The DHX UAM was introduced to Mac OS X 10.0. That should tell you something about how secure (or not) it is. It's over 10 years old, and deals in clear text.
Apple really should give you a way to disable this, and have it disabled by default; allowing a sysadmin to turn it on only if absolutely necessary.
I had this thought in a comment posted down-thread a ways. At $10M per congress critter, you're still under their final bid for the Nortel patents, and you've got 218 votes in the house, and 60 in the senate - exactly what you need to pass anything you want, as long as you don't face a veto.
A veto-proof majority at a $10m/vote rate would be around $3.55B.
110 seats in the house wouldn't get you there. You need 218 to get to 50% + 1 vote in a 435-seat body.
Of course, depending on the views of the Oval Office, you may need to get 288 in the House and 67 in the Senate to override a veto. We'll call the total price tag of patent reform $3.55B in this scenario.
A small nit, but they haven't upgraded the Mac Pro because there's nothing to upgrade to yet, other than slapping a new video card into it.
Wait for sometime close to Intel's Q4 when they are supposed to release the QPI Xeons based on Sandy Bridge. You'll probably see some movement on Mac Pro then.
Well, they can take their principled stance and use pi * $1B on lobbyists to get Congress to actually reform the patent system. Thanks to that wonderful supreme court decision that allows corporations to spend just as much money as they want on political free speech, Google could put it out there that any congress critter that is serious about reforming the USPTO gets $10M in the war chest in the form of 509(c) sponsored direct mail flyers, online advertisement, television advertisement, etc.
218 seats in the US house = $2.18B 60 seats in the US Senate = $600M (gotta get that cloture motion, after all)
It was an auction, and you got outbid. If Nortel wasn't a dying (dead) company, you would have still had to license / work around any of these patents, so what's the difference?
Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? Why can't they first attempt a legal block, and if that fails, compete in the marketplace? This way they can "protect" their "IP" while they continue to compete.
Sure, it's a shitty thing to do, but there's no reason they can't do both at the same time. In fact, there's usually pretty good (selfish) reasons to go this way.
Don't like it? Call your local government and request patent reform.
Yeah, but will the Congress play along? We've seen no evidence that they are following their "leadership" thus far: Boehner's bill only being passed after placating the far right wing, Reid's bill not passing 49 - 50 in his majority Senate, after objecting to his own cloture vote.
Well, you really knocked the hell out of that straw man you constructed. Good job.
What I said: Apple is using every legal avenue they have to increase profits What you seem to think I said: Apple is under a legal obligation to increase profits in every conceivable way
To reiterate, I never said that Apple has some legal obligation to chisel as much money from everyone as possible, rather that it's just in their best interests to do so under all legal avenues available to them, with an eye towards the future to make sure they don't piss off all their repeat business.
This lesson in english comprehension has been brought to you by Slashdot.
Would it really f'in kill them if they let someone else make a buck? By your own statement, that 'someone else' makes 70%, with no marketing or distribution cost whatsoever.
I think you forgot that Apple is a for-profit enterprise, with public shareholder backing. If they aren't doing everything they can within the law to maximize their shareholder investment, then the management should be fired.
This applies to all corporations, private equity firms, and small businesses the world over. Right or wrong, it's called capitalism; you might have heard of it.
Any competent Mac admin would create a disk image and deploy that with Apple Software Restore, or hack an existing NetInstall image with the Lion installers. This takes all of an hour to do, and fixes this 'issue' straight away.
What I'm more sick of, is the idea that people want to sue someone because their kid fell down and got a boo-boo. I broke my wrist on "unsafe playground equipment" when I was in the 4th grade. You know what my parents did? Took me to the damn doctor to get a splint.
Suing the school district never entered into ANYONE's mind. Six weeks later the doctor took a dremel to the cast, and that was that.
Myself, as a US Citizen, I'm tired of paying taxes* to be "the world's police" and would rather go back to a more isolationist doctrine.
However, if we were to do that, we'd hear nothing but grief from the UN, to say nothing of the governments and populations of Europe. They want to stop genocides and atrocities all over the world, but have no carrier battle groups with which to enforce their resolutions.
Talk is cheap, and making the US the bad guys is easy, but the world just doesn't have the stomach to see hundreds of thousands of people dying of hunger in Somalia because some shithead warlord wants to seize all the food at the harbor in order to starve out his tribal enemies of who-knows-how-many centuries ago.
*read: selling US Treasury securities to anyone that will buy them, to be paid with future US Treasury securities sales
Now the Taliban eat babies, and Pervez Musharraf is a friend of the USA (Yes, I know he's not the Pakistani "president" anymore but the point still stands).
You're just proving that propaganda works, not that there's any less or more today than there was 30 years ago.
In the 50's, it was all about making huge bombs with huge explosions mostly for propaganda purposes, and because bombers were the only delivery mechanism that existed.
