I agree. Personally, I'm not certain if the "Mac Worm Author" produced a working worm. Not that I don't believe it could be done, with time and energy, I just find it suspect that anyone would first pre-announce that they will have a working Mac Worm in a few days. Then when they are suppose to offer up the proof of such a thing, they disappear and claim they fear for their 'anonymous' life.
So far, there has been no proof that the worm exists or even works. The "guy?" has been criticized, not just by Mac fans, but security professionals and even newspaper reports for being irresponsible. Then supposedly, as a security expert and researcher, the "guy?" has his website hacked, the decides to pack his bag and go hide. But not before spreading a ton of misinformation and accusations. All just enough to keep people in a tizzy, and legitimate his claim as a Mac OS X author, when he still hasn't provided proof.
I say the title should read, "Author of the Alleged Mac OS X Worm, Claims Death Threats" It's far more accurate.
Not just Citibank, what about fairly large institutions like Associated Bank or Household Bank. Household Bank is fine when your banking, but to look up my credit card data, I have to go to HSBC or hsbccreditcard.com. I need a crib sheet just to keep up with the variations of names related to my credit card; and that doesn't even count when a bank decides it needs to distinguish urls for business or personal accounts, checking and savings, etc., etc. Most banks have a litany of urls associated with them. I have more than three bookmarks for my primary bank, each highlighting a different service I use frequently, that they've create separate login pages for. I could start from the front page, but then I have to go ten clicks in before, I get to what I need. It's easier to just bookmark, business account, personal account, credit card, and main page.
If banks would keep everything to one simple url, then yeah, phishing training would be darn easy; but it's not that easy right now; and what makes it worse, is some services aren't even managed by the bank. I'm the queen of research, and if I get annooyed out how long it takes to verify if a url is actually associated with my bank, has my bank been purchased/merged/ or otherwise renamed, etc., etc. Then I'm not expecting the average user to catch up quickly.
OK, well I can see a massive difference. It's far easier to train a user to recognize a combo of.bank and a green bar as legitimate, than it is to education them on all the various phishing options, and then having to keep them up to date, since new ones are added all the time.
My biggest issue with the proposal is the cost; and not that it shouldn't charge big banks $50,000 but that it ignores small banks and credit unions. Especially, since it ignores them with a 'they aren't the ones loosing money or big money' statement. If small banks and credit unions can't get access to the.bank domain, then as far as I can see, your just switching the scammers and phishers from targeting large banks to targeting small banks and credit union. It's a we don't care argument; which weakens the entire effort.
F-Secure mentions Finland, which has a very low rate of phishing due to the fact of its mail confirmations of address. My thoughts are if the.bank domain were to succeed it needs to include small banks and credit unions; which means there needs to be some sort of exception to the fees. Possible a $10,000 domain name purchased combined with physical proof credit union or small bank status, and a certain number of years in operation.
The proof of years in operation as an exchange for relief from cost; seems like a small trade-off for me. I would assume, most phishers' wouldn't be willing to wait 3-5 years and still fork out $10-$15,000 just to engage in a scam. Plus most newly established credit unions and banks fail or succeed (however marginally), within similar time frames of the average business (3-5yrs). Obviously, the verification process would be key, but this would allow small banks and credit unions the same level of security as large banks.
Really. Who has 10 different hosting companies to host "some of my websites"? If this guy actually has 10 businesses or unique sites or whatever (unlikely), wouldn't you pick the one hosting service with the best service plan and just use it?
Most tech or web consultants deal with a variety of hosting companies and call clients website, 'my website'. As far as I'm concern, if it's my responsibility, then its my website in casual conversation. In business conversation, I clarify who the actual owner is. Web consulting is one component of what we do, and while we have two primary ISPs that we recommend--one for really cheap services, that are good, but still fall under the 'you get what you pay for' classification; and the other for high availability, great features, great security, and offers both dedicated and shared hosting plans.
But even with our top 2, offered or at least mentioned to all clients, we've worked with way more than 10 ISPs. Recently, we made a big effort to encourage clients that we providing continued website maintenance for to switch ISPs as well as to switch CMS and domain registers. We were successful with 75% of those clients, and that's reduced the number of ISPs we've had to deal with down to 5--with GoDaddy, and AT&T two of the ISPs we'd love to say goodbye to. AT&T (formerly SBC) is fine for DSL and connectivity, but hosting, ick.
Whether or not the experiment took place, I can't say, but I'd agree with the results even if they were just a random estimate. There are a number of small ISPs who perform a slew of tasks based on name recognition; or other random things. I can't state the number of times as a consultant, I've called up ISPs simply stating that I'm the new web developer for so and so site; and need access to this, that, and that; and have it happen without any secondary verification to the company that I did have privileges.
Well, after talking to her own Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes, Ms. Kuneva backed away from her previous statements, and decided it best to widen the debate, to all DRM.
Reuters reports, "Meglena Kuneva told a news conference there was no reason to talk about legal action against the U.S. computer and technology company and that she merely wanted to raise questions. 'I would like, really, to start this debate. What is best to develop this market and to have more consumers enjoying this really very important, very modern way of downloading and enjoying the music?' she said of Apple's iTunes."
The reported article is kind of old, from two days ago. Today's news has Kuneva stating the EU Commision will take no action against Apple, etc., etc.
I was suspicious of this article. Apple's statement on DRM annoyed me to no end. Indie bands often plead with iTunes to remove DRM, and Apple refuses. It stands to reason Apple LOVES DRM, otherwise they would implement an opt-out system for DRM for indie artists. However despite the fact that apple is creating a monopoly in this area, they are actually doing good things with it in promoting indie bands!
I really can't stand when people ignore the facts and make statements like, "Apple Loves DRM". There maybe individuals at Apple who like it (though I doubt that many), but history proves that Steve Jobs and Apple were against DRM long before they were required to introduce FairPlay.
