Xsan is a typical SAN filesystem, not just "network mount points". It allows storage to be pooled and aggregated, and for multiple machines to concurrently mount the same filesystem(s) simultaneously. The keys in a SAN are things like storage monitoring, management, centralization, and performance.
>>Apple put in the LEAST DRM it could get away with.
>
>I think it's more of a technical inefficiency and incompetence >than trying to make life easier for the hackers. Really, if I use a >protection/license management system for my new software >and use a weak one, do you think I'm acting friendly or you >think I'm just stupid?
I think that being able to...
- play the music on three different computers
- play the music on an unlimited number of iPods
- burn any and all music to CD an unlimited number of times, stripping all DRM, and then play anywhere (or rerip in any format, transcoding losses [which I myself can't detect] aside)
...is being "friendly", and very, very smart (by virtue of getting all 5 major labels to let Apple skate with such comparatively unrestrictive DRM)
It's not incompetence at all. Since all DRM can, and will, be broken - from a technological standpoint; perhaps not a legal one - then by your definition, they're all "incompetent". I don't think any of these people think DRM can't be circumvented; they just know that the content providers want it, and these laws like the DMCA are getting pushed through Congress. If *anything*, Apple is in a *better* position to influence copyright and content protection laws for the better. Had they done no DRM, we'd have no major label music on iTunes Music Store, and thus no iTunes Music Store as we know it (i.e., successful), and Apple wouldn't have any relevance whatsoever in this discussion at all.
1. The iTunes Music Store - and thus all other worthwhile online music stores that follows - would have *existed* in the first place if it wasn't for *some* DRM capability. Apple's is the most flexible, least intrusive of all other current implementations (other than no DRM at all).
2. Remember, if Apple chose to "fight the good fight" against DRM, we wouldn't have an iTunes Music Store at all. Apple put in the LEAST DRM it could get away with.
3. Whether or not the DMCA is unconstitutional is irrelevant to the fact that, at least with regard to Sourceforge, Apple used a law in existence in its favor - how can it be faulted for that?
4. With refard to Sarovar, Apple did nothing more than make with is essentially an intellectual appeal. Apple didn't "force" anyone to do anything.
5. If you don't like the iTunes Music Store license, don't buy music from it. Please, no lame arguments about "stealing" vs. "copyright infringement", and "fair use" vs "licenses I didn't sign", or "playing music **I paid for** anywhere". We all agree with you. By the way, breaking DRM isn't civil disobedience: civil disobedience involves some kind of personal sacrifice on your part - and if that personal sacrifice is going to jail and/or getting fined for violating US law, unconstitutional or no, then don't bitch about it. Publicize it, but don't bitch. THAT'S civil disobedience. And maybe it will change the law(s).
6. We all know that many here are against *any* DRM, on principle, no matter how unintrusive. That's another argument all together...should rights owners have *any* rights to protect/monitor/control their products? A huge matter, to be sure...but be that as it may, Apple tried for the best possible balance in favor of consumers, and did a pretty darn good job. Remember, too, that one DRM element is keeping iTMS purchases tied to the iPod, which is how Apple chose to deploy this service. It's their service and products; if you don't like it, don't use or buy them. It's your choice.
1. Not allowing a person to upgrade a DVD/CD drive to a Superdrive. I bought my PowerMac two months before the superdrive was released. I get to use stupid DVD-RAM disks, but I can't burn DVD's unless I buy a whole new computer.
Actually, anyone is free to add any internal or external hardware device they wish, including DVD+/-R/RW drives. However, if you wanted to use *specific* software, like iDVD, with your drive, then you needed to mirror one of Apple's OEM offerings with your purchase. The reason Apple tried to tie iDVD to their "SuperDrive" systems was more one of ensuring a very cohesive user experience, as opposed to the nightmare of support issues and bad reputation for iDVD as people with 400 MHz G4s tried to use iDVD with any old random DVD recorder.
2. Apple keeps its iSync API locked up. There are millions of really cool things I could do to make Apple able to synchronize with things like LDAP servers, competing browsers, PC's, etc. But then Apple could use it as a leverage-point to keep people subscribing to the overpriced.Mac program.
It's only a matter of time before there's an iSync SDK. And the second statement is kind of unrelated; if you think.Mac is overpriced, don't use it.
3. USB video cameras, like the ubiquitous Logitech QuickCam, just don't work (well) and Apple seems to have put blocks into place to refuse iChat AV from working with anything but their iSight hardware product. (I exaggerate a little bit here, but not much.)
ANY FireWire video source will work with iChat AV. Any video source at all will work with iChatUSBCam. Again, this decision was made to ensure a good user experience across the board with iChat AV, rather than letting people use any old crappy USB camera, which, right or wrong, reflects poorly on iChat AV.
