Considering that any meaningful encryption (I will assume you want some sort of volume group/full disk encryption) will require root access and probably a custom kernel module, you will need android.
iOS devices have AES 256 encryption baked right into the hardware inside the DMA path between flash storage and the main system memory. It's always enabled, and can't be disabled by users, administrators, or anyone else. No custom kernel modules required -- XNU already has built-in AES 256 support, and the platform already implements it for each and every device.
Therefore carbon dioxide increases first in the northern hemisphere and after that slowly finds its way to the south. The transport over the equator takes time, since mixing within one hemisphere is faster than mixing between the hemispheres.
But we observe something else: The annual pattern of CO2 varies. In winter trees and other plants stop growing. They take up less CO2. At the same time humans begin to heat their houses and emit more CO2. Consequently we have the highest concentrations at the end of the heating period in May and about 5 ppm less CO2 after the end of the growing period in October. The two graphs clearly show both patterns.
Regardless, it's a red herring: the CO2 traps heat, but isn't generating the heat. Parts of the globe receive more solar radiation than others, and it hits the atmosphere at different angles. The atmosphere has different thicknesses at different latitudes. If heating were distributed evenly, we would not have a hot equatorial region and cold poles. CO2 doesn't change this; even if it were evenly distributed, areas that are hot because they get more solar radiation would be expected to retain heat more than colder areas which receive less.
That said, I'm not an atmospheric scientist. I'm sure someone with such a background could explain things in a more accurate way than I can.
The average temperature is probably a few degrees higher, if a degree at all. Does insfrastructure have no tolerance at all?!
"Average" being the operative word (with the average being on a global scale). It doesn't imply at all that the increase is evenly distributed all across the globe.
By way of example, if the Earth were only made up of two temperature regions, and one saw an increase in temperature of 10 units, and another saw a decrease of 6 units, the "average" would be 2 units.
It's easier if you think in terms of energy. The global environment is storing an increasing amount of energy, causing an average global warming (i.e.: increase in temperature). However, that energy has never been evenly distributed (colder at the poles, warmer at the equator, differing climates around water, etc.), and the increases aren't evenly distributed either. Some areas are experiencing increases well above the average, others are experiencing decreases, others are staying the same, and some are seeing swings both ways (hotter than usual at certain times of the year, colder than usual at others).
A specific infrastructure installation thus isn't at the whims of "average" warming, but whatever local changes are occurring, which may be greater or lesser than the average. Some areas will get more, and some will get less, some will switch between the two depending on the season. Things will get more chaotic and less predictable due to the added energy in the system.
Just remember: "average increase" doesn't mean "uniform increase".
Eh? How do you figure? Macs run Apple's version of Java...which means, they'd dutifully execute this applet.
With OS X Lion, Apple stopped shipping Java with OS X. And with the latest revision, the ability to run Applets or Java Web Start is disabled by default, and has to be explicitly enabled (and even then will self-disable if you don't use it for some time).
So to amend your statement, Macs run Apple's version of Java -- if you've tried to run something written in Java, responded to the resulting pop-up that you'd like to download and install Java, entered an Admin password (or username and password if you're not running as admin), waited for Java to download and install, then went into the Java Preferences app, turned on the "Enable apple plug-in and Web Start applications" setting, closed the Preference app, and then gone back and reloaded the infected page...at which point they'd dutifully execute this applet.
(Older versions of OS X are, of course, still at risk from this sort of Java applet based attack vector).
That'd be news to the millions getting new macs and using Java.
The GP is correct. Apple stopped shipping Java with OS X with the release of Lion.
That said, if you try to run something the requires Java, OS X will offer to download and install it for you. However with the latest OS X updates the Java browser plug-in and Java Web Start are now disabled by default, and have to be explicitly enabled by the user in the Java Preferences app. And if they do explicitly enable it, it will auto-disable itself again if it hasn't been used in some time.
That's a lot of extra hoops to jump through to get this to work on a modern, up-to-date Mac. Then again, the people who develop and propagate malware such as this tend to target those who don't keep their systems up-to-date, ensuring it is still a concern for many users (with those at most risk being the ones least knowledgable to do much about it, or even be aware that anything is wrong).
I never made any claim that Apple was the first to do this
Yes, you did. You said "Apple changed the game by putting end-user interests first".
Reading comprehension 101: Apple may have changed the game, but that doesn't imply that they were the first to do so. Simply that they were big and important enough in the industry to be able to force a useful concept where others had either a) not tried, or b) failed to gain sufficient traction or mindshare. Again, I didn't claim they were first -- you incorrectly inferred that. I suggest you look up the concept of "First Follower".
Unlocked, carrier independent smartphones were common in many places around the world before Apple, pioneered by companies like Nokia. Given how long Apple's phones were carrier locked, all Apple really did was to replace one evil overpriced corporate master (AT&T) with another one (Apple). For the US, that may seem like an advantage, in the rest of the world it was a step back.
I never made any claim that Apple was the first to do this -- but they certainly popularized the concept in the minds of consumers, at least here in North America. And if you read back in the thread, you'll note I mentioned which country I live in (hint -- it's not the US).
Having spent quite a good bit of time in Europe and Asia these last few years, I'm well aware that in many countries, SIM unlocked phones are common. However, in regions where they aren't (like pretty much all of North America, no thanks in part to the history of parallel, incompatible CDMA and GSM networks) most hardware manufacturers were more than happy to go with "business as usual" and simply sell to the carriers, and not directly to consumers. They were all more than happy to allow the carriers to lock the phones however they wanted, limiting (and in some cases even removing) features available in the rest of the world. Apple refused to play this way, and changed the game. Here in Canada (I've saved you from having to go back and look it up), Apple released the iPhone 3G without an exclusive carrier like in the US, and by the time the 3GS rolled around, Apple was selling them directly to customers completely SIM unlocked, so you could use them on any carrier (this was at a time when AT&T still had an exclusive contract for the iPhones in the US, resulting in many Americans buying their iPhones in Canada so they could get unlocked versions).
In context of this discussion this is important, because North America (and Canada in particular) is RIM's own backyard. RIM needs to be able to "win" (for some definition of "win") in their home territory if they want to be taken seriously. Which means they're going to have to appeal to the needs of its end-users, and not the needs and whims of the carriers if they want to succeed. The model in their backyard has changed thanks to Apple -- the genie is out of the bottle, and they won't be able to stuff it back in and succeed simultaneously.
Right! Where would any of these devices be without the carriers? And just because it worked for Apple, because there was pent up demand for something new, doesn't mean RIM can be successful with a similar attempt, after Apple and Android have sucked up so many customers.
I think that RIM has to do it precisely because Apple did it. Apple changed the game by putting end-user interests first. The failings of RIM and others were in putting the carriers first, and high-end customers who go after smart phones now expect to be able to buy unlocked, new models on the day they are released, with little or no carrier-specific restrictions.
