We do, however, tend to get labelled an idiot if we call Paul Martin competent. I've seen it happen to friends! In fact, I've even said called them idiots! Six of one or a half dozen of the other, I guess.
If you've ever seen Talking To Americans, you'd know that a lot of Americans don't know where Canada is. Right snug beside you is probably the safest place to be.
"Where are they on the map? We need to get our carriers over there!"
"I searched the whole middle east, can't find em on the map."
"Try harder. I hear they've only got a few million people, so they must be really small... maybe near Israel?"
We have a keno here that runs every five minutes. Their recent advertising runs along the idea "Five minutes isn't perfect for everything, but it's perfect for keno."
One of the commercials has someone belting out karaoke in a horrible off tune voice, mumbling the wrong words and everything.
YYou know, a lot of people say this, but my experience doesn't show it to be true. We had to pull a memory module out of or Mac OS X 10.2 build system. Thus, we ended up running with 128MB of RAM. That was fairly brutal, but when I boosted it to 384 with an old memory module I found it was quite comparable to my other system (which was running 768 at the time). Certainly, I wouldn't call the performance of the 384 MB system "ideal," but it was within about 10% of the other system and not a joke either.
I wonder if it not being optional was intentional. Unless you contacted them about it, it would seem to be attributing to malice that would could be explained by incompetence. (Not that dropping an incompetent ISP is a bad idea...)
At any rate, the list doesn't sound like a first amendment issue to me. The ISP is free to restrict data flow in any way they see fit. Their servers, their rules, barring a rule that says they must carry all traffic -- something the first amendment isn't. If the government legislated that all ISPs block that list all the time, regardless of what the customers want, that might qualify. If the ISP decides to block the list all the time on their own in the interest of keeping things simple, the first amendment isn't involved. There's free as in speech, and free as in "that's your private party, you can restrict what goes through it." Except maybe in California.
The idea of mandatory tagging of content seems a little more risky, but I'm still not sure I buy it. You are, after all, still free to say what you want, you just need to put it in a brown envelope to prevent minors from getting at it. R ratings for movies aren't much different.
Oh, I agree. There's nothing really wrong with it.
But that doesn't mean I want to use it as my default browser. It's just a little too buggy, and not Mac-like enough (both in appearance and in keyboard bindings).
Depending on my mood, I use either Safari or a recent Camino. Camino 0.82 doesn't work well with Google maps, so I tend to use a nightly... until I start to run into problems, then I either go to another nightly or Safari.
Yeah, I remember that one. It required a disk image be mounted, which had to be done as a separate step.
There was the more serious one where launch services could be used, but that was fixed in short order, and fixed for good.
But yes, I'll definitely grant that it was possible for a short time to infect a Mac using a web browser. (That was introduced in 10.3.) Still, I'd like to see someone pull off an infection with an unsolicted packet...
"The by-product is that people are buying these products for form over function. They say it looks pretty and then buy it but don't secure it. As Apple increases its market share, it will be a legitimate target".
If all the services are turned off, there's not much left to secure. The firewall could use some upgrading, though -- does anyone know if the firewall defaults to on on fresh installs?
It may be true that obscurity helps, but (for instance) you can't infect a Macintosh by sending the right kind of packet to it, surfing the wrong web site, opening the wrong email, or clicking Yes at the wrong moment to some confusingly worried alert.
The blame for earlier versions of Windows being completely insecure lies firmly on Microsoft, just as the blame for System 6.0.5 being easily infected fell on Apple.
Decent security is neither hard nor complicated, it's just fusswork. But you need to plan for it right from the start.
There are no viruses yet. Do you need it? Well, it probably wouldn't hurt. But I don't presently run antivirus on my Macintosh, and won't until the situation gets much, much worse.
There hasn't been a really successful virus on the Macintosh since System 7 changed the way desktop files worked.
I'm an iPod owner, who has avoided iTunes since launch due to my hatred of DRM.
I hope you mean you've been avoiding the iTunes Music Store. Because iTunes itself supports WAV, AIFF, MP3, AAC, Apple Lossless and a few others, and the fact that it also supports DRMed AAC from the music store doesn't take away its other great qualities as an iPod feeder (or as a desktop jukebox).
Slashdot Mirror
...is that nobody cares. Honestly, who's in the market for one of these phones? Phones have a short enough battery life.
Everyone's excited now, but wait until it ships.
We do, however, tend to get labelled an idiot if we call Paul Martin competent. I've seen it happen to friends! In fact, I've even said called them idiots! Six of one or a half dozen of the other, I guess.
If you've ever seen Talking To Americans, you'd know that a lot of Americans don't know where Canada is. Right snug beside you is probably the safest place to be.
"Where are they on the map? We need to get our carriers over there!"
"I searched the whole middle east, can't find em on the map."
"Try harder. I hear they've only got a few million people, so they must be really small... maybe near Israel?"
Well, even with the illegal trade stoppage, we are still each other's largest trading partner. So yeah, it's barely begun to get stupid.
Location, location, location.
And if the T-Rex isn't Mac compatible, he can just bore it to death with the details of how wonderful the latest Macintosh is...