It took over three years of negotiations with the major record labels for Apple to get them to agree to any sort of contract, and when the iTunes Music Store was introduced, Steve Jobs gave a number of fairly candid interviews of how he had to (1) convince the major labels that music could be sold digitally, (2) how he loss the argument on no DRM, but won massive concessions on insuring that consumer 'fair use' rights weren't decimated by the major labels, when it came to what control the labels wanted DRM to provide, (3) how he also won major concessions on pricing, but loss some control over contracting issues, and (4) how his goal to insure that the major record labels and independent labels all expect the same treatment contract wise, was somewhat lessened by the aforementioned pricing and 'fair play' wars. [Independent Labels got a good contract, but its not equal with the Big 5, as was originally pushed for, and this was a direct power push by the Major labels, since they couldn't control product placement]
This was a 3 year battle, as opposed to those outfits who rushed out the gate after Apple introduced iTMS. Remember BuyMusic. It died quickly and horribly, but I can't say it wasn't a deserving death. To be the first to introduce purchasing downloads for the major labels to Windows users, [in case you forgot, Apple originally won all those concessions and spent three years in contract and business meeting just to get a trial run on the Macintosh platform], BuyMusic conceded to tier pricing, purchased placement of artists, super restrict and adjustable DRM on song files (some songs could be shared on multiple computers (2 to 5 depending on the label and artist), some could not, some songs couldn't be purchased as singles at all, new releases prices occasionally went as high as $1.79 with no copy, no portability restrictions in place.
I say, spending more than 3 years arguing, cajoling, and gaining concessions for consumer rights, when so many others were so willing to trample all over them, just to gain access to the major record labels collections, is ample argument that Steve Jobs and Apple has always seen DRM as a deterrent to where their vision of digital media will be in the future. That said, I think Apple was very pleased with their DRM, with all the latitudes it allowed, despite what the majors wanted. There is a reason why it's called, "FairPlay". The name is like a slap in the face reminder to the majors that consumers have rights as well; and Apple will do its best to protect them.
Unfortunately, I think Apple felt the sting of their own DRM and negotiated concessions, far more rapidly than they anticipated. So even the glow of their freshly minted FairPlay didn't generate illusions of DRM's not so bad for too long. Less you forget, when facing contract negotiations for extending FairPlay to Windows, and renewing contracts with the majors, Apple had to limit 'Rendezvous', add reductions to the number of times a play list could be burned, and make other concessions to the Major Labels; all because their contract indicated that if FairPlay was cracked and not fixed in a specific timeframe, the majors had some say in what they consider reparations.
I think this Technician comment may only be part of the issue. Earlier this week, I was reading about Vista licensing and what is and isn't available to home versus professional users. While, I do not have a full version of the home user EULA, one statement in the professional users EULA stuck with me.
We advise against playing or accessing content or using applications protected by other digital, information or enterprise rights management technology or other rights management services or using full volume disk drive encryption."
While, the statement was hidden under the Virtualization Technologies section, it did give me pause about how the Vista will handle DRMs other than Microsoft. If the system rewrites permissions, limits access, or re-encrypts other DRMs than this would not only be an issue with Apple, but other venders. Though admittedly, Apple is the largest third party vender, not licensing Microsoft's DRM.
Gotta love people, who years after the fact that Apple addressed the issue of changing its software numbering scheme, that people still consider 10.5 a point release. Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, Leopard are all full scale NEW versions of the operating system. Apple doesn't charge for point upgrades, or bug fixes, they get downloaded through Software Update for free, per normal; and as it has always been.
The "I'll grant you that OSX costs way less than windows short term and long term, but 130 bucks for a yearly point release is ridiculous." argument is only one you can use to persuade the truly knowledge-less of Apple and Apple products, or those looking for any fault with Apple in the first place. Regurgitating non-truths as facts is really rather stupid. Only full operating system upgrades get release names; hence the aforementioned, Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, Leopard.
If you don't want the functionality offered in a new version of the OS, then don't update. Apple still keeps Panther and Tiger bug fix cycles going. So yes, you can still download your non-numbered fixed for free, cause I can see you've already downloaded at least 9 numbered fixes for free; and yet, you still complain.
For me, the only question that remains is how long will Apple continue to provide free security updates, bugs fixes, and other functionality to Panther (10.3) once Leopard is release.
It shouldn't be. Apple did mention when they released BootCamp that the final version may have a charge. They also mentioned that there was a possibility that they would never release a final version. BootCamp beta was an experiment, obviously they got good results; and I think that has a lot to do with Parallels Desktop.
Both Apple and Parallels efforts to allow both products to co-exist and even work together in some fashion is what put the steam back into Apple's BootCamp efforts. Without it, for a brief period of time, it looked like Mac OS X Leopard would get some BootCamp integration but BootCamp as a separate project/product was dead. Parallels software cost $80 ($79.99), so I think $29 is a pretty good price--assuming that that would be the final price. It's all just rumors now.
Personally, I'll be recommending the Leopard upgrade for any of my clients that want both BootCamp and Parallels running. But, it's nice to know for those who Leopard isn't a strong possibility that BootCamp would officially become an Apple Support product. Something it isn't right now.
Funny, I legal buy music online from sources other than Apple, and they all work on my iPod. Try eMusic; Magnatune; Beatport; AudioLunchBox; and Bleep. Admittedly eMusic is the only one I consistently buy music from; but I have used a number of the other service. Plus a number of artist sell songs directly as well.
There's a big difference between stating "buying music online legally", versus the more specific "I want DRM music from another vendor to work on my iPod." A large variety of music works on the iPod. You never have to touch a DRM source, including Apple, if you don't want to. That said, though if you are purchasing DRM music, it seems irony of the highest order to demand it also be interoperable. The best you should hope for is that it works for the situation you purchased it for. Apple's DRM, in this context, works. In fact, it works so well, that people forget that they have purchase DRM music, until it bites them.
The very nature of DRM is the reduction of interoperability, whining that you got what you purchased just seems asinine. I want DRM to go away, but then again, I also want regional coding to go away as well. I make purchases that are informed by those wants/desires. I do purchase from iTunes (a whole hell of a lot), but I'm fine with the current limitations. But I purchase non-DRM music as well, and what I get in freedom, I pay for in time and inconvenience, but those are acceptable trade-offs.
Every co-op has it's own business plan. He's basically providing an alternative structure for organization rather than a foundation or a corporation. The co-op model allows for profits and allows/requires money to be redirected back into the project, and is more egalitarian than a regular corporation--since it's employee owned. Other than that all other aspects of the business still require definition by the member/owners.
