* Voice notes (requires 3rd party microphone, sold separately)
* Digital photo storage (requires 3rd party photo card reader, sold separately)
* Enhanced On-The-Go playlist
* Improved playback performance
* Added Music Quiz game
* Improved backlight
* Improved battery meter
* New for Windows: support for AAC audio files, including songs purchased from the iTunes Music Store
Or they could just die off, as they should have over a decade ago. 97% of the market share have spoken: "Apple, we don't need you, and we don't want you."
Anonymous Coward certainly is threatened by non-microsoft software. If google really is the measure of market share, it also suggests that you don't want any UNIX type system, either. We should get rid of those, too. After all, your ``market share'' research suggests nobody needs or wants UNIX systems, either.
it would be great to be able to try it, but I'm not going to dump $1500 or so for the priviledge of getting some overpriced, proprietary hardware platform.
How much have you dumped for the priviledge of running Windows so far?
Does ANY of the other browers somehow render web pages better or worse?
Well, yeah. Find anything with even CSS1 that does a remotely complex layout. For example, some guy put up a page describing how to do rounded corners on boxes in css. At least half of the css included in that thing is made up of IE workarounds. Some of those workarounds exploit IE CSS parser bugs in order to get different stuff in the engine to get it to render like everything else.
I use two different browsers with two different engines regularly (Mozilla mostly, Safari (kHTML) sometimes). They *usually* give me similar web pages from the same HTML. IE usually requires workarounds if you do anything remotely complex. Sometimes, it just goes bad.
I am a web designer [...] I DO go to my bank's web site and look at my balance, read/., check for updates for Trillian or some other software I might use, or update a driver. Yes, I'm a boring user. But I really don't have time for much else
How can you be a decent web designer without browsing the web. That's kinda like saying you're a writer, but you don't read. There's just a lot of stuff you won't know that can make your life far easier.
I really miss the/proc filesystem and 'killall './proc is stupidly broken on Linux. The BSDs have a traditional/proc and a/kern to separate the two entirely different concepts (processes vs. kernel probing). Now, that's not to say you can do as much in/kern as you can in Linux's/proc, but I think that/proc is a really ugly part of Linux.
``killall'' is a trivial, but dangerous shell script. I just use ps + grep + awk + xargs to get the exact stuff I'm interested in (and giving me the ability to preview what I'm going to kill before I do it). It's not that big of a deal since I perform that operation so incredibly rarely.
I'm also pretty sure I wasn't the first person to have discovered IRIX's ``killall'' command after Linux's.:)
The write to PDF is nice, but I hate PDF's as they are really lame to view at screen anyway. The reason for using PDF is that it can be read elsewhere, now we should atleast use the OpenOffice format instead, since it is even more free than Adobe Reader. Maybe the open-office team should make a OpenOffice Reader?
How is OO format more free than PDF?
PDF is smaller, is viewable on more platforms, will open and be on the screen quicker, is not likely to pass information you don't want along, is not likely to help spread virus type things once someone finds a hole in a macro, is not likely to become unreadable as new versions come out, etc...
I use PDF whenever I can. When I can't, it's HTML or plain text (sometimes RTF).
The kernel traps it. It sends a signal to init to let it know the 3 keys have been hit. init then runs a program.
Um, no it doesn't, I mapped it like any other key sequence in my window manager. I do the same thing in NetBSD (which doesn't have the ugly init hack).
CTRL-ALT-DEL is can never, ever be trapped by an application
I mapped it to something like ``xset s activate'' on my Linux box. I kinda laugh every time I hit it just because I think it's funny that I mapped my lock to a key combination that ``can't be trapped by an application.''
I'm running 10.2.8 on a 1GHz G4 Ti and I had the following problems that weren't listed on the page:
* Lost cursor on second display * Scrolling windows (Mail.app, for example) would fail to update the full area that scrolled. I had to highlight or minimize/maximize to read my email. * I had weird problems moving windows around, too:
Because it's really efficient to input data and perform operations with RPN, but maintaining an application written in something like forth is difficult.
It's the same reason I live in tcsh, but write all my shell scripts using sh.
Did you seriously just reply to a single word in my entire post without any sort of context?
The ``should'' was a recommendation. The topic of the parent post was regarding every host on every network being accessible. I certainly have hosts on all of my networks that don't need internet access. If a machine requires an application proxy to access a particular service on the Internet, it's a lot easier to control and track what's going on.
IPv6 will be grand...when I can buy it for a reasonable price from my ISP. It's disingenouous for you to say "Well, just use IPv6!" when that's simply not an option for the overwhelming majority of Internet users.
I got an IPv6 over an IPv4 tunnel over my cable for free. You can, too.