There is a reason why Apple products work and look great: because Apple tries hard to keep it that way.
The iPod Quicktime-AAC is just another example. Where Microsoft fights to protect it's OS dominence, Apple refuses to make its customers' lives better if it suggests that they might loose the odd dollar in missed hardware sales opportunities.
Well, first, you have to have a monopoly to start talking about monopolistic practices. Even with iPod, Apple doesn't have nearly a "monopoly". And QuickTime, while proprietary, is one of the best media architectures out there, with free live encoding, free streaming servers for multiple platforms, ability to use open standards for playback anywhere, etc. Not to mention that it was primarily Apple and Apple alone that made MPEG-4's licensing - one of the only hopes against Microsoft's VC9 - licensing leaps and bounds more palatable than it originally was. And Apple has to keep its hardware sales up, lest the analysts start a death knell for the 1000th time.
At least you understand it's not an "MP3 virus" or some kind of issue with iTunes, as others believe.
1. All Mac OS and Mac OS X applications have always been able to have any icon.
2. All Mac OS applications and all Classic/Carbon applications under Mac OS X, have always been able to have any name...including misleading names.
I would hardly call this a "deep-rooted, system-wide flaw". What does a Linux command-line executable "look like"? And indeed, it, too, can have any name, yes? Is that also a "deep-rooted, system-wide flaw"?
In fact, this item is revealed as the application that it is in every Finder view *except* icon view (which is also how it will appear on the desktop). Even a simple Get Info reveals that it's an application. The "solution", if one is needed, is to visually badge and/or identify something as executable, possibly with some small addition to its icon, as is done with aliases.
But no, this is not a "flaw" any more than it's been for the last two decades. (And for the market share number enthusiasts, this EXACT same "technique", as it were, was possible during the heyday of Mac market share as well. In fact, it's probably been "exploited" countless times. That's because the "exploit" is nothing more than tricking the user into running something they shouldn't.)
Please, no comments about how Mac OS X was "attacked" by a trojan.
It doesn't "expose" some fatal flaw in the OS, nor is it some newly discovered exploit. All it is was an application that displayed a dialog box. Mac OS applications (with the exception of Cocoa applications) have always been able to have:
a.) any icon, and
b.) any name
The only remotely slightly interesting feature of this proof-of-concept was that it stored the executable code within an MP3 ID3 tag, and even contained valid MP3 data. But that's mostly irrelevant, since the executable code could be anywhere, and the code can't even be moved in raw binary form without destroying the resource fork. Though the major media outlets haven't picked up on the subtleties of this thanks to Intego's FUD-mongering and self-serving press release, this "trojan" is nothing more than a Carbon application. (Though, the discussion that comes of this will be fruitful: maybe Apple will revisit yet again the filesystem metadata vs. file extension dichotomy, and discuss novel ways of visually identifying executables, perhaps in the same fashion as aliases.)
So, to get on-topic, no, an OS doesn't necessarily have to become less secure to become user-friendly. Some (most?) of the security of an operating system, both from a user perspective and network perspective, comes from underlying philosophical design principles and fundamentals - not to mention the intensive peer examination that open source software encourages. Sure, some user-friendly "features", such as auto-opening attachments in the preview pane of Outlook, exist to make things "easier" for the user. But this is a wrongheaded approach: a sensible focus on security can solve the majority of problems without necessarily making it harder on the user. Ease of use and security aren't entirely, or even mostly, mutually exclusive.
The key is making security easy to use.
But the age-old technique of "tricking the user" will ALWAYS be possible via various means, on any OS on any platform.
I don't like blue LEDs...
on
The Blues for LEDs
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
...when I see them along with red LEDs on a Crown Victoria in my rearview mirror.
Seriously though, more and morecompanies are starting to use LEDs for warning lighting on emergency vehicles. They don't draw huge amounts of power like incandescent systems, sometimes requiring additional batteries and/or heavy duty alternators; they don't require high voltage triggers like like strobe systems; and they've gotten bright enough to handle about any application other than illumination. It's taken a while for the blues to get bright enough to useful for these tasks; some early iterations are barely visible next to their red counterparts in daylight (though they've gotten to the point now where some of these LED systems are so bright they seem to be giving you eye surgery).
One interesting thing if you look at the pricing: blue and white still often cost more than double the price of red, amber, or green.
But he didn't say anything but, "That noise you heard was all the mac zealots falling of their soapboxes."
YOU said all of these other things.
This is an architectural security problem, and how applications with metadata that identify themselves as applications versus Mac OS X file extensions are handled will have to be revisted.