I agree that the "prank" (the word really isn't strong enough) should act as a cautionary tale for more people. But I've got to say, God, what an a-hole Jason Fortuny is. Not only was his posting of the response--possibly illegal: no you don't have the right to post private data just because it was sent to you; just like you don't have the right to use my image for sale, just because I was unlucky enough to walk in front of your camera--the guy is just being an ass about his responses. I clicked on the thread by the husband and wife, in an open marriage; and not only was he treating them with scorn, derision, and heaping helpings of unwarranted hatred; but he was encouraging others to do so as well. It was like a public stoning, and practically everyone there was saying, "well, you volunteered for it, you were going to cheat on your wife" or "you deserved it, did you really think any girl would want to be submissive". Ignoring the fact that they are throwing stones at a human being.
I just have to say, I'm glad I don't do much work in that area of the country. Because, if I was ever asked if Mr. Fortuny should be hired, recommended, or even considered for a position; I'd have to state unequivocally, that I consider him to be untrustworthy, egotistical, uncaring, and highly likely to violate any private and or confidential data and materials, regardless of any policies he may have agreed to. He may be great at his job, but I, for one, would never recommend him.
I imagine as an independent contractor in the web and networking business, that he's put his livelihood in jeopardy. Cause, I'm betting that as much as the arrogant responses of the youthful looking to draw blood are commenting on his efforts; individuals and companies more likely to pay for the privilege of his service will feel a great deal more hesitation--despite any agreement that they may or may not have on the morality of the responders.
I hope that there are at least of few respondents willing to press civil charges against him (I'm not certain if any criminal charges can be brought).
Seeing that Apple is being or has been sued by at least two other "patent holders" on the same music navigation interface; I have to think that all it proves is...even though Apple "gets it" the it is something that could easily be had by anyone; its the implementation of it, silly. Besides, it would seem like at least two of the lawsuits would disprove or conflict with each. The Creative patent sounds remarkably similar to the Contois Music lawsuit. Though one is going after iTunes and the other the iPod.
The latest version of Safari is Safari 2.0.3. It's not in beta, and has been available to users since Mac OS X Tiger was released. It's not available for download from the Apple site, for the same reason many other Apple applications aren't available for download--current applications come as part of the operating system, and are automatically updated via Apple's Software Update. If a user needs to reinstall, they are suppose to go back to the OS disk.
I should also mention that if you perform a search for Safari on the Apple Support website, you will also get a link to Safari 1.3.2 and Safari 2.0.1 both newer versions than the one you pointed to, which is legacy software.
I understand why he hasn't gotten a new email. Think of it this way. You create some pissant email or text message account, and all of a sudden your getting emails from your boss, his boss, other employees, etc. And that's just small scale, when you think about a single corporate server. But Verizon serves millions of individuals and organization. The information maybe random, and he may have no plans to do anything with it; but its a slew of information.
Just look at some of the high profile mishaps--SAT tests scores, medical information, etc.--then think of the things he probably didn't even mention--meet me here(s), grocery lists, break-ups, email sex/flirting, etc., etc. Think:
"I slept with Kevin's best friend last night. I don't know if I should feel horrible or wonderful. You can't tell anyone --B"
real life drama's randomized, and at your disposal. It must be like flipping through the TV when your bored. Lots of junk, but some interesting tidbits that keep you coming back for more.
No. At least there wasn't before. There's a limit on how many computers you can authorize to play; and a limit on how many times you can burn a single playlist. But no limit on how many times you can burn a single song, and album of songs, etc., and no limit on how many devices--iPods--you can transfer your music to.
Why is it that people act like AllofMP3.com is a legal service? It's not. It's barely treading the legal waters in Russia, and is definitely illegal outside of it. It's more of a matter of not having the resources to get it shutdown. And since, it's most likely owned by the Russian mob, or someone who wouldn't stand a chance againt the Russian mob, do you really want to give the site your credit card number and personal identifying information??
All that said, I can't agree that a song isn't worth 99 cents. I can agree that its often not worth record agencies getting 55 cents out of the 99 cents. But I know a ton of muscians trying to make a decent living, doing great work. And since I value my time pretty darn, well, I'd say saying here's a dollar for your effort isn't that bad.
I don't need to hear arguments of scale. I'm just talking basic value. Just because somethings easily reproduced shouldn't take away its intrinsic value. If I can give a quarter, 50 cents, or some random amount of cash to a stranger, standing on street with their hand held out. I think I can give a dollar to someone who's work has brought beauty into my life.
Isn't that irritating. It typically makes me notice it even more; and what's more irritating is that sometime on the same show, a different actor will have a PC, and the brand is rarely hidden. I think I've seen the Dell brand hidden once or twice; but I can recognize a Dell Latitude D600 almost as quickly as I can recognize a 15" Powerbook.
And, I hate the patches they use, typically some plain white thing stuck on matte silver (ugly as hell). I'm like come on, if your going to cover up the logo, just place a sleeve or cover over the entire back, or do a nice custom paint job or something. Maybe even take the time to find a sticker with a nice image to use.
That's not really a durability issue; that aesthetics, and while I'm in to glossy, shiny things, practically every item I own--plastic, metal, even wood, that have semi to high gloss surfaces, require extra care to keep that aesthetic.
My shiny black file cabinets, that look so pretty storing items I hate keeping track of, is scratch prone. My high gloss finish desk (which I built) requires annual touch-ups to keep it super shiny, for those times when my desk is actually clear. I polish my Powerbook G4 laptop, and use a scratch filler every so often. Why, I even have to put my glasses away in a case or tissue paper each night so they don't get surface scratches. (the horror)
The fact is, if you don't want to provide care, your better off with a matte finish or mesh. Almost all my desktop accessories are matte or mesh, because, who want to spend time keep a pencil holder, stapler or a garbage can shiny. On the otherhand, I am willing to toss everything off my desk once a year, and reapply a finish; just as I'm willing to make sure I use a soft cloth and take other precautions with my iPod.
(Disclaimer: Yes, I am aware that the CIA and the NSA are different agencies. However, that shouldn't preclude one learning from the other's foul-ups.)
That's a little bit like saying that I shouldn't make the same mistake, that my neighbors made in their marriage. Unless, I live in a town where everyone knows everything about your marriage; or I for some reason have an abnormal interest in your marriage; I dare say, it might take me months or even years to learn something as simple as, "O' you have a kid away at college."
