Oh I understand the meaning of the word context, however the context of this discussion is a Mac trojan, and you come wading in with some oft-repeated meme that "Mac users always claim they are immune to viruses". Whether it's true or not (and it's not), you're out of context quite clearly.
You also claimed that you were "pleased" to see that "Mac users are now joining the rest of the computing world" when as I explained, that train sailed a long time ago in the context of this discussion: trojans.
So, which is it? Are you claiming that you believe "virus" specifically means "malware" in your interpretation of what you believe "most" Mac users tell you since you claim to have endured "years" of them telling you this apparently erroneously, since you seem to believe this article represents the very first instance of any virus or trojan on the Mac platform, or are you just trying to save face because you didn't expect anyone to call you on your demonstrably false equivalence between a trojan and a virus, trying to handwave it all away with a non sequitur about it "all being in context" so it doesn't matter about being precise in your definition.
It's not even like it's shorthand - the shorthand catch all term is "malware", but you specifically went with "viruses", in error.
If your point was to somehow make Mac users who say that specific phrase look bad, then it still fails, because this isn't a virus. If your point was to gloat about "Mac users joining the rest of the computing world" due to this then you still fail, since this is nowhere near the first trojan on OS X (nor would it be the first virus if it was a virus and not a trojan).
I can loan you a spade if you prefer to keep digging.
No, it really does make a difference. Words have meaning. You used the term incorrectly.
I imagine what you meant to say was "malware", but of course no one is claiming Macs are immune to malware as a whole - that would just be silly. There's a long history of trojans on the Mac since they tend to reply on social engineering to work, and that's a platform independent problem. You can certainly attempt to minimise the potential threats, but ultimately you're only as effective as the user at the computer when it comes to that sort of thing.
You mentioned something about me addressing your point, but your point seems to be "I'm pleased because I believe this story means that Mac users are 'joining the rest of the computing world'" despite that being hilariously inaccurate because, as I mentioned, this is a long way from being the first trojan on OS X. I can talk some more about your ignorance if you like though?
I see you'e never looked after more than a couple of children at a time.
Don't let the shock of the real world overwhelm you though if you ever actually go outside.
While this seems like an overly precautionary stance to take, the idea that a teacher who loses a child from a class group is "inattentive" is simply disingenuous.
So wait... your management of your asthma is to drive to a 24 hour store to buy an inhaler if you have an attack?
I assume the way you manage fires in your kitchen is to drive to a 24 hour store to buy a fire extinguisher if a fire breaks out.
If you have a condition serious enough to require intervention, you need to keep a prescription on you or near you at all times. I note you say you do "in a perfect world" but come on. This has been coming for many years but it was only a matter of time - salbutamol is more effective overall with fewer side effects and a single inhaler contains about 200 doses, so it's not like you'll be short.
If salbutamol doesn't work for you, then there are other options.
They considered swapping the epinephrine-only inhalers for ones with HCFCs in them, but the side effects of the drug as a whole mean they prefer to phase it out as an inhaler rather than change it to an HCFC version (not to mention that it would require re-approval by the FDA, making it expensive).
That paper doesn't say quite what you think - for one thing, it acknowledges that halogens are responsible for the actual breakdown, but it is suggesting that that the energy involved in driving the reaction is not solely from photochemical processes (ie, UV light from the sun), but galactic cosmic rays also.
Whether you agree with that or not (I am personally skeptical - I believe UV light from the sun is the primary engine of the stratosphere based on the chemistry), the paper does not question the role of CFCs in ozone destruction - it fully supports it.
And while the amount of CFCs released may be tiny, the resulting process is a catalytic cycle. A tiny, tiny amount of CFC (after being broken apart in the stratosphere) can be responsible for a huge amount of ozone destruction - the damaging products of CFC breakdown (especially the chlorine and bromine-containign radicals) are long lived and very damaging because they are regenerated.
A very small amount of CFC can destroy a huge, huge amount of ozone - the process is catalytic, and the responsible radicals are very long lived in the stratosphere. It's why the stratosphere still hasn't recovered yet, despite the Montreal Protocol taking effect years ago.