But yeah, my point is that it's not ``the internet,'' just yet. When it is, we can do away with all this NAT/PAT crap.
When someone says they've broken in somewhere, that usually implies doing it without permission
Perhaps it does for you. I've had to break into my house and cars a few times as well. Don't tell me I did that.
If all you did was find a flaw in a security measure, then say so.
OK, I found a flaw in assuming NAT assists at all in security. I'm sure that proves my point quite well.
Probably. You might want to consider that security measures can be tested against unlawful techniques without actually breaking into someone's system against their wishes.
Again, you are incorrect in assuming that I, as a system administrator (at the time) wasn't responsible in proving the lack of security at that location.
It's still an irrelevant that is still distracting from the original point, though. NAT does not enhance security.
So you (probably illegaly) broke into two boxes, and want your opinion to be trusted? Hasn't this been a big issue lately? Sorry, but I don't give that sort of activity very much weight.
Hey, good assumption.
So, when someone announces a specific technique to work around something that is consider ``a security measure,'' it makes a lot of sense to assume the person was breaking the law, and security measures should only protect from things being used lawfully.
I'm probably missing your point, but if you're worried about security, you might want to consider that someone might actually break the law when circumventing your ``security'' measures.
The irrelevance of your assumptions is working in your favor to negate their incorrectness in this case.
Slashdot Mirror
www.apple.com/ipod/
New in iPod Software 2.1
* Voice notes (requires 3rd party microphone, sold separately)
* Digital photo storage (requires 3rd party photo card reader, sold separately)
* Enhanced On-The-Go playlist
* Improved playback performance
* Added Music Quiz game
* Improved backlight
* Improved battery meter
* New for Windows: support for AAC audio files, including songs purchased from the iTunes Music Store
that 97% includes Linux and "Other" but I guess you were too fucking stupid to add that up.
Dear Anonymous Coward.
It explicitly says Linux has 1% while OS X has 3%. That means that 99% of end users don't use Linux.
The point, of course, is that this is a stupid metric.
Or they could just die off, as they should have over a decade ago. 97% of the market share have spoken: "Apple, we don't need you, and we don't want you."
Anonymous Coward certainly is threatened by non-microsoft software. If google really is the measure of market share, it also suggests that you don't want any UNIX type system, either. We should get rid of those, too. After all, your ``market share'' research suggests nobody needs or wants UNIX systems, either.
it would be great to be able to try it, but I'm not going to dump $1500 or so for the priviledge of getting some overpriced, proprietary hardware platform.
How much have you dumped for the priviledge of running Windows so far?
Does ANY of the other browers somehow render web pages better or worse?
Well, yeah. Find anything with even CSS1 that does a remotely complex layout. For example, some guy put up a page describing how to do rounded corners on boxes in css. At least half of the css included in that thing is made up of IE workarounds. Some of those workarounds exploit IE CSS parser bugs in order to get different stuff in the engine to get it to render like everything else.
I use two different browsers with two different engines regularly (Mozilla mostly, Safari (kHTML) sometimes). They *usually* give me similar web pages from the same HTML. IE usually requires workarounds if you do anything remotely complex. Sometimes, it just goes bad.
I am a web designer [...] I DO go to my bank's web site and look at my balance, read /., check for updates for Trillian or some other software I might use, or update a driver. Yes, I'm a boring user. But I really don't have time for much else
How can you be a decent web designer without browsing the web. That's kinda like saying you're a writer, but you don't read. There's just a lot of stuff you won't know that can make your life far easier.
I really miss the /proc filesystem and 'killall '. /proc is stupidly broken on Linux. The BSDs have a traditional /proc and a /kern to separate the two entirely different concepts (processes vs. kernel probing). Now, that's not to say you can do as much in /kern as you can in Linux's /proc, but I think that /proc is a really ugly part of Linux.
:)
``killall'' is a trivial, but dangerous shell script. I just use ps + grep + awk + xargs to get the exact stuff I'm interested in (and giving me the ability to preview what I'm going to kill before I do it). It's not that big of a deal since I perform that operation so incredibly rarely.
I'm also pretty sure I wasn't the first person to have discovered IRIX's ``killall'' command after Linux's.
All the commercial unices have been in a standstill for a lot more than a decade.
You do realize that Apple sells a commercial UNIX, right? They've been doing some really nice stuff.
The write to PDF is nice, but I hate PDF's as they are really lame to view at screen anyway. The reason for using PDF is that it can be read elsewhere, now we should atleast use the OpenOffice format instead, since it is even more free than Adobe Reader. Maybe the open-office team should make a OpenOffice Reader?
How is OO format more free than PDF?