The sheer number of organizations in the United States government most likely preclude one keeping up with the day to day operations of another all that well. Especially if web services are treated the same in a lot of organizations (an afterthought). The fact of the matter is the volume of web applications--content management systems, web traffic analyzers, even email submission forms--often set cookies that last forever.
If your thinking, I want to add such and such functionality to my site, without programming it, just pick it up at HotScripts, SourceForge, or outsource it, then unless you remember to go back and check associated cookie longevity, then you've just broken protocol.
That said, I'm certain there are a bevy of little known, but important rules that web developers at all levels of government should know; so maybe a nice checklist of top 10 things to look for, remember, or specify when dealing with software from outside vendors (especially commercial or contractors) should be posted somewhere, and completed, before any project is signed off on. Off course that wouldn't help upgrades, but that's life...
That wasn't my response at all, you just seem to be hell bent on seeing things your way. My response is that there are things that not all users need, or even of those things that most users need and want, that there may be a thousand different ways to accomplish them.
Now, I mentioned three options, and indicated that I'm not even an expert in the "lock my computer" area because I don't need to do it often.
But someone else, mention a perfectly reasonable alternative. That's far better for your situation and the hospital guy, than my options.
Use the KeyChain! I tried it. I works fantastically well, I even assigned Control+Alt+Delete as the command key to activate it. Basically, all you have to do, is open the utility, Keychain, located/Applications/Utilities/Keychain In the application preferences turn on menu access. A little lock will appear in your top most menu, by the date, or your wireless symbol. Mine appears next to my iSync symbol.
To lock the I can click and choose "Lock Screen", but better yet, I use Menu Master by Unsanity, so I assigned the Menu item, Control+Alt+Delete as the command key, and it can now be activated at a keystroke.
I'll remove it, because, well, I don't need it; and my laptop is set-up to require that someone still type in a password to get root access. But that said, sometimes the information you need is just a search or a question away from you, if you look for it, instead of focusing on what's worked before.
Nothing to do with Apple's utopian vision; but also nothing to do with saying things that aren't really true. But totally proves my point of users not looking past how they've been trained to view things. If you don't want someone to see your desktop, switch out of it. You have three options: 1) Fully log-out (this will force you to close all open items); 2) Partial log-out/Fast Switch (this will keep all your documents and files that are open, open, and show a login screen; 3) Add a password to your screensaver. These items work for probably 90% of the people 90% of the time. personally, I've been working on computers since 1987, and can only recall three or four times where I've ever tried to lock the computer verses logging out.
With Mac OS X, and fast user switching, those times though rare are exceedingly easy. That said, if I wanted them easier, I could just pick up a small specialty application to do it for me, or go in and tweak the preferences. Personally, I'd use a specialty app cause that's what they excel at, customizing your environment for you. I have a slew of them running to make my computer, my computer.
Also, you can activate sleep immediately with a command key or the use of sleep corners (drag your mouse to the upper right or lower left corner, depending on how you set the functionality up. And there are probably other options, as well, but since its rarely a concern for me, I've never bothered to find out what works best.
Wow! See what happens when geeks try to overly exam things. The default view mode of iPhoto is "Browse" photos. Its the main thing that 90% of it's users do, with very little concept of editing or anything else.
Basically you open up iPhoto, you'll see the little flash of text saying, loading photos if you have thousands of them like me (if you don't you probably won't see it). You'll see the photos for which over folder or album that you select in thumbnail mode. There's a slider, to make photos larger slide the bar to the right (the icons larger at that end), to make the photos smaller (so you can see more per page (slide the bar to the left (the icons smaller on that end).
Photo navigation is handled by your arrow keys. You can go forward, backward, by using the left/right or the up/down arrows. If you want to see the photo even larger, you can click on the button that says "Desktop" and make it fit on your desktop. Though if your going through an entire row, obviously, slideshow mode in fullscreen display is far better.
Sometimes when your looking for things to be complicated, simple is just too easy. I get a lot of people who switch from Windows to Macs who ask questions about how to do this or that. That's when you really start noticing how much software has trained people to do ill conceived work-arounds that become the standard way of thinking.
I was just of this yesterday, when I was reading about this 10yr Windows user who just purchased one of the new thinner iMacs. He was discussing its grace, beauty, and overall ease of use, but then he rants about the lack of software. He wanted to load the machine up with anti-virus, spyware/malware, firewall and other security software. All perfectly fine, and available in the multitudes, for Windows. But for the Mac, you have your 5-10 main selections of anti-virus software, your built-in firewall or some UNIX base tools for those who want more control, but the category of spyware/malware software doesn't really exist.
He went on and on about the lack of developers, without ever given consideration to the fact that the category is so under-developed because it doesn't need to exist on the Mac platform. At least not yet. Typically, pop-up blockers in Safari, Firefox and other major OS X browsers, is more than enough to prevent spyware/malware (at least the kinds that most PC users think of).
Software doesn't self install on a Mac, it pops up a window requiring authentication and authorization. Which prevents the self-installation of most spyware that PC users experience. For those who want extra protection, they can block ads and banners, or purchase software like Little Snitch that will track outgoing communication from your computer, and a number of other little speciality tools. But they are specialty tools, because their for people who wish to knowingly esculate their security in specific manners.
Some things aren't required, and even more things are just simplier than you believe on a Mac machine. Even I sometimes have to take a step back and look for the simple with some of Apple's tools, becauuse my brains cluttered with the 10 or 25 step process.
Now, you can say "but it's going to bring downloading to the masses!" Well again, VOD is already quite popular. Almost everybody has it (whether they even know it or not) and all that's missing is a quick and easy way to transfer those shows to a portable device (sans PC).
Actually, I have to say you've killed your own argument. VOD is gaining popularity, but the biggest issue with it are 1) Most people DON'T even know they have access to it; and 2) many of those who do know, still can't use it.
A system is pretty useless if you can't figure out how to use it to your benefit; and cable TV and other vendors just haven't brought the simplicity of use home to the average user.
The benefit of Apple's system ISN'T the ability to transfer the file to a portable device. Downloads of the Lost and Deseparate Housewives have been fairly rapid, myself being one of the early adopters, and I can guarentee you I don't have the 4th or is it 5th generation iPod that can play videos, and won't be purchasing one before Christmas (though all bets are off after Christmas). I could care less about taking the TV show on the road with me.
