Sure, for those apps where the sandbox work, they use it. The point is that they can skip it where it doesn't make sense.
As can third parties, if they're willing to avoid the Mac App Store. The difference with Apple is not that they get to choose what to sandbox - others can as well - the difference is that they get to put un-sandboxed stuff, such as the OS and developer tools, in the Mac App Store in special packages. How big a problem that is depends on to what extent third-party software loses out by not being in the App Store. It's probably a Good Thing if most applications and daemons are sandboxed, including those from Apple, so to some degree it's a Good Thing if people are encouraged to write code that can run in a sandbox, but there needs to be an "escape hatch" for people who want software that does stuff that can't be done in a sandbox and are willing to trust the developer of that software not to have written malware and to have written software that's "safe enough" from attack. (And, yes, I think it'd might be a Good Thing to allow that for iOS apps - and Metro apps - as well.)
Of course, Apple's own apps integrate just fine, because they aren't really bound by these requirements...
Except for the ones that are bound by those requirements, such as Preview and TextEdit (and some daemons) in Lion, and those plus several others in Mountain Lion.
in response to question about the walled garden you just get DEVELOPERS!,DEVELOPERS!,DEVELOPERS!,...Resistance is futile you will work for the APPLE, Resistance is futile you will work for the APPLE, Resistance is futile you will work for the APPLE,
Umm, Ballmer was talking about third-party developers in his music video. The Microsoft equivalent to the Apple page to which you're pointing is here.
Sandboxing is a standard security term. And it's a fairly stupid one at that. It's more like you're in prison. But the prison warden doesn't want you to talk with other prisoners and plan a riot, so you're put in solitary confinement and there's limited input/output (food through a hole, mail is censored, talk to your lawyer once a week, etc). That's sandboxing. (I guess whoever came up with the term had a bad childhood that involved bing locked in a room with sand on the floor).
The rationale for the term is that each app is given a "sandbox" (note that the article title isn't "Sandbox", and says "A sandpit (Commonwealth countries) or sandbox (US/Canada) is a low, wide container or shallow depression filled with sand in which children can play."; if it's a term specific to English-speaking North American, that could be part of the problem here) in which it can play without messing up anything outside the sandbox.
(
Name one thing in the terminal that's "messy," as opposed to merely "different" from the way Linux, IRIX or SunOS works. All of those look pretty "messy" in the terminal, if you've only used one of the others.
Presumably you're referring to
Another peeve is how their delivery method makes it difficult to back up the installation files. I don't want to redownload the dumb thing every time I set up a test box, or follow their annual OS upgrades (from scratch - fuck inline updates!) For regular users, I'm sure the experience is seamless, but as soon as you start messing in a terminal, the messy parts become painfully apparent.
which isn't saying "playing around in the terminal is messy" (much less "messier than any other UN*X"), it's specifically referring to installing Mac App Store apps. I'm guessing he's saying "trying to back up the installation files from the terminal is messy" or "trying to install Mac App Store apps on a test box, from the terminal, is messy" or something such as that.
Final Cut "Pro" no longer exists. It's now Final Cut X, which is a souped up version of iMovie. Apple has abandoned anything having to do with the 'pro' market for the much more lucrative consumer market.
I think that's why the person to whom you're responding put "Pro" in quotes.
Not that Apple is going to like that either it does not jive at all with their (shitty) plans. The idea is they want to start selling APIs at some point.
Your idea is that they want to start selling APIs at some point. Whether that's Apple's idea is another matter.
Well I'm not expecting you or anyone to climb into the bathtub get drunk and slash your wrists over
what what I'm saying but do watch for it. None of this will happen overnight,
Instead, a system daemon called pboxd (the "powerbox daemon") displays the dialog.
So attackers then target that daemon as it has system-wide access? Marvellous.
I don't have a Lion or Mountain Lion system in front of me, but I think that pboxd is a "system daemon" only in the sense that it's a daemon supplied as part of the system, and that it's run as the user, not as root. So attackers could target it, but they wouldn't get root access if they succeeded, they'd just get the same access an un-sandboxed user process would have.
You do of course know that all of Apple's own software has to cheat the rules right? None -- absolutely zero -- of their desktop apps are or can be sandboxed...
