This scheme is worthless. Once the user enters his username the bank discloses the picture. There's nothing stopping a phishing site or trojan from immediately using the username to obtain the correct picture and displaying it to the user. IE, the explaining text should say 'if you recognize your SiteKey you still have no idea wether or not it's safe to enter your passcode'. Wrong. If you have not saved your userid (and thus have to enter it, as you would at a phishing site) then BofA will ask your security questions before allowing you to log in with the SiteKey. If you go to a phishing site, you would not only miss your security questions, but it would then have to get the sitekey picture.
So a phishing site, even with your userid, will have to try to retrieve your security questions and present them, long before it would ever get to the SiteKey.
If you can come up with something better, I'm all ears. I thought this was a rather ingenious way of using Challenge-Response on the web.
What complete and utter bullshit.
-DRM I'm not going to rehash the extensive comments from this story earlier today.
-Proprietary hardware Such as? *crickets* Surely the fact that on installing Windows on a shiny Intel Mac, all of the drivers outside of the keyboard backlight are from other well-known vendors like Atheros, Intel, ATI, etc, should disprove THAT turd.
-Proprietary software And who isn't, other than Linux and BSD? They are the exceptions, not the rule. Windows, AIX, Solaris, BeOS, PalmOS, etc - you name it, it's most likely proprietary. At least Apple makes a good chunk of its base open, and has contributed other useful projects like WebKit and launchd.
-Closed protocols Such as? Hell, even protocols they've pushed (like Rendezvous/Bonjour/ZeroConf) are standardized.
-Lock-ins No contest there.
-selected compatibility Again, who doesn't? I'm not even sure what you mean, unless you're upset you can't play a Divx on an iPod Video or something...
It's CEO is also know for pulling tantrums. Its CEO is known for having a VERY sharp idea of what he wants, and yes, being very difficult and arbitrary to get it sometimes. Those are not tantrums. Throwing a chair, that's a tamtrum.
It seems to me when DRM goes,Apple isn't going to try and stop it. Except in movies, where Jobs (in his Disney/Pixar hat) is extremely protective of his content.
So, once you buy songs from the iTunes store, you are stuck with the iPod as your portable player of choice Let's be honest now. How many people do you think bought from iTunes before having an iPod, and not the other way around? How many of said users really want to leave the iPod in the first place? I think you'll find both are vanishingly small.
Yes, we get that. However, from a revenue and business perspective, hardware is what pays the bills, so from that perspective, they most certainly are a hardware company. This is inevitably brought up when people try to argue for running Mac OS X on generic PC's.
Of course, H.264 is the format the iPod uses, and the preferred (only? I don't follow it, so I don't know) format for the PSP. It's also entirely possible that they'll perform on-the-fly transcoding in Quicktime, although given how long H.264 encoding takes, I'll admit this is doubtful.
Just another reason to get a real Mac Mini and use that instead of an iTV. Then you get a nice home server and the possibility of DVR functionality with the right add-ons.
...but am I the only one who noticed that the iPhone always refers to the operating system as "OS X", instead of "Mac OS X"? Seems to me that Apple may be starting to use "OS X" as an overarching brand for its operating systems. I'll still bet that the OS on this phone is NOT "Mac" OS X, but is something related. Hell, they can do 90% of what they showed with just WebKit and a specialized version of Quartz.
What you omit is that MPEG-2 codecs on the PC can be had for free, and Apple already includes DVD burning at the OS level. If you need an MPEG-2 codec on the Mac (since you can't get at the one built into DVD Player), Apple supplies one for $30.
There. Release the software for free on the Mac and it really would be comparable.
And note that while Windows users get it for free, Mac users only get it as part of a $100 application; one that you hardly need with all of the built-in CD and DVD burning services.
It uses a PPC derivative. There are many of those, including embedded applications and Cell. Again, show me a computer using them, since that is the discussion.
The drug was called Iressa. Here's the final FDA statement from two years ago. I recall my mom glumly stating that Christmas "two more people living would have changed the statistics - it was that close".
Sad, as there were definitely people that benefited from the drug - we saw some of these cases firsthand, and of course saw huge amounts of data. However, the final trial failed to show statistical significance.
Show me who ships PPC-based systems in bulk - not even IBM does. POWER processers are still very much viable in the server space (my preferred platform, actually), and PowerPC derivatives like Cell, but the PPC itself (G5, etc) are more or less dead. Apple was the largest distributor by several orders of magnitude.