PDF is smaller, is viewable on more platforms, will open and be on the screen quicker, is not likely to pass information you don't want along, is not likely to help spread virus type things once someone finds a hole in a macro, is not likely to become unreadable as new versions come out, etc...
I use PDF whenever I can. When I can't, it's HTML or plain text (sometimes RTF).
The guy probably meant that it's not something that belongs to the X specification, but a quirk entirely invented by the implementors of Xfree86.
I've spent most of my time on other X servers (SGI, Sun, Apple). The Apple is XFree based, but doesn't include the ctl-alt-backspace thing.
Whatever, I use linux like everyone else.
Aren't you a rebel?
The kernel traps it. It sends a signal to init to let it know the 3 keys have been hit. init then runs a program.
Um, no it doesn't, I mapped it like any other key sequence in my window manager. I do the same thing in NetBSD (which doesn't have the ugly init hack).
little like say ctrl-alt-backspace is in X
ctl-alt-backspace has no special meaning in X.
CTRL-ALT-DEL is can never, ever be trapped by an application
I mapped it to something like ``xset s activate'' on my Linux box. I kinda laugh every time I hit it just because I think it's funny that I mapped my lock to a key combination that ``can't be trapped by an application.''
I'm running 10.2.8 on a 1GHz G4 Ti and I had the following problems that weren't listed on the page:
* Lost cursor on second display
* Scrolling windows (Mail.app, for example) would fail to update the full area that scrolled. I had to highlight or minimize/maximize to read my email.
* I had weird problems moving windows around, too:
http://bsdboy.west.spy.net/~dustin/WTF.png
It's really simple - just rip everything but track 1 using CDParanoia.
Well, what if that's the one worth hearing?
bc is pretty damned nice for day-to-day use. I do all of my simple calculations with bc (except the things I do with dc, I do those with dc).
Anything more complex, I do in scheme, python, etc...
Because it's really efficient to input data and perform operations with RPN, but maintaining an application written in something like forth is difficult.
It's the same reason I live in tcsh, but write all my shell scripts using sh.
I've got Power48 on my Tungsten T. It emulates 48SX, 48GX, and 49 pretty well. It can do a lot of operations faster than my 48GX.
Windows 1984 and up is what it was supposed to say...
The 1 and 4 are silent. Try reading it like this:
Requires Windows1984.
So a black-holed NAT router doesn't prevent port scans on machines inside the LAN from machines outside the firewall?
A misconfigured router can do the same thing, but it's still not the right tool for the job you're trying to do.
Any basic firewall is supposed to block that kind of stuff by default. If it also does NAT, that's not the reason it does NAT.
> ...should...
Why? Bald assertions alone carry little weight.
Did you seriously just reply to a single word in my entire post without any sort of context?
The ``should'' was a recommendation. The topic of the parent post was regarding every host on every network being accessible. I certainly have hosts on all of my networks that don't need internet access. If a machine requires an application proxy to access a particular service on the Internet, it's a lot easier to control and track what's going on.
IPv6 will be grand...when I can buy it for a reasonable price from my ISP. It's disingenouous for you to say "Well, just use IPv6!" when that's simply not an option for the overwhelming majority of Internet users.
I got an IPv6 over an IPv4 tunnel over my cable for free. You can, too.
But yeah, my point is that it's not ``the internet,'' just yet. When it is, we can do away with all this NAT/PAT crap.
When someone says they've broken in somewhere, that usually implies doing it without permission
Perhaps it does for you. I've had to break into my house and cars a few times as well. Don't tell me I did that.
If all you did was find a flaw in a security measure, then say so.
OK, I found a flaw in assuming NAT assists at all in security. I'm sure that proves my point quite well.
Probably. You might want to consider that security measures can be tested against unlawful techniques without actually breaking into someone's system against their wishes.
Again, you are incorrect in assuming that I, as a system administrator (at the time) wasn't responsible in proving the lack of security at that location.
It's still an irrelevant that is still distracting from the original point, though. NAT does not enhance security.
I have one in my cube at work...it's called a LocalDirector.
Who is the manufacturer? Where can one purchase this device?
cisco Systems. There's a bunch of them on eBay right now.
So you (probably illegaly) broke into two boxes, and want your opinion to be trusted? Hasn't this been a big issue lately? Sorry, but I don't give that sort of activity very much weight.
Hey, good assumption.
So, when someone announces a specific technique to work around something that is consider ``a security measure,'' it makes a lot of sense to assume the person was breaking the law, and security measures should only protect from things being used lawfully.
I'm probably missing your point, but if you're worried about security, you might want to consider that someone might actually break the law when circumventing your ``security'' measures.
The irrelevance of your assumptions is working in your favor to negate their incorrectness in this case.