But this does not "embarass a lot of people" in the least. How, exactly, does it embarass anyone? The security claims about Mac OS X - that it is fundamentally and philosophically more secure in design, *without regard* to installed base and market share arguments - is not bogus at all.
And then you say he was "spot-on accurate with his statement". What statement? Again, the only thing he said was, "That noise you heard was all the mac zealots falling of their soapboxes." Yeah, it had a smiley, and yeah, he was just kidding around, but there's nothing spot-on about it.
No one EVER said Mac OS X could not have viruses or trojans or security issues; and the sensible claims made about Mac OS X being far, far more secure than Windows are one hundred percent true.
First, you sound like someone who is going to believe Bush is the worst, no matter what, and not bother to think about it.
The Justice Department argued against **local government** (e.g., cities, counties, other municipalities, or collections thereof) entering the telecom business - and at that, ONLY if the state chooses to prohibit it. And the Supreme Court sided with that argument, 8-1! (If the state does not choose to prohibit it, local government can STILL enter the telecom business.)
It does NOT prevent a small private group of individuals, a coop, a business, or anyone else from becoming a broadband and/or telecom provider.
...Dell claiming that they were the first to ship integrated wireless and antennas in a laptop, even though Apple in fact did it more than a year earlier?
Maybe someone should "act on behalf of consumers" to notify them of these "inaccuracies".
The ruling prohibits governmental entities (cities, counties, other municipalities, or groups thereof) of entering the telecom business.
Nothing precludes any small private coop, company, or partnership from becoming a telecom provider.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 says that "states may not prohibit 'any entity' from getting into the phone business. That does not include political subdivisions of states, said Justice David H. Souter, writing for the court."
This ruling is a good thing, as it keeps government out of the telecom business, where it belongs.
Answer should be obvious...
on
iPod Mini Sells Out
·
· Score: 4, Informative
With whatever manufacturing capability they have, they can only be built so fast. Demand currently outstrips supply.
For the inevitable ridiculous battery questions...
on
iPod Mini Sells Out
·
· Score: 5, Informative
So if Apple's support is "horrible", then I guess everyone else is a lot worse (especially since Dell, the next closest to Apple, got the middle rating on 3 out of 4 support categories, while Apple got the top rating in all categories).
- There is nothing "wrong" with the battery in the iPod...it's just a lithium ion battery like any other lithium ion battery, and a wide variety of factors affect the battery life, both per charge, and overall.
- The reason the iPod/battery issue is getting so much attention isn't because there is anything to it, but because the iPod is the most popular portable music player by far. Note: I'm not saying that people haven't had issues with the batteries, but these aren't specific to iPod; they'll happen with ANY device with lithium ion batteries. The only difference is that iPod uses a battery sealed inside of the enclosure...which brings me to:
- People act as if Apple is alone using an integrated battery. Well, I've got news for you: they're not. In fact, anyone who makes a portable music player that is anywhere CLOSE to the iPod in terms of size also uses - you guessed it - an integrated, non-user-replaceable battery. This includes: Dell DJ, Gateway DMP Series, Samsung YP-910GS (Napster), iRiver iHP Series, and Rio Karma. And guess what else? NONE of them (at this time), with the exception of the iPod, have a manufacturer-provided way of replacing the battery outside of warranty.
- The Neistat Brothers' issue wasn't that the battery died per se, it's that Apple had no reasonable response to the issue (the response was basically either pay $250 flat rate repair fee, or buy a new iPod). However, Apple already had an official battery replacement program in the works...it just wasn't ready when Casey Neistat first contacted Apple. In the interim - BEFORE the iPod's Dirty Secret video was released - the battery replacement program became available. The release of the battery replacement program had NOTHING to do with the Neistat brothers' video. People will try to claim that it did, or that Apple somehow "got wind" of the fact that they were going to release the video, or that it was being forwarded around via email before it got released on the web and that Apple "found out" about it, and a bunch of other ridiculous stories, but the cold, hard truth is that Apple had the battery and AppleCare programs in the works for MONTHS before Casey ever initially contacted Apple with his issue, and before one second of film was ever shot, or one ounce of spraypaint sprayed. It may seem like I'm belaboring this point, and I am: the implication otherwise is that Apple only released the battery replacement service because it was "forced" to by bad publicity, when the truth is that Apple discovered that it would likely need to have an official way to replace batteries for people since ALL LiIon batteries have a finite lifetime, and began developing programs and procedures to take care of these customers.