We have a keno here that runs every five minutes. Their recent advertising runs along the idea "Five minutes isn't perfect for everything, but it's perfect for keno."
One of the commercials has someone belting out karaoke in a horrible off tune voice, mumbling the wrong words and everything.
So you have a problem with \\host\share\file.html instead of file://host/share/file.html because the former is a security risk but the latter isn't?
How completely pedantic!
Mac OS X with less than 512mb of ram is a joke
YYou know, a lot of people say this, but my experience doesn't show it to be true. We had to pull a memory module out of or Mac OS X 10.2 build system. Thus, we ended up running with 128MB of RAM. That was fairly brutal, but when I boosted it to 384 with an old memory module I found it was quite comparable to my other system (which was running 768 at the time). Certainly, I wouldn't call the performance of the 384 MB system "ideal," but it was within about 10% of the other system and not a joke either.
This is true, but there's PDFCompress for $27. Not free, but cheaper than Adobe Acrobat.
Was one of those Caminos supposed to be a Firefox? :)
I wonder if it not being optional was intentional. Unless you contacted them about it, it would seem to be attributing to malice that would could be explained by incompetence. (Not that dropping an incompetent ISP is a bad idea...)
At any rate, the list doesn't sound like a first amendment issue to me. The ISP is free to restrict data flow in any way they see fit. Their servers, their rules, barring a rule that says they must carry all traffic -- something the first amendment isn't. If the government legislated that all ISPs block that list all the time, regardless of what the customers want, that might qualify. If the ISP decides to block the list all the time on their own in the interest of keeping things simple, the first amendment isn't involved. There's free as in speech, and free as in "that's your private party, you can restrict what goes through it." Except maybe in California.
The idea of mandatory tagging of content seems a little more risky, but I'm still not sure I buy it. You are, after all, still free to say what you want, you just need to put it in a brown envelope to prevent minors from getting at it. R ratings for movies aren't much different.
Oh crap, you're right. I didn't notice until you pointed it out... :)
Oh, I agree. There's nothing really wrong with it.
But that doesn't mean I want to use it as my default browser. It's just a little too buggy, and not Mac-like enough (both in appearance and in keyboard bindings).
Depending on my mood, I use either Safari or a recent Camino. Camino 0.82 doesn't work well with Google maps, so I tend to use a nightly... until I start to run into problems, then I either go to another nightly or Safari.
No, but many Mac users don't want Firefox for the Mac. Even if it behaved well and fit in with the theme of the OS, which it doesn't.
Yeah, I remember that one. It required a disk image be mounted, which had to be done as a separate step.
There was the more serious one where launch services could be used, but that was fixed in short order, and fixed for good.
But yes, I'll definitely grant that it was possible for a short time to infect a Mac using a web browser. (That was introduced in 10.3.) Still, I'd like to see someone pull off an infection with an unsolicted packet...
Yes, I have. How about showing me an example of a Macintosh being infected by visiting a web site or opening an email?
For that matter, can you find a virus that can be spread to Mac OS X Client without extra services turned on by an unsolicited packet?
Yeah, that bit was especially snortable:
"The by-product is that people are buying these products for form over function. They say it looks pretty and then buy it but don't secure it. As Apple increases its market share, it will be a legitimate target".
If all the services are turned off, there's not much left to secure. The firewall could use some upgrading, though -- does anyone know if the firewall defaults to on on fresh installs?
Very true. I was thinking of an occasional scheduled scan. Certainly you'd be insane to use Symantec's interception stuff.
Funny. Symantec's stuff used to be so great back in the System 6.x days...
You're right -- koalas don't kill people. People will koalas kill people.
Until there's actually a problem, I think using the word "redeemed" isn't appropriate...
Is Virex that bad right now? How good does anti-virus software need to be when viruses don't actually exist? :)
No, it isn't true.
It may be true that obscurity helps, but (for instance) you can't infect a Macintosh by sending the right kind of packet to it, surfing the wrong web site, opening the wrong email, or clicking Yes at the wrong moment to some confusingly worried alert.
The blame for earlier versions of Windows being completely insecure lies firmly on Microsoft, just as the blame for System 6.0.5 being easily infected fell on Apple.
Decent security is neither hard nor complicated, it's just fusswork. But you need to plan for it right from the start.
There are no viruses yet. Do you need it? Well, it probably wouldn't hurt. But I don't presently run antivirus on my Macintosh, and won't until the situation gets much, much worse.
There hasn't been a really successful virus on the Macintosh since System 7 changed the way desktop files worked.
I'm an iPod owner, who has avoided iTunes since launch due to my hatred of DRM.
I hope you mean you've been avoiding the iTunes Music Store. Because iTunes itself supports WAV, AIFF, MP3, AAC, Apple Lossless and a few others, and the fact that it also supports DRMed AAC from the music store doesn't take away its other great qualities as an iPod feeder (or as a desktop jukebox).
Only things PCs are good for is gaming without the CD. Of course, since almost all PC games require the CD for copy protection purposes...
I tend to think of home as the computer from which I most frequently access my email. Right now, that's my Powerbook G4...