When rocketry started to happen, the weapon designers realized that everything was about weight, and the super-bombs couldn't be fitted onto anything smaller than an Atlas-II. Also, the inverse-cube law of an expanding sphere dictates that it requires ever-more output to see any gain in actual destructive radius. Someone got the bright idea that more smaller explosions would cover much more area than one big fucker of an explosion. Thus, MIRV was born. It's cheaper, more feasible from an engineering point of view, and makes anti-missile systems nigh useless. Oh, and it miniaturizes stuff to the point you can fit them in submarines. Oh, and because you're not boosting into megaton range with a very dirty U238 tamper, they're a lot cleaner and don't leave shitloads of fallout blowing around the planet for years like the massive tests of the 1950s did.
You need to look at the scale of weapon developments in the last 60 years. Fat Man was a bottle rocket (22 Kt) in comparison to what one warhead on a Trident D5 can do (450 Kt) , and the Trident has multiples per launch tube. The big fucker bombs you're thinking of would be the ones like they tested at Castle Bravo, which were in the Megaton range (8500 Kt).
Part of the expenditure on new nukes, is to create a weapon with the same capabilities as the current stockpile, with much less maintenance cost. The new ones would not be additive to current stockpiles, as the number is limited by treaty. They would be replacements for aging warheads that require constant maintenance and upkeep.
You do realize that Congress passes legislation that mandates funding and requirements, right? Such as a law that says "all US Government systems must pass a security audit by date X, and the Congress will make available $X to retrofit and replace systems that cannot pass the audit"
Yeah, my company is in the early throws of migrating Windows 7, and I was the lucky guy that gets to maintain the Windows XP environment for new hardware. It reminded me why I stopped using Windows at home about 6 years ago.
By this logic, I guess that means that Southern California can just go to hell with regards to the massive amount of power generated on the Columbia River and transmitted south by the Pacific DC Intertie.
Guess what - the grid allows for power to transcend state boundaries, so maybe the side effects of it's generation may need to transcend them as well.
Producing Plutonium, in itself, is not bad. Running a short fuel cycle (90 days) in a reactor configured specifically for producing Pu-239 is bad.
Lumps of Plutonium that consist of more than about 7% Pu-240 are not suitable for nuclear weapon use, because the bomb will "pre detonate" causing you to have a really expensive bomb that generates slightly more energy than the conventional explosives it contains, and just spreads nuclear material all over the place.
Slashdot Mirror
The DHX UAM was introduced to Mac OS X 10.0. That should tell you something about how secure (or not) it is. It's over 10 years old, and deals in clear text.
Apple really should give you a way to disable this, and have it disabled by default; allowing a sysadmin to turn it on only if absolutely necessary.
It's more possible that they can generate increased revenue by rebadging someone else's RAM with their well-known "RADEON" trade dress.
I had this thought in a comment posted down-thread a ways. At $10M per congress critter, you're still under their final bid for the Nortel patents, and you've got 218 votes in the house, and 60 in the senate - exactly what you need to pass anything you want, as long as you don't face a veto.
A veto-proof majority at a $10m/vote rate would be around $3.55B.
God Bless American Democracy!
110 seats in the house wouldn't get you there. You need 218 to get to 50% + 1 vote in a 435-seat body.
Of course, depending on the views of the Oval Office, you may need to get 288 in the House and 67 in the Senate to override a veto. We'll call the total price tag of patent reform $3.55B in this scenario.
A small nit, but they haven't upgraded the Mac Pro because there's nothing to upgrade to yet, other than slapping a new video card into it.
Wait for sometime close to Intel's Q4 when they are supposed to release the QPI Xeons based on Sandy Bridge. You'll probably see some movement on Mac Pro then.
Not disagreeing, but looking at the fate of Nortel purely from a hypothetical shareholder perspective, maybe they should have...
Well, they can take their principled stance and use pi * $1B on lobbyists to get Congress to actually reform the patent system. Thanks to that wonderful supreme court decision that allows corporations to spend just as much money as they want on political free speech, Google could put it out there that any congress critter that is serious about reforming the USPTO gets $10M in the war chest in the form of 509(c) sponsored direct mail flyers, online advertisement, television advertisement, etc.
218 seats in the US house = $2.18B
60 seats in the US Senate = $600M (gotta get that cloture motion, after all)
We're not even to pi * $1B yet...
It was an auction, and you got outbid. If Nortel wasn't a dying (dead) company, you would have still had to license / work around any of these patents, so what's the difference?
Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? Why can't they first attempt a legal block, and if that fails, compete in the marketplace? This way they can "protect" their "IP" while they continue to compete.
Sure, it's a shitty thing to do, but there's no reason they can't do both at the same time. In fact, there's usually pretty good (selfish) reasons to go this way.
Don't like it? Call your local government and request patent reform.
Yeah, but will the Congress play along? We've seen no evidence that they are following their "leadership" thus far: Boehner's bill only being passed after placating the far right wing, Reid's bill not passing 49 - 50 in his majority Senate, after objecting to his own cloture vote.
Well, you really knocked the hell out of that straw man you constructed. Good job.
