So you're claiming that the ademons on OS X are less secure than Windows (since Windows is, at last count, most other operating systems at something like 95%), but in the real world the difference is that OS X ships with those allegedly insecure daemons OFF where Windows with it's demonstrably insecure daemons are ON.
I cannot dispute that OS X is (or is not) chock full of local root vulnerabilities, except to say that Windows is demonstrably chock full of remote root vulnerabilities.
And why are we talking about OS X in comparison to a serious Unix when the discussion regards Windows as a serious desktop os?
OS X desktop has no services enabled out of the box. The only thing a person would be vulnerable to then is trojans, and even then it would require the user to set up his email/pop first.
Doesn't the technique of 'sleep to ram' solve your problem entirely?
The system is 'perpetually' on and a booted system is stored in (low power) ram, mirrored to the hard drive of course in case power goes out, so boot only takes seconds?
I mean, that's what *I* do. Start up the computer on a daily basis in less than three seconds, most of the time just waiting for the monitor to rez.
Why exactly? Should it not be, if technology allows it, state health care? Or even more local, towards city health care?
If government can do something better than any other institution then I think the government should handle it; but because the entire nation is such a diverse population, I doubt a federal government could convincingly manage health care. It is a much more local thing, adaptable to local conditions since each region will have a different climate, culture, and population.
Yes, and isn't caring about global warming, reducing my suffering from asthma and allergies, and improving the air quality going to help benefit my species, my family, and last but not least myself?
Is belief in God more irrational than any other belief? It is only that recently science has started stripping away the need to believe in God to explain natural phenomena... but even so, that doesn't mean God doesn't or can't exist, it only means that God is a rational being!
Note, I don't even have an opinion yet on whether he does or doesn't exist.
I thought evolution worked on individuals, and not species, in assisting or retarding that individual's reproductive and survival success?
The needs of the many are fine, but it is the needs of the one that I am responsible for. It's not a choice of either or, but it is no one else's responsibility to look after me.
So in my belief system, global warming is a threat to me, and as such it is stupid to ignore it. Just like an imminent oncoming car, or a collapsing building around me, I need to care about the things that threaten my own survival and success.
If it helps others (like caring about global warming) then the entire species benefits, and I don't mind.
I want a better life for myself. Thus my concern with global warming. I've probably got another good 80 years in my life, possibly 100. If I can minimize 80 years of allergies by acting now, I'd be stupid not to.
Why shouldn't major climate change spell disaster?
I suffer through allergies and asthma, and as the planet warms up, we'll see bigger spring blooms (in some areas) and greater release of VOC from trees.
That's just going to suck for me and a lot of other people.
There's a concept where breaking the law is a form of willful disobedience, but if you adhere to that behavior you must also be willing to suffer the consequences of the law.
So read it aloud: POWER is equal to PowerPC, but PowerPC is not equal to POWER.
Sorry if it was sloppy, but I figure the inclusion of the word 'but' breaks any inherent abstract math in the phrase.
As far as I understand English, an object A can be the equal to object B by being superior, but in the process object B is therefore not the equal of object A.
The transparent solar collectors are supposed to be more efficient than regular collectors. That still means, however, that ambient heat/light will be transmitted.
So you have a house entirely built of solar collectors on the south side roof and wall, and a large earth/concrete mass on the north side, and the best you can do is something like 5% efficiency in energy collection. What do you do with the rest of the heat?
Imagine living in Nevada, where you get sun for more than 300 days a year, and most of those days are high quality 90F or higher sun.
A solar home can only use so much. A trombe wall can only absorb so much. Even the new 10% transparent solar collectors can only do so much.
What do you do with the excess heat? You run evaporative coolers and AC.
The only other way to shed the excess heat is to absorb it (ala these panes or burying the house underground) or redirect it, with things like geothermal heat pumps.
That's exactly the reason iTMS DRM is so successful. You're buying the music, the DRM is only there to appease the RIAA. Just like a proper mail client handles the encryption for you, only notifying you, "This recipient has never sent you an email before, do you wish to view it?" and automagically grab the proper keys to decrypt it. Imagine spam as a victim of encrypted email!
