence allows me to do that?
Maybe you might want to read it before providing it as evidence.
Please feel free. I always find it amusing when people provide links to articles that directly contradict their own claims (that "The only thing Apple is refusing to do is provide storage, distribution, and payment systems for apps they don't approve of", in case you've lost track).
Again, I want to make it clear - I'm not saying that Apple is necessarily wrong for doing this. But they do it. Unless you want to breach Apple's terms of use, you are tightly restricted in your right to distribute apps.
No. What I'm saying is that Apple don't offer an ad hoc distribution method for their platform, despite what the parent poster was claiming. I gave no opinion as to whether this was a good or a bad thing.
But that's a restriction that Apple have placed on the platform.
Regardless, this is still quite clearly not a sensible or practical way of distributing an app on any useful scale. I believe it's also a breach of the developer terms of use if you're not using it for beta testing, so I'm not sure how this is really meant to be convincing me that Apple allow real ad hoc distribution.
I deliberately avoided saying whether I thought this was good or bad - in fact I pointed out that people can argue that it is a good thing. Personally, I'm torn. I understand the benefits, and I think that the fragmentation of Android, both at plaform and app level, is likely to harm it in the long term. But I still get frustrated as hell when there's a handy app out there (like SBSettings) that I'm not allowed to install without jailbreaking. My point was that it's stupid to try to simply claim this control does't exist on the iOS plaform, which the message I replied to was doing.
So your idea of an acceptable way of ad hoc distribution to potentially many thousands of people is to get every one of them to send you their device ID and to create a new version of your app every hundred users, making sure that you've sent the correct version of that app to each of the people that you've entered their device id for? You are joking right?
OK. What about if I want to distribute it to my customers as well.
All of the links that this pulls back is to the beta programme (which is limited to 100 people prepared to give you their device id), so I assume you're not referring to this. Any more clues?
What OS are you referring to? I've certainly never come across a home OS that doesn't allow users to run apps as superuser.