WTF are you talking about? Apple apps were the only one sandboxed in Leopard and they've been adding more and more in every release.
For example, Preview and TextEdit, as well as several daemons, were sandboxed in Lion.
This same thing happened the last time Steve Jobs left. The company destroyed itself from within with one bad business decision after another.
As far as I know, the decisions in question were made when Jobs was still alive and in a position to be consulted, although he might've been too ill to say "no" vigorously enough if he really though the Mac App Store restrictions were a bad idea.
They're just realizing this now? A walled garden controlled by one single company that gives you zero control whatsoever might maybe have some undesirable results? Did they think Apple wasn't in complete control when they bought their iOS device or something?
Who said anything about iOS here? Hint: the answer is not "Marco Arment", give that TFA is titled "The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance" (emphasis mine). You did read TFA before commenting, right? (If you trusted the/. summary and didn't RTFA, the phrase that comes to mind is "you must be new here"; summaries don't always do TFA justice, hence "RTFA".)
...if neither of them happen to be real numbers. (If they are real numbers, then "related as complex conjugates" means "are the same".) Any particular reason to think that they aren't real numbers?
Forgive my crude drawing above, but if I understand correctly, he's saying we can make a "Higgs Cage" that would make what's inside of it massless...
No, he's saying that if we could do that, then there might be some interesting applications; the answer you quoted said "I can imagine that if we were able to isolate a region from the Higgs field (much as we use Faraday cages, i.e. metal boxes, to protect circuits from electromagnetic interferences), we can turn all the particles inside the region massless." (emphasis mine).
in quantum mechanics, there are neither particles, nor fields, as we imagine them. The 'objects' behave like fields in certain conditions and like particles in different conditions.
Could it be that a "particle" is where two waveforms intersect?
Without the Higgs field, quarks would have no mass and consequently the proton would be heavier than the neutron, since all their mass would come from their respective binding energies.
You say that when the strong nuclear force binds nucleons more tightly together, their mass falls. Couldn't that be an effect produced by the Higgs field though?
It's an effect produced by special relativity, as in "E = mc^2" - lose some energy when the 2 protons and 2 neutrons are bound together more tightly in a helium nucleus than in a proton plus a tritium nucleus, lose some mass. (Yes, I meant to say 1H3, not 1H2, in my previous post.)
Is Apple painting themselves into a corner, or preparing to corner the market? Next major release version, whatever pithy name they give it, will likely be OS-X 10.9. What follows that? Will they just keep incrementing the tenth's place, as 10.10, 10.11, 10.12, etc.?
Probably. It's not as if there's some Iron Law that some particular component or components of a version ID are limited to one digit.
Last time I read up on this subject, the only postulated spin-2 particle was the graviton. I'm starting to lean towards a result of "what we found turns out to be a clump consisting of a graviton and some arbitrary collection of virtual bosons that gives the resulting 'particle' mass", especially if the determination is that the found particle is (to a high degree of likelihood) spin-2.
...and especially not if the determination is that the found particle is spin-0; that would leave no need to drag in the graviton.
Let's say you place on a scale one proton, and one atom that consists of one proton and two neutrons.
These then have a certain drag in the Higgs field.
If you bang them together, then the combination will interact less with the Higgs field than the sum of its parts.
The combination of the two has less mass than the sum of its parts. That difference is, as far as I know, the result of the strong nuclear force binding the resulting 2He4 nucleus together more strongly than it binds the 1H2 nucleus together, not the result of a change in the way mass is conveyed to the constituent quarks of the protons and neutrons in question by the Higgs field. "A has less mass than B" does not imply "A interacts less with the Higgs field than B".
So there's a Feynman diagram that's all photons all the time? How does a neutral particle such as the photon interact with an EM field?
See also a sci.physics.particle discussion which notes that the answer to my (rhetorical) question is "no", at least in the Standard Model (there are fermions in the diagram as well). (And, no, that mediated interaction isn't what causes particle-like behavior from an electromagnetic field.)
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, for those apps where the sandbox work, they use it. The point is that they can skip it where it doesn't make sense.
