the 360 DLs will be in high def and available to be seen on your television right away
Those two statements can't both be true if Microsoft is targeting home-based broadband. There's a lot of bandwidth being piped into the home these days, but not enough to pump 720p video in real-time.
For comparison, Apple currently shows 480p. Which is slim enough to stream over most broadband connections while maintaining exceptional quality on most television sets. Using their current H.264 encoding scheme, Apple manages ~300MB per 45 minutes of content. At that rate, you need to stream ~114KB/sec to watch Apple's content in real-time. Most broadband connections can do that today; some only barely.
720p is another 2/3 more data than Apple's current offerings. Such an increase would not be feasible on many home broadband connections. Wait a few years and we'll have big enough pipes, but not right now.
Are we running it on comparable servers, first of all?
You can assume comparible servers, and GMail will still win every time. In fact, any webmail provider using a "classic" webmail design is likely to show up slower than GMail, even if you assume the same hardware and bandwidth.
The difference is that all that AJAXian voodoo is actually doing something more than making everything look pretty. It's responsible for transferring only the information necessary to update the display. Nothing more, nothing less. As a result, the data transmitted by GMail is significantly less than that transferred by SquirrelMail. SquirrelMail must send you the header, the sidebar, the controls, the CSS, the layout, etc. in addition to the text of the message. GMail sends you the text of the message, then the Javascript code generates the layout on the fly. This reduces latency and improves responsiveness.
So GMail is the perfect example of a situation where using dynamic widgets can improve web performance. That's not to say that plenty of sites don't abuse dynamic components (stupid intros; just let me at 'em!), but those components can be used to improve the experience.
BTW, you get Negative Geek Points for not already knowing how GMail works.:P
Plain old HTML sites are a lot faster than the newer Flash-y sites with the latest doodads.
Yet GMail is faster than SquirrelMail. By your logic, that shouldn't be the case. SquirrelMail is simpler, has less dynamic components, and is more compatible with accessibility standards. Why is it slower?
Bullshit on your bullshit, my good bullshitting sir. You underestimate the amount of bullshit that the Mac will put you through in order to run a bullshit application attachment.
All you need to do is convince the user to save an archive attachment. extract it and run the contents.
You missed a few steps. In order to simply run the attachment, you need to:
1. Save the archive attachment. 2. Ignore the warning about an "unsafe application" given by Safari or Mail.app. 3. Mount the DMG file or unzip the ZIP file. 4. Still not realize that the dearchived file is not a document despite looking exactly like an application. 5. Run the application.
Okay, so now the user has infected their system. Sort of. Their documents may be infected, but those are useless to the virus. They can't be executed, and the user isn't likely to pack up his.APP folders and share them with all his friends. Effectively, the virus has stopped spreading. So what is a virus to do? Under a Windows system, it would get ahold of the Outlook address book and mail itself to everyone. Alternatively, it would want to stay resident after reboots and/or collect information about the user's activities. Under a Mac, these things need elevated privileges to do. So the virus would have to:
6. Invoke the SUDO app to request elevated privledges. 7. User would need to fill their password into the prompt. 8. Virus would infect the necessary files to do its dirty work of spreading.
At this point, however, the user is so stupid he belongs in a mental facility. He's already ignored half a dozen explicit and implied warnings that something is wrong, just to ensure that this virus can take over his system! That's one determined user!
Some people may believe that Mac users are really that dumb, but if that were the case then viruses would already run rampant. Instead, we get an impotent "proof of concept" that can't actually spread itself. All it can do is damage your files. For a proof of concept, that's pretty pathetic.
From there the worm can easily spread on OSX, and no, root would not be required to do so.
As I've mentioned twice now, that's blatently incorrect. It can "infect" your documents, but system files require elevated privileges. "Infecting" your documents does nothing more than damage your files, and the virus can't even stay resident (or stop the user from killing it on the Dock!) without a password. So it's effective impotent and contained unless it can trick the user into giving it his/her password.
