Yeah, I'm probably a troll, a suspicion clearly corroborated by my long history of trolling here. I do mean what I said. Discriminating against someone "because he's gay" or "because he's short" is NOT the same as "because I don't like him". You seem to think reducing persons to one single aspect of their personality is the same as judging them as a person and deciding you are not on the same wave-length.
My family owns and operates a business with over 1000 employees. I kind of know what I'm talking about when I say that reducing an applicant to one aspect of their CV or character is not only plain stupid and amoral, but also makes zero business sense.
"I don't agree with a lot of the stuff that people post on here. I don't agree with a lot of people's political views. I am against the war (which I would assume most here are). I'm against smoking bans in states and cities on private property (I think if you don't like a restraunt because it is smoke-filled you can do what my parents and I did when i was litte: tell them their restraunt smells like ass and we won't be back unless they ban smoking in their facility). I think private businesses (but not government or businesses with public contracts) should be able to discriminate against people if they damn well please, whether it be because they don't like gays, catholics, women, white people, or whatever the hell they like (but if they have public contracts they should have to adhere to non-discriminatory policies). If they discriminate I'll be one of the ones telling everyone I know not go there."
It's hard to put into words how fucking stupid you are. Unless you live in fairy-land (which just might be true, judging fom your writing), most people can't just tell their boss to shove it and go get a job as waiter where they won't get slowly killed by idiots burning dried tobacco leaves and inhaling the smoke. In what kind of bizarro-world is it OK for private businesses to discriminate against you because you are gay, catholic or have big tits? Hey, you can just go and get another job, can't you? Perhaps you and I can, but 90% of the world's population are not educated, smart, good-looking, lucky and rich enough to do so.
Discriminating against races and sexual persuasions is OK, but sharing of guitar tabs sends you into rant-mode for hundreds of words? You might want to get your priorities straight.
I know at more than 10 people who have at least 15 Intel machines between them, and I myself have two. One(!) of the Macbook Pro's (my mother's) emitted the whining sound, which still means it's quieter than most Dell laptops. Apple simply completely replaced it without a hitch about a month ago. Other than that, zero problems, and happy faces all around.
A good friend of mine works for an Apple reseller, and he says the don't have any more problems and returns right now than usually, after accounting for the freaking huge number of people who bought a Mac in since the switch.
What people seem to be forgetting is that Apple just had the strongest Mac quarter since God knows when. More people getting new Macs, many of them new to the platform, and stronger media attention give the impression that there are more quality problems than usual. And that's just bullshit.
In fact, the quality of the machines is outstanding in 99% of the cases, and that is absolutely amazing in and of itself, considering that they are based on a completely new hardware platform.
Why does Slashdot continue to post Apple-related non-stories? Every time Steve Jobs farts or some idiot proclaims the coming Mac-Virus-Mayhem (tm), Slashdot takes the bait.
This MSNBC(!) story contains no facts whatsoever. No piece of significant OS X malware has been discovered so far, and I believe it's highly likely that there won't be any in the immediate future. WTF does the Intel switch have to do with that?
Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion, not voting. In difficult cases, straw polls may be conducted to help determine consensus, but are to be used with caution and not to be treated as binding votes. Suggestions that Wikipedia use the latest fancy transferable vote system for some election or another will likely be met with disdain, at best.
Not all decisions are made by community consensus. Legal requirements (such as copyright) and decisions by User:Jimbo Wales regarding policy are non-negotiable. For an experiment in democracy, visit Wikicities Democracy."
I am a strong believer in the notion that Wikipedia Editors have exactly three rights:
To be judged and treated according to their actions To fork To leave
Uhm, how are proposing to "fix" this? You can give your application any icon you want, and as long as it looks even remotely like the native JPEG-icon, 95% of users won't notice.
The only way would be some sort of flag that shows up on any icon that represents something executable, and that wouldn't be a fix but a completely new approach.
Windows Vista (with the NT Core) will also bring the root/admin abstraction to the Windows World. MS should had done this with WindowsXP, but instead choose compatibility for older applications.MS truly isn't stupid about security, nor is Windows. But Windows has to do something OSX doesn't. It has to support a staggering amount of hardware configurations (without conflicts), and a staggering amount of third party software, and then add in that it is the most targeted Operating System for hackers.