As can third parties, if they're willing to avoid the Mac App Store. The difference with Apple is not that they get to choose what to sandbox - others can as well - the difference is that they get to put un-sandboxed stuff, such as the OS and developer tools, in the Mac App Store in special packages. How big a problem that is depends on to what extent third-party software loses out by not being in the App Store. It's probably a Good Thing if most applications and daemons are sandboxed, including those from Apple, so to some degree it's a Good Thing if people are encouraged to write code that can run in a sandbox, but there needs to be an "escape hatch" for people who want software that does stuff that can't be done in a sandbox and are willing to trust the developer of that software not to have written malware and to have written software that's "safe enough" from attack. (And, yes, I think it'd might be a Good Thing to allow that for iOS apps - and Metro apps - as well.)
Of course, Apple's own apps integrate just fine, because they aren't really bound by these requirements...
Except for the ones that are bound by those requirements, such as Preview and TextEdit (and some daemons) in Lion, and those plus several others in Mountain Lion.
in response to question about the walled garden you just get DEVELOPERS!, DEVELOPERS!, DEVELOPERS!, ...Resistance is futile you will work for the APPLE, Resistance is futile you will work for the APPLE, Resistance is futile you will work for the APPLE,
Umm, Ballmer was talking about third-party developers in his music video. The Microsoft equivalent to the Apple page to which you're pointing is here.
Sandboxing is a standard security term. And it's a fairly stupid one at that. It's more like you're in prison. But the prison warden doesn't want you to talk with other prisoners and plan a riot, so you're put in solitary confinement and there's limited input/output (food through a hole, mail is censored, talk to your lawyer once a week, etc). That's sandboxing. (I guess whoever came up with the term had a bad childhood that involved bing locked in a room with sand on the floor).
The rationale for the term is that each app is given a "sandbox" (note that the article title isn't "Sandbox", and says "A sandpit (Commonwealth countries) or sandbox (US/Canada) is a low, wide container or shallow depression filled with sand in which children can play."; if it's a term specific to English-speaking North American, that could be part of the problem here) in which it can play without messing up anything outside the sandbox. (
And, yes, there's a Wikipedia page for the technical use of the term.)
Name one thing in the terminal that's "messy," as opposed to merely "different" from the way Linux, IRIX or SunOS works. All of those look pretty "messy" in the terminal, if you've only used one of the others.
Presumably you're referring to
which isn't saying "playing around in the terminal is messy" (much less "messier than any other UN*X"), it's specifically referring to installing Mac App Store apps. I'm guessing he's saying "trying to back up the installation files from the terminal is messy" or "trying to install Mac App Store apps on a test box, from the terminal, is messy" or something such as that.
Final Cut "Pro" no longer exists. It's now Final Cut X, which is a souped up version of iMovie. Apple has abandoned anything having to do with the 'pro' market for the much more lucrative consumer market.
I think that's why the person to whom you're responding put "Pro" in quotes.
Not that Apple is going to like that either it does not jive at all with their (shitty) plans. The idea is they want to start selling APIs at some point.
Your idea is that they want to start selling APIs at some point. Whether that's Apple's idea is another matter.
Well I'm not expecting you or anyone to climb into the bathtub get drunk and slash your wrists over what what I'm saying but do watch for it. None of this will happen overnight,
And some or all of it might not happen at all.
Instead, a system daemon called pboxd (the "powerbox daemon") displays the dialog.
So attackers then target that daemon as it has system-wide access? Marvellous.
I don't have a Lion or Mountain Lion system in front of me, but I think that pboxd is a "system daemon" only in the sense that it's a daemon supplied as part of the system, and that it's run as the user, not as root. So attackers could target it, but they wouldn't get root access if they succeeded, they'd just get the same access an un-sandboxed user process would have.
You do of course know that all of Apple's own software has to cheat the rules right? None -- absolutely zero -- of their desktop apps are or can be sandboxed...
WTF are you talking about? Apple apps were the only one sandboxed in Leopard and they've been adding more and more in every release.
For example, Preview and TextEdit, as well as several daemons, were sandboxed in Lion.
This same thing happened the last time Steve Jobs left. The company destroyed itself from within with one bad business decision after another.
As far as I know, the decisions in question were made when Jobs was still alive and in a position to be consulted, although he might've been too ill to say "no" vigorously enough if he really though the Mac App Store restrictions were a bad idea.
They're just realizing this now? A walled garden controlled by one single company that gives you zero control whatsoever might maybe have some undesirable results? Did they think Apple wasn't in complete control when they bought their iOS device or something?