What I care about is not being tied to another night of TV. I'm pinned down on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and refuse to add any more mandatory/appointment based viewing to my schedule. So downloading the newest episode via Apple or BitTorrent is the way to go for me. And Apple is way easier and faster. The episodes download in 10-15min, no conversion is necessary to get it to play on my machine, and the quality is more than sufficient for me.
I know my cable is suppose to include some items as part of VOD, and yet I've never used it. I tried once, and decided it wasn't worth the effort to figure it out. And my day job is helping others figure out their computing technology. Just think of my mother or brothers and sisters who still can't quite get their 60+ button remote to work properly for them, and you have a valid reason why VOD hasn't exploded.
Re:15 Reasons to boycott IMDb
on
IMDb Turns 15
·
· Score: 1
AWESOME. Now we're listening to so-so logic arguments from people who can't count!!! Anyway, I suggest you retitle your post, "7 Reasons Why I'd Boycott IMDb" subtitle "Won't You Join Me".
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. Personally, I'm not certain if the "Mac Worm Author" produced a working worm. Not that I don't believe it could be done, with time and energy, I just find it suspect that anyone would first pre-announce that they will have a working Mac Worm in a few days. Then when they are suppose to offer up the proof of such a thing, they disappear and claim they fear for their 'anonymous' life.
So far, there has been no proof that the worm exists or even works. The "guy?" has been criticized, not just by Mac fans, but security professionals and even newspaper reports for being irresponsible. Then supposedly, as a security expert and researcher, the "guy?" has his website hacked, the decides to pack his bag and go hide. But not before spreading a ton of misinformation and accusations. All just enough to keep people in a tizzy, and legitimate his claim as a Mac OS X author, when he still hasn't provided proof.
I say the title should read, "Author of the Alleged Mac OS X Worm, Claims Death Threats" It's far more accurate.
Not just Citibank, what about fairly large institutions like Associated Bank or Household Bank. Household Bank is fine when your banking, but to look up my credit card data, I have to go to HSBC or hsbccreditcard.com. I need a crib sheet just to keep up with the variations of names related to my credit card; and that doesn't even count when a bank decides it needs to distinguish urls for business or personal accounts, checking and savings, etc., etc. Most banks have a litany of urls associated with them. I have more than three bookmarks for my primary bank, each highlighting a different service I use frequently, that they've create separate login pages for. I could start from the front page, but then I have to go ten clicks in before, I get to what I need. It's easier to just bookmark, business account, personal account, credit card, and main page.
If banks would keep everything to one simple url, then yeah, phishing training would be darn easy; but it's not that easy right now; and what makes it worse, is some services aren't even managed by the bank. I'm the queen of research, and if I get annooyed out how long it takes to verify if a url is actually associated with my bank, has my bank been purchased/merged/ or otherwise renamed, etc., etc. Then I'm not expecting the average user to catch up quickly.
OK, well I can see a massive difference. It's far easier to train a user to recognize a combo of .bank and a green bar as legitimate, than it is to education them on all the various phishing options, and then having to keep them up to date, since new ones are added all the time.
.bank domain, then as far as I can see, your just switching the scammers and phishers from targeting large banks to targeting small banks and credit union. It's a we don't care argument; which weakens the entire effort.
.bank domain were to succeed it needs to include small banks and credit unions; which means there needs to be some sort of exception to the fees. Possible a $10,000 domain name purchased combined with physical proof credit union or small bank status, and a certain number of years in operation.
My biggest issue with the proposal is the cost; and not that it shouldn't charge big banks $50,000 but that it ignores small banks and credit unions. Especially, since it ignores them with a 'they aren't the ones loosing money or big money' statement. If small banks and credit unions can't get access to the
F-Secure mentions Finland, which has a very low rate of phishing due to the fact of its mail confirmations of address. My thoughts are if the
The proof of years in operation as an exchange for relief from cost; seems like a small trade-off for me. I would assume, most phishers' wouldn't be willing to wait 3-5 years and still fork out $10-$15,000 just to engage in a scam. Plus most newly established credit unions and banks fail or succeed (however marginally), within similar time frames of the average business (3-5yrs). Obviously, the verification process would be key, but this would allow small banks and credit unions the same level of security as large banks.
Most tech or web consultants deal with a variety of hosting companies and call clients website, 'my website'. As far as I'm concern, if it's my responsibility, then its my website in casual conversation. In business conversation, I clarify who the actual owner is. Web consulting is one component of what we do, and while we have two primary ISPs that we recommend--one for really cheap services, that are good, but still fall under the 'you get what you pay for' classification; and the other for high availability, great features, great security, and offers both dedicated and shared hosting plans.
But even with our top 2, offered or at least mentioned to all clients, we've worked with way more than 10 ISPs. Recently, we made a big effort to encourage clients that we providing continued website maintenance for to switch ISPs as well as to switch CMS and domain registers. We were successful with 75% of those clients, and that's reduced the number of ISPs we've had to deal with down to 5--with GoDaddy, and AT&T two of the ISPs we'd love to say goodbye to. AT&T (formerly SBC) is fine for DSL and connectivity, but hosting, ick.
Whether or not the experiment took place, I can't say, but I'd agree with the results even if they were just a random estimate. There are a number of small ISPs who perform a slew of tasks based on name recognition; or other random things. I can't state the number of times as a consultant, I've called up ISPs simply stating that I'm the new web developer for so and so site; and need access to this, that, and that; and have it happen without any secondary verification to the company that I did have privileges.
The reported article is kind of old, from two days ago. Today's news has Kuneva stating the EU Commision will take no action against Apple, etc., etc.
It took over three years of negotiations with the major record labels for Apple to get them to agree to any sort of contract, and when the iTunes Music Store was introduced, Steve Jobs gave a number of fairly candid interviews of how he had to (1) convince the major labels that music could be sold digitally, (2) how he loss the argument on no DRM, but won massive concessions on insuring that consumer 'fair use' rights weren't decimated by the major labels, when it came to what control the labels wanted DRM to provide, (3) how he also won major concessions on pricing, but loss some control over contracting issues, and (4) how his goal to insure that the major record labels and independent labels all expect the same treatment contract wise, was somewhat lessened by the aforementioned pricing and 'fair play' wars. [Independent Labels got a good contract, but its not equal with the Big 5, as was originally pushed for, and this was a direct power push by the Major labels, since they couldn't control product placement]
This was a 3 year battle, as opposed to those outfits who rushed out the gate after Apple introduced iTMS. Remember BuyMusic. It died quickly and horribly, but I can't say it wasn't a deserving death. To be the first to introduce purchasing downloads for the major labels to Windows users, [in case you forgot, Apple originally won all those concessions and spent three years in contract and business meeting just to get a trial run on the Macintosh platform], BuyMusic conceded to tier pricing, purchased placement of artists, super restrict and adjustable DRM on song files (some songs could be shared on multiple computers (2 to 5 depending on the label and artist), some could not, some songs couldn't be purchased as singles at all, new releases prices occasionally went as high as $1.79 with no copy, no portability restrictions in place.