1. It is not possible to run an application directly from an email. It must be either dearchived to a.APP folder, or marked as executable.
2. You can only modify your own files. The system files are protected against user modification. Programs looking to modify the OS need a user marked as administrator to enter his password. The password is sent directly to SUDO to give the temporary permissions required.
3. The Mac has no open ports by default. Which means no Web Server worms, no buffer overflows, no password snooping, and NO RPC VULNERABILITIES. This can be overriden by the user, but the smaller number of users with ports open makes for a smaller cross section of vulnerable machines.
4. Safari and Mail warn the user if a file is executable. The user is warned against downloading the file as "it may contain viruses". This is done by scanning the file and/or the contents of the ZIP archive. So simply putting the information in an archive won't defeat this security warning.
Those are just a few differences off the top of my head. Basically, the Mac is structured to be secure from the ground up. That makes the system nearly invulnerable to the types of attacks seen in the Windows world. That's why this "proof of concept virus" requires the user's assistence in order to infect anything. Basically, crackers are going to need to develop completely new methods of attack if they wish to break into Mac systems.
I believe he is referring to the way that Windows Explorer (the shell) handles "executable" files. Faced with a.PIF,.EXE, and a.BAT, Explorer treats them all the same. This allows for theoretically non-executable file (e.g..PIF) to be executables in disguise.
As for the coupling with Internet Explorer, several URL pass-thrus have been exploited on Windows to force Windows Explorer into executing files passed by Internet Explorer. Thus the coupling between the browser and the "shell" is bad. Finder is a bit more sophiticated with its handling of file types, so alternative extensions and URL handlers don't pose as much of a security threat as they do on Windows.
Symantec said that it will release an edition of Norton Anti-Virus for OSX which detects viruses for Windows.
That is exactly what the current OS X anti-virus solutions do. Like the anti-virus software that Microsoft requested for FreeBSD (back when Hotmail was running on non-windows OSes), the primary purpose of the OS X solutions is to contain threats that might target Windows. i.e. A Mac might not be able to be infected, but it could be an accidental carrier. Having solutions like McAfee Virex available gives Technology VPs a warm and fuzzy feeling about taking proactive steps toward protecting their networks.
[...]
Strike that last sentence. It sounds too much like market-speak.
You have just received a Mac OS X virus. Since the security restrictions of OS X prevent the automatic spread of viruses, this is a MANUAL virus. Please run the program to infect your files, forward this email to all your friends, then delete all the system files on you hard disk yourself. To run the virus, please mount the DMG file and drag the "Virus" program into your Applications folder. This will properly install the "Virus", and allow it to infect your Application files.
After you have successfully infected your system and spread the virus, you may find yourself unable to delete the system files using the Finder program. In this case, you must open a terminal and follow the instructions below:
1. Type 'sudo su -l' and hit ENTER. 2. Enter your password and hit ENTER. 3. Type 'rm -rf/'
This process will take several minutes, so please be patient.
Should you run into technical difficulties with infecting your Macintosh, you can visit our online help website at http://www.infectmymacwithanastyvirus.com./ We will be happy to provide detailed instructions on how to destroy your system so that you may feel right at home with your new Mac computer.
Thank you very much for your assistance.
--Mac OS X Hackerz
Attachment: Virus.DMG
P.S. If you don't get the joke, please read the article and virus report.
Couldn't it be possible that Lik Sang is just taking advantage of negative Sony feedback over the past year to send another f-u to Sony? I find it hard to believe they'd be put out of business over this single issue, and the whole time not point any blame at the quasi grey market business that they were operating under.
Obviously, you weren't paying attention. Sony sued Lik-Sang in nearly every european country. Defending against one suit is expensive. Defending against dozens? Far too much for a small company like Lik-Sang. In fact, two separate judges expressed shock at the amount of money Sony's legal team was using to try the case. Sony wanted Lik-Sang dead, and they wanted it BAD.
But do you realize how out of it you appear to be?
Did I mention that I barely watch television?:P
Of course, if you know how to read, you have much better sources of news.