The alternative is to use an HCFC which has virtually the same properties (including the damaging of the ozone layer), but crucially these tend to break down long before they reach the stratosphere where the damage occurs. They cost more to make than regular CFCs though.
The two compounds in Primatente Mist are CFC-12 and CFC-114, or dichlorodifluoromethane and 1,2-dichlorotetrafluoroethane respectively. These are well studied in stratospheric ozone chemistry and are responsible for the catalytic loss cycle by breaking down in the presence of UV light and giving halogen radicals that attack ozone. The atomic chlorine (it usually appears as a chlorine radical) catalytically destroys ozone:
O3 + Cl. > ClO. + O2 O + ClO. > Cl. + O2
The mono-atomic oxygen there is a simplification of other processes that form it, but it's a good simplification of what happens overall - the chlorine is long-lived in the stratosphere, so very small amounts destroy a large amount of ozone.
It's not the only loss cycle of course - there are natural and man-made processes going on up there, but it is one of the ones that has had such a huge effect.
Yes, because a twin turbo V12's exhaust gasses contain CFCs. Right.
CO2 is one thing (unrelated to ozone depletion). CFCs are quite another - and a major contributor to catalytic loss cycles in the stratosphere, as well as being potent greenhouse gasses (although their concentration is very low, so while they are often 5 to 10,000 times more potent than CO2 in GWP, that's offset by the low concentration).
They'll have to switch to the well-understood HCFCs, which are just as bad as CFCs but they break down before reaching the stratosphere, thus negating the ozone depletion effect. They are more expensive to make, however.
No, I'm sure the private sector is working just fine with respect to pensions. What is not fine, however, is the attack on public sector workers who have been cast as living the life of riley, retiring on fat, cushy pensions that they "don't deserve", paid for by the hard-put-upon taxpayer.
In reality they earn their pensions just like everyone else, and far from making out like bandits as certain special interests would have you believe, they fall reasonably closely in line with their private counterparts.
They're certainly not taking the taxpayer for a ride, although they have been painted as such by a media with an agenda.
But equally, the literal percentage of funding provided by states to universities has dropped. It's not just administration bloat (although that is part of it), they are receiving less and less cash each year, and then being moaned at because they're having to go elsewhere to plug the gap.
The final line about whether these "public employees" should be drawing a state-funded pension for educating out of state students is just a laughable attack on the public sector, and a wildly inappropriate non sequitur, especially trying to make it all look like some cushy life of riley by talking about the president's salary, as if that's what all of them are taking home.
That's a bit of a non sequitur, but if that's what you're going with, sure why not.
I'm not sure how you get "don't care of Apple owns the whole smartphone market" from my post. I simply cannot see it, especially since I specifically state that I think Apple's lawsuit is a waste of time in my opinion, and that I think they have overreached by including the Tab in the lawsuit.
Still, whatever makes your totally black and white world fit I guess. Can't really argue against that.
The story is biased though - the school in question here has a 65,000 student base, of which only 11,000 or so are out of state students. The rest are Ohio natives.
It's not really a great situation in any respect (for students or the university) to have to reach out to recruit students that can pay more, because even if taxpayers are funding the school, they are funding it less and less. Over the past 20 years, state funded universities have seen their funding drop from 50% or more down to 5 to 10% in some cases, while costs barely shrink at all (and go up in many cases - there are a lot more managers and admin than there used to be).
It's just not a good position from either end. State tax payers can moan about it if they like, but honestly, when they're only picking up 5% of the tab the university can turn around and say "look, we don;t have much choice here, and external students subsidise in-state students who still make up the vast majority of our student base". The target of the tax payer's ire in this case should be pointed squarely at those who set the budget - the state itself.
Absolutely a state resident shouldn't have to miss a place because the university gave it to an out of state student to pay the bills, but what can they do? They can't just magic money up from nowhere.
Apple are suing other manufacturers over nonsense - the multitouch crap? Other such patents? All nonsense.
The Samsung lawsuit is about the specific copying of the iPhone 3G as a whole, and is much more substantive (albeit a bit of a waste of time).