What I said: Apple is using every legal avenue they have to increase profits
What you seem to think I said: Apple is under a legal obligation to increase profits in every conceivable way
To reiterate, I never said that Apple has some legal obligation to chisel as much money from everyone as possible, rather that it's just in their best interests to do so under all legal avenues available to them, with an eye towards the future to make sure they don't piss off all their repeat business.
This lesson in english comprehension has been brought to you by Slashdot.
Would it really f'in kill them if they let someone else make a buck?
By your own statement, that 'someone else' makes 70%, with no marketing or distribution cost whatsoever.
I think you forgot that Apple is a for-profit enterprise, with public shareholder backing. If they aren't doing everything they can within the law to maximize their shareholder investment, then the management should be fired.
This applies to all corporations, private equity firms, and small businesses the world over. Right or wrong, it's called capitalism; you might have heard of it.
Any competent Mac admin would create a disk image and deploy that with Apple Software Restore, or hack an existing NetInstall image with the Lion installers. This takes all of an hour to do, and fixes this 'issue' straight away.
What I'm more sick of, is the idea that people want to sue someone because their kid fell down and got a boo-boo. I broke my wrist on "unsafe playground equipment" when I was in the 4th grade. You know what my parents did? Took me to the damn doctor to get a splint.
Suing the school district never entered into ANYONE's mind. Six weeks later the doctor took a dremel to the cast, and that was that.
Sometimes I really do miss the old days.
Sweet! Can I get the installers on a Zip Disk please? I mean, if we're living 10 years back...
If comparing platform to platform, be sure to add in iPad and iPod Touch then. Oh wait, that might skew your numbers towards reality.
Myself, as a US Citizen, I'm tired of paying taxes* to be "the world's police" and would rather go back to a more isolationist doctrine.
However, if we were to do that, we'd hear nothing but grief from the UN, to say nothing of the governments and populations of Europe. They want to stop genocides and atrocities all over the world, but have no carrier battle groups with which to enforce their resolutions.
Talk is cheap, and making the US the bad guys is easy, but the world just doesn't have the stomach to see hundreds of thousands of people dying of hunger in Somalia because some shithead warlord wants to seize all the food at the harbor in order to starve out his tribal enemies of who-knows-how-many centuries ago.
*read: selling US Treasury securities to anyone that will buy them, to be paid with future US Treasury securities sales
Now the Taliban eat babies, and Pervez Musharraf is a friend of the USA (Yes, I know he's not the Pakistani "president" anymore but the point still stands).
You're just proving that propaganda works, not that there's any less or more today than there was 30 years ago.
You don't have it quite right.
In the 50's, it was all about making huge bombs with huge explosions mostly for propaganda purposes, and because bombers were the only delivery mechanism that existed.
When rocketry started to happen, the weapon designers realized that everything was about weight, and the super-bombs couldn't be fitted onto anything smaller than an Atlas-II. Also, the inverse-cube law of an expanding sphere dictates that it requires ever-more output to see any gain in actual destructive radius. Someone got the bright idea that more smaller explosions would cover much more area than one big fucker of an explosion. Thus, MIRV was born. It's cheaper, more feasible from an engineering point of view, and makes anti-missile systems nigh useless. Oh, and it miniaturizes stuff to the point you can fit them in submarines. Oh, and because you're not boosting into megaton range with a very dirty U238 tamper, they're a lot cleaner and don't leave shitloads of fallout blowing around the planet for years like the massive tests of the 1950s did.
You need to look at the scale of weapon developments in the last 60 years. Fat Man was a bottle rocket (22 Kt) in comparison to what one warhead on a Trident D5 can do (450 Kt) , and the Trident has multiples per launch tube. The big fucker bombs you're thinking of would be the ones like they tested at Castle Bravo, which were in the Megaton range (8500 Kt).
Part of the expenditure on new nukes, is to create a weapon with the same capabilities as the current stockpile, with much less maintenance cost. The new ones would not be additive to current stockpiles, as the number is limited by treaty. They would be replacements for aging warheads that require constant maintenance and upkeep.
You do realize that Congress passes legislation that mandates funding and requirements, right? Such as a law that says "all US Government systems must pass a security audit by date X, and the Congress will make available $X to retrofit and replace systems that cannot pass the audit"
see a huge chunk of memory go up in smoke just for a single plugin.
So it's just like Flash on every other platform then?
Yeah, my company is in the early throws of migrating Windows 7, and I was the lucky guy that gets to maintain the Windows XP environment for new hardware. It reminded me why I stopped using Windows at home about 6 years ago.
By this logic, I guess that means that Southern California can just go to hell with regards to the massive amount of power generated on the Columbia River and transmitted south by the Pacific DC Intertie.
Guess what - the grid allows for power to transcend state boundaries, so maybe the side effects of it's generation may need to transcend them as well.
Producing Plutonium, in itself, is not bad. Running a short fuel cycle (90 days) in a reactor configured specifically for producing Pu-239 is bad.
Lumps of Plutonium that consist of more than about 7% Pu-240 are not suitable for nuclear weapon use, because the bomb will "pre detonate" causing you to have a really expensive bomb that generates slightly more energy than the conventional explosives it contains, and just spreads nuclear material all over the place.