That's bullshit, and you know it. Are you really saying that Windows runs on more hardware configurations and architectures than any flavor of BSD? Are you really saying that poor, poor Microsoft has to bend over for manufacturers who build crappy products and write bad drivers? Are you really saying that OS X has a monolithic plain-vanilla BSD kernel?
Because the answer to those three questions is "No!".
I already said this in reply to another post, but I'll say it again: OS X is not "obscure". The core OS is open source software (called Darwin) that is based on decades-old BSD code. Cocoa, OS X's most important API has been around since the NextStep days. The stuff on top of Darwin has so far never been successfully exploited, and there has to be some reason for that.
You very obviously didn't read the article you just linked to (or my post, for that matter). I am talking about _actual_ exploits, not something that a very, very obscure "security research firm" reportedly "received by email" but won't show anybody because whatever. Something that might hit me or you. Something that has significance beyond using it in silly slashdot discussions.
I'm not saying that OS X is perfect, I'm saying that SO FAR, you shouldn't waste time and money on virus protection. Do regular backups of your important data, that is MUCH more effective and protects against other disasters like hardware malfunctions, loss and theft, fire and stupidity.
"The present "Security by obscurity" is not an excuse for not paying attention to security!"
Sorry, but what the fuck are you talking about. Mac OS X is based on decades-old BSD code, substantial parts of the core OS are open source and you can go right ahead and look at them over at the Darwin project. How's that for "obscurity"? Cocoa, the API for developing OS X apps has been around in one form or another since NextStep and is fairly mature, as well. The parts on top of Darwin are _extremely_ stable and so far, haven't been exploited one single time.
Which would be? I'm being flippant here, but seriously, point me to something that might actually affect a Mac user.
The only real danger on OS X is giving software your root credentials, but that is true for EVERY system widely available today. The difference to windows is that nobody runs OS X as root, and most applications thanks to the.app-bundle format, most applications are just an icon you drag into your applications folder. You can even take MS OFFICE(!), drag it from your Mac to some network location on an other Mac, and it's "installed" there. No credentials at all.
So the real way to get OS X more secure: Don't trust applications that come from respectable sources AND ask for root credentials. If they don't they probably won't be able to do much harm.
Sorry, but what you are doing is stupid. It's a complete waste of your time. The way to go is backing up your data regularly and keeping it safe, because you have to do that ANYWAY. If your data is not important enough to warrant the hassle, your entire computer isn't and that makes OS X anti-malware measures pretty useless. All that stuff you do is protecting you from the 1 in several million chance of getting infected by Mac malware (actually, you can't measure the probability because ther is NOT A SINGLE DOCUMENTED CASE, but you get my drift).
But it doesn't do any good in case someone steals your PC, you have a head-crash, or simply mess up something funky you are doing with your system. The chance of something like that happening is so much greater. Just do backups, because, after all, it's about your DATA. Setting up OS X takes about 90 minutes, at the most, but a secure system is worthless without it.
I don't know who the guy is, but the article is completely useless. There are absolutely no hard facts in there. Please point us to ONE SINGLE virus, keylogger, adware, or any type of malware at all before making ridiculous claims like the old and completely bogus "it's just because of low market share". It's just not true. I haven't come across anything dodgy so far and I've _actively_ looked for it. Nothing except some shell-script with a highly hypothetical threat. Also, keep in mind that OS X users tend to get a large percentage of their software from centralized sources like apple.com and VersionTracker, which wouldn't post or quickly pull any infected software. IF there was any kind of outbreak, it would be all over the Mac-web within an hour at the maximum.
Congratulations! You just made the equivalent of CmdrTaco's very prophetic first impression evaluation of the iPod ("No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.") and will forever be ridiculed for your complete lack of insight. Have a nice day.
"I don't buy a product because the developer decided to make it "precious" by worring about it too much."
Which is why you are not head of industrial design at Apple -- or anywhere else, probably;-) Incredible attention to detail is a common trait of many successful people, especially those in art and design. It may not be obvious, but there _is_ a reason why people who normally don't give a rat's ass about electronic gadgets are going crazy over iPods. Their design pushes many people's buttons just the right way.