You have to go with end-user expectations. Go against those expectations, and people are going to go with the device that meets them. It is simply yet to be seen if RIM has sufficiently read the writing on the wall to see that they need to meet end-user needs first, and not carrier needs first. I posit simply that if they do see this, then they have a chance for redemption. If they stick with the "please-the-carrier-first" idea they've followed thus far,
they're going to have a much harder go of it -- the time is passing where customers are willing to wait an extra year for the latest and greatest device because carrier XYZ hasn't certified it yet, and when they do you get it it's with the carrier logo silkscreened on the front, carrier locks applied, and their useless apps pre-installed.
...although I doubt they'll ever rise back to pre-iPhone prominence.
Allow me to preface this by noting that I'm not a fan of RIM's current devices or software. I don't own a Blackberry, or any other cell phone for that matter (I truly have no desire to talk to on the phone. I have a 3G iPad and an iPod touch for messaging and Internet access). I find their phones uninspired, and their existing OS lineup and development environment to be highly fragmented, with older OS based devices often available at the same time as newer OS based devices, and little upgradability to newer OS's on older devices -- not exactly the most developer-friendly sort of environment.
I'm also not a fan of how they cow-tow to carriers, particularly here in North America. Specifically here in Canada (RIM's home country), newer phones and devices are often available elsewhere first, and Canadians frequently have to wait months for newer models to be made available, after they've already launched elsewhere.
All that being said, RIM still has over $2 billion sitting in the bank, and they still have a lot of talented people, and own some impressive technologies. I was particularly heartened when I had heard they bought QNX Software Solutions. QNX is quite the powerhouse of an OS that most PC users aren't familiar with, but which has made quite the name for itself in the embedded space as an efficient and extremely stable microkernel based RTOS (Real Time OS) which has powered PC's, vehicles telematics systems, and carrier grade routers, along with a variety of industrial embedded systems. In short, it's an excellent OS for driving smart phones and tablets.
So RIM has the money, they have the technology, and they have the talent -- and now they have an excellent POSIX compliant OS to base their devices off. I think they're in the right space -- assuming they can execute successfully. They really need to get their software game up, make the OS front and centre, provide best-of-breed development tools and systems, and wean themselves off the idea that the carriers are their device customers. Where Apple really succeeded with the iPhones was in their being able to tell carriers how things were going to work, and in many regions selling their devices directly to customers completely unlocked (which was a real breath of fresh air here in Canada), cutting the carriers out of the loop when it came to device features and functionality. RIM needs to play hardball with the carriers, and if the carriers don't want to play by their ground rules, they too needs to sell unlocked devices directly to consumers, so that their biggest fans don't have to wait for nearly a year (or more) to get the latest and greatest devices. And if they're not going to take older devices out of the sales channels as soon as they're replaced, they at least need to ensure those devices can be upgraded to the latest OS (i.e.: they shouldn't be permitting the retail sale of new devices that can't run the latest and greatest OS. A mishmash of BB OS options available simultaneously on new devices isn't good for a software ecosystem).
If they can do those things, they have all the things they need to persevere and even return to some form of prominence. Their devices could be great and even desirable once more, and even the Playbook could find a useful niche. But they have to get their software strategy on track, based on a standard OS core across devices and device families, make it friendly and easy to develop for, and start putting the end-user first, and the carriers second. Then they'll be able to produce devices more people will actually want.
As such, I don't feel the death spiral is inevitable. The pieces are all there for them to get back on track, and as a Canadian I hope they get their development plans in order, get the right people working on the right projects, and execute a smart plan to make devices people want to own.
Except that's exactly what's not happening. Take this case. Suppose that they now start forcing N% of contracts to IT businesses run by women. Now there aren't many such businesses (regardless of the reason), which means that competition for that N% is going to be lackluster - heck, it's spelled out in TFA, pretty much.
You don't know that -- all you've done is take a snapshot of a single instance in time, saw what you perceive to be a minima, and decided that is the nature of things now and forever.
Conceptually, affirmative action is like a social algorithms that endures local minima, but with the design that an eventual equilibrium (or global maxima) will be generated. We have a lot of algorithms like this in computer science[0]; many optimization strategies are known to generate poor intermediary results, with the end-product being either the correct solution, or the best solution derived from the algorithm execution (ideally within some known, expected bounds)[1]. Genetic algorithms work this way: a single generation, viewed on its own, may be at a local minima, and thus an extremely poor solution. However, viewed at the end of the run after multiple generations, a better solution can be obtained (either a high local maxima, or a global maxima -- if one even exists).
Or, put in different terms, look at one stock market index. There are many local minima over the course of the index, but the overall picture is one of growth.
Capitalistic theory argues against you, using your very points. N% may be lackluster for a specific, given contract[2]. If the contracts are sufficiently lucrative, and there are financial benefits to be obatined from that market, then more organizations will desire to enter that market. In this case, the "market" is the artificial construct of "IT businesses owned by women"[3]. If there is money to be made, then more entrants will fill the market. If you knew there was a field where you had a significant bidding advantage because you (for sake of example) had green eyes, would you not consider entering that field and reaping the benefits?
As more female-owned IT businesses bid for such contracts, competitive pressures will start to take effect, to the point where the local minima of "N% lackluster" is nullified. Thus, the concept is:
0. Endure potential local minima, while aiming for a global maxima,
1. As more entrants try to take advantage of the market, allow competitive pressure to improve them towards a quality maxima, and
2. Achieve your original end of social engineering the market to increase the social structure(s) needing improvement (in this case female owned businesses).
You can't observe a local minima and then decry the entire algorithm. When it comes to social engineering, the algorithms often require multiple generations to achieve their ends; there is a good probability that it won't happen within a single lifetime. To use a local minima to judge an algorithm is illogical and narrow-minded. In this specific case, I see it as laudable to attempt to further engage women in business ownership -- there is a glass ceiling, and simply allowing things to progress as they have for the past 70 years won't change anything.
So let the algorithm run. The competition right now may be lackluster, but as more potential female business owners learn of the opportunity, they'll enter the market to get a slice of the pie. As soon as there are multiple female owners in the market, competitive pressure will be to out-bid each other, improving the process to the point where they are indistinguishable from their male-owned competitors. They still have to meet all of the requirements of the tender, and are still expected to produce results -- and over the long term, as competitive pressure and increased female ownership takes place, an equilibrium will be achieved whereby such actions
This stuff should probably be shipped in double walled tanker trucks.. hate to see what it does when spilt on a roadway.
Yeah, but shipping it in large tankers would be awesome -- if they had a spill, the compound would simply hover about 1.5m off the surface of the waves!
But at least you have competition between those 3 teams now. If WebKit achieves total dominance, Google and Apple control the web, open source or not.
No, as the code is OSS, anyone can create a fork if they feel the direction Apple and Google are taking isn't the one they want to take.