That and there's a huge variety of workflow software that's still either PPC or has yet to be updated to UBs. Yes, and this is being released at the point where most of that software is scheduled to become Intel native. I'd wager you'll see a LOT of people move to nice shiny Mac Pro's in the second half of this year.
While I'm in the IT industry, my mother has been a pediatric oncologist for decades with St. Jude, on the FDA, and is now at Astra-Zeneca working on lung cancer treatments. From all of these facets, I can categorically say that greed does NOT enter into the equation.
Certain types of cancer have been very difficult to treat, either due to late detection, or the sensitivity of the surrounding area (e.g. brain tumors). Childhood leukemia, her specialty, has gone from a 50% survival rate in the late 70's to a 90% survival rate in the late 80's (this was based on an article describing her treatment of one of my childhood friends).
Meanwhile, the lung cancer drug her company worked for years on was going extremely well: About 30% of terminal lung cancer cases - people who could no longer get out of bed and had weeks to live - saw 100% remission and could be discharged in a matter of a couple weeks. Nothing short of astounding. It was approved for the Japanese market, and was on the verge of being approved by the FDA when one study came back just shy of being statistically successful. The last I heard (about a year or two ago) was that due to that study, the drug would not be approved. Years of work, dozens of studies around the globe, quite simply untold millions - poof!
If you ever wonder why drugs are so damn expensive, don't blame it on greed or marketing. It comes down to the fact that developing new drugs is an extremely risk prone business. Drug companies are working on dozens if not hundreds of new drugs all the time, yet you'll notice that one or two usually provide the bulk of the revenue for a company. That's because so many of them don't pan out - sometimes after costing an enormous amount of capital. Like it or not, they have to squeeze every last cent out of the winners to fund continued research and development.
And as a reminder for those of you who got your hopes up in November of 2006 -- you might want to look at who was President in 1994. Hint: His last name wasn't "Bush". Funny, there weren't presidential elections in 2006, so I don't know why you'd relate congressional elections back to Bush and Clinton. The congress has remained under the same leadership for those 12 years, however, and the vast majority of issues Slashdot cares about are handled either by the FCC, Congress, or the Justice Department. Only one of those is affected by the executive branch, and they've had other things to keep them busy these last few years (trampling on our civil liberties, primarily).
Congress created the DMCA, has pushed the Broadcast Flag, and has been debating whether or not we need Network Neutrality (after all, they think it's all a series of tubes).
Are they just going to let OS X server die, or try to target only really small businesses?
Funny, that's all they do now. I don't see them shipping any servers beyond pizza boxes.
that does not preclude kernel level support for virtualization, including API's and hooks for interoperability
Given how fast Parallels implemented it, I'd say those hooks are in place. Parallels wrote a kernel extension (as did Fusion) and they have virtualization. Or does this go back to "OS X in a VM" again?
What about hooks for supporting virtual machines like Parallels, but treating the apps as more "native" with Windows or Linux binaries showing up as icons in OS X?
Why in the hell is this something Apple is providing? I'm completely confused as to where you think the OS ends and the third party virtualization product begins.
Depending upon how access to OS 9 apps is accomplished, it certainly is virtualization
No, it most certainly is NOT. Virtualization is hosting several operating systems on the same hardware and making them all think they have sole access to it. Running OS 9 is emulation, in which they have to translate the PPC instruction set to Intel. Completely different terminology, with important speed and implementation concerns.
It just seems like VM is a very promising new technology that MS and Linux distros are leaping at, and which is finally evolving a few standards
New? You must be new here. As for standards, there are none - there are implementations from different vendors, but nothing like a standard, whether for hypervisors, VM formats, virtualized hardware, etc. VMWare is something of a defacto standard, but there are no standards bodies of any kind.
They don't want you to use OS X in a VM, as it makes it trivial to use it on generic PC's, which eliminates the vast majority of their revenue.
They don't include virtualization software themselves as Parallels and VMWare are doing a good job if you need such a thing, and they don't want to alienate them.
And not strictly virtualization, but you mentioned it - they don't want to make it easy to use OS 9. It's been dead to them for years (and porting Classic to Intel would not have been easy, given the way Rosetta works). Meanwhile, they do nothing to hinder or help SheepShaver and others; the ROM files needed are available from Apple's website (although not easy to find).
None of this is hard to figure out. Yes, there are reasons it would be nice, but it's pretty obvious why they're not too keen on it.
Re:Prize goes to the 3D graphics provider
on
VMware Fusion goes Beta
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Not to nitpick the nitpick, but the Power Mac was originally names as such because of the PowerPC chip. The first models were the 6100, 7100, and 8100, which used the PowerPC 601 in 1994. The PowerBook, however, did predate the PowerPC chip by at least a year or two.