Bingo. When you're reading, your brain is engaged. When you're watching television, you are simply absorbing like a sponge. Except that the facts (as they may be) tend to go by quickly. Thus if you get anything out of it, it's often confused and warped. It's hard to develop a valid opinion that way.:(
Are you a Hittite, Girgashite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, or Jebusite? If you say, "yes", then you'd be lying. (Hint: They're all dead.) So you don't exactly need to worry, do you?
A literal reading of the Bible would turn up a very clear theme for the military campaigns of Israel. One which explains why the Earth was flooded, and why Goliath of Gath (the Philistines, an offshoot of the Canaanites) was a giant. Of course, that requires that one believe in struggles between humans and fallen angels in human form. Which must be a fairy tale, so you can happily discount the whole thing as make-believe.
Scientology harrasses and/or kills anyone that is not a member of scientology. Unlike killings supposedly done in the name of Christianity, Ron L. Hubbards notes to his followers explicitly tells them to lie, cheat, steal, and kill!
Anyone who actually reads the Bible will find, "Thou shalt not kill", "Thou shalt not steal", etc, etc.
Lastly, remember the Xenu (sp?) spat with Slashdot a few years ago? How they fired off a Cease and Desist because a user posted their "copyrighted material" on Slashdot? Screw them. Send me your address and I'll give you a copy of the Bible. Even better, you can read it online here. Visiting a hotel? Try looking in the drawer. There's a Gideon Bible there, free for you to read.
So don't try to compare Scientology and Christianity in general. The two are NOT the same.
How is that working out though, watching your entertainment on a 4" screen?
I thought you said this was a legit question?
Oh well, just to clarify: My computer was already my television. I've been using a TV Tuner card to combine the two into a single display. (Saves a lot of space, as you might imagine.) It has provided a lot of advantages, including the ability to use my PC as a PVR.
With iTunes, my viewing experience has actually improved. The quality is better than a PVRed show (even at max quality; which eats up a lot of space), and I can grab the shows anytime I want. My only actual complaint is that the iTunes video window can't be stuck on top of the other windows. That puts a real cramp in my ability to work while watching television. Otherwise, I love it.
I disconnected my cable because I'm tired of paying Comcat megabucks for a service I barely use. Everything I want to watch is on iTunes. I can get ala carte content cheaper, faster, and on my own schedule. If anything, I'm watching more TV than I watched when I had cable. No more worrying about when a show is on. Especially if you just want to test the waters by checking out the first episode or two. That's not possible on cable. (Yes, you can time shift with a VCR or PVR, but you have to remember to setup the PVR to record the show you want to check out. Otherwise, you're SOL.)
If this video from Stephen Colbert is any indication, then Comedy Central may have felt different about the clips than Viacom did. Based on my observations of the situation, the YouTube clips were generating a lot of free advertisement for Comedy Central. Especailly some of their news commentary, which is quite good despite the humor. For myself, I had no inkling of Comedy Central's news commentary until I bumped across Jon Stewart's commentary on Internet Tubes. Their followup with Senator McCain was brilliant, and John Hodgman's analysis was an example of razor sharp wit. (And hey, you've got to love the, "I'm a PC" bit.)
Had it not been for YouTube, I never would have found out about Comedy Central. I'd start tuning in, but I've disconnected my cable. Yet I recently noticed that Jon Stewart's show is up on iTunes. Hmmm.....;)
ts lack of HD resolution means it will look weird on HD sets
The Wii is capable of 480p in a 16:9 aspect ratio. It will not look "weird" on HD sets, just not as detailed. You'll note that the videos Nintendo has of people playing the Wii are on smaller HDTV sets.
After a bit of pondering over the "One interface, not two!" motto, I think I may have a guess about how it will work.
What you'll probably see is a XUL application that acts as a Windows Explorer type of app. It will keep a local cache of the files you're working on, then mirror them back to the server. I could also see it containing an interface to allow you to drag and drop files into a pre-defined page layout. (e.g. Drag your images into a photo-album page.)
