Perhaps manufacturers should try to keep simple devices actually simple.
When most major appliances, all automobiles, motorcycles, HDTVs, etc., etc., have a least one (if not dozens) of microprocessors and storage chips onboard, the time for that sentiment was long past in the last century.
We've sold our souls for convenience and "ease of use" features, and are now beginning to reap the dark side of those value adds.
"Just exactly how does organic milk differ from the "other" type?"
My experience with "organic" vs. "stock" milk pointed up one interesting, yet unexplained to me, difference:
Organic did not spoil nearly as fast as traditional dairy.
When we bought (traditional) milk by the gallon it wasn't unusual to have it spoilt within 5 days or less. When we switched to the organic variety that time went up to 10 to 14 days or more.
Hormones? Processing methods? Other additives? I have no clue, as both were handled the same on my end. Both were bought and transported the exact same way... in fact for a while (since organic milk initially wasn't as widely available in my area) it actually rode home unrefrigerated for over twice as long as "the leading brand".
YMMV, but if I still drank milk the way I used to, the only kind I would buy is an organic brand.
FTA: "Diller, 67,..." is just another W.O.R.M. grasping at straws before shuffling from this mortal coil.
Also, Robert Iger's comment of "We have ample evidence both in traditional and new media that people are willing to pay for quality, to pay for choice and to pay for convenience," needs to be translated:
"We've been tellin' the rubes what to pay for for so long we *know* they won't start thinkin' on their own and see this for the bullsh*t it is."
We can only hope that this grasping, greedy paradigm dies out when they do...but I'm not optimistic.
Re:Does not work on Mac OS X 10.4
on
VLC 1.0.0 Released
·
· Score: 3, Informative
How is this (http://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-macosx.html) not obvious?
"VLC media player for Mac OS X Latest Mac OS X package for 10.5 and 10.6 (release 1.0.0) universal binary (29MB) latest platform specific packages for 10.5 and 10.6 (release 1.0.0) intel package (17.9MB) powerpc package (17.8MB) Last Mac OS X package for 10.4 (release 0.9.9a)"
I mean yeah, I had to scroll to the bottom of the page for the 10.4 info but..../shrug
Two of the most addictive and dangerous drugs, liquor and cigarettes, are legal, and regulated by the government.
All the other "bad drugs" are unregulated, untaxed, and criminalized.
Why?
Surely it's not to support a massive prison industry, create a culture of fear, prop up the liquor and tobacco industries, or continue to suck tax dollars into a war (one of many) that's been declared lost decades ago.
These are niche players, specializing in helping small businesses and solo entrepreneurs with everything from data entry to (drum roll please) marketing.
Depending on where you live, you might find someone local, you may find one across the continent. Research them first, gather client feedback if possible, and hopefully you'll come up smelling like roses.
Saw that the old default link to MSN now pointed to Bing on a couple of boxes I turn on every once in a blue moon, after they automatically updated to IE8.
"Apple does not want Mac Clones because last time they allowed Mac Clones they cut into Apple's own sales."
I'm not entirely sure that that's entirely true.
One of Apple's primary sales point is it's commitment to the total user experience, and the best way they can ensure it will be as positive as possible is to retain ironclad control over the hardware, so as to tightly tie the software and drivers to it.
As someone who was asked to demo one of the Power Computing clones in the 90s I can say categorically that at that time the clone maker product was inferior to a comparable Apple manufactured machine. It crashed more frequently, locked up and was less responsive. Whether it was poor components, or in-house drivers, the Power Computing unit was *not* a Mac.
So, while there may be some validity that Apple doesn't want to lose the tangible sales, I would suspect that it's more important to the company that the intangible value of the user experience that they've spent so long perfecting isn't diluted by allowing another company to manufacture hardware, install the OS and market it, in anyway, shape or form, as a "Mac".
"I don't get WTF you're saying here. It's best not to patch, and just to keep having a security hole?"
Not all. I'm saying the features are possible, and so is security, if the companies involved would *take*the*time* to make them a priority, rather than making the public the largest unpaid beta-test pool on the planet.