They're late to the Mac alright. Given that Parallels was out three months after the first Intel Macs shipped and VMWare took nearly a year? Given their long history, it should have been out even faster, not slower.
However, that being said, they've made me very happy with what they've put out. It respects Mac interface conventions, puts files where they belong, and even loads and unloads its kernel extensions on the fly.
Yes, he is saying that because no, it does not. Parallels will only use at most one core for virtualizing an OS. Got a quad-core Mac Pro? You're only getting one of those for Windows with Parallels. Fusion will let you use up to two.
The fact that after all this time Thunderbird STILL makes it difficult to use more than one SMTP server is astonishing. The vast majority of e-mail systems will only allow their own accounts to traverse the SMTP server, and most spam filtering will similarly junk e-mail that doesn't match up. Even if the developers were somehow ignorant of this fact, users have been requesting it heatedly since pre-1.0. Now we're at 2.0 and they still can't get something this simple right. Oh sure, Thunderbird technically supports multple SMTP servers, but it makes it about as difficult to setup as it possibly can.
This is disturbing for three reasons: 1) It hinders adoption by making a common feature odious to use 2) It shows a complete lack of attentiveness by the developers to user concerns/requests 3) It diminishes the Mozilla/Firefox brand by not living up to the standards set by those programs
I'd love to use it - especially on Windows as an alternative to Outlook Express - but until it can properly support e-mail accounts and show some responsiveness to its users, I'm not going to bother with it.
Slashdot Mirror
So a phishing site, even with your userid, will have to try to retrieve your security questions and present them, long before it would ever get to the SiteKey.
If you can come up with something better, I'm all ears. I thought this was a rather ingenious way of using Challenge-Response on the web.
Damn, guys - I have a TI-85 from Calculus in 1995 that still works fine. I think it's even on the same batteries.
And of course, that is exactly why Blizz generously doesn't delete your account info - so you can come back in six months when you need your fix.
Please tell me you don't think that Jobs owning Pixar and now being a major honcho at Disney doesn't color his views on protecting film content?
Yes, we get that. However, from a revenue and business perspective, hardware is what pays the bills, so from that perspective, they most certainly are a hardware company. This is inevitably brought up when people try to argue for running Mac OS X on generic PC's.
Of course, H.264 is the format the iPod uses, and the preferred (only? I don't follow it, so I don't know) format for the PSP. It's also entirely possible that they'll perform on-the-fly transcoding in Quicktime, although given how long H.264 encoding takes, I'll admit this is doubtful.
Just another reason to get a real Mac Mini and use that instead of an iTV. Then you get a nice home server and the possibility of DVR functionality with the right add-ons.
...but am I the only one who noticed that the iPhone always refers to the operating system as "OS X", instead of "Mac OS X"? Seems to me that Apple may be starting to use "OS X" as an overarching brand for its operating systems. I'll still bet that the OS on this phone is NOT "Mac" OS X, but is something related. Hell, they can do 90% of what they showed with just WebKit and a specialized version of Quartz.
What you omit is that MPEG-2 codecs on the PC can be had for free, and Apple already includes DVD burning at the OS level. If you need an MPEG-2 codec on the Mac (since you can't get at the one built into DVD Player), Apple supplies one for $30.
There. Release the software for free on the Mac and it really would be comparable.
And note that while Windows users get it for free, Mac users only get it as part of a $100 application; one that you hardly need with all of the built-in CD and DVD burning services.
It uses a PPC derivative. There are many of those, including embedded applications and Cell. Again, show me a computer using them, since that is the discussion.
The drug was called Iressa. Here's the final FDA statement from two years ago. I recall my mom glumly stating that Christmas "two more people living would have changed the statistics - it was that close".
Sad, as there were definitely people that benefited from the drug - we saw some of these cases firsthand, and of course saw huge amounts of data. However, the final trial failed to show statistical significance.
Show me who ships PPC-based systems in bulk - not even IBM does. POWER processers are still very much viable in the server space (my preferred platform, actually), and PowerPC derivatives like Cell, but the PPC itself (G5, etc) are more or less dead. Apple was the largest distributor by several orders of magnitude.
While I'm in the IT industry, my mother has been a pediatric oncologist for decades with St. Jude, on the FDA, and is now at Astra-Zeneca working on lung cancer treatments. From all of these facets, I can categorically say that greed does NOT enter into the equation.