Considering that it would be an XUL application, you wouldn't even need to install it. Just accept the secure signature, and it will render right in Firefox.
Slashdot Mirror
Those two statements can't both be true if Microsoft is targeting home-based broadband. There's a lot of bandwidth being piped into the home these days, but not enough to pump 720p video in real-time.
For comparison, Apple currently shows 480p. Which is slim enough to stream over most broadband connections while maintaining exceptional quality on most television sets. Using their current H.264 encoding scheme, Apple manages ~300MB per 45 minutes of content. At that rate, you need to stream ~114KB/sec to watch Apple's content in real-time. Most broadband connections can do that today; some only barely.
720p is another 2/3 more data than Apple's current offerings. Such an increase would not be feasible on many home broadband connections. Wait a few years and we'll have big enough pipes, but not right now.
GMail, every time. As a regular visitor to Slashdot, you should know why. If you don't, look at the replies two siblings up.
You can assume comparible servers, and GMail will still win every time. In fact, any webmail provider using a "classic" webmail design is likely to show up slower than GMail, even if you assume the same hardware and bandwidth.
The difference is that all that AJAXian voodoo is actually doing something more than making everything look pretty. It's responsible for transferring only the information necessary to update the display. Nothing more, nothing less. As a result, the data transmitted by GMail is significantly less than that transferred by SquirrelMail. SquirrelMail must send you the header, the sidebar, the controls, the CSS, the layout, etc. in addition to the text of the message. GMail sends you the text of the message, then the Javascript code generates the layout on the fly. This reduces latency and improves responsiveness.
So GMail is the perfect example of a situation where using dynamic widgets can improve web performance. That's not to say that plenty of sites don't abuse dynamic components (stupid intros; just let me at 'em!), but those components can be used to improve the experience.
BTW, you get Negative Geek Points for not already knowing how GMail works.
Yet GMail is faster than SquirrelMail. By your logic, that shouldn't be the case. SquirrelMail is simpler, has less dynamic components, and is more compatible with accessibility standards. Why is it slower?
It was definitely a bad pun, but one would think that the "+1 SciFi Nerd" would have tipped you off.
Bullshit on your bullshit, my good bullshitting sir. You underestimate the amount of bullshit that the Mac will put you through in order to run a bullshit application attachment.
You missed a few steps. In order to simply run the attachment, you need to:
1. Save the archive attachment.
2. Ignore the warning about an "unsafe application" given by Safari or Mail.app.
3. Mount the DMG file or unzip the ZIP file.
4. Still not realize that the dearchived file is not a document despite looking exactly like an application.
5. Run the application.
Okay, so now the user has infected their system. Sort of. Their documents may be infected, but those are useless to the virus. They can't be executed, and the user isn't likely to pack up his
6. Invoke the SUDO app to request elevated privledges.
7. User would need to fill their password into the prompt.
8. Virus would infect the necessary files to do its dirty work of spreading.
At this point, however, the user is so stupid he belongs in a mental facility. He's already ignored half a dozen explicit and implied warnings that something is wrong, just to ensure that this virus can take over his system! That's one determined user!
Some people may believe that Mac users are really that dumb, but if that were the case then viruses would already run rampant. Instead, we get an impotent "proof of concept" that can't actually spread itself. All it can do is damage your files. For a proof of concept, that's pretty pathetic.
As I've mentioned twice now, that's blatently incorrect. It can "infect" your documents, but system files require elevated privileges. "Infecting" your documents does nothing more than damage your files, and the virus can't even stay resident (or stop the user from killing it on the Dock!) without a password. So it's effective impotent and contained unless it can trick the user into giving it his/her password.
1. It is not possible to run an application directly from an email. It must be either dearchived to a .APP folder, or marked as executable.
2. You can only modify your own files. The system files are protected against user modification. Programs looking to modify the OS need a user marked as administrator to enter his password. The password is sent directly to SUDO to give the temporary permissions required.