And Apple and Google may be the two biggest kids in the WebKit sandbox, but don't discount RIM, Nokia(/Accenture), and Sansung, (and I imagine others -- this was just a quick list I was able to gather from looking at their svn commit logs for the past couple of weeks) who are also big companies that use and contribute to WebKit.
And being LGPL/BSD licensed, there isn't a whole lot Apple, Google, or anyone else can really do if they want to fork it. So i'm not too concerned about Google and Apple achieving "total dominance" -- particularly while Webkit still conforms to W3C standards as well as it does (as it's one of the most compliant engines out there, it's really the W3C that currently control the web -- which is how it's supposed to be).
Okay -- I RTFM'd, and it seems like the author can't really see the forest for the trees.
Sure, UI is important, but if you're worried about us developing a browser monoculture, you need to look at the rendering engine, and not the UI and trademark that is slapped onto the result.
And as things currently stand, a monoculture is already forming around Webkit. On the PC side, KHTML, Konqueror, Safari, and Chrome all use Webkit (as well as numerous more minor browsers). On the mobile side, iOS, Chromebooks, Android, Symbian S60 browser, Blackberry browser (6.0+), HP's webOS, and Amazon's Silk all run on Webkit.
Looking at WikiMedia's stats for April 2012 (link), it appears from my rough calculations that nearly 36% of HTML page hits were from Webkit based browsers -- more than for any other browser engine. When looking at just mobile browsers, Webkit accounts for more than 80% of page hits from mobile devices.
Personally, I don't see this as a bad thing. While it was bad when Microsoft's Triton engine held near total dominance in browser engine use on the Internet (bad because it was tied to a single platform and vendor, and didn't conform to W3C standards well (and in some cases, not at all)), having an Open Source Webkit, which is collaborated on by a wide variety of browser vendors and which does an excellent (and I'd say the best) job of conforming to web standards hold dominance is a good thing. It means we have a single standard that web developers can focus their efforts against (W3C standards that is), while allowing anyone to improve upon it and implement it as they see fit, on a plethora of devices.
Looking at the graph in the article, if you instead break it down by rendering engine, you'll see that at least 80% of their mobile visitors in March were running Webkit based browsers.
So if he's worried about "one browser dominating them all", he's looking at the wrong equation. The concern now isn't that one browser will become dominant; however it appears that one rendering engine will become dominant. IMO it's a good thing in the case of Webkit, due to its standards compliance and open source nature. Sure, you may not have a lot of choice of browsers on your mobile device, but competition between device manufacturers and the fact that virtually all of them ship with browsers based on the same browser engine will ensure a base level of rendering support, good standards compliance, and in the case of features all of them want/need that such changes can be made (where logical) to Webkit itself, and then trickle down to all of the mobile browsers. Looks like a whole lot of win to me.
Which isn't to say that I think lack of choice is a good thing in and of itself -- merely that when your choice is between three different browsers running on the same rendering engine (and many of them the same Javascript engine), will most people even care?
If the grandparents are supposed to be such an important part in their lives: move.
If you say that it is not possible, it is because you have other priorities and being near the grandparents is a lower priority.
Yes, because fortunately we live in a world where everyone lives in a liberal democracy, where the immigration laws have been harmonized, making it easy to live wherever you want.
Oh wait -- we don't live in that world.
Which brings me to the other possibility -- that we do live on a planet with various levels of oppressiveness in Government, and that it isn't possible for everyone to just pack up and move to whatever country their grandparents/grandchildren live in, regardless of the economics of such a move. That, and that you're a douche.
Ah -- that sounds a lot more like the world we actually live in!
Yaz
(Okay -- I can be decent -- perhaps you're not a douche, but just haven't thought your statement through. You now have a chance to do so).
I recommend you have your parents come over to play with your kid, and give it toys/animals/people to play and interact with. Unfortunately, people are lazy and prefer to have the TV/screen babysitter.
Or they have parents who live on the other side of the planet, and who can't afford to fly half way around the globe for routine visits.
That would be our situation -- my parents are a five hour flight away. My wife's parents can't get any sort of direct flight to where we live, as they're on the opposite side of the globe; with all of the connections required I've had the trip take over 24 hours. The absolute shortest we could possibly get it down to is roughly 18 hours. If you factor in that my wife's parents a) aren't wealthy, and b) aren't particularly in good health, the opportunities for them to visit in person are on the order of once every few years at best.
Skype running on an iPad (on our end) or old PC (on their end) however means they've been able to see their only grandchild on a weekly basis. My 19mo daughter has had the benefit of hearing their voices, hearing their native language, and seeing their faces. Thanks to technology, she knows who her family is, and both sides have some connection to the other through more than an abstract concept of extended family my daughter is too young to understand otherwise. Similar with my parents (except we use Facetime instead of Skype), who have the benefit of seeing us somewhat more frequently, but still only twice a year at best.
So congratulation to you for not venturing too far from your parents home. Maybe for you seeing your parents just means crawling out of the basement, but for some of us the only way the grandparents get to participate in their grandchildren's lives is through technology.
But hey -- if you think you're up to it, why not take the condescending tone to my parents-in-law, and you can tell them how they shouldn't have been allowed to talk to their only grandchild after she took her first steps completely unassisted the other week. I'll enjoy hearing how they tear you a new one over the suggestion.
I think a notification/warning would be nice prior to purging it from the system. Maybe it does, I don't know.
On both of the systems I applied it to yesterday, it popped up a dialog warning me that it was going to disable the out-of-date flash player, and inviting me to visit Adobe's website to download the latest copy. The two buttons on the dialog were along the lines of one to go to the download page, and one to simply continue disabling the out-of-date plug-in.
My thoughts exactly. Most schools I've been to don't have a computer science department, but rather lump it in with the math or engineering department. Computer science is a programme of study not an entire department.
It may depend on how educational institutions are organized in your geographic area, but I'm not aware of any Universities which have a computer science program which don't have it organized as a department.
Very few Universities have a faculty of Computer Science, but they will have a department as a sub-unit under another faculty (usually Science, Math, or Engineering). There is generally sufficient students and staff however to form a department as a sub-unit to a faculty.
Do they port scan 1000 random machines and extrapolate from there? I'm genuinely curious to know their methods. How could they arrive at such a precise number? Surely they must only have a sample of macs and use statistical models to extrapolate, right? They can't scan all the macs, right? right?
How do they do it?!?!
My understanding is that infected Macs try to contact a command-and-control server with a unique identifier in order to get the trojan payload. Several of the anti-virus/security companies have ben able to hijack the command-and-control system to insert their own system (probably via DNS entry changes at some major ISPs) that infected Macs then try to connect to. They record the unique ID's in the request messages, and then extrapolate the results accordingly.