- This, of course, also ignores the fact that there were at least two third party companies offering replacement batteries for iPod - and one whom would do the battery replacement for you - at the time
- I find it funny that people are now all concerned about the iPod issue, as if there is something wrong with it, and considering buying other music players because of it, when much of the time, the other music players they're considering have integrated batteries as well - and no way to replace them! (As opposed to the numerous different ways of handling iPod batteries.) Not to mention that the competitive products are generally viewed as second-rate, at best.
- Of course, the overriding truth to this entire issue is that the vast majority of people have not had any issues whatsoever with their iPods (sure, everyone's battery life will degrade; it's just a question of whether it will degrade to the point of making it unusable - and for most people, it never will).
- If you want to go out and buy a music player that uses AAs or other easily replaceable batteries and/or bat
It has nothing to do with "samples". For those to lazy to look, they're just ads where various people are singing a capella, ostensibly along with the songs on their iPods.
They don't need to be cleared with the record label or artist, as this type of non-complete "reproduction" is legally allowable. It does not constitute an endorsement by the artist, and Eminem is a retard for even thinking that it does.
But in the US you can sue anyone for anything, so I guess we'll see how it turns out.
A concerned citizen called 911 to report a possible domestic violence situation, saying they had seen punches thrown.
The officer arrives to find the vehicle had been stopped in an erratic, sudden, and aggressive manner.
The man is immediately belligerent.
If you're saying the officer should have NO RIGHT to identify that person in the course of attempting to determine what is going on, e.g., to check for prior domestic violence arrests, then that simply represents a fundamentally different philosophical position from mine.
I take offense that you'd imply that I somehow don't deserve to call myself a US citizen simply because I believe that police officers should be able to identify persons when they arrive at the scene of a possible crime because of a dispatch by a 911 call.
The police officer was dispached because of a 911 call for a possible domestic violence situation. I'm not sure if that meets the muster for legal "probable cause" (maybe it does, I really don't know), but that's common sense probable cause right there. And yes, I'm aware that legal muster is what's important, not what I think is common sense. But apparently every court up to his state's supreme court agrees with me, so far. Identifying the parties involved, be they suspects, witnesses, or what have you is critical, and one of the first things done in an investigation of any type. And it was an investigation of a possible crime, not just some officer randomly harassing people for their "papers". What if the guy had past domestic violence arrests and/or convictions, and here's ANOTHER call to 911 claiming that someone witnessed he just hit his daughter? And it's well known that many domestic violence victims lie to cover for the aggressor, so the reliability of anything she says is automatically suspect (not saying that any of this was the case here, but it's all too common). Identification is one of the most basic elements of an investigation for numerous, and I hope obvious, reasons.
The officer was dispatched to the scene of a possible crime, a crime that may have been violent, because of a 911 call of a concerned party. Identifying persons/suspects/witnesses/etc involved in or near the area of a possible crime are critical to the investigative process. For example, this person could have had prior arrests for domestic violence (I'm not saying he was), lending further credence to the idea that it should be investigated further, especially since another person already called it in, and there was evidence that the vehicle was stopped in a sudden and aggressive manner (i.e., the skid marks leading off to the side of the road). All signs pointed to problems. Yes, families have arguments, etc., and generally I'm of the mind that it's no one elses business...but this was out in the open, and a concerned citizen called. Once the officer was there, "sirens a-wailin", as the article says, as if that's somehow a bad thing (how else should the officer have responded to a domestic violence call?), then what the hell should happen? Nothing? At the VERY LEAST he should be able to identify everyone involved before letting everyone go on their way. As the website repeatly insists, watch the video. You decide.
Sometimes it's easy to forget that the fact this has made it all the way to the US Supreme Court is that EVERY OTHER COURT along the way AGREED that it is perfectly acceptable for a police officer to be able to identify persons, especially when the reason the officer came in the first place was a response to a domestic violence call! So you mean to tell me that the police officer has no right to ask for identification from any party when dispatched to a possible domestic violence situation? Somewhere along the line this guy got lucky because all of liberal groups have picked up his flag and milking it for all it's worth.
Get a grip, people. It's not "papers, please". Do you honestly believe that if someone calls in a domestic violence call to 911 to a particular location, when there is in fact in an argument between family members (and the story even admits there was at least one punch thrown; it doesn't matter how weak it was or wasn't), that no one there should have to *identify themselves* at all to the responding police officer(s), under any conditions?
Slashdot Mirror
Xsan is a typical SAN filesystem, not just "network mount points". It allows storage to be pooled and aggregated, and for multiple machines to concurrently mount the same filesystem(s) simultaneously. The keys in a SAN are things like storage monitoring, management, centralization, and performance.
Just look at Apple's Xsan home page and Xsan press release.