3. The Mac has no open ports by default. Which means no Web Server worms, no buffer overflows, no password snooping, and NO RPC VULNERABILITIES. This can be overriden by the user, but the smaller number of users with ports open makes for a smaller cross section of vulnerable machines.
4. Safari and Mail warn the user if a file is executable. The user is warned against downloading the file as "it may contain viruses". This is done by scanning the file and/or the contents of the ZIP archive. So simply putting the information in an archive won't defeat this security warning.
Those are just a few differences off the top of my head. Basically, the Mac is structured to be secure from the ground up. That makes the system nearly invulnerable to the types of attacks seen in the Windows world. That's why this "proof of concept virus" requires the user's assistence in order to infect anything. Basically, crackers are going to need to develop completely new methods of attack if they wish to break into Mac systems.
So what you're saying is, corporate IT departments are worried about job security?
*Ba boom kssh!*
I believe he is referring to the way that Windows Explorer (the shell) handles "executable" files. Faced with a .PIF, .EXE, and a .BAT, Explorer treats them all the same. This allows for theoretically non-executable file (e.g. .PIF) to be executables in disguise.
As for the coupling with Internet Explorer, several URL pass-thrus have been exploited on Windows to force Windows Explorer into executing files passed by Internet Explorer. Thus the coupling between the browser and the "shell" is bad. Finder is a bit more sophiticated with its handling of file types, so alternative extensions and URL handlers don't pose as much of a security threat as they do on Windows.
That is exactly what the current OS X anti-virus solutions do. Like the anti-virus software that Microsoft requested for FreeBSD (back when Hotmail was running on non-windows OSes), the primary purpose of the OS X solutions is to contain threats that might target Windows. i.e. A Mac might not be able to be infected, but it could be an accidental carrier. Having solutions like McAfee Virex available gives Technology VPs a warm and fuzzy feeling about taking proactive steps toward protecting their networks.
[...]
Strike that last sentence. It sounds too much like market-speak.
DEAR RECEIVER,
/'
You have just received a Mac OS X virus. Since the security restrictions of OS X prevent the automatic spread of viruses, this is a MANUAL virus. Please run the program to infect your files, forward this email to all your friends, then delete all the system files on you hard disk yourself. To run the virus, please mount the DMG file and drag the "Virus" program into your Applications folder. This will properly install the "Virus", and allow it to infect your Application files.
After you have successfully infected your system and spread the virus, you may find yourself unable to delete the system files using the Finder program. In this case, you must open a terminal and follow the instructions below:
1. Type 'sudo su -l' and hit ENTER.
2. Enter your password and hit ENTER.
3. Type 'rm -rf
This process will take several minutes, so please be patient.
Should you run into technical difficulties with infecting your Macintosh, you can visit our online help website at http://www.infectmymacwithanastyvirus.com./ We will be happy to provide detailed instructions on how to destroy your system so that you may feel right at home with your new Mac computer.
Thank you very much for your assistance.
--Mac OS X Hackerz
Attachment: Virus.DMG
P.S. If you don't get the joke, please read the article and virus report.
Obviously, you weren't paying attention. Sony sued Lik-Sang in nearly every european country. Defending against one suit is expensive. Defending against dozens? Far too much for a small company like Lik-Sang. In fact, two separate judges expressed shock at the amount of money Sony's legal team was using to try the case. Sony wanted Lik-Sang dead, and they wanted it BAD.
Here is Lik-Sang's response to the fiction that Sony fed the press. Decide for yourself.
Me? I'm boycotting Sony. Feel free to join in.
Only one?
Did I mention that I barely watch television?
Bingo. When you're reading, your brain is engaged. When you're watching television, you are simply absorbing like a sponge. Except that the facts (as they may be) tend to go by quickly. Thus if you get anything out of it, it's often confused and warped. It's hard to develop a valid opinion that way.
Are you a Hittite, Girgashite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, or Jebusite? If you say, "yes", then you'd be lying. (Hint: They're all dead.) So you don't exactly need to worry, do you?