Part of the problem is there is no liability to them for *not* doing so, the standard EULA ensures that.
"I mean, you could run an entirely proven OS... have fun with Hello World!"
If you'd taken the time to follow the link I provided, you would have read that Ranum coded a fully functional OS/web server combo for a porn site a decade ago that's never been successfully hacked, because it was designed with security and a feature set from the very beginning.
BTW, "Hello World!" is not a entirely proven OS that I know of.
Consider. Many, if not most, Mac users run with admin privileges (though this is a not solely a Mac problem), so having an untrusted binary, able to execute whatever the hell it wants, accessing everything from / on down... well... I leave it to your imagination, but nuking your home directory would be the least of your problems.
Nope. Patched to 10.5.7, with all updates, and the sample exploit would still run. Of course I use FF with NoScript so I had to allow it to run, which just goes to show that sometimes faster is not better
For the record, those running Firefox as their default browser, with NoScript installed, won't be affected* unless they *choose* to execute an unknown, untrusted binary within the browser.
*At least the sample exploit at the top of the thread didn't execute for me, YMMV
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps manufacturers should try to keep simple devices actually simple.
When most major appliances, all automobiles, motorcycles, HDTVs, etc., etc., have a least one (if not dozens) of microprocessors and storage chips onboard, the time for that sentiment was long past in the last century.
We've sold our souls for convenience and "ease of use" features, and are now beginning to reap the dark side of those value adds.
This is a hack on all the new shiny aluminum white keyed keyboards.
I predict a run no eBay sales of old keyboards and USB PC alternatives for the paranoid.
For the rest, well...you get what you pay for eh?
"Just exactly how does organic milk differ from the "other" type?"
My experience with "organic" vs. "stock" milk pointed up one interesting, yet unexplained to me, difference:
Organic did not spoil nearly as fast as traditional dairy.
When we bought (traditional) milk by the gallon it wasn't unusual to have it spoilt within 5 days or less. When we switched to the organic variety that time went up to 10 to 14 days or more.
Hormones? Processing methods? Other additives? I have no clue, as both were handled the same on my end. Both were bought and transported the exact same way ... in fact for a while (since organic milk initially wasn't as widely available in my area) it actually rode home unrefrigerated for over twice as long as "the leading brand".
YMMV, but if I still drank milk the way I used to, the only kind I would buy is an organic brand.
FTA: "Diller, 67,..." is just another W.O.R.M. grasping at straws before shuffling from this mortal coil.
Also, Robert Iger's comment of "We have ample evidence both in traditional and new media that people are willing to pay for quality, to pay for choice and to pay for convenience," needs to be translated:
"We've been tellin' the rubes what to pay for for so long we *know* they won't start thinkin' on their own and see this for the bullsh*t it is."
We can only hope that this grasping, greedy paradigm dies out when they do...but I'm not optimistic.
How is this (http://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-macosx.html) not obvious?
"VLC media player for Mac OS X
Latest Mac OS X package for 10.5 and 10.6 (release 1.0.0)
universal binary (29MB)
latest platform specific packages for 10.5 and 10.6 (release 1.0.0)
intel package (17.9MB)
powerpc package (17.8MB)
Last Mac OS X package for 10.4 (release 0.9.9a)"
I mean yeah, I had to scroll to the bottom of the page for the 10.4 info but.... /shrug
Two of the most addictive and dangerous drugs, liquor and cigarettes, are legal, and regulated by the government.
All the other "bad drugs" are unregulated, untaxed, and criminalized.
Why?
Surely it's not to support a massive prison industry, create a culture of fear, prop up the liquor and tobacco industries, or continue to suck tax dollars into a war (one of many) that's been declared lost decades ago.
The *IAA's want to become the next SS/KGB/Stasi, using paramilitary actions as a way to keep the dollars trickling into their dying business models.
The truly scary part?
That suits in both Hollywood and on the Beltway believe that this is a viable way to treat the American people.