Wow...10.5 was released in 2007 and its ALREADY unsupported according to the wiki? damn maybe folks shouldn't have marked the AC a troll that made the joke about buying a new Mac every year. I thought the big selling point on the Mac was how "high quality" Macs were? Yet the support drops after less than 5 years? I guess that's why I never really got into macs, i just don't get it.
10.5 was the last version that ran on PowerPC machines. People with older PowerPC machines who wanted to keep up to date with the OS needed to upgrade to Intel hardware to run 10.6.
10.6 for existing Intel Mac owners was $25. From what I've read and seen, a massive percentage of the user base upgraded to 10.6 pretty quickly. 10.6 wasn't a massive upgrade, but by shedding all of the PowerPC support and through compiler optimization, threading and multi-core support improvements (Grand Central Dispatch, and its use by most of the core applications), improved 64 bit support (including a 64-bit kernel and 64-bit apps), and various Intel-specific improvements, 10.6 was a pretty massive upgrade from 10.5 in terms of speed. According to this press release, OS X 10.6 saw twice as many purchases in its first week of release as 10.5 (four times more than 10.4's first week), with sales declining by only 25% in the second week. As such, from a practical standpoint for most Mac users, it's a non-issue, as the majority are now running 10.6 or 10.7 (roughly 78% according to the Adium page quoted by the GP post). 10.6 was such a massive improvement and so cheap (relative to other commercial OS's) that the only real reason to stick with 10.5 was if you're still on PowerPC hardware.
In terms of hardware support according to Apple systems go into "Vintage" classification if they're between 5 and 7 years old (which for most of the world means "obsolete/unsupported").
If I was a paranoid person i'd have to wonder if this wasn't by design, after all who would fault Apple if they restricted or outright banned Java as a security risk now?
Apple already dropped Java from OS X 10.7. It isn't included at all, but can download and install itself if it's needed (it will typically offer to do so if you try to run anything that requires it).
The latest Java updates disable Java applet support in Safari and other browsers that use Apple's Java plug-in. You can re-enable this if you need it, however it will disable itself again after a period of disuse. To be honest, while I've long been a Java developer and have no problem with rich Java applications, Java applets are a dead technology anyhow. I haven't come across one in many, many years now.
Point being, Apple has been moving in this direction for a while. At one point (back in 10.1 IIRC) Java was supposed to be one of the top-level development languages for the Mac. Apple developed and provided the Java Cocoa bindings, which allowed UIs designed in their Interface Builder tool to be bound to Java applications, and Cocoa objects to be easily accessed via Java (and vice-versa). This was deprecated in 2005. Then Apple decided not to support Java in iOS (smart move IMO). Now it's no longer included with the OS, is only available as a downloadable add-on, and applet support is disabled by default. I don't predict they'll be getting rid of it entirely (there are a lot of Java developers on OS X, yours truly included) -- IIRC they're trying to transition to having Oracle maintain it alongside the Linux and Windows versions, instead of doing it themselves. They just want to move into a model more akin to Window's Java support -- it works fine, and applications run just fine, but you have to get it from Oracle as a separate install.
All of which reminds me -- my parents are the type who continually ignore the pop-ups that software updates are available for their Mac (no matter how many times I've told them they need to stay up-to-date). I should call them this
Does Canada block those online music sites at the border?
Canada doesn't block content -- there is no Great White North Firewall or anything like that -- but many of the sites themselves use geolocation and block access to Canadians. This is typically done because of either a) licensing restrictions, or b) not wanting to cut off their own profit streams here in Canada. In the first case, a service such as Pandora doesn't want to have to pay royalties to broadcast in Canada, and doesn't want to get dragged into court, so they block access to Canadians. An example of the latter case would be a service such as Hulu, which is run by a consortium of US broadcasters who don't want to reduce their Canadian revenue streams (the idea being that making a show available to Canadians on Hulu could reduce the licensing fees stations here are willing to pay if Canadians can watch the same show without that stations commercial package).
So you asked the wrong question, although the effect is often the same. If the content owners think they can make more money by blocking access to Canadians, they will. Or if they don't want to pay for the rights to broadcast within Canada (they may only have licenses from rights holders for certain geographic regions, such as the US), again, they block access.
Then there is the case where existing license agreements prevent the rights holders themselves from streaming into Canada. South Park Studios website is a good example here -- their Canadian broadcaster (The Comedy Network) has some sort of stipulation in their contract that they hold exclusive rights to broadcast in Canada, blocking South Park Studios from doing so directly. If you try to watch a full episode from the South Park website here in Canada, you get directed to go to The Comedy Network website instead.
None of this is government mandated or controlled -- it's handled by each individual service based upon whatever license agreements they've signed and hold. Canada isn't like Turkey, which blocks Youtube via ISP DNS record erasure/redirection, or like China with the Great Firewall -- in this case, it's individual sites that decide not to service Canadian IPs.
(Of course, you can often get around this by using proxies located in the US, although some of the services have been cataloguing the proxies themselves and blocking any access through them regardless of where you're physically located).
The catch is that you cannot configure a 6to4 tunnel using Airport Configuration Utility 6.
So far as I can see, you can't configure the IPv6 firewall with Airport Utility v6.0. That is something that is far more important, and which also impacts those who can get a real auto-configured IPv6 address range and routing.
Nearly every other user, however, shouldn't care about IPv6, nor should they be forced to learn.
Agreed -- but the most important part that is missing from 6.0 is the ability to manage the IPv6 firewall. The Airport routers are fortunately sane in that they block all IPv6 incoming traffic by default, but a lot of people do find the need to open ports for various services (in my case, SSH), and the Airport Utility 6.0 doesn't expose any interface to do so for IPv6 (which is unfortunate, as the IPv6 firewall is significantly easier to deal with than IPv4, particularly if you have multiple systems with services on the same port you want to open to the world).
Yes, we do have that facility in v5.6 -- I still use v5.6 for managing my network, and use the iPad Airport Utility (which has the same interface as 6.0) generally just to check on network topology (we have three Apple Airport devices on our network, and the network topography diagram is quite nice to quickly verify if a device is online or not). However, Apple should be at the very least exposing the IPv6 firewall in Airport Utility v6.
Count me as one of those who is looking forward to an update with IPv6 management added back in.
Indeed, they still offer the download for previous version (5.6) which happily coexists with version 6.0.
I just want to point out the mischaracterization of 5.6 as "the previous version". The true previous version was 5.5. Version 5.6 was released on the same day as version 6.0 specifically to provide a much more full-featured tool for network administrators.
Other than this, the article is spot-on; Apple deserves to be properly chastised for removing a LOT of functionality from their new 6.0 utility, particularly anything related to IPv6.
Please yourself. We are a nation with many statutes, a very significant number of which have a "Section 13". It's entirely your own fault you didn't bother to specify which Act you were referring to.
Except for section 13, right? Got that repealed yet?