I say, spending more than 3 years arguing, cajoling, and gaining concessions for consumer rights, when so many others were so willing to trample all over them, just to gain access to the major record labels collections, is ample argument that Steve Jobs and Apple has always seen DRM as a deterrent to where their vision of digital media will be in the future. That said, I think Apple was very pleased with their DRM, with all the latitudes it allowed, despite what the majors wanted. There is a reason why it's called, "FairPlay". The name is like a slap in the face reminder to the majors that consumers have rights as well; and Apple will do its best to protect them.
Unfortunately, I think Apple felt the sting of their own DRM and negotiated concessions, far more rapidly than they anticipated. So even the glow of their freshly minted FairPlay didn't generate illusions of DRM's not so bad for too long. Less you forget, when facing contract negotiations for extending FairPlay to Windows, and renewing contracts with the majors, Apple had to limit 'Rendezvous', add reductions to the number of times a play list could be burned, and make other concessions to the Major Labels; all because their contract indicated that if FairPlay was cracked and not fixed in a specific timeframe, the majors had some say in what they consider reparations.
I think this Technician comment may only be part of the issue. Earlier this week, I was reading about Vista licensing and what is and isn't available to home versus professional users. While, I do not have a full version of the home user EULA, one statement in the professional users EULA stuck with me.
While, the statement was hidden under the Virtualization Technologies section, it did give me pause about how the Vista will handle DRMs other than Microsoft. If the system rewrites permissions, limits access, or re-encrypts other DRMs than this would not only be an issue with Apple, but other venders. Though admittedly, Apple is the largest third party vender, not licensing Microsoft's DRM.
Gotta love people, who years after the fact that Apple addressed the issue of changing its software numbering scheme, that people still consider 10.5 a point release. Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, Leopard are all full scale NEW versions of the operating system. Apple doesn't charge for point upgrades, or bug fixes, they get downloaded through Software Update for free, per normal; and as it has always been.
The "I'll grant you that OSX costs way less than windows short term and long term, but 130 bucks for a yearly point release is ridiculous." argument is only one you can use to persuade the truly knowledge-less of Apple and Apple products, or those looking for any fault with Apple in the first place. Regurgitating non-truths as facts is really rather stupid. Only full operating system upgrades get release names; hence the aforementioned, Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, Leopard.
If you don't want the functionality offered in a new version of the OS, then don't update. Apple still keeps Panther and Tiger bug fix cycles going. So yes, you can still download your non-numbered fixed for free, cause I can see you've already downloaded at least 9 numbered fixes for free; and yet, you still complain.
For me, the only question that remains is how long will Apple continue to provide free security updates, bugs fixes, and other functionality to Panther (10.3) once Leopard is release.
It shouldn't be. Apple did mention when they released BootCamp that the final version may have a charge. They also mentioned that there was a possibility that they would never release a final version. BootCamp beta was an experiment, obviously they got good results; and I think that has a lot to do with Parallels Desktop.
Both Apple and Parallels efforts to allow both products to co-exist and even work together in some fashion is what put the steam back into Apple's BootCamp efforts. Without it, for a brief period of time, it looked like Mac OS X Leopard would get some BootCamp integration but BootCamp as a separate project/product was dead. Parallels software cost $80 ($79.99), so I think $29 is a pretty good price--assuming that that would be the final price. It's all just rumors now.
Personally, I'll be recommending the Leopard upgrade for any of my clients that want both BootCamp and Parallels running. But, it's nice to know for those who Leopard isn't a strong possibility that BootCamp would officially become an Apple Support product. Something it isn't right now.
Funny, I legal buy music online from sources other than Apple, and they all work on my iPod. Try eMusic; Magnatune; Beatport; AudioLunchBox; and Bleep. Admittedly eMusic is the only one I consistently buy music from; but I have used a number of the other service. Plus a number of artist sell songs directly as well.
There's a big difference between stating "buying music online legally", versus the more specific "I want DRM music from another vendor to work on my iPod." A large variety of music works on the iPod. You never have to touch a DRM source, including Apple, if you don't want to. That said, though if you are purchasing DRM music, it seems irony of the highest order to demand it also be interoperable. The best you should hope for is that it works for the situation you purchased it for. Apple's DRM, in this context, works. In fact, it works so well, that people forget that they have purchase DRM music, until it bites them.
The very nature of DRM is the reduction of interoperability, whining that you got what you purchased just seems asinine. I want DRM to go away, but then again, I also want regional coding to go away as well. I make purchases that are informed by those wants/desires. I do purchase from iTunes (a whole hell of a lot), but I'm fine with the current limitations. But I purchase non-DRM music as well, and what I get in freedom, I pay for in time and inconvenience, but those are acceptable trade-offs.
Every co-op has it's own business plan. He's basically providing an alternative structure for organization rather than a foundation or a corporation. The co-op model allows for profits and allows/requires money to be redirected back into the project, and is more egalitarian than a regular corporation--since it's employee owned. Other than that all other aspects of the business still require definition by the member/owners.
I agree that the "prank" (the word really isn't strong enough) should act as a cautionary tale for more people. But I've got to say, God, what an a-hole Jason Fortuny is. Not only was his posting of the response--possibly illegal: no you don't have the right to post private data just because it was sent to you; just like you don't have the right to use my image for sale, just because I was unlucky enough to walk in front of your camera--the guy is just being an ass about his responses. I clicked on the thread by the husband and wife, in an open marriage; and not only was he treating them with scorn, derision, and heaping helpings of unwarranted hatred; but he was encouraging others to do so as well. It was like a public stoning, and practically everyone there was saying, "well, you volunteered for it, you were going to cheat on your wife" or "you deserved it, did you really think any girl would want to be submissive". Ignoring the fact that they are throwing stones at a human being.