Several reviews of the Galaxy commented specifically and independently that it was a little too close to the iPhone for comfort - and sure enough, Apple sued over it. Slashdot likes to make out that it's all about "rounded corners" or "they're patenting the black rectangle!" but it simply isn;t that simple and never has been. My point is that the lawsuit is over the design as a whole, when all the parts are put together. No single element is something to sue over, but all the things combined are what make a lawsuit valid, and it seems courts are agreeing.
I don't think it should include the Tab, however, since that really doesn't look substantially like an iPad, but somehow it has all been rolled in together. The original suit was over the Galaxy S.
Agree or disagree with the suit as a whole, the point is it's about more than just suing because Samsung used rounded corners.
Why do you have to pay $100 per year to "hack your own computer"?
The dev tools on OS X are free, and you can write as much software as you like with them, for free.
If you want to publish on iOS in the store, *then* you need to pay the $99 fee, but anything other than publishing software to iOS devices (ie, all OS X development) is free if you have OS X.
Yeah, great. It wouldn't really make a dent - they only get 5% to 15% of their budget from the state. I'm sure they'll be thrilled to take a percentage off that for every out of state student they enroll.
They are being severely limited by the state funds - it's not uncommon for the "state funded" part of a state university to be 5% to 15% of the budget. They have been steadily cut out of more and more cash over the past couple of decades.
A "good share" being about 5 to 10% of their total required funding, sometimes as high as a giddy 15%.
The reason they are having to look for students that can pay more is because the state funding has been drastically reduced over the past decade or more.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh I understand the meaning of the word context, however the context of this discussion is a Mac trojan, and you come wading in with some oft-repeated meme that "Mac users always claim they are immune to viruses". Whether it's true or not (and it's not), you're out of context quite clearly.
You also claimed that you were "pleased" to see that "Mac users are now joining the rest of the computing world" when as I explained, that train sailed a long time ago in the context of this discussion: trojans.
So, which is it? Are you claiming that you believe "virus" specifically means "malware" in your interpretation of what you believe "most" Mac users tell you since you claim to have endured "years" of them telling you this apparently erroneously, since you seem to believe this article represents the very first instance of any virus or trojan on the Mac platform, or are you just trying to save face because you didn't expect anyone to call you on your demonstrably false equivalence between a trojan and a virus, trying to handwave it all away with a non sequitur about it "all being in context" so it doesn't matter about being precise in your definition.
It's not even like it's shorthand - the shorthand catch all term is "malware", but you specifically went with "viruses", in error.
If your point was to somehow make Mac users who say that specific phrase look bad, then it still fails, because this isn't a virus. If your point was to gloat about "Mac users joining the rest of the computing world" due to this then you still fail, since this is nowhere near the first trojan on OS X (nor would it be the first virus if it was a virus and not a trojan).
I can loan you a spade if you prefer to keep digging.
No, it really does make a difference. Words have meaning. You used the term incorrectly.
I imagine what you meant to say was "malware", but of course no one is claiming Macs are immune to malware as a whole - that would just be silly. There's a long history of trojans on the Mac since they tend to reply on social engineering to work, and that's a platform independent problem. You can certainly attempt to minimise the potential threats, but ultimately you're only as effective as the user at the computer when it comes to that sort of thing.
You mentioned something about me addressing your point, but your point seems to be "I'm pleased because I believe this story means that Mac users are 'joining the rest of the computing world'" despite that being hilariously inaccurate because, as I mentioned, this is a long way from being the first trojan on OS X. I can talk some more about your ignorance if you like though?
It's not a virus, but thanks for playing.
It's not even the first trojan for OS X - there have been several in the past.
I see you'e never looked after more than a couple of children at a time.
Don't let the shock of the real world overwhelm you though if you ever actually go outside.
While this seems like an overly precautionary stance to take, the idea that a teacher who loses a child from a class group is "inattentive" is simply disingenuous.
Buy it from the UK. That $60 inhaler is $3 here.
So wait... your management of your asthma is to drive to a 24 hour store to buy an inhaler if you have an attack?
I assume the way you manage fires in your kitchen is to drive to a 24 hour store to buy a fire extinguisher if a fire breaks out.