These are niche players, specializing in helping small businesses and solo entrepreneurs with everything from data entry to (drum roll please) marketing.
Depending on where you live, you might find someone local, you may find one across the continent. Research them first, gather client feedback if possible, and hopefully you'll come up smelling like roses.
Here are some I found on Google:
http://www.davisvirtualassistance.com/
http://www.paulahill.com/about/
http://www.trinityjacobs.com/virtual-assistant-marketing-services.html
"And in the non-free world, the price is comparable to that of a new release of OS X."
Get outside much?
(Hint: Look to the bottom right of the large grapic)
It's backward compatible with at least as much hardware as W7 will be...at a tenth of the price.
I expect Silverlight© to enjoy the same sterling security reputation as the rest of the Microsoft® stable of software, increasing the joy and ease of use customers have come to expect over the years.
Or at least the spin.
Saw that the old default link to MSN now pointed to Bing on a couple of boxes I turn on every once in a blue moon, after they automatically updated to IE8.
"Move along now, nothing to see here."
This is simply fossil evidence that confirms it, kind of like a coelecanth.
"Apple does not want Mac Clones because last time they allowed Mac Clones they cut into Apple's own sales."
I'm not entirely sure that that's entirely true.
One of Apple's primary sales point is it's commitment to the total user experience, and the best way they can ensure it will be as positive as possible is to retain ironclad control over the hardware, so as to tightly tie the software and drivers to it.
As someone who was asked to demo one of the Power Computing clones in the 90s I can say categorically that at that time the clone maker product was inferior to a comparable Apple manufactured machine. It crashed more frequently, locked up and was less responsive. Whether it was poor components, or in-house drivers, the Power Computing unit was *not* a Mac.
So, while there may be some validity that Apple doesn't want to lose the tangible sales, I would suspect that it's more important to the company that the intangible value of the user experience that they've spent so long perfecting isn't diluted by allowing another company to manufacture hardware, install the OS and market it, in anyway, shape or form, as a "Mac".
Didn't they say much the same things about Vista?
Sort of...
Interesting read nonetheless.
Sun's lawyers are salivating as surely there's an anti competitive lawsuit in there somewhere.
"I don't get WTF you're saying here. It's best not to patch, and just to keep having a security hole?"
Not all. I'm saying the features are possible, and so is security, if the companies involved would *take*the*time* to make them a priority, rather than making the public the largest unpaid beta-test pool on the planet.
Part of the problem is there is no liability to them for *not* doing so, the standard EULA ensures that.
"I mean, you could run an entirely proven OS... have fun with Hello World!"
If you'd taken the time to follow the link I provided, you would have read that Ranum coded a fully functional OS/web server combo for a porn site a decade ago that's never been successfully hacked, because it was designed with security and a feature set from the very beginning.
BTW, "Hello World!" is not a entirely proven OS that I know of.
"The (untrue) assumption that many people seem to hold (is) that...", patching actually is a "best practice", when it's not.
Marcus Ranum has a interesting and humorous take on patching that spells it out much better than I could.
The short version:
This is true of 99.9% of software in use.
A *lot*.
Consider. Many, if not most, Mac users run with admin privileges (though this is a not solely a Mac problem), so having an untrusted binary, able to execute whatever the hell it wants, accessing everything from / on down... well... I leave it to your imagination, but nuking your home directory would be the least of your problems.
Nope. Patched to 10.5.7, with all updates, and the sample exploit would still run. Of course I use FF with NoScript so I had to allow it to run, which just goes to show that sometimes faster is not better
For the record, those running Firefox as their default browser, with NoScript installed, won't be affected* unless they *choose* to execute an unknown, untrusted binary within the browser.
*At least the sample exploit at the top of the thread didn't execute for me, YMMV
Found the others: CMC Magnetics Crop., Ritek Corp., Glyphics Media, Hotan Corp, Khypermedia Corp and Advanced Media Inc in the United States.
One of the eight companies named in the lawasuit, aside from Imation. Anyone know the others?
culling dinosaurian business models from the market.
Truth hurts doesn't it?