As long as encryption has legitimate uses, I don't see why it would go away for, say, financial uses ala DRM as well.
Just like CSS and Macrovision somehow DIED, right?
I don't see DRM dying; I see ineffective DRM thriving over literal DRM because one is more consumer friendly, and as long as we're comparing Apple's DRM to Microsoft's DRM, Apple is always ahead because it is more lenient to the user.
I can't see why you think encryption based DRM is going away; as processing becomes cheaper and cheaper, encryption becomes cost-less, to the point where I envision encryption on email, IM, voip, and everything... effectively DRM to protect our privacy, yes?
I have the right to these contents. The recipient has the right to these contents. The government, my boss, and my neighbor do not. How is encrypting email, then, not DRM?
You said 28mpg highway before, you know, and you keep mixing it with city!
And to counter *your* anecdote, Ars reviewed the Honda Civic Hybrid, rated for 47mpg city and got 48mpg. It's rated for 48mpg highway and they can get 55mpg.
How is one review better than the other? Only that careful driving and a good environment means hybrid electrics *can* meet the EPA guidelines.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a Russian "broadcast", the artist doesn't get any of it. Stupid.
So you're claiming that the ademons on OS X are less secure than Windows (since Windows is, at last count, most other operating systems at something like 95%), but in the real world the difference is that OS X ships with those allegedly insecure daemons OFF where Windows with it's demonstrably insecure daemons are ON.
I cannot dispute that OS X is (or is not) chock full of local root vulnerabilities, except to say that Windows is demonstrably chock full of remote root vulnerabilities.
And why are we talking about OS X in comparison to a serious Unix when the discussion regards Windows as a serious desktop os?
OS X desktop has no services enabled out of the box. The only thing a person would be vulnerable to then is trojans, and even then it would require the user to set up his email/pop first.
If you're going to throw in XP and 2k, you should also throw in OS X as well.
Mac OS X/Jaguar/Panther
I suspect that OS will last the longest out of the box, but I'm biased I think.
The graph mentions Windows XP.
So put up a modern Fedora or OS X system in the net and see how long before you're r00t3d or compromised, to be fair.
Not certain, but I expect that the survival time is higher than 20 or 40 minutes.
Doesn't the technique of 'sleep to ram' solve your problem entirely?
The system is 'perpetually' on and a booted system is stored in (low power) ram, mirrored to the hard drive of course in case power goes out, so boot only takes seconds?
I mean, that's what *I* do. Start up the computer on a daily basis in less than three seconds, most of the time just waiting for the monitor to rez.
Why exactly? Should it not be, if technology allows it, state health care? Or even more local, towards city health care?
If government can do something better than any other institution then I think the government should handle it; but because the entire nation is such a diverse population, I doubt a federal government could convincingly manage health care. It is a much more local thing, adaptable to local conditions since each region will have a different climate, culture, and population.
Yes, and isn't caring about global warming, reducing my suffering from asthma and allergies, and improving the air quality going to help benefit my species, my family, and last but not least myself?
What do you have against God?
Is belief in God more irrational than any other belief? It is only that recently science has started stripping away the need to believe in God to explain natural phenomena... but even so, that doesn't mean God doesn't or can't exist, it only means that God is a rational being!
Note, I don't even have an opinion yet on whether he does or doesn't exist.
I thought evolution worked on individuals, and not species, in assisting or retarding that individual's reproductive and survival success?
The needs of the many are fine, but it is the needs of the one that I am responsible for. It's not a choice of either or, but it is no one else's responsibility to look after me.
So in my belief system, global warming is a threat to me, and as such it is stupid to ignore it. Just like an imminent oncoming car, or a collapsing building around me, I need to care about the things that threaten my own survival and success.
If it helps others (like caring about global warming) then the entire species benefits, and I don't mind.
Why do I care about the entire species?
I care about myself.
Don't you care about yourself?