This is utter nonsense. I'm feeling silly just replying to this. Apple in its current form is all about having the designers of every link in the chain that is the Mac-OSX-iLife-iTunes-iPod experience orbiting around Steve Jobs at 1, Infinite Loop in Cupertino.
They are NOT going to give away OS X to anybody else, and just buying the Apple brand would be worthless to Dell and other potential buyers.
You are right in a way: Apple does not want to build their computers themselves - and that's exactly why they don't do it, even today. iBooks, Powerbooks, iPod... you name it, all are built by OEMs in Asia. That means scaling back is not a problem in case sales should stagnate for a while, but they are still in control and can continue to perfectly coordinate their computer products with their other ventures.
If there is one word to sum up Apple's success, it's "integration". Everything has to be so fucking integrated, they even started writing Windows software because they knew that, without iTunes, the iPod had nothing but design on it's competitors. (Of course they also used iTunes Windows to push Quicktime, which is automatically installed with it, but that's an other story...).
You seem to think they make boatloads of money in the music business. Well, think again. Their music store just broke even. The iPod line as a whole may have fairly high profit margins right now, but Apple is already pushing to commoditize the portable player industry. Take a look at the iPod nano's prize-tag. The margins on this thing are probably razor-thin, considering all the engineering that went into it and all the marketing dollars that are spent to promote it now.
You know what's really interesting about this? People will not only be running Mac OS X on Intel, people will ALSO be running WINDOWS on MAC hardware.
This works both ways for Apple. Powerbook and iBook sales are going to got through the roof. Regardless of what Dell et al. seem to think, there is a market for computers that don't look like shit, and iBooks are already very competitively priced.
Think a $999 iBook capable of tripple-booting into Mac OS, any ol' Linux distro and friggin' Windows. Can you say million-seller?
I'm sorry, but your comment is definitely not "Interesting". The original poster wants something that he can use with a keyboard. That's probably because he is like me and can type 3-4 times faster than he can write with a pencil.
Additionally, it's damn hard to cut and paste (of the non-adhesive variety) handwritten notes and email-drafts.
Seriously, no congressman in his right mind is going to touch legislation that impinges on the general public's right to an unencumbered TV-experience.
DMCA and PATRIOT are no problem, but take away an American's freedom to watch, record and illegally sell for profit and there's going to be trouble. We're talking mobs in the streets here, complete with lynchings and excessive-firing-of-rifles-in-the-air.
Yes, you are indeed missing something. But it's probably not your fault, the people who taught you neural networks probably didn't know enough about the brain.
The parallelity of human brains is widely and hugely overestimated.
Just think about the fact that you can easily recognize 2 random objects if you are shown them for as little as a second. In this second, there is only enough time for about 100 of your neurons firing. The path trough your brain therefore _cannot_ be longer than a dozen neurons or "operations".
Any modern CPU does billions(!) of operations per second. So the comparison really isn't very good.
Frankly, I could not care less. RTFA, this is not about customers, it's all about the resellers. As a customer, I want to buy products as cheaply as possible and without delays. I do _not_ care where I buy them from.
I don't see why there is all the fuss about some tiny resellers closing shop because of Apple's opening of its own retail stores. Apple is a publicly traded company, for God's sake, they have much more of an obligation towards their stockholders than towards their whiny resellers. You tend to make more money for your shareholders when there are fewer people taking a cut.
I understand that it's something of a tragedy for those directly involved, but for customers it is more or less irrelevant. Apple is far to insignificant (market-share wise) to warrant all this attention. Go and buy a Windows PC if you don't like their practices. A company with low single-digit market-share should be legally free to open shops and undercut their resellers as much as they want, all those resellers are free to sell a myriad of other hardware and software products.
Morally, it's questionable of course, but these lawsuits? Please...
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I'm probably a troll, a suspicion clearly corroborated by my long history of trolling here. I do mean what I said. Discriminating against someone "because he's gay" or "because he's short" is NOT the same as "because I don't like him". You seem to think reducing persons to one single aspect of their personality is the same as judging them as a person and deciding you are not on the same wave-length.