13. A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering that any meaningful encryption (I will assume you want some sort of volume group/full disk encryption) will require root access and probably a custom kernel module, you will need android.
iOS devices have AES 256 encryption baked right into the hardware inside the DMA path between flash storage and the main system memory. It's always enabled, and can't be disabled by users, administrators, or anyone else. No custom kernel modules required -- XNU already has built-in AES 256 support, and the platform already implements it for each and every device.
Yaz
It doesn't? I'm pretty sure that CO2 is distributed quite evenly around the globe
Incorrect. From http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/25h.html:
Therefore carbon dioxide increases first in the northern hemisphere and after that slowly finds its way to the south. The transport over the equator takes time, since mixing within one hemisphere is faster than mixing between the hemispheres. But we observe something else: The annual pattern of CO2 varies. In winter trees and other plants stop growing. They take up less CO2. At the same time humans begin to heat their houses and emit more CO2. Consequently we have the highest concentrations at the end of the heating period in May and about 5 ppm less CO2 after the end of the growing period in October. The two graphs clearly show both patterns.
Regardless, it's a red herring: the CO2 traps heat, but isn't generating the heat. Parts of the globe receive more solar radiation than others, and it hits the atmosphere at different angles. The atmosphere has different thicknesses at different latitudes. If heating were distributed evenly, we would not have a hot equatorial region and cold poles. CO2 doesn't change this; even if it were evenly distributed, areas that are hot because they get more solar radiation would be expected to retain heat more than colder areas which receive less.
That said, I'm not an atmospheric scientist. I'm sure someone with such a background could explain things in a more accurate way than I can.
Yaz
The average temperature is probably a few degrees higher, if a degree at all. Does insfrastructure have no tolerance at all?!
"Average" being the operative word (with the average being on a global scale). It doesn't imply at all that the increase is evenly distributed all across the globe.
By way of example, if the Earth were only made up of two temperature regions, and one saw an increase in temperature of 10 units, and another saw a decrease of 6 units, the "average" would be 2 units.
It's easier if you think in terms of energy. The global environment is storing an increasing amount of energy, causing an average global warming (i.e.: increase in temperature). However, that energy has never been evenly distributed (colder at the poles, warmer at the equator, differing climates around water, etc.), and the increases aren't evenly distributed either. Some areas are experiencing increases well above the average, others are experiencing decreases, others are staying the same, and some are seeing swings both ways (hotter than usual at certain times of the year, colder than usual at others).
A specific infrastructure installation thus isn't at the whims of "average" warming, but whatever local changes are occurring, which may be greater or lesser than the average. Some areas will get more, and some will get less, some will switch between the two depending on the season. Things will get more chaotic and less predictable due to the added energy in the system.
Just remember: "average increase" doesn't mean "uniform increase".
Yaz
Eh? How do you figure? Macs run Apple's version of Java...which means, they'd dutifully execute this applet.
With OS X Lion, Apple stopped shipping Java with OS X. And with the latest revision, the ability to run Applets or Java Web Start is disabled by default, and has to be explicitly enabled (and even then will self-disable if you don't use it for some time).
So to amend your statement, Macs run Apple's version of Java -- if you've tried to run something written in Java, responded to the resulting pop-up that you'd like to download and install Java, entered an Admin password (or username and password if you're not running as admin), waited for Java to download and install, then went into the Java Preferences app, turned on the "Enable apple plug-in and Web Start applications" setting, closed the Preference app, and then gone back and reloaded the infected page...at which point they'd dutifully execute this applet.
(Older versions of OS X are, of course, still at risk from this sort of Java applet based attack vector).
Yaz
That'd be news to the millions getting new macs and using Java.
The GP is correct. Apple stopped shipping Java with OS X with the release of Lion.
That said, if you try to run something the requires Java, OS X will offer to download and install it for you. However with the latest OS X updates the Java browser plug-in and Java Web Start are now disabled by default, and have to be explicitly enabled by the user in the Java Preferences app. And if they do explicitly enable it, it will auto-disable itself again if it hasn't been used in some time.
That's a lot of extra hoops to jump through to get this to work on a modern, up-to-date Mac. Then again, the people who develop and propagate malware such as this tend to target those who don't keep their systems up-to-date, ensuring it is still a concern for many users (with those at most risk being the ones least knowledgable to do much about it, or even be aware that anything is wrong).
Yaz
Yes, you did. You said "Apple changed the game by putting end-user interests first".
Reading comprehension 101: Apple may have changed the game, but that doesn't imply that they were the first to do so. Simply that they were big and important enough in the industry to be able to force a useful concept where others had either a) not tried, or b) failed to gain sufficient traction or mindshare. Again, I didn't claim they were first -- you incorrectly inferred that. I suggest you look up the concept of "First Follower".
Yaz
Unlocked, carrier independent smartphones were common in many places around the world before Apple, pioneered by companies like Nokia. Given how long Apple's phones were carrier locked, all Apple really did was to replace one evil overpriced corporate master (AT&T) with another one (Apple). For the US, that may seem like an advantage, in the rest of the world it was a step back.
I never made any claim that Apple was the first to do this -- but they certainly popularized the concept in the minds of consumers, at least here in North America. And if you read back in the thread, you'll note I mentioned which country I live in (hint -- it's not the US).
Having spent quite a good bit of time in Europe and Asia these last few years, I'm well aware that in many countries, SIM unlocked phones are common. However, in regions where they aren't (like pretty much all of North America, no thanks in part to the history of parallel, incompatible CDMA and GSM networks) most hardware manufacturers were more than happy to go with "business as usual" and simply sell to the carriers, and not directly to consumers. They were all more than happy to allow the carriers to lock the phones however they wanted, limiting (and in some cases even removing) features available in the rest of the world. Apple refused to play this way, and changed the game. Here in Canada (I've saved you from having to go back and look it up), Apple released the iPhone 3G without an exclusive carrier like in the US, and by the time the 3GS rolled around, Apple was selling them directly to customers completely SIM unlocked, so you could use them on any carrier (this was at a time when AT&T still had an exclusive contract for the iPhones in the US, resulting in many Americans buying their iPhones in Canada so they could get unlocked versions).
In context of this discussion this is important, because North America (and Canada in particular) is RIM's own backyard. RIM needs to be able to "win" (for some definition of "win") in their home territory if they want to be taken seriously. Which means they're going to have to appeal to the needs of its end-users, and not the needs and whims of the carriers if they want to succeed. The model in their backyard has changed thanks to Apple -- the genie is out of the bottle, and they won't be able to stuff it back in and succeed simultaneously.
Yaz
Right! Where would any of these devices be without the carriers? And just because it worked for Apple, because there was pent up demand for something new, doesn't mean RIM can be successful with a similar attempt, after Apple and Android have sucked up so many customers.
I think that RIM has to do it precisely because Apple did it. Apple changed the game by putting end-user interests first. The failings of RIM and others were in putting the carriers first, and high-end customers who go after smart phones now expect to be able to buy unlocked, new models on the day they are released, with little or no carrier-specific restrictions.