I want a better life for myself. Thus my concern with global warming. I've probably got another good 80 years in my life, possibly 100. If I can minimize 80 years of allergies by acting now, I'd be stupid not to.
Why shouldn't major climate change spell disaster?
I suffer through allergies and asthma, and as the planet warms up, we'll see bigger spring blooms (in some areas) and greater release of VOC from trees.
That's just going to suck for me and a lot of other people.
There's a concept where breaking the law is a form of willful disobedience, but if you adhere to that behavior you must also be willing to suffer the consequences of the law.
Man, everyone is calling me on this.
So read it aloud:
POWER is equal to PowerPC, but PowerPC is not equal to POWER.
Sorry if it was sloppy, but I figure the inclusion of the word 'but' breaks any inherent abstract math in the phrase.
As far as I understand English, an object A can be the equal to object B by being superior, but in the process object B is therefore not the equal of object A.
What, so how do you express transitivity?
Is POWER >> PowerPC better?
POWER == PowerPC, but PowerPC != POWER
POWER is a superset of PowerPC. See here.
How he talks about Apple's involvement with KHTML, various BSDs, OpenTalk, gcc, CUPS, and OpenDirectory, and X11.
There are hard fundamental limits to efficiency.
The transparent solar collectors are supposed to be more efficient than regular collectors. That still means, however, that ambient heat/light will be transmitted.
So you have a house entirely built of solar collectors on the south side roof and wall, and a large earth/concrete mass on the north side, and the best you can do is something like 5% efficiency in energy collection. What do you do with the rest of the heat?
Imagine living in Nevada, where you get sun for more than 300 days a year, and most of those days are high quality 90F or higher sun.
A solar home can only use so much.
A trombe wall can only absorb so much.
Even the new 10% transparent solar collectors can only do so much.
What do you do with the excess heat?
You run evaporative coolers and AC.
The only other way to shed the excess heat is to absorb it (ala these panes or burying the house underground) or redirect it, with things like geothermal heat pumps.
That's exactly the reason iTMS DRM is so successful. You're buying the music, the DRM is only there to appease the RIAA. Just like a proper mail client handles the encryption for you, only notifying you, "This recipient has never sent you an email before, do you wish to view it?" and automagically grab the proper keys to decrypt it. Imagine spam as a victim of encrypted email!
As long as encryption has legitimate uses, I don't see why it would go away for, say, financial uses ala DRM as well.
Hmm, I use 'good' commercial software all the time.
Final Cut Express
iDVD
iMovie
iTunes
Mail
Safari
OS X
Photoshop Elements
iChat
Where are you looking that you can't find good software?
How do you figure they've LOST money on the deal?
Isn't *any* car you buy 'money lost'?
Especially when you compare the high end $29k Escape vs the low end $19k?
Every dollar you spend is for a feature; in this case, it is fuel efficiency and low end torque.
Just like CSS and Macrovision somehow DIED, right?
I don't see DRM dying; I see ineffective DRM thriving over literal DRM because one is more consumer friendly, and as long as we're comparing Apple's DRM to Microsoft's DRM, Apple is always ahead because it is more lenient to the user.
I can't see why you think encryption based DRM is going away; as processing becomes cheaper and cheaper, encryption becomes cost-less, to the point where I envision encryption on email, IM, voip, and everything... effectively DRM to protect our privacy, yes?
I have the right to these contents. The recipient has the right to these contents. The government, my boss, and my neighbor do not. How is encrypting email, then, not DRM?
You said 28mpg highway before, you know, and you keep mixing it with city!
And to counter *your* anecdote, Ars reviewed the Honda Civic Hybrid, rated for 47mpg city and got 48mpg. It's rated for 48mpg highway and they can get 55mpg.
How is one review better than the other? Only that careful driving and a good environment means hybrid electrics *can* meet the EPA guidelines.
There are places and times where SUVs make sense.
Living in the woods
Living in snowy areas
Needing to haul heavy loads and keep a family seated
And there are places where SUVs don't make sense
Suburbia
Downtown
Commuting to work over two hours on the freeway