Who said anything about iOS here? Hint: the answer is not "Marco Arment", give that TFA is titled "The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance" (emphasis mine). You did read TFA before commenting, right? (If you trusted the /. summary and didn't RTFA, the phrase that comes to mind is "you must be new here"; summaries don't always do TFA justice, hence "RTFA".)
I've had the iPhone
Wrong App Store. He's complaining about the Mac App Store, not the iOS App Store.
That most users don't want to produce anything?
And that even many of those who do want to produce stuff want to spend time producing stuff rather than tweaking settings?
Could be related as complex conjugates.
...if neither of them happen to be real numbers. (If they are real numbers, then "related as complex conjugates" means "are the same".) Any particular reason to think that they aren't real numbers?
Oh you're underselling its level of awesome. It's beyond awesome.
To what does "it" refer here? Presumably not the Higgs boson, given that...
If particles are just disturbances in a field of 3+1 dimensions,
...that's just quantum field theory, which dates back well before the Higgs boson.
then Dark Matter is just an orthogonal resonance in one or more additional dimensions,
...or WIMPs in Boring Old 3+1 dimensions, or something else, possibly also in Boring Old 3+1 dimensions.
Photons may not have mass, but they do have energy.
...and momentum.
Just want to mention that for all the "ordinary" particles, that is the hadrons
Electrons aren't "ordinary" particles?
Forgive my crude drawing above, but if I understand correctly, he's saying we can make a "Higgs Cage" that would make what's inside of it massless...
No, he's saying that if we could do that, then there might be some interesting applications; the answer you quoted said "I can imagine that if we were able to isolate a region from the Higgs field (much as we use Faraday cages, i.e. metal boxes, to protect circuits from electromagnetic interferences), we can turn all the particles inside the region massless." (emphasis mine).
in quantum mechanics, there are neither particles, nor fields, as we imagine them. The 'objects' behave like fields in certain conditions and like particles in different conditions. Could it be that a "particle" is where two waveforms intersect?
No, a "particle" is a quantum of a quantum field.
So there are other sources of mass than the Higgs field?
Yes:
You say that when the strong nuclear force binds nucleons more tightly together, their mass falls. Couldn't that be an effect produced by the Higgs field though?
It's an effect produced by special relativity, as in "E = mc^2" - lose some energy when the 2 protons and 2 neutrons are bound together more tightly in a helium nucleus than in a proton plus a tritium nucleus, lose some mass. (Yes, I meant to say 1H3, not 1H2, in my previous post.)
Is Apple painting themselves into a corner, or preparing to corner the market? Next major release version, whatever pithy name they give it, will likely be OS-X 10.9. What follows that? Will they just keep incrementing the tenth's place, as 10.10, 10.11, 10.12, etc.?
Probably. It's not as if there's some Iron Law that some particular component or components of a version ID are limited to one digit.
Last time I read up on this subject, the only postulated spin-2 particle was the graviton. I'm starting to lean towards a result of "what we found turns out to be a clump consisting of a graviton and some arbitrary collection of virtual bosons that gives the resulting 'particle' mass", especially if the determination is that the found particle is (to a high degree of likelihood) spin-2.
...and especially not if the determination is that the found particle is spin-0; that would leave no need to drag in the graviton.
Let's say you place on a scale one proton, and one atom that consists of one proton and two neutrons.
These then have a certain drag in the Higgs field.
If you bang them together, then the combination will interact less with the Higgs field than the sum of its parts.
The combination of the two has less mass than the sum of its parts. That difference is, as far as I know, the result of the strong nuclear force binding the resulting 2He4 nucleus together more strongly than it binds the 1H2 nucleus together, not the result of a change in the way mass is conveyed to the constituent quarks of the protons and neutrons in question by the Higgs field. "A has less mass than B" does not imply "A interacts less with the Higgs field than B".
An EM field interacts with itself, too.
So there's a Feynman diagram that's all photons all the time? How does a neutral particle such as the photon interact with an EM field?
See also a sci.physics.particle discussion which notes that the answer to my (rhetorical) question is "no", at least in the Standard Model (there are fermions in the diagram as well). (And, no, that mediated interaction isn't what causes particle-like behavior from an electromagnetic field.)