My family owns and operates a business with over 1000 employees. I kind of know what I'm talking about when I say that reducing an applicant to one aspect of their CV or character is not only plain stupid and amoral, but also makes zero business sense.
It's sad that this got voted "Insightful" on Slashdot... Please read the Wikipedia article on evolution and the talk.origins FAQ, they will answer your questions.
"I don't agree with a lot of the stuff that people post on here. I don't agree with a lot of people's political views. I am against the war (which I would assume most here are). I'm against smoking bans in states and cities on private property (I think if you don't like a restraunt because it is smoke-filled you can do what my parents and I did when i was litte: tell them their restraunt smells like ass and we won't be back unless they ban smoking in their facility). I think private businesses (but not government or businesses with public contracts) should be able to discriminate against people if they damn well please, whether it be because they don't like gays, catholics, women, white people, or whatever the hell they like (but if they have public contracts they should have to adhere to non-discriminatory policies). If they discriminate I'll be one of the ones telling everyone I know not go there."
It's hard to put into words how fucking stupid you are. Unless you live in fairy-land (which just might be true, judging fom your writing), most people can't just tell their boss to shove it and go get a job as waiter where they won't get slowly killed by idiots burning dried tobacco leaves and inhaling the smoke. In what kind of bizarro-world is it OK for private businesses to discriminate against you because you are gay, catholic or have big tits? Hey, you can just go and get another job, can't you? Perhaps you and I can, but 90% of the world's population are not educated, smart, good-looking, lucky and rich enough to do so.
Discriminating against races and sexual persuasions is OK, but sharing of guitar tabs sends you into rant-mode for hundreds of words? You might want to get your priorities straight.
I know at more than 10 people who have at least 15 Intel machines between them, and I myself have two. One(!) of the Macbook Pro's (my mother's) emitted the whining sound, which still means it's quieter than most Dell laptops. Apple simply completely replaced it without a hitch about a month ago. Other than that, zero problems, and happy faces all around.
A good friend of mine works for an Apple reseller, and he says the don't have any more problems and returns right now than usually, after accounting for the freaking huge number of people who bought a Mac in since the switch.
What people seem to be forgetting is that Apple just had the strongest Mac quarter since God knows when. More people getting new Macs, many of them new to the platform, and stronger media attention give the impression that there are more quality problems than usual. And that's just bullshit.
In fact, the quality of the machines is outstanding in 99% of the cases, and that is absolutely amazing in and of itself, considering that they are based on a completely new hardware platform.
Why does Slashdot continue to post Apple-related non-stories? Every time Steve Jobs farts or some idiot proclaims the coming Mac-Virus-Mayhem (tm), Slashdot takes the bait.
This MSNBC(!) story contains no facts whatsoever. No piece of significant OS X malware has been discovered so far, and I believe it's highly likely that there won't be any in the immediate future. WTF does the Intel switch have to do with that?
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipe dia_is_not
"Wikipedia is not a democracy
Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion, not voting. In difficult cases, straw polls may be conducted to help determine consensus, but are to be used with caution and not to be treated as binding votes. Suggestions that Wikipedia use the latest fancy transferable vote system for some election or another will likely be met with disdain, at best.
Not all decisions are made by community consensus. Legal requirements (such as copyright) and decisions by User:Jimbo Wales regarding policy are non-negotiable. For an experiment in democracy, visit Wikicities Democracy."
I am a strong believer in the notion that Wikipedia Editors have exactly three rights:
To be judged and treated according to their actions
To fork
To leave
If you don't like it, discuss it or leave.
Uhm, how are proposing to "fix" this? You can give your application any icon you want, and as long as it looks even remotely like the native JPEG-icon, 95% of users won't notice.
The only way would be some sort of flag that shows up on any icon that represents something executable, and that wouldn't be a fix but a completely new approach.
I have no idea what you just said.
Windows Vista (with the NT Core) will also bring the root/admin abstraction to the Windows World. MS should had done this with WindowsXP, but instead choose compatibility for older applications.MS truly isn't stupid about security, nor is Windows. But Windows has to do something OSX doesn't. It has to support a staggering amount of hardware configurations (without conflicts), and a staggering amount of third party software, and then add in that it is the most targeted Operating System for hackers.