You have to go with end-user expectations. Go against those expectations, and people are going to go with the device that meets them. It is simply yet to be seen if RIM has sufficiently read the writing on the wall to see that they need to meet end-user needs first, and not carrier needs first. I posit simply that if they do see this, then they have a chance for redemption. If they stick with the "please-the-carrier-first" idea they've followed thus far, they're going to have a much harder go of it -- the time is passing where customers are willing to wait an extra year for the latest and greatest device because carrier XYZ hasn't certified it yet, and when they do you get it it's with the carrier logo silkscreened on the front, carrier locks applied, and their useless apps pre-installed.
Yaz
...although I doubt they'll ever rise back to pre-iPhone prominence.
Allow me to preface this by noting that I'm not a fan of RIM's current devices or software. I don't own a Blackberry, or any other cell phone for that matter (I truly have no desire to talk to on the phone. I have a 3G iPad and an iPod touch for messaging and Internet access). I find their phones uninspired, and their existing OS lineup and development environment to be highly fragmented, with older OS based devices often available at the same time as newer OS based devices, and little upgradability to newer OS's on older devices -- not exactly the most developer-friendly sort of environment.
I'm also not a fan of how they cow-tow to carriers, particularly here in North America. Specifically here in Canada (RIM's home country), newer phones and devices are often available elsewhere first, and Canadians frequently have to wait months for newer models to be made available, after they've already launched elsewhere.
All that being said, RIM still has over $2 billion sitting in the bank, and they still have a lot of talented people, and own some impressive technologies. I was particularly heartened when I had heard they bought QNX Software Solutions. QNX is quite the powerhouse of an OS that most PC users aren't familiar with, but which has made quite the name for itself in the embedded space as an efficient and extremely stable microkernel based RTOS (Real Time OS) which has powered PC's, vehicles telematics systems, and carrier grade routers, along with a variety of industrial embedded systems. In short, it's an excellent OS for driving smart phones and tablets.
So RIM has the money, they have the technology, and they have the talent -- and now they have an excellent POSIX compliant OS to base their devices off. I think they're in the right space -- assuming they can execute successfully. They really need to get their software game up, make the OS front and centre, provide best-of-breed development tools and systems, and wean themselves off the idea that the carriers are their device customers. Where Apple really succeeded with the iPhones was in their being able to tell carriers how things were going to work, and in many regions selling their devices directly to customers completely unlocked (which was a real breath of fresh air here in Canada), cutting the carriers out of the loop when it came to device features and functionality. RIM needs to play hardball with the carriers, and if the carriers don't want to play by their ground rules, they too needs to sell unlocked devices directly to consumers, so that their biggest fans don't have to wait for nearly a year (or more) to get the latest and greatest devices. And if they're not going to take older devices out of the sales channels as soon as they're replaced, they at least need to ensure those devices can be upgraded to the latest OS (i.e.: they shouldn't be permitting the retail sale of new devices that can't run the latest and greatest OS. A mishmash of BB OS options available simultaneously on new devices isn't good for a software ecosystem).
If they can do those things, they have all the things they need to persevere and even return to some form of prominence. Their devices could be great and even desirable once more, and even the Playbook could find a useful niche. But they have to get their software strategy on track, based on a standard OS core across devices and device families, make it friendly and easy to develop for, and start putting the end-user first, and the carriers second. Then they'll be able to produce devices more people will actually want.
As such, I don't feel the death spiral is inevitable. The pieces are all there for them to get back on track, and as a Canadian I hope they get their development plans in order, get the right people working on the right projects, and execute a smart plan to make devices people want to own.
Yaz
Except that's exactly what's not happening. Take this case. Suppose that they now start forcing N% of contracts to IT businesses run by women. Now there aren't many such businesses (regardless of the reason), which means that competition for that N% is going to be lackluster - heck, it's spelled out in TFA, pretty much.
You don't know that -- all you've done is take a snapshot of a single instance in time, saw what you perceive to be a minima, and decided that is the nature of things now and forever.
Conceptually, affirmative action is like a social algorithms that endures local minima, but with the design that an eventual equilibrium (or global maxima) will be generated. We have a lot of algorithms like this in computer science[0]; many optimization strategies are known to generate poor intermediary results, with the end-product being either the correct solution, or the best solution derived from the algorithm execution (ideally within some known, expected bounds)[1]. Genetic algorithms work this way: a single generation, viewed on its own, may be at a local minima, and thus an extremely poor solution. However, viewed at the end of the run after multiple generations, a better solution can be obtained (either a high local maxima, or a global maxima -- if one even exists).
Or, put in different terms, look at one stock market index. There are many local minima over the course of the index, but the overall picture is one of growth.
Capitalistic theory argues against you, using your very points. N% may be lackluster for a specific, given contract[2]. If the contracts are sufficiently lucrative, and there are financial benefits to be obatined from that market, then more organizations will desire to enter that market. In this case, the "market" is the artificial construct of "IT businesses owned by women"[3]. If there is money to be made, then more entrants will fill the market. If you knew there was a field where you had a significant bidding advantage because you (for sake of example) had green eyes, would you not consider entering that field and reaping the benefits?
As more female-owned IT businesses bid for such contracts, competitive pressures will start to take effect, to the point where the local minima of "N% lackluster" is nullified. Thus, the concept is:
You can't observe a local minima and then decry the entire algorithm. When it comes to social engineering, the algorithms often require multiple generations to achieve their ends; there is a good probability that it won't happen within a single lifetime. To use a local minima to judge an algorithm is illogical and narrow-minded. In this specific case, I see it as laudable to attempt to further engage women in business ownership -- there is a glass ceiling, and simply allowing things to progress as they have for the past 70 years won't change anything.
So let the algorithm run. The competition right now may be lackluster, but as more potential female business owners learn of the opportunity, they'll enter the market to get a slice of the pie. As soon as there are multiple female owners in the market, competitive pressure will be to out-bid each other, improving the process to the point where they are indistinguishable from their male-owned competitors. They still have to meet all of the requirements of the tender, and are still expected to produce results -- and over the long term, as competitive pressure and increased female ownership takes place, an equilibrium will be achieved whereby such actions
This stuff should probably be shipped in double walled tanker trucks.. hate to see what it does when spilt on a roadway.
Yeah, but shipping it in large tankers would be awesome -- if they had a spill, the compound would simply hover about 1.5m off the surface of the waves!
Yaz
But at least you have competition between those 3 teams now. If WebKit achieves total dominance, Google and Apple control the web, open source or not.
No, as the code is OSS, anyone can create a fork if they feel the direction Apple and Google are taking isn't the one they want to take.