I just have to say, I'm glad I don't do much work in that area of the country. Because, if I was ever asked if Mr. Fortuny should be hired, recommended, or even considered for a position; I'd have to state unequivocally, that I consider him to be untrustworthy, egotistical, uncaring, and highly likely to violate any private and or confidential data and materials, regardless of any policies he may have agreed to. He may be great at his job, but I, for one, would never recommend him.
I imagine as an independent contractor in the web and networking business, that he's put his livelihood in jeopardy. Cause, I'm betting that as much as the arrogant responses of the youthful looking to draw blood are commenting on his efforts; individuals and companies more likely to pay for the privilege of his service will feel a great deal more hesitation--despite any agreement that they may or may not have on the morality of the responders.
I hope that there are at least of few respondents willing to press civil charges against him (I'm not certain if any criminal charges can be brought).
Seeing that Apple is being or has been sued by at least two other "patent holders" on the same music navigation interface; I have to think that all it proves is...even though Apple "gets it" the it is something that could easily be had by anyone; its the implementation of it, silly. Besides, it would seem like at least two of the lawsuits would disprove or conflict with each. The Creative patent sounds remarkably similar to the Contois Music lawsuit. Though one is going after iTunes and the other the iPod.
The latest version of Safari is Safari 2.0.3. It's not in beta, and has been available to users since Mac OS X Tiger was released. It's not available for download from the Apple site, for the same reason many other Apple applications aren't available for download--current applications come as part of the operating system, and are automatically updated via Apple's Software Update. If a user needs to reinstall, they are suppose to go back to the OS disk.
I should also mention that if you perform a search for Safari on the Apple Support website, you will also get a link to Safari 1.3.2 and Safari 2.0.1 both newer versions than the one you pointed to, which is legacy software.
I understand why he hasn't gotten a new email. Think of it this way. You create some pissant email or text message account, and all of a sudden your getting emails from your boss, his boss, other employees, etc. And that's just small scale, when you think about a single corporate server. But Verizon serves millions of individuals and organization. The information maybe random, and he may have no plans to do anything with it; but its a slew of information.
Just look at some of the high profile mishaps--SAT tests scores, medical information, etc.--then think of the things he probably didn't even mention--meet me here(s), grocery lists, break-ups, email sex/flirting, etc., etc. Think:
"I slept with Kevin's best friend last night. I don't know if I should feel horrible or wonderful. You can't tell anyone --B"
real life drama's randomized, and at your disposal. It must be like flipping through the TV when your bored. Lots of junk, but some interesting tidbits that keep you coming back for more.
No. At least there wasn't before. There's a limit on how many computers you can authorize to play; and a limit on how many times you can burn a single playlist. But no limit on how many times you can burn a single song, and album of songs, etc., and no limit on how many devices--iPods--you can transfer your music to.
Why is it that people act like AllofMP3.com is a legal service? It's not. It's barely treading the legal waters in Russia, and is definitely illegal outside of it. It's more of a matter of not having the resources to get it shutdown. And since, it's most likely owned by the Russian mob, or someone who wouldn't stand a chance againt the Russian mob, do you really want to give the site your credit card number and personal identifying information??
All that said, I can't agree that a song isn't worth 99 cents. I can agree that its often not worth record agencies getting 55 cents out of the 99 cents. But I know a ton of muscians trying to make a decent living, doing great work. And since I value my time pretty darn, well, I'd say saying here's a dollar for your effort isn't that bad.
I don't need to hear arguments of scale. I'm just talking basic value. Just because somethings easily reproduced shouldn't take away its intrinsic value. If I can give a quarter, 50 cents, or some random amount of cash to a stranger, standing on street with their hand held out. I think I can give a dollar to someone who's work has brought beauty into my life.
Isn't that irritating. It typically makes me notice it even more; and what's more irritating is that sometime on the same show, a different actor will have a PC, and the brand is rarely hidden. I think I've seen the Dell brand hidden once or twice; but I can recognize a Dell Latitude D600 almost as quickly as I can recognize a 15" Powerbook.
And, I hate the patches they use, typically some plain white thing stuck on matte silver (ugly as hell). I'm like come on, if your going to cover up the logo, just place a sleeve or cover over the entire back, or do a nice custom paint job or something. Maybe even take the time to find a sticker with a nice image to use.
That's not really a durability issue; that aesthetics, and while I'm in to glossy, shiny things, practically every item I own--plastic, metal, even wood, that have semi to high gloss surfaces, require extra care to keep that aesthetic.
My shiny black file cabinets, that look so pretty storing items I hate keeping track of, is scratch prone. My high gloss finish desk (which I built) requires annual touch-ups to keep it super shiny, for those times when my desk is actually clear. I polish my Powerbook G4 laptop, and use a scratch filler every so often. Why, I even have to put my glasses away in a case or tissue paper each night so they don't get surface scratches. (the horror)
The fact is, if you don't want to provide care, your better off with a matte finish or mesh. Almost all my desktop accessories are matte or mesh, because, who want to spend time keep a pencil holder, stapler or a garbage can shiny. On the otherhand, I am willing to toss everything off my desk once a year, and reapply a finish; just as I'm willing to make sure I use a soft cloth and take other precautions with my iPod.
That's a little bit like saying that I shouldn't make the same mistake, that my neighbors made in their marriage. Unless, I live in a town where everyone knows everything about your marriage; or I for some reason have an abnormal interest in your marriage; I dare say, it might take me months or even years to learn something as simple as, "O' you have a kid away at college."
The sheer number of organizations in the United States government most likely preclude one keeping up with the day to day operations of another all that well. Especially if web services are treated the same in a lot of organizations (an afterthought). The fact of the matter is the volume of web applications--content management systems, web traffic analyzers, even email submission forms--often set cookies that last forever.
If your thinking, I want to add such and such functionality to my site, without programming it, just pick it up at HotScripts, SourceForge, or outsource it, then unless you remember to go back and check associated cookie longevity, then you've just broken protocol.
That said, I'm certain there are a bevy of little known, but important rules that web developers at all levels of government should know; so maybe a nice checklist of top 10 things to look for, remember, or specify when dealing with software from outside vendors (especially commercial or contractors) should be posted somewhere, and completed, before any project is signed off on. Off course that wouldn't help upgrades, but that's life...