Certain types of cancer have been very difficult to treat, either due to late detection, or the sensitivity of the surrounding area (e.g. brain tumors). Childhood leukemia, her specialty, has gone from a 50% survival rate in the late 70's to a 90% survival rate in the late 80's (this was based on an article describing her treatment of one of my childhood friends).
Meanwhile, the lung cancer drug her company worked for years on was going extremely well: About 30% of terminal lung cancer cases - people who could no longer get out of bed and had weeks to live - saw 100% remission and could be discharged in a matter of a couple weeks. Nothing short of astounding. It was approved for the Japanese market, and was on the verge of being approved by the FDA when one study came back just shy of being statistically successful. The last I heard (about a year or two ago) was that due to that study, the drug would not be approved. Years of work, dozens of studies around the globe, quite simply untold millions - poof!
If you ever wonder why drugs are so damn expensive, don't blame it on greed or marketing. It comes down to the fact that developing new drugs is an extremely risk prone business. Drug companies are working on dozens if not hundreds of new drugs all the time, yet you'll notice that one or two usually provide the bulk of the revenue for a company. That's because so many of them don't pan out - sometimes after costing an enormous amount of capital. Like it or not, they have to squeeze every last cent out of the winners to fund continued research and development.
I don't recall saying that. However, blaming the executive branch for legislative responsibility is also rather ignorant.
Congress created the DMCA, has pushed the Broadcast Flag, and has been debating whether or not we need Network Neutrality (after all, they think it's all a series of tubes).
Are they just going to let OS X server die, or try to target only really small businesses?
Funny, that's all they do now. I don't see them shipping any servers beyond pizza boxes.
that does not preclude kernel level support for virtualization, including API's and hooks for interoperability
Given how fast Parallels implemented it, I'd say those hooks are in place. Parallels wrote a kernel extension (as did Fusion) and they have virtualization. Or does this go back to "OS X in a VM" again?
What about hooks for supporting virtual machines like Parallels, but treating the apps as more "native" with Windows or Linux binaries showing up as icons in OS X?
Why in the hell is this something Apple is providing? I'm completely confused as to where you think the OS ends and the third party virtualization product begins.
Depending upon how access to OS 9 apps is accomplished, it certainly is virtualization
No, it most certainly is NOT. Virtualization is hosting several operating systems on the same hardware and making them all think they have sole access to it. Running OS 9 is emulation, in which they have to translate the PPC instruction set to Intel. Completely different terminology, with important speed and implementation concerns.
It just seems like VM is a very promising new technology that MS and Linux distros are leaping at, and which is finally evolving a few standards
New? You must be new here. As for standards, there are none - there are implementations from different vendors, but nothing like a standard, whether for hypervisors, VM formats, virtualized hardware, etc. VMWare is something of a defacto standard, but there are no standards bodies of any kind.
None of this is hard to figure out. Yes, there are reasons it would be nice, but it's pretty obvious why they're not too keen on it.
Not to nitpick the nitpick, but the Power Mac was originally names as such because of the PowerPC chip. The first models were the 6100, 7100, and 8100, which used the PowerPC 601 in 1994. The PowerBook, however, did predate the PowerPC chip by at least a year or two.
They're late to the Mac alright. Given that Parallels was out three months after the first Intel Macs shipped and VMWare took nearly a year? Given their long history, it should have been out even faster, not slower.
However, that being said, they've made me very happy with what they've put out. It respects Mac interface conventions, puts files where they belong, and even loads and unloads its kernel extensions on the fly.
Yes, he is saying that because no, it does not. Parallels will only use at most one core for virtualizing an OS. Got a quad-core Mac Pro? You're only getting one of those for Windows with Parallels. Fusion will let you use up to two.
Mod parent down for simply being wrong.
The fact that after all this time Thunderbird STILL makes it difficult to use more than one SMTP server is astonishing. The vast majority of e-mail systems will only allow their own accounts to traverse the SMTP server, and most spam filtering will similarly junk e-mail that doesn't match up. Even if the developers were somehow ignorant of this fact, users have been requesting it heatedly since pre-1.0. Now we're at 2.0 and they still can't get something this simple right. Oh sure, Thunderbird technically supports multple SMTP servers, but it makes it about as difficult to setup as it possibly can.
This is disturbing for three reasons:
1) It hinders adoption by making a common feature odious to use
2) It shows a complete lack of attentiveness by the developers to user concerns/requests
3) It diminishes the Mozilla/Firefox brand by not living up to the standards set by those programs
I'd love to use it - especially on Windows as an alternative to Outlook Express - but until it can properly support e-mail accounts and show some responsiveness to its users, I'm not going to bother with it.