>>Apple put in the LEAST DRM it could get away with. > >I think it's more of a technical inefficiency and incompetence >than trying to make life easier for the hackers. Really, if I use a >protection/license management system for my new software >and use a weak one, do you think I'm acting friendly or you >think I'm just stupid?
...is being "friendly", and very, very smart (by virtue of getting all 5 major labels to let Apple skate with such comparatively unrestrictive DRM)
I think that being able to...
- play the music on three different computers
- play the music on an unlimited number of iPods
- burn any and all music to CD an unlimited number of times, stripping all DRM, and then play anywhere (or rerip in any format, transcoding losses [which I myself can't detect] aside)
It's not incompetence at all. Since all DRM can, and will, be broken - from a technological standpoint; perhaps not a legal one - then by your definition, they're all "incompetent". I don't think any of these people think DRM can't be circumvented; they just know that the content providers want it, and these laws like the DMCA are getting pushed through Congress. If *anything*, Apple is in a *better* position to influence copyright and content protection laws for the better. Had they done no DRM, we'd have no major label music on iTunes Music Store, and thus no iTunes Music Store as we know it (i.e., successful), and Apple wouldn't have any relevance whatsoever in this discussion at all.
1. The iTunes Music Store - and thus all other worthwhile online music stores that follows - would have *existed* in the first place if it wasn't for *some* DRM capability. Apple's is the most flexible, least intrusive of all other current implementations (other than no DRM at all).
2. Remember, if Apple chose to "fight the good fight" against DRM, we wouldn't have an iTunes Music Store at all. Apple put in the LEAST DRM it could get away with.
3. Whether or not the DMCA is unconstitutional is irrelevant to the fact that, at least with regard to Sourceforge, Apple used a law in existence in its favor - how can it be faulted for that?
4. With refard to Sarovar, Apple did nothing more than make with is essentially an intellectual appeal. Apple didn't "force" anyone to do anything.
5. If you don't like the iTunes Music Store license, don't buy music from it. Please, no lame arguments about "stealing" vs. "copyright infringement", and "fair use" vs "licenses I didn't sign", or "playing music **I paid for** anywhere". We all agree with you. By the way, breaking DRM isn't civil disobedience: civil disobedience involves some kind of personal sacrifice on your part - and if that personal sacrifice is going to jail and/or getting fined for violating US law, unconstitutional or no, then don't bitch about it. Publicize it, but don't bitch. THAT'S civil disobedience. And maybe it will change the law(s).
6. We all know that many here are against *any* DRM, on principle, no matter how unintrusive. That's another argument all together...should rights owners have *any* rights to protect/monitor/control their products? A huge matter, to be sure...but be that as it may, Apple tried for the best possible balance in favor of consumers, and did a pretty darn good job. Remember, too, that one DRM element is keeping iTMS purchases tied to the iPod, which is how Apple chose to deploy this service. It's their service and products; if you don't like it, don't use or buy them. It's your choice.
1. Not allowing a person to upgrade a DVD/CD drive to a Superdrive. I bought my PowerMac two months before the superdrive was released. I get to use stupid DVD-RAM disks, but I can't burn DVD's unless I buy a whole new computer.
.Mac program.
.Mac is overpriced, don't use it.
Actually, anyone is free to add any internal or external hardware device they wish, including DVD+/-R/RW drives. However, if you wanted to use *specific* software, like iDVD, with your drive, then you needed to mirror one of Apple's OEM offerings with your purchase. The reason Apple tried to tie iDVD to their "SuperDrive" systems was more one of ensuring a very cohesive user experience, as opposed to the nightmare of support issues and bad reputation for iDVD as people with 400 MHz G4s tried to use iDVD with any old random DVD recorder.
2. Apple keeps its iSync API locked up. There are millions of really cool things I could do to make Apple able to synchronize with things like LDAP servers, competing browsers, PC's, etc. But then Apple could use it as a leverage-point to keep people subscribing to the overpriced
It's only a matter of time before there's an iSync SDK. And the second statement is kind of unrelated; if you think
3. USB video cameras, like the ubiquitous Logitech QuickCam, just don't work (well) and Apple seems to have put blocks into place to refuse iChat AV from working with anything but their iSight hardware product. (I exaggerate a little bit here, but not much.)
ANY FireWire video source will work with iChat AV. Any video source at all will work with iChatUSBCam. Again, this decision was made to ensure a good user experience across the board with iChat AV, rather than letting people use any old crappy USB camera, which, right or wrong, reflects poorly on iChat AV.
There is a reason why Apple products work and look great: because Apple tries hard to keep it that way.
The iPod Quicktime-AAC is just another example. Where Microsoft fights to protect it's OS dominence, Apple refuses to make its customers' lives better if it suggests that they might loose the odd dollar in missed hardware sales opportunities.