That wasn't my response at all, you just seem to be hell bent on seeing things your way. My response is that there are things that not all users need, or even of those things that most users need and want, that there may be a thousand different ways to accomplish them.
/Applications/Utilities/Keychain In the application preferences turn on menu access. A little lock will appear in your top most menu, by the date, or your wireless symbol. Mine appears next to my iSync symbol.
Now, I mentioned three options, and indicated that I'm not even an expert in the "lock my computer" area because I don't need to do it often.
But someone else, mention a perfectly reasonable alternative. That's far better for your situation and the hospital guy, than my options.
Use the KeyChain!
I tried it. I works fantastically well, I even assigned Control+Alt+Delete as the command key to activate it. Basically, all you have to do, is open the utility, Keychain, located
To lock the I can click and choose "Lock Screen", but better yet, I use Menu Master by Unsanity, so I assigned the Menu item, Control+Alt+Delete as the command key, and it can now be activated at a keystroke.
I'll remove it, because, well, I don't need it; and my laptop is set-up to require that someone still type in a password to get root access. But that said, sometimes the information you need is just a search or a question away from you, if you look for it, instead of focusing on what's worked before.
Nothing to do with Apple's utopian vision; but also nothing to do with saying things that aren't really true. But totally proves my point of users not looking past how they've been trained to view things. If you don't want someone to see your desktop, switch out of it. You have three options: 1) Fully log-out (this will force you to close all open items); 2) Partial log-out/Fast Switch (this will keep all your documents and files that are open, open, and show a login screen; 3) Add a password to your screensaver. These items work for probably 90% of the people 90% of the time. personally, I've been working on computers since 1987, and can only recall three or four times where I've ever tried to lock the computer verses logging out.
With Mac OS X, and fast user switching, those times though rare are exceedingly easy. That said, if I wanted them easier, I could just pick up a small specialty application to do it for me, or go in and tweak the preferences. Personally, I'd use a specialty app cause that's what they excel at, customizing your environment for you. I have a slew of them running to make my computer, my computer.
Also, you can activate sleep immediately with a command key or the use of sleep corners (drag your mouse to the upper right or lower left corner, depending on how you set the functionality up. And there are probably other options, as well, but since its rarely a concern for me, I've never bothered to find out what works best.
Wow! See what happens when geeks try to overly exam things. The default view mode of iPhoto is "Browse" photos. Its the main thing that 90% of it's users do, with very little concept of editing or anything else.
Basically you open up iPhoto, you'll see the little flash of text saying, loading photos if you have thousands of them like me (if you don't you probably won't see it). You'll see the photos for which over folder or album that you select in thumbnail mode. There's a slider, to make photos larger slide the bar to the right (the icons larger at that end), to make the photos smaller (so you can see more per page (slide the bar to the left (the icons smaller on that end).
Photo navigation is handled by your arrow keys. You can go forward, backward, by using the left/right or the up/down arrows. If you want to see the photo even larger, you can click on the button that says "Desktop" and make it fit on your desktop. Though if your going through an entire row, obviously, slideshow mode in fullscreen display is far better.
Sometimes when your looking for things to be complicated, simple is just too easy. I get a lot of people who switch from Windows to Macs who ask questions about how to do this or that. That's when you really start noticing how much software has trained people to do ill conceived work-arounds that become the standard way of thinking.
I was just of this yesterday, when I was reading about this 10yr Windows user who just purchased one of the new thinner iMacs. He was discussing its grace, beauty, and overall ease of use, but then he rants about the lack of software. He wanted to load the machine up with anti-virus, spyware/malware, firewall and other security software. All perfectly fine, and available in the multitudes, for Windows. But for the Mac, you have your 5-10 main selections of anti-virus software, your built-in firewall or some UNIX base tools for those who want more control, but the category of spyware/malware software doesn't really exist.
He went on and on about the lack of developers, without ever given consideration to the fact that the category is so under-developed because it doesn't need to exist on the Mac platform. At least not yet. Typically, pop-up blockers in Safari, Firefox and other major OS X browsers, is more than enough to prevent spyware/malware (at least the kinds that most PC users think of).
Software doesn't self install on a Mac, it pops up a window requiring authentication and authorization. Which prevents the self-installation of most spyware that PC users experience. For those who want extra protection, they can block ads and banners, or purchase software like Little Snitch that will track outgoing communication from your computer, and a number of other little speciality tools. But they are specialty tools, because their for people who wish to knowingly esculate their security in specific manners.
Some things aren't required, and even more things are just simplier than you believe on a Mac machine. Even I sometimes have to take a step back and look for the simple with some of Apple's tools, becauuse my brains cluttered with the 10 or 25 step process.
Actually, I have to say you've killed your own argument. VOD is gaining popularity, but the biggest issue with it are 1) Most people DON'T even know they have access to it; and 2) many of those who do know, still can't use it.
A system is pretty useless if you can't figure out how to use it to your benefit; and cable TV and other vendors just haven't brought the simplicity of use home to the average user.
The benefit of Apple's system ISN'T the ability to transfer the file to a portable device. Downloads of the Lost and Deseparate Housewives have been fairly rapid, myself being one of the early adopters, and I can guarentee you I don't have the 4th or is it 5th generation iPod that can play videos, and won't be purchasing one before Christmas (though all bets are off after Christmas). I could care less about taking the TV show on the road with me.
What I care about is not being tied to another night of TV. I'm pinned down on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and refuse to add any more mandatory/appointment based viewing to my schedule. So downloading the newest episode via Apple or BitTorrent is the way to go for me. And Apple is way easier and faster. The episodes download in 10-15min, no conversion is necessary to get it to play on my machine, and the quality is more than sufficient for me.
I know my cable is suppose to include some items as part of VOD, and yet I've never used it. I tried once, and decided it wasn't worth the effort to figure it out. And my day job is helping others figure out their computing technology. Just think of my mother or brothers and sisters who still can't quite get their 60+ button remote to work properly for them, and you have a valid reason why VOD hasn't exploded.
AWESOME. Now we're listening to so-so logic arguments from people who can't count!!! Anyway, I suggest you retitle your post, "7 Reasons Why I'd Boycott IMDb" subtitle "Won't You Join Me".