I know about a month ago this came up in an article about how OSX/Linux users could face issues because they felt to secure.
There was a similar article the month before that. And the month before that. There have been articles like that since Macs ran OS 8. I think most Mac users feel more secure because they are more secure. They also are aware that this doen not mean they are immune and that their are vulnerabilities.
How many Mac users today run anti-virus software?
Not many who aren't required to by company policies. And there's nothing wrong with that. It would be the equivalant of being immunized againt a strain of the bird flu that's never been seen in the wild.
I wish I could find the survey that was done a while back where a huge percentage of Mac users reported that a virus had been detected on their system.
Shock! Horror! What's a Mac user to do?
Oh wait, those were Windows viruses that had been detected in their email. That's what Mac anti-virus software does -same as on Windows boxes, its searches for signs of Windows malware.
Yes, its pretty hard to have a system that's immune to an admin user explicitly downloading an app, running the app, and typing in their password when the app requests it -including possibly going through several warnings.
If they're going to do that, there's not a whole lot that can be done.
... is that Microsoft's primary crime in this case is that it is not a European company.
And what's the excuse for it being convicted in US courts?
The only difference I see is the EC is actually enforcing the penalty handed down after the conviction. The US decided for the figurative "slap on the wrist" and are now trying to figure out what to do because MS isn't sitting still for even that.
say that SCO wants certain documents kept secret in their case.
And they have. The final list that supposedly contains the details of the contested code IBM supposedly put into Linux was filed under seal. Only SCO, IBM and the court know what's in it.
Has anyone reported the bug that causes spelling errors in posts after you hit the "Submit" button? It even happens sometimes when you hit the "Preview" button first.
Maybe what we need is some more generalized cache systems that ISPs can run and applications can take advantage of.
I'm wondering if instead, more specific cache systems should be put in place. For example, is NBC has a show they want to offer for download or streaming, there's no reason every local NBS affiliate couldn't be mirroring the show.
And I'm assuming that's trivial compared to what Google pays. Which is why the "Tiered Internet" is a scam, IMO. Its not as if Google, or any other company isn't already paying massive $$$ for the massive amounts of bandwidth they use. What the telcos now want is more money under the guise of prioritizing data transfer on a packet-by-packet basis. IMO they should save us all the implementation costs, and if they really aren't making a sufficient profit, raise the price across the board.
I've heard that Google has purchased quite a bit of fiber. Makes me wonder what will happen if the "tiered network" is pushed through if Google might tell a few companies to take a hike and light up their own section of the net.
The problem comes when "bundling" is essentially equivalent to "dumping". Is MS bundling software to help the consumer, or are they dumping software on the market at below cost to drive competitors out of the market? Did they give away IE to drive Netscape out of the market and gain a monopoly in an area they didn't preciously have one? Are they doing that with WMP? What happens to the quality of 3rd party anti-virus/spyware when every copy of Windows comes with a "free" copy?
When monopolies dump goods at below market value, that's always a win for consumers -at least in the short term.
There are a couple differnces between Apple and MS bundling software. The biggest being that Apple is an OEM who is bundling software with a computer, thus needs to provide a "complete" experience. MS is theoretically providing software that OEM's may or may not bundle with a computer. So when MS "bundles" things, it gives OEMs less choice in what software they bundle for their customers. IE/Netscape is the classic example of how this works out.
The problem is that the "purpose" is now moot. It doesn't matter if you want the list for "good" or for "evil", this ruling says you can get it.
The question is, how do you protect the privacy of the individual and still have an open government when the goverment holds personal information on everyone it governs?
If I'm interpreting correctly, the file has a jpg extension, so Safari assumes it is safe (non-executable) and unzips/opens it. From there it gets fuzzy, because apparently, based on the creator code (which is in the resource fork, which is why it needs to be zipped) it is an executable, so it gets executed. There's another factor in there somwhere because this usually isn't sufficient to cause it to launch. LaunchServices should recognize that particular app hasn't been run and throw up a warning dialog, but that's the part I don't get. Somehow, because its a shell script instead of an actual application, it gets through.
Maybe someone else can do a better job of explaining (couldn't do much worse).