A literal reading of the Bible would turn up a very clear theme for the military campaigns of Israel. One which explains why the Earth was flooded, and why Goliath of Gath (the Philistines, an offshoot of the Canaanites) was a giant. Of course, that requires that one believe in struggles between humans and fallen angels in human form. Which must be a fairy tale, so you can happily discount the whole thing as make-believe.
Thou shalt not kill
It's in the Bible, and it means something.
Insightful? Troll is more like it.
Scientology harrasses and/or kills anyone that is not a member of scientology. Unlike killings supposedly done in the name of Christianity, Ron L. Hubbards notes to his followers explicitly tells them to lie, cheat, steal, and kill!
Anyone who actually reads the Bible will find, "Thou shalt not kill", "Thou shalt not steal", etc, etc.
Lastly, remember the Xenu (sp?) spat with Slashdot a few years ago? How they fired off a Cease and Desist because a user posted their "copyrighted material" on Slashdot? Screw them. Send me your address and I'll give you a copy of the Bible. Even better, you can read it online here. Visiting a hotel? Try looking in the drawer. There's a Gideon Bible there, free for you to read.
So don't try to compare Scientology and Christianity in general. The two are NOT the same.
I thought you said this was a legit question?
Oh well, just to clarify: My computer was already my television. I've been using a TV Tuner card to combine the two into a single display. (Saves a lot of space, as you might imagine.) It has provided a lot of advantages, including the ability to use my PC as a PVR.
With iTunes, my viewing experience has actually improved. The quality is better than a PVRed show (even at max quality; which eats up a lot of space), and I can grab the shows anytime I want. My only actual complaint is that the iTunes video window can't be stuck on top of the other windows. That puts a real cramp in my ability to work while watching television. Otherwise, I love it.
I disconnected my cable because I'm tired of paying Comcat megabucks for a service I barely use. Everything I want to watch is on iTunes. I can get ala carte content cheaper, faster, and on my own schedule. If anything, I'm watching more TV than I watched when I had cable. No more worrying about when a show is on. Especially if you just want to test the waters by checking out the first episode or two. That's not possible on cable. (Yes, you can time shift with a VCR or PVR, but you have to remember to setup the PVR to record the show you want to check out. Otherwise, you're SOL.)
If this video from Stephen Colbert is any indication, then Comedy Central may have felt different about the clips than Viacom did. Based on my observations of the situation, the YouTube clips were generating a lot of free advertisement for Comedy Central. Especailly some of their news commentary, which is quite good despite the humor. For myself, I had no inkling of Comedy Central's news commentary until I bumped across Jon Stewart's commentary on Internet Tubes. Their followup with Senator McCain was brilliant, and John Hodgman's analysis was an example of razor sharp wit. (And hey, you've got to love the, "I'm a PC" bit.)
;)
Had it not been for YouTube, I never would have found out about Comedy Central. I'd start tuning in, but I've disconnected my cable. Yet I recently noticed that Jon Stewart's show is up on iTunes. Hmmm.....
Ouch! Good one. :)
The Wii is capable of 480p in a 16:9 aspect ratio. It will not look "weird" on HD sets, just not as detailed. You'll note that the videos Nintendo has of people playing the Wii are on smaller HDTV sets.
After a bit of pondering over the "One interface, not two!" motto, I think I may have a guess about how it will work.
What you'll probably see is a XUL application that acts as a Windows Explorer type of app. It will keep a local cache of the files you're working on, then mirror them back to the server. I could also see it containing an interface to allow you to drag and drop files into a pre-defined page layout. (e.g. Drag your images into a photo-album page.)
Considering that it would be an XUL application, you wouldn't even need to install it. Just accept the secure signature, and it will render right in Firefox.
I'm sure Microsoft's battlecry would be, "Free Sharepoint!*"
* With a qualifying purchase of Windows Vista Home Multimedia Office Television Edition.
Any ideas?
.Mac
Yeah. The source is free (at least the client component), but the service to hold your files on the web will cost $$$.
Think: Different
Think:
Why doesn't Sony just sue them out of business. They're good at that.