Well, first, you have to have a monopoly to start talking about monopolistic practices. Even with iPod, Apple doesn't have nearly a "monopoly". And QuickTime, while proprietary, is one of the best media architectures out there, with free live encoding, free streaming servers for multiple platforms, ability to use open standards for playback anywhere, etc. Not to mention that it was primarily Apple and Apple alone that made MPEG-4's licensing - one of the only hopes against Microsoft's VC9 - licensing leaps and bounds more palatable than it originally was. And Apple has to keep its hardware sales up, lest the analysts start a death knell for the 1000th time.
http://sarovar.org/projects/playfair/ :P
...and totally off topic, but these little bits with Jerry Seinfeld and an animated Superman are pretty good:
The Adventures of Seinfeld and Superman
At least you understand it's not an "MP3 virus" or some kind of issue with iTunes, as others believe.
1. All Mac OS and Mac OS X applications have always been able to have any icon.
2. All Mac OS applications and all Classic/Carbon applications under Mac OS X, have always been able to have any name...including misleading names.
I would hardly call this a "deep-rooted, system-wide flaw". What does a Linux command-line executable "look like"? And indeed, it, too, can have any name, yes? Is that also a "deep-rooted, system-wide flaw"?
In fact, this item is revealed as the application that it is in every Finder view *except* icon view (which is also how it will appear on the desktop). Even a simple Get Info reveals that it's an application. The "solution", if one is needed, is to visually badge and/or identify something as executable, possibly with some small addition to its icon, as is done with aliases.
But no, this is not a "flaw" any more than it's been for the last two decades. (And for the market share number enthusiasts, this EXACT same "technique", as it were, was possible during the heyday of Mac market share as well. In fact, it's probably been "exploited" countless times. That's because the "exploit" is nothing more than tricking the user into running something they shouldn't.)
Please, no comments about how Mac OS X was "attacked" by a trojan.
It doesn't "expose" some fatal flaw in the OS, nor is it some newly discovered exploit. All it is was an application that displayed a dialog box. Mac OS applications (with the exception of Cocoa applications) have always been able to have:
a.) any icon, and
b.) any name
The only remotely slightly interesting feature of this proof-of-concept was that it stored the executable code within an MP3 ID3 tag, and even contained valid MP3 data. But that's mostly irrelevant, since the executable code could be anywhere, and the code can't even be moved in raw binary form without destroying the resource fork. Though the major media outlets haven't picked up on the subtleties of this thanks to Intego's FUD-mongering and self-serving press release, this "trojan" is nothing more than a Carbon application. (Though, the discussion that comes of this will be fruitful: maybe Apple will revisit yet again the filesystem metadata vs. file extension dichotomy, and discuss novel ways of visually identifying executables, perhaps in the same fashion as aliases.)
So, to get on-topic, no, an OS doesn't necessarily have to become less secure to become user-friendly. Some (most?) of the security of an operating system, both from a user perspective and network perspective, comes from underlying philosophical design principles and fundamentals - not to mention the intensive peer examination that open source software encourages. Sure, some user-friendly "features", such as auto-opening attachments in the preview pane of Outlook, exist to make things "easier" for the user. But this is a wrongheaded approach: a sensible focus on security can solve the majority of problems without necessarily making it harder on the user. Ease of use and security aren't entirely, or even mostly, mutually exclusive.
The key is making security easy to use.
But the age-old technique of "tricking the user" will ALWAYS be possible via various means, on any OS on any platform.
...when I see them along with red LEDs on a Crown Victoria in my rearview mirror.
Seriously though, more and more companies are starting to use LEDs for warning lighting on emergency vehicles. They don't draw huge amounts of power like incandescent systems, sometimes requiring additional batteries and/or heavy duty alternators; they don't require high voltage triggers like like strobe systems; and they've gotten bright enough to handle about any application other than illumination. It's taken a while for the blues to get bright enough to useful for these tasks; some early iterations are barely visible next to their red counterparts in daylight (though they've gotten to the point now where some of these LED systems are so bright they seem to be giving you eye surgery).
One interesting thing if you look at the pricing: blue and white still often cost more than double the price of red, amber, or green.
But he didn't say anything but, "That noise you heard was all the mac zealots falling of their soapboxes."
YOU said all of these other things.
This is an architectural security problem, and how applications with metadata that identify themselves as applications versus Mac OS X file extensions are handled will have to be revisted.
But this does not "embarass a lot of people" in the least. How, exactly, does it embarass anyone? The security claims about Mac OS X - that it is fundamentally and philosophically more secure in design, *without regard* to installed base and market share arguments - is not bogus at all.