If you have a condition serious enough to require intervention, you need to keep a prescription on you or near you at all times. I note you say you do "in a perfect world" but come on. This has been coming for many years but it was only a matter of time - salbutamol is more effective overall with fewer side effects and a single inhaler contains about 200 doses, so it's not like you'll be short.
If salbutamol doesn't work for you, then there are other options.
They considered swapping the epinephrine-only inhalers for ones with HCFCs in them, but the side effects of the drug as a whole mean they prefer to phase it out as an inhaler rather than change it to an HCFC version (not to mention that it would require re-approval by the FDA, making it expensive).
Can't tell if trolling or just stupid......
I am going to assume the former, no one could be that stupid, surely?
Or you guys could fix your pricing issue. The same salbutamol inhaler in the UK is about $3 for 200 doses.
Ah, the power of a single payer healthcare system.
That paper doesn't say quite what you think - for one thing, it acknowledges that halogens are responsible for the actual breakdown, but it is suggesting that that the energy involved in driving the reaction is not solely from photochemical processes (ie, UV light from the sun), but galactic cosmic rays also.
Whether you agree with that or not (I am personally skeptical - I believe UV light from the sun is the primary engine of the stratosphere based on the chemistry), the paper does not question the role of CFCs in ozone destruction - it fully supports it.
And while the amount of CFCs released may be tiny, the resulting process is a catalytic cycle. A tiny, tiny amount of CFC (after being broken apart in the stratosphere) can be responsible for a huge amount of ozone destruction - the damaging products of CFC breakdown (especially the chlorine and bromine-containign radicals) are long lived and very damaging because they are regenerated.
A very small amount of CFC can destroy a huge, huge amount of ozone - the process is catalytic, and the responsible radicals are very long lived in the stratosphere. It's why the stratosphere still hasn't recovered yet, despite the Montreal Protocol taking effect years ago.
The alternative is to use an HCFC which has virtually the same properties (including the damaging of the ozone layer), but crucially these tend to break down long before they reach the stratosphere where the damage occurs. They cost more to make than regular CFCs though.
I'm not the OP, but.... yes. It's just chemistry.
The two compounds in Primatente Mist are CFC-12 and CFC-114, or dichlorodifluoromethane and 1,2-dichlorotetrafluoroethane respectively. These are well studied in stratospheric ozone chemistry and are responsible for the catalytic loss cycle by breaking down in the presence of UV light and giving halogen radicals that attack ozone. The atomic chlorine (it usually appears as a chlorine radical) catalytically destroys ozone:
O3 + Cl. > ClO. + O2
O + ClO. > Cl. + O2
The mono-atomic oxygen there is a simplification of other processes that form it, but it's a good simplification of what happens overall - the chlorine is long-lived in the stratosphere, so very small amounts destroy a large amount of ozone.
It's not the only loss cycle of course - there are natural and man-made processes going on up there, but it is one of the ones that has had such a huge effect.
Yes, because a twin turbo V12's exhaust gasses contain CFCs. Right.
CO2 is one thing (unrelated to ozone depletion). CFCs are quite another - and a major contributor to catalytic loss cycles in the stratosphere, as well as being potent greenhouse gasses (although their concentration is very low, so while they are often 5 to 10,000 times more potent than CO2 in GWP, that's offset by the low concentration).
They'll have to switch to the well-understood HCFCs, which are just as bad as CFCs but they break down before reaching the stratosphere, thus negating the ozone depletion effect. They are more expensive to make, however.
According to the HTML5 test page, Safari (on OS X) supports WebM as well as H.264.
This may be different on iOS of course, due to decoding issues.
No, I'm sure the private sector is working just fine with respect to pensions. What is not fine, however, is the attack on public sector workers who have been cast as living the life of riley, retiring on fat, cushy pensions that they "don't deserve", paid for by the hard-put-upon taxpayer.
In reality they earn their pensions just like everyone else, and far from making out like bandits as certain special interests would have you believe, they fall reasonably closely in line with their private counterparts.
They're certainly not taking the taxpayer for a ride, although they have been painted as such by a media with an agenda.