That's bullshit, and you know it. Are you really saying that Windows runs on more hardware configurations and architectures than any flavor of BSD? Are you really saying that poor, poor Microsoft has to bend over for manufacturers who build crappy products and write bad drivers? Are you really saying that OS X has a monolithic plain-vanilla BSD kernel?
Because the answer to those three questions is "No!".
I already said this in reply to another post, but I'll say it again: OS X is not "obscure". The core OS is open source software (called Darwin) that is based on decades-old BSD code. Cocoa, OS X's most important API has been around since the NextStep days. The stuff on top of Darwin has so far never been successfully exploited, and there has to be some reason for that.
You very obviously didn't read the article you just linked to (or my post, for that matter). I am talking about _actual_ exploits, not something that a very, very obscure "security research firm" reportedly "received by email" but won't show anybody because whatever. Something that might hit me or you. Something that has significance beyond using it in silly slashdot discussions.
I'm not saying that OS X is perfect, I'm saying that SO FAR, you shouldn't waste time and money on virus protection. Do regular backups of your important data, that is MUCH more effective and protects against other disasters like hardware malfunctions, loss and theft, fire and stupidity.
"The present "Security by obscurity" is not an excuse for not paying attention to security!"
Sorry, but what the fuck are you talking about. Mac OS X is based on decades-old BSD code, substantial parts of the core OS are open source and you can go right ahead and look at them over at the Darwin project. How's that for "obscurity"? Cocoa, the API for developing OS X apps has been around in one form or another since NextStep and is fairly mature, as well. The parts on top of Darwin are _extremely_ stable and so far, haven't been exploited one single time.
Which would be? I'm being flippant here, but seriously, point me to something that might actually affect a Mac user.
.app-bundle format, most applications are just an icon you drag into your applications folder. You can even take MS OFFICE(!), drag it from your Mac to some network location on an other Mac, and it's "installed" there. No credentials at all.
The only real danger on OS X is giving software your root credentials, but that is true for EVERY system widely available today. The difference to windows is that nobody runs OS X as root, and most applications thanks to the
So the real way to get OS X more secure: Don't trust applications that come from respectable sources AND ask for root credentials. If they don't they probably won't be able to do much harm.
Sorry, but what you are doing is stupid. It's a complete waste of your time. The way to go is backing up your data regularly and keeping it safe, because you have to do that ANYWAY. If your data is not important enough to warrant the hassle, your entire computer isn't and that makes OS X anti-malware measures pretty useless. All that stuff you do is protecting you from the 1 in several million chance of getting infected by Mac malware (actually, you can't measure the probability because ther is NOT A SINGLE DOCUMENTED CASE, but you get my drift).
But it doesn't do any good in case someone steals your PC, you have a head-crash, or simply mess up something funky you are doing with your system. The chance of something like that happening is so much greater. Just do backups, because, after all, it's about your DATA. Setting up OS X takes about 90 minutes, at the most, but a secure system is worthless without it.
Uhhhm, not running as root all the time? An OS that actually seperates user-space stuff from the internals?
I don't know who the guy is, but the article is completely useless. There are absolutely no hard facts in there. Please point us to ONE SINGLE virus, keylogger, adware, or any type of malware at all before making ridiculous claims like the old and completely bogus "it's just because of low market share". It's just not true. I haven't come across anything dodgy so far and I've _actively_ looked for it. Nothing except some shell-script with a highly hypothetical threat. Also, keep in mind that OS X users tend to get a large percentage of their software from centralized sources like apple.com and VersionTracker, which wouldn't post or quickly pull any infected software. IF there was any kind of outbreak, it would be all over the Mac-web within an hour at the maximum.
Congratulations! You just made the equivalent of CmdrTaco's very prophetic first impression evaluation of the iPod ("No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.") and will forever be ridiculed for your complete lack of insight. Have a nice day.
The titling sucks beyond description. It's just ugly. Sorry, I like the GIMP, but this doesn't do it justice.
"I don't buy a product because the developer decided to make it "precious" by worring about it too much."