Yes, its really a bug in LaunchServices, not the browser (any download method is vulnerable). It takes advantage of Apple's split-personality when dealing with files -is file type determined by extension or creator code? This is what can happen when they don't coincide.
I don't think its accurate at all. We are not at war with China, and AFAIK, Nazi Germany didn't enjoy Most Favored Nation Trading Status. IMO it looks like Congress is using these companies as the scapegoat so they can look like they're being tough on China, when they're really not.
I also wonder if they would have suggested that these companies not cooperate with another government that recently came to them for information.
I agree. The tech will be available in for the expensive servers in 07? Will be ready for mass production at the level Apple would need in ??? Will be cheap enough for the PC market in ???? Will be energy efficient in ?????
Remember, IBM likes to make high-end chips where the cost of the chip is secondary to raw power for its servers. That's where the new tech generally goes first. IBMs first goal isn't cost efficient processors for PCs -which is why the IBM/Apple "breakup" can be viewed as a good thing for both companies.
Like it or not, the military is where new tech often gets deployed first -at a cost premium.
The advantage is that it gets the tech out there and in use, which works out many of the kinks (like cost/benefit) that allow it to then become a viable mainstream alternative. The alternative is tax incentives/breaks to get the tech mainstreamed. Either way the taxpayer pays and (hopefully) we all benefit.
I forget which but some Hybrids kick their gas engine on only when the need more energy.
No, as I understand it, most hybrids are primarily powered by the engine. The batteries essentially act as a sync for excess energy produced (like when going down hill) and supply power when most needed (going up a hill or accelerating). The combination also allows the engine to be stopped when the car isn't moving (like at a stoplight).
Slashdot Mirror
I know about a month ago this came up in an article about how OSX/Linux users could face issues because they felt to secure.
There was a similar article the month before that. And the month before that. There have been articles like that since Macs ran OS 8. I think most Mac users feel more secure because they are more secure. They also are aware that this doen not mean they are immune and that their are vulnerabilities.
How many Mac users today run anti-virus software?
Not many who aren't required to by company policies. And there's nothing wrong with that. It would be the equivalant of being immunized againt a strain of the bird flu that's never been seen in the wild.
I wish I could find the survey that was done a while back where a huge percentage of Mac users reported that a virus had been detected on their system.
Shock! Horror! What's a Mac user to do?
Oh wait, those were Windows viruses that had been detected in their email. That's what Mac anti-virus software does -same as on Windows boxes, its searches for signs of Windows malware.
Yes, its pretty hard to have a system that's immune to an admin user explicitly downloading an app, running the app, and typing in their password when the app requests it -including possibly going through several warnings.
If they're going to do that, there's not a whole lot that can be done.
... is that Microsoft's primary crime in this case is that it is not a European company.
And what's the excuse for it being convicted in US courts?
The only difference I see is the EC is actually enforcing the penalty handed down after the conviction. The US decided for the figurative "slap on the wrist" and are now trying to figure out what to do because MS isn't sitting still for even that.
say that SCO wants certain documents kept secret in their case.
And they have. The final list that supposedly contains the details of the contested code IBM supposedly put into Linux was filed under seal. Only SCO, IBM and the court know what's in it.
Or maybe even every NBC affiliate.
Has anyone reported the bug that causes spelling errors in posts after you hit the "Submit" button? It even happens sometimes when you hit the "Preview" button first.
Maybe what we need is some more generalized cache systems that ISPs can run and applications can take advantage of.
I'm wondering if instead, more specific cache systems should be put in place. For example, is NBC has a show they want to offer for download or streaming, there's no reason every local NBS affiliate couldn't be mirroring the show.
And I'm assuming that's trivial compared to what Google pays. Which is why the "Tiered Internet" is a scam, IMO. Its not as if Google, or any other company isn't already paying massive $$$ for the massive amounts of bandwidth they use. What the telcos now want is more money under the guise of prioritizing data transfer on a packet-by-packet basis. IMO they should save us all the implementation costs, and if they really aren't making a sufficient profit, raise the price across the board.
I've heard that Google has purchased quite a bit of fiber. Makes me wonder what will happen if the "tiered network" is pushed through if Google might tell a few companies to take a hike and light up their own section of the net.
We've been here before alright.