And Apple and Google may be the two biggest kids in the WebKit sandbox, but don't discount RIM, Nokia(/Accenture), and Sansung, (and I imagine others -- this was just a quick list I was able to gather from looking at their svn commit logs for the past couple of weeks) who are also big companies that use and contribute to WebKit.
And being LGPL/BSD licensed, there isn't a whole lot Apple, Google, or anyone else can really do if they want to fork it. So i'm not too concerned about Google and Apple achieving "total dominance" -- particularly while Webkit still conforms to W3C standards as well as it does (as it's one of the most compliant engines out there, it's really the W3C that currently control the web -- which is how it's supposed to be).
Yaz
Okay -- I RTFM'd, and it seems like the author can't really see the forest for the trees.
Sure, UI is important, but if you're worried about us developing a browser monoculture, you need to look at the rendering engine, and not the UI and trademark that is slapped onto the result.
And as things currently stand, a monoculture is already forming around Webkit. On the PC side, KHTML, Konqueror, Safari, and Chrome all use Webkit (as well as numerous more minor browsers). On the mobile side, iOS, Chromebooks, Android, Symbian S60 browser, Blackberry browser (6.0+), HP's webOS, and Amazon's Silk all run on Webkit.
Looking at WikiMedia's stats for April 2012 (link), it appears from my rough calculations that nearly 36% of HTML page hits were from Webkit based browsers -- more than for any other browser engine. When looking at just mobile browsers, Webkit accounts for more than 80% of page hits from mobile devices.
Personally, I don't see this as a bad thing. While it was bad when Microsoft's Triton engine held near total dominance in browser engine use on the Internet (bad because it was tied to a single platform and vendor, and didn't conform to W3C standards well (and in some cases, not at all)), having an Open Source Webkit, which is collaborated on by a wide variety of browser vendors and which does an excellent (and I'd say the best) job of conforming to web standards hold dominance is a good thing. It means we have a single standard that web developers can focus their efforts against (W3C standards that is), while allowing anyone to improve upon it and implement it as they see fit, on a plethora of devices.
Looking at the graph in the article, if you instead break it down by rendering engine, you'll see that at least 80% of their mobile visitors in March were running Webkit based browsers.
So if he's worried about "one browser dominating them all", he's looking at the wrong equation. The concern now isn't that one browser will become dominant; however it appears that one rendering engine will become dominant. IMO it's a good thing in the case of Webkit, due to its standards compliance and open source nature. Sure, you may not have a lot of choice of browsers on your mobile device, but competition between device manufacturers and the fact that virtually all of them ship with browsers based on the same browser engine will ensure a base level of rendering support, good standards compliance, and in the case of features all of them want/need that such changes can be made (where logical) to Webkit itself, and then trickle down to all of the mobile browsers. Looks like a whole lot of win to me.
Which isn't to say that I think lack of choice is a good thing in and of itself -- merely that when your choice is between three different browsers running on the same rendering engine (and many of them the same Javascript engine), will most people even care?
Yaz
If the grandparents are supposed to be such an important part in their lives: move. If you say that it is not possible, it is because you have other priorities and being near the grandparents is a lower priority.
Yes, because fortunately we live in a world where everyone lives in a liberal democracy, where the immigration laws have been harmonized, making it easy to live wherever you want.
Oh wait -- we don't live in that world.
Which brings me to the other possibility -- that we do live on a planet with various levels of oppressiveness in Government, and that it isn't possible for everyone to just pack up and move to whatever country their grandparents/grandchildren live in, regardless of the economics of such a move. That, and that you're a douche.
Ah -- that sounds a lot more like the world we actually live in!
Yaz
(Okay -- I can be decent -- perhaps you're not a douche, but just haven't thought your statement through. You now have a chance to do so).
I recommend you have your parents come over to play with your kid, and give it toys/animals/people to play and interact with. Unfortunately, people are lazy and prefer to have the TV/screen babysitter.
Or they have parents who live on the other side of the planet, and who can't afford to fly half way around the globe for routine visits.
That would be our situation -- my parents are a five hour flight away. My wife's parents can't get any sort of direct flight to where we live, as they're on the opposite side of the globe; with all of the connections required I've had the trip take over 24 hours. The absolute shortest we could possibly get it down to is roughly 18 hours. If you factor in that my wife's parents a) aren't wealthy, and b) aren't particularly in good health, the opportunities for them to visit in person are on the order of once every few years at best.
Skype running on an iPad (on our end) or old PC (on their end) however means they've been able to see their only grandchild on a weekly basis. My 19mo daughter has had the benefit of hearing their voices, hearing their native language, and seeing their faces. Thanks to technology, she knows who her family is, and both sides have some connection to the other through more than an abstract concept of extended family my daughter is too young to understand otherwise. Similar with my parents (except we use Facetime instead of Skype), who have the benefit of seeing us somewhat more frequently, but still only twice a year at best.
So congratulation to you for not venturing too far from your parents home. Maybe for you seeing your parents just means crawling out of the basement, but for some of us the only way the grandparents get to participate in their grandchildren's lives is through technology.
But hey -- if you think you're up to it, why not take the condescending tone to my parents-in-law, and you can tell them how they shouldn't have been allowed to talk to their only grandchild after she took her first steps completely unassisted the other week. I'll enjoy hearing how they tear you a new one over the suggestion.
Yaz
I think a notification/warning would be nice prior to purging it from the system. Maybe it does, I don't know.
On both of the systems I applied it to yesterday, it popped up a dialog warning me that it was going to disable the out-of-date flash player, and inviting me to visit Adobe's website to download the latest copy. The two buttons on the dialog were along the lines of one to go to the download page, and one to simply continue disabling the out-of-date plug-in.
And now you know.
Yaz
My thoughts exactly. Most schools I've been to don't have a computer science department, but rather lump it in with the math or engineering department. Computer science is a programme of study not an entire department.
It may depend on how educational institutions are organized in your geographic area, but I'm not aware of any Universities which have a computer science program which don't have it organized as a department.
Very few Universities have a faculty of Computer Science, but they will have a department as a sub-unit under another faculty (usually Science, Math, or Engineering). There is generally sufficient students and staff however to form a department as a sub-unit to a faculty.
Yaz
Do they port scan 1000 random machines and extrapolate from there? I'm genuinely curious to know their methods. How could they arrive at such a precise number? Surely they must only have a sample of macs and use statistical models to extrapolate, right? They can't scan all the macs, right? right?
How do they do it?!?!
My understanding is that infected Macs try to contact a command-and-control server with a unique identifier in order to get the trojan payload. Several of the anti-virus/security companies have ben able to hijack the command-and-control system to insert their own system (probably via DNS entry changes at some major ISPs) that infected Macs then try to connect to. They record the unique ID's in the request messages, and then extrapolate the results accordingly.
Yaz.