And then you say he was "spot-on accurate with his statement". What statement? Again, the only thing he said was, "That noise you heard was all the mac zealots falling of their soapboxes." Yeah, it had a smiley, and yeah, he was just kidding around, but there's nothing spot-on about it.
No one EVER said Mac OS X could not have viruses or trojans or security issues; and the sensible claims made about Mac OS X being far, far more secure than Windows are one hundred percent true.
National Ignition Facility home page
National Ignition Facility project status and photo gallery with lots of pictures
LLNL Science on High Energy Lasers
First, you sound like someone who is going to believe Bush is the worst, no matter what, and not bother to think about it.
The Justice Department argued against **local government** (e.g., cities, counties, other municipalities, or collections thereof) entering the telecom business - and at that, ONLY if the state chooses to prohibit it. And the Supreme Court sided with that argument, 8-1! (If the state does not choose to prohibit it, local government can STILL enter the telecom business.)
It does NOT prevent a small private group of individuals, a coop, a business, or anyone else from becoming a broadband and/or telecom provider.
Get your facts straight.
...Dell claiming that they were the first to ship integrated wireless and antennas in a laptop, even though Apple in fact did it more than a year earlier?
Maybe someone should "act on behalf of consumers" to notify them of these "inaccuracies".
Hell, read anything.
This does NOT prevent competition or free markets. It prohibits no company from entering the telecom business.
It prohbits governmental agencies (cities, counties, etc.) from becoming telecom providers.
Exactly as it should be.
The only thing that's "bullshit" is your comment.
The ruling prohibits governmental entities (cities, counties, other municipalities, or groups thereof) of entering the telecom business.
Nothing precludes any small private coop, company, or partnership from becoming a telecom provider.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 says that "states may not prohibit 'any entity' from getting into the phone business. That does not include political subdivisions of states, said Justice David H. Souter, writing for the court."
This ruling is a good thing, as it keeps government out of the telecom business, where it belongs.
With whatever manufacturing capability they have, they can only be built so fast. Demand currently outstrips supply.
For the inevitable ridiculous battery questions:
iPod Battery FAQ
Consumer Reports consistently ranks Apple #1 in lowest incidence of repair and best support among all computer manufacturers.
Most recent Consumer Reports report available on their web site (June 2003)
Most recent report, available to CR subscribers, referenced in News.com article (March 2004)
So if Apple's support is "horrible", then I guess everyone else is a lot worse (especially since Dell, the next closest to Apple, got the middle rating on 3 out of 4 support categories, while Apple got the top rating in all categories).
For anyone interested in the truth on the iPod battery situation overall, see:
http://ipodbatteryfaq.com/
Some brief notes:
- There is nothing "wrong" with the battery in the iPod...it's just a lithium ion battery like any other lithium ion battery, and a wide variety of factors affect the battery life, both per charge, and overall.
- The reason the iPod/battery issue is getting so much attention isn't because there is anything to it, but because the iPod is the most popular portable music player by far. Note: I'm not saying that people haven't had issues with the batteries, but these aren't specific to iPod; they'll happen with ANY device with lithium ion batteries. The only difference is that iPod uses a battery sealed inside of the enclosure...which brings me to:
- People act as if Apple is alone using an integrated battery. Well, I've got news for you: they're not. In fact, anyone who makes a portable music player that is anywhere CLOSE to the iPod in terms of size also uses - you guessed it - an integrated, non-user-replaceable battery. This includes: Dell DJ, Gateway DMP Series, Samsung YP-910GS (Napster), iRiver iHP Series, and Rio Karma. And guess what else? NONE of them (at this time), with the exception of the iPod, have a manufacturer-provided way of replacing the battery outside of warranty.
- The Neistat Brothers' issue wasn't that the battery died per se, it's that Apple had no reasonable response to the issue (the response was basically either pay $250 flat rate repair fee, or buy a new iPod). However, Apple already had an official battery replacement program in the works...it just wasn't ready when Casey Neistat first contacted Apple. In the interim - BEFORE the iPod's Dirty Secret video was released - the battery replacement program became available. The release of the battery replacement program had NOTHING to do with the Neistat brothers' video. People will try to claim that it did, or that Apple somehow "got wind" of the fact that they were going to release the video, or that it was being forwarded around via email before it got released on the web and that Apple "found out" about it, and a bunch of other ridiculous stories, but the cold, hard truth is that Apple had the battery and AppleCare programs in the works for MONTHS before Casey ever initially contacted Apple with his issue, and before one second of film was ever shot, or one ounce of spraypaint sprayed. It may seem like I'm belaboring this point, and I am: the implication otherwise is that Apple only released the battery replacement service because it was "forced" to by bad publicity, when the truth is that Apple discovered that it would likely need to have an official way to replace batteries for people since ALL LiIon batteries have a finite lifetime, and began developing programs and procedures to take care of these customers.