But equally, the literal percentage of funding provided by states to universities has dropped. It's not just administration bloat (although that is part of it), they are receiving less and less cash each year, and then being moaned at because they're having to go elsewhere to plug the gap.
The final line about whether these "public employees" should be drawing a state-funded pension for educating out of state students is just a laughable attack on the public sector, and a wildly inappropriate non sequitur, especially trying to make it all look like some cushy life of riley by talking about the president's salary, as if that's what all of them are taking home.
The agreement was Xerox was allowed to buy pre-IPI stock from Apple in exchange for use of their UI.
Many years later they sued, but the lawsuit was dismissed.
This is not new ground we're treading here. Also, calm down, you'll look less foolish and people are more likely to take you seriously.
That's a bit of a non sequitur, but if that's what you're going with, sure why not.
I'm not sure how you get "don't care of Apple owns the whole smartphone market" from my post. I simply cannot see it, especially since I specifically state that I think Apple's lawsuit is a waste of time in my opinion, and that I think they have overreached by including the Tab in the lawsuit.
Still, whatever makes your totally black and white world fit I guess. Can't really argue against that.
The story is biased though - the school in question here has a 65,000 student base, of which only 11,000 or so are out of state students. The rest are Ohio natives.
It's not really a great situation in any respect (for students or the university) to have to reach out to recruit students that can pay more, because even if taxpayers are funding the school, they are funding it less and less. Over the past 20 years, state funded universities have seen their funding drop from 50% or more down to 5 to 10% in some cases, while costs barely shrink at all (and go up in many cases - there are a lot more managers and admin than there used to be).
It's just not a good position from either end. State tax payers can moan about it if they like, but honestly, when they're only picking up 5% of the tab the university can turn around and say "look, we don;t have much choice here, and external students subsidise in-state students who still make up the vast majority of our student base". The target of the tax payer's ire in this case should be pointed squarely at those who set the budget - the state itself.
Absolutely a state resident shouldn't have to miss a place because the university gave it to an out of state student to pay the bills, but what can they do? They can't just magic money up from nowhere.
Apple are suing other manufacturers over nonsense - the multitouch crap? Other such patents? All nonsense.
The Samsung lawsuit is about the specific copying of the iPhone 3G as a whole, and is much more substantive (albeit a bit of a waste of time).
Several reviews of the Galaxy commented specifically and independently that it was a little too close to the iPhone for comfort - and sure enough, Apple sued over it. Slashdot likes to make out that it's all about "rounded corners" or "they're patenting the black rectangle!" but it simply isn;t that simple and never has been. My point is that the lawsuit is over the design as a whole, when all the parts are put together. No single element is something to sue over, but all the things combined are what make a lawsuit valid, and it seems courts are agreeing.
I don't think it should include the Tab, however, since that really doesn't look substantially like an iPad, but somehow it has all been rolled in together. The original suit was over the Galaxy S.
Agree or disagree with the suit as a whole, the point is it's about more than just suing because Samsung used rounded corners.
As in Xerox Parc? As in, the paid-for licence to use their UI and technology?
There's a difference between paying to use a technology and just copying it to cash in on sales.
Apple has never made any secret of the fact that Xerox had something - they recognised its usefulness and paid to use it.
Where am I GTFOing to? Back to my cave of facts?
Why do you have to pay $100 per year to "hack your own computer"?
The dev tools on OS X are free, and you can write as much software as you like with them, for free.
If you want to publish on iOS in the store, *then* you need to pay the $99 fee, but anything other than publishing software to iOS devices (ie, all OS X development) is free if you have OS X.
Yeah, great. It wouldn't really make a dent - they only get 5% to 15% of their budget from the state. I'm sure they'll be thrilled to take a percentage off that for every out of state student they enroll.
Glenn, you're not on the air now, no one is listening!
They are being severely limited by the state funds - it's not uncommon for the "state funded" part of a state university to be 5% to 15% of the budget. They have been steadily cut out of more and more cash over the past couple of decades.
A "good share" being about 5 to 10% of their total required funding, sometimes as high as a giddy 15%.
The reason they are having to look for students that can pay more is because the state funding has been drastically reduced over the past decade or more.