;-) Incredible attention to detail is a common trait of many successful people, especially those in art and design. It may not be obvious, but there _is_ a reason why people who normally don't give a rat's ass about electronic gadgets are going crazy over iPods. Their design pushes many people's buttons just the right way.
Which is why you are not head of industrial design at Apple -- or anywhere else, probably
This is utter nonsense. I'm feeling silly just replying to this. Apple in its current form is all about having the designers of every link in the chain that is the Mac-OSX-iLife-iTunes-iPod experience orbiting around Steve Jobs at 1, Infinite Loop in Cupertino.
... you name it, all are built by OEMs in Asia. That means scaling back is not a problem in case sales should stagnate for a while, but they are still in control and can continue to perfectly coordinate their computer products with their other ventures.
They are NOT going to give away OS X to anybody else, and just buying the Apple brand would be worthless to Dell and other potential buyers.
You are right in a way: Apple does not want to build their computers themselves - and that's exactly why they don't do it, even today. iBooks, Powerbooks, iPod
If there is one word to sum up Apple's success, it's "integration". Everything has to be so fucking integrated, they even started writing Windows software because they knew that, without iTunes, the iPod had nothing but design on it's competitors. (Of course they also used iTunes Windows to push Quicktime, which is automatically installed with it, but that's an other story...).
You seem to think they make boatloads of money in the music business. Well, think again. Their music store just broke even. The iPod line as a whole may have fairly high profit margins right now, but Apple is already pushing to commoditize the portable player industry. Take a look at the iPod nano's prize-tag. The margins on this thing are probably razor-thin, considering all the engineering that went into it and all the marketing dollars that are spent to promote it now.
You know what's really interesting about this? People will not only be running Mac OS X on Intel, people will ALSO be running WINDOWS on MAC hardware.
This works both ways for Apple. Powerbook and iBook sales are going to got through the roof. Regardless of what Dell et al. seem to think, there is a market for computers that don't look like shit, and iBooks are already very competitively priced.
Think a $999 iBook capable of tripple-booting into Mac OS, any ol' Linux distro and friggin' Windows. Can you say million-seller?
I'm sorry, but your comment is definitely not "Interesting". The original poster wants something that he can use with a keyboard. That's probably because he is like me and can type 3-4 times faster than he can write with a pencil.
Additionally, it's damn hard to cut and paste (of the non-adhesive variety) handwritten notes and email-drafts.
... won't have nobody messin' with his TV.
Seriously, no congressman in his right mind is going to touch legislation that impinges on the general public's right to an unencumbered TV-experience.
DMCA and PATRIOT are no problem, but take away an American's freedom to watch, record and illegally sell for profit and there's going to be trouble. We're talking mobs in the streets here, complete with lynchings and excessive-firing-of-rifles-in-the-air.
Yes, you are indeed missing something. But it's probably not your fault, the people who taught you neural networks probably didn't know enough about the brain.
The parallelity of human brains is widely and hugely overestimated.
Just think about the fact that you can easily recognize 2 random objects if you are shown them for as little as a second. In this second, there is only enough time for about 100 of your neurons firing. The path trough your brain therefore _cannot_ be longer than a dozen neurons or "operations".
Any modern CPU does billions(!) of operations per second. So the comparison really isn't very good.
Frankly, I could not care less. RTFA, this is not about customers, it's all about the resellers. As a customer, I want to buy products as cheaply as possible and without delays. I do _not_ care where I buy them from.
...
I don't see why there is all the fuss about some tiny resellers closing shop because of Apple's opening of its own retail stores. Apple is a publicly traded company, for God's sake, they have much more of an obligation towards their stockholders than towards their whiny resellers. You tend to make more money for your shareholders when there are fewer people taking a cut.
I understand that it's something of a tragedy for those directly involved, but for customers it is more or less irrelevant. Apple is far to insignificant (market-share wise) to warrant all this attention. Go and buy a Windows PC if you don't like their practices. A company with low single-digit market-share should be legally free to open shops and undercut their resellers as much as they want, all those resellers are free to sell a myriad of other hardware and software products.
Morally, it's questionable of course, but these lawsuits? Please