- This, of course, also ignores the fact that there were at least two third party companies offering replacement batteries for iPod - and one whom would do the battery replacement for you - at the time
- I find it funny that people are now all concerned about the iPod issue, as if there is something wrong with it, and considering buying other music players because of it, when much of the time, the other music players they're considering have integrated batteries as well - and no way to replace them! (As opposed to the numerous different ways of handling iPod batteries.) Not to mention that the competitive products are generally viewed as second-rate, at best.
- Of course, the overriding truth to this entire issue is that the vast majority of people have not had any issues whatsoever with their iPods (sure, everyone's battery life will degrade; it's just a question of whether it will degrade to the point of making it unusable - and for most people, it never will).
- If you want to go out and buy a music player that uses AAs or other easily replaceable batteries and/or bat
Subject says it all...
It has nothing to do with "samples". For those to lazy to look, they're just ads where various people are singing a capella, ostensibly along with the songs on their iPods.
They don't need to be cleared with the record label or artist, as this type of non-complete "reproduction" is legally allowable. It does not constitute an endorsement by the artist, and Eminem is a retard for even thinking that it does.
But in the US you can sue anyone for anything, so I guess we'll see how it turns out.
What constitutes probable cause?
A concerned citizen called 911 to report a possible domestic violence situation, saying they had seen punches thrown.
The officer arrives to find the vehicle had been stopped in an erratic, sudden, and aggressive manner.
The man is immediately belligerent.
If you're saying the officer should have NO RIGHT to identify that person in the course of attempting to determine what is going on, e.g., to check for prior domestic violence arrests, then that simply represents a fundamentally different philosophical position from mine.
I take offense that you'd imply that I somehow don't deserve to call myself a US citizen simply because I believe that police officers should be able to identify persons when they arrive at the scene of a possible crime because of a dispatch by a 911 call.
The police officer was dispached because of a 911 call for a possible domestic violence situation. I'm not sure if that meets the muster for legal "probable cause" (maybe it does, I really don't know), but that's common sense probable cause right there. And yes, I'm aware that legal muster is what's important, not what I think is common sense. But apparently every court up to his state's supreme court agrees with me, so far. Identifying the parties involved, be they suspects, witnesses, or what have you is critical, and one of the first things done in an investigation of any type. And it was an investigation of a possible crime, not just some officer randomly harassing people for their "papers". What if the guy had past domestic violence arrests and/or convictions, and here's ANOTHER call to 911 claiming that someone witnessed he just hit his daughter? And it's well known that many domestic violence victims lie to cover for the aggressor, so the reliability of anything she says is automatically suspect (not saying that any of this was the case here, but it's all too common). Identification is one of the most basic elements of an investigation for numerous, and I hope obvious, reasons.
The officer was dispatched to the scene of a possible crime, a crime that may have been violent, because of a 911 call of a concerned party. Identifying persons/suspects/witnesses/etc involved in or near the area of a possible crime are critical to the investigative process. For example, this person could have had prior arrests for domestic violence (I'm not saying he was), lending further credence to the idea that it should be investigated further, especially since another person already called it in, and there was evidence that the vehicle was stopped in a sudden and aggressive manner (i.e., the skid marks leading off to the side of the road). All signs pointed to problems. Yes, families have arguments, etc., and generally I'm of the mind that it's no one elses business...but this was out in the open, and a concerned citizen called. Once the officer was there, "sirens a-wailin", as the article says, as if that's somehow a bad thing (how else should the officer have responded to a domestic violence call?), then what the hell should happen? Nothing? At the VERY LEAST he should be able to identify everyone involved before letting everyone go on their way. As the website repeatly insists, watch the video. You decide.
Sometimes it's easy to forget that the fact this has made it all the way to the US Supreme Court is that EVERY OTHER COURT along the way AGREED that it is perfectly acceptable for a police officer to be able to identify persons, especially when the reason the officer came in the first place was a response to a domestic violence call! So you mean to tell me that the police officer has no right to ask for identification from any party when dispatched to a possible domestic violence situation? Somewhere along the line this guy got lucky because all of liberal groups have picked up his flag and milking it for all it's worth.
Get a grip, people. It's not "papers, please". Do you honestly believe that if someone calls in a domestic violence call to 911 to a particular location, when there is in fact in an argument between family members (and the story even admits there was at least one punch thrown; it doesn't matter how weak it was or wasn't), that no one there should have to *identify themselves* at all to the responding police officer(s), under any conditions?