Anybody remember when the WWW was going to bring the internet to its knees? All those gifs and formatted text replacing poor old Gopher...
We get this every time there's a new use found for the internet.
The problem comes when "bundling" is essentially equivalent to "dumping". Is MS bundling software to help the consumer, or are they dumping software on the market at below cost to drive competitors out of the market? Did they give away IE to drive Netscape out of the market and gain a monopoly in an area they didn't preciously have one? Are they doing that with WMP? What happens to the quality of 3rd party anti-virus/spyware when every copy of Windows comes with a "free" copy?
When monopolies dump goods at below market value, that's always a win for consumers -at least in the short term.
There are a couple differnces between Apple and MS bundling software. The biggest being that Apple is an OEM who is bundling software with a computer, thus needs to provide a "complete" experience. MS is theoretically providing software that OEM's may or may not bundle with a computer. So when MS "bundles" things, it gives OEMs less choice in what software they bundle for their customers. IE/Netscape is the classic example of how this works out.
Unfortunatly, the law is not currently adequate to limit the information release to appropriate purposes without abuses.
The big problem being, one person's "appropriate use" is another person's "abuse". Not an easy problem to solve.
The problem is that the "purpose" is now moot. It doesn't matter if you want the list for "good" or for "evil", this ruling says you can get it.
The question is, how do you protect the privacy of the individual and still have an open government when the goverment holds personal information on everyone it governs?
Great. That's what Slashdot needs, Latin Grammar
At least is wasn't a mis-typed line of code. Those threads go on for days.
If I'm interpreting correctly, the file has a jpg extension, so Safari assumes it is safe (non-executable) and unzips/opens it. From there it gets fuzzy, because apparently, based on the creator code (which is in the resource fork, which is why it needs to be zipped) it is an executable, so it gets executed. There's another factor in there somwhere because this usually isn't sufficient to cause it to launch. LaunchServices should recognize that particular app hasn't been run and throw up a warning dialog, but that's the part I don't get. Somehow, because its a shell script instead of an actual application, it gets through.
Maybe someone else can do a better job of explaining (couldn't do much worse).
don't use Safari because it doesn't render pages as well as a mozilla based browser, and now I have a reason to gloat :)
Except if your mozilla based browser is set to automtically open (unzip) files like this, its vulnerable too.
Yes, its really a bug in LaunchServices, not the browser (any download method is vulnerable). It takes advantage of Apple's split-personality when dealing with files -is file type determined by extension or creator code? This is what can happen when they don't coincide.
I thought that was "Neutral Evil".
I don't think its accurate at all. We are not at war with China, and AFAIK, Nazi Germany didn't enjoy Most Favored Nation Trading Status. IMO it looks like Congress is using these companies as the scapegoat so they can look like they're being tough on China, when they're really not.
I also wonder if they would have suggested that these companies not cooperate with another government that recently came to them for information.
I might have simply played dumb and asked if Germany had "Most-Favored Nation Trade Status" at the time.
I'm all for holding their feet to the fire, but it seems a bit hypocritical.
I think they got upset because they are of the opinion that only polititians should be allowed to respond like that.
I agree. The tech will be available in for the expensive servers in 07? Will be ready for mass production at the level Apple would need in ??? Will be cheap enough for the PC market in ???? Will be energy efficient in ?????
Remember, IBM likes to make high-end chips where the cost of the chip is secondary to raw power for its servers. That's where the new tech generally goes first. IBMs first goal isn't cost efficient processors for PCs -which is why the IBM/Apple "breakup" can be viewed as a good thing for both companies.
Like it or not, the military is where new tech often gets deployed first -at a cost premium.
The advantage is that it gets the tech out there and in use, which works out many of the kinks (like cost/benefit) that allow it to then become a viable mainstream alternative. The alternative is tax incentives/breaks to get the tech mainstreamed. Either way the taxpayer pays and (hopefully) we all benefit.
I forget which but some Hybrids kick their gas engine on only when the need more energy.
No, as I understand it, most hybrids are primarily powered by the engine. The batteries essentially act as a sync for excess energy produced (like when going down hill) and supply power when most needed (going up a hill or accelerating). The combination also allows the engine to be stopped when the car isn't moving (like at a stoplight).