Wow...10.5 was released in 2007 and its ALREADY unsupported according to the wiki? damn maybe folks shouldn't have marked the AC a troll that made the joke about buying a new Mac every year. I thought the big selling point on the Mac was how "high quality" Macs were? Yet the support drops after less than 5 years? I guess that's why I never really got into macs, i just don't get it.
10.5 was the last version that ran on PowerPC machines. People with older PowerPC machines who wanted to keep up to date with the OS needed to upgrade to Intel hardware to run 10.6.
10.6 for existing Intel Mac owners was $25. From what I've read and seen, a massive percentage of the user base upgraded to 10.6 pretty quickly. 10.6 wasn't a massive upgrade, but by shedding all of the PowerPC support and through compiler optimization, threading and multi-core support improvements (Grand Central Dispatch, and its use by most of the core applications), improved 64 bit support (including a 64-bit kernel and 64-bit apps), and various Intel-specific improvements, 10.6 was a pretty massive upgrade from 10.5 in terms of speed. According to this press release, OS X 10.6 saw twice as many purchases in its first week of release as 10.5 (four times more than 10.4's first week), with sales declining by only 25% in the second week. As such, from a practical standpoint for most Mac users, it's a non-issue, as the majority are now running 10.6 or 10.7 (roughly 78% according to the Adium page quoted by the GP post). 10.6 was such a massive improvement and so cheap (relative to other commercial OS's) that the only real reason to stick with 10.5 was if you're still on PowerPC hardware.
In terms of hardware support according to Apple systems go into "Vintage" classification if they're between 5 and 7 years old (which for most of the world means "obsolete/unsupported").
If I was a paranoid person i'd have to wonder if this wasn't by design, after all who would fault Apple if they restricted or outright banned Java as a security risk now?
Apple already dropped Java from OS X 10.7. It isn't included at all, but can download and install itself if it's needed (it will typically offer to do so if you try to run anything that requires it).
The latest Java updates disable Java applet support in Safari and other browsers that use Apple's Java plug-in. You can re-enable this if you need it, however it will disable itself again after a period of disuse. To be honest, while I've long been a Java developer and have no problem with rich Java applications, Java applets are a dead technology anyhow. I haven't come across one in many, many years now.
Point being, Apple has been moving in this direction for a while. At one point (back in 10.1 IIRC) Java was supposed to be one of the top-level development languages for the Mac. Apple developed and provided the Java Cocoa bindings, which allowed UIs designed in their Interface Builder tool to be bound to Java applications, and Cocoa objects to be easily accessed via Java (and vice-versa). This was deprecated in 2005. Then Apple decided not to support Java in iOS (smart move IMO). Now it's no longer included with the OS, is only available as a downloadable add-on, and applet support is disabled by default. I don't predict they'll be getting rid of it entirely (there are a lot of Java developers on OS X, yours truly included) -- IIRC they're trying to transition to having Oracle maintain it alongside the Linux and Windows versions, instead of doing it themselves. They just want to move into a model more akin to Window's Java support -- it works fine, and applications run just fine, but you have to get it from Oracle as a separate install.
All of which reminds me -- my parents are the type who continually ignore the pop-ups that software updates are available for their Mac (no matter how many times I've told them they need to stay up-to-date). I should call them this
Does Canada block those online music sites at the border?
Canada doesn't block content -- there is no Great White North Firewall or anything like that -- but many of the sites themselves use geolocation and block access to Canadians. This is typically done because of either a) licensing restrictions, or b) not wanting to cut off their own profit streams here in Canada. In the first case, a service such as Pandora doesn't want to have to pay royalties to broadcast in Canada, and doesn't want to get dragged into court, so they block access to Canadians. An example of the latter case would be a service such as Hulu, which is run by a consortium of US broadcasters who don't want to reduce their Canadian revenue streams (the idea being that making a show available to Canadians on Hulu could reduce the licensing fees stations here are willing to pay if Canadians can watch the same show without that stations commercial package).
So you asked the wrong question, although the effect is often the same. If the content owners think they can make more money by blocking access to Canadians, they will. Or if they don't want to pay for the rights to broadcast within Canada (they may only have licenses from rights holders for certain geographic regions, such as the US), again, they block access.
Then there is the case where existing license agreements prevent the rights holders themselves from streaming into Canada. South Park Studios website is a good example here -- their Canadian broadcaster (The Comedy Network) has some sort of stipulation in their contract that they hold exclusive rights to broadcast in Canada, blocking South Park Studios from doing so directly. If you try to watch a full episode from the South Park website here in Canada, you get directed to go to The Comedy Network website instead.
None of this is government mandated or controlled -- it's handled by each individual service based upon whatever license agreements they've signed and hold. Canada isn't like Turkey, which blocks Youtube via ISP DNS record erasure/redirection, or like China with the Great Firewall -- in this case, it's individual sites that decide not to service Canadian IPs.
(Of course, you can often get around this by using proxies located in the US, although some of the services have been cataloguing the proxies themselves and blocking any access through them regardless of where you're physically located).
Yaz
The catch is that you cannot configure a 6to4 tunnel using Airport Configuration Utility 6.
So far as I can see, you can't configure the IPv6 firewall with Airport Utility v6.0. That is something that is far more important, and which also impacts those who can get a real auto-configured IPv6 address range and routing.
Yaz
Nearly every other user, however, shouldn't care about IPv6, nor should they be forced to learn.
Agreed -- but the most important part that is missing from 6.0 is the ability to manage the IPv6 firewall. The Airport routers are fortunately sane in that they block all IPv6 incoming traffic by default, but a lot of people do find the need to open ports for various services (in my case, SSH), and the Airport Utility 6.0 doesn't expose any interface to do so for IPv6 (which is unfortunate, as the IPv6 firewall is significantly easier to deal with than IPv4, particularly if you have multiple systems with services on the same port you want to open to the world).
Yes, we do have that facility in v5.6 -- I still use v5.6 for managing my network, and use the iPad Airport Utility (which has the same interface as 6.0) generally just to check on network topology (we have three Apple Airport devices on our network, and the network topography diagram is quite nice to quickly verify if a device is online or not). However, Apple should be at the very least exposing the IPv6 firewall in Airport Utility v6.
Count me as one of those who is looking forward to an update with IPv6 management added back in.
Yaz
Indeed, they still offer the download for previous version (5.6) which happily coexists with version 6.0.
I just want to point out the mischaracterization of 5.6 as "the previous version". The true previous version was 5.5. Version 5.6 was released on the same day as version 6.0 specifically to provide a much more full-featured tool for network administrators.
Other than this, the article is spot-on; Apple deserves to be properly chastised for removing a LOT of functionality from their new 6.0 utility, particularly anything related to IPv6.
Yaz
Oh please.
Please yourself. We are a nation with many statutes, a very significant number of which have a "Section 13". It's entirely your own fault you didn't bother to specify which Act you were referring to.
Yaz
Except for section 13, right? Got that repealed yet?
13. A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.
What is your problem with that?
Yaz