I wouldn't put too much faith in "drag to install", because most malware doesn't actually need system privledges.
Sure, but then it's quarantined to the specific user.
Also, reportedly websites have figured out how to make Safari automatically download this trojan and then launch the installer program. Users still need to enter their password, but having the dialog automatically popup makes the social engineering step that much easier.
Source? I think this might have been true with older versions of OSX or Safari but i'm not sure it still works. I use firefox and even still whenever I download something and want to run it it reminds me that it's downloaded from the Internet and might not be safe (even when it's not installed system-wide).
Apple needs to stop marketing itself as immune from viruses. They have never been immune, just not targeted and fortunately better built so that only a true idiot user with correct privileges can take down the whole system.
Which is why my dad, who uses my old powerbook, does not have admin priviliedges. He can still install apps by dragging them to his desktop or elsewhere. He's never had a problem or even called me for support other than advice on where to find a good replacement battery (old one was over 5 years old and barely held a charge). My mom, on the other hand, with her vista box, even without admin privs, is constantly calling me about why it's so slow and so on and so forth. It's a daily tech support thing. Something is always broken. I should start charging.
Unfortunately their marketing that Macs are immune leads to user complacency and foolhardiness. The OS security is useless when the users circumvent or ignore it, which is what has happened with Mac malware, as well as a lot of newer Windows stuff. An idiot Mac user with admin privileges is just as dangerous as one in Vista or 7.
Or in linux for that matter. I agree. You can't fix stupid so I don't think it's fair to say the OS is at fault when it's really the user. So in a sense apple is accurate that Macs don't get viruses. What they do is allow users to install malicious software if they choose to. *snickers*
I knew she would be better off with a mac but your statement of "anybody who uses a Mac knows" makes me cringe. Bottom line: do not underestimate stupidity.
Good point. Apple should probably be more explicit about what it entails when you are asked for your admin password and the risks associated.
>It's a trojan that only installs if you're stupid enough to download a program from a dodgy source
Err, thats pretty much the biggest vector for malware. Pick any popular app for Windows, go to pirate bay, download it, run it, and guess what? You have an infection.
Sure, but on a mac most installs consist of dragging a piece of software (app folder) to a location of your choice. System files common to all users are only affected if and only if you give an app permission via a password. If you download something from TPB and it asks to run an installer, sure, there's a risk, but most apps are just drag n drop to install. In windows pretty much everything has an installer and it's anybody's guess what it does.
The "virus"mentioned in the screen shot isn't much of a virus. It's a trojan that only installs if you're stupid enough to download a program from a dodgy source (after browsing for porn) and install it after entering your admin password (which anybody who uses a mac knows means it's installing itself systemwide).
Photoshop will eat up memory by the gigabyte as will 3d sculpting apps and reyes type renderers. Video editing in HD almost always requires a large amount of ram for ram previews and smooth scrubbing among other things.
Can you define "skank", prove that in the context she used it is a statement of fact and prove it objectively false? If not, it's opinion. That's protected speech. Even if it was a false statement of fact, Cohen likely is a public figure (limited purpose if nothing else). She would then have to prove that Port acted with actual malice. And that's almost impossible to do unless you can prove that she at the very least doubted Cohen was a "skank" and said it anyway. Defamation is rightly a very hart tort to win in the US.
And yeah, I have been defamed before with allegations similar to what you imply. I don't feel differently. My response was to point out the truth and show her to be a liar. Even if I wanted to sue this woman who defamed me, IRL, i'd probably be considered a limited purpose public figure and as a result there is very little chance I could win a defamation tort against the woman.
Now that Wikipedia editors themselves are approving and editing content about people, I wonder if they can be held responsible for information alleged to be defamatory. Before they could claim "anybody can edit this". Now they have to say "we approved and published this text".
Well, I guess they spend their time raving mad about everything and are highly suspicious of everyone including other right wingers and have to feel they have ultimate power over every little detail of their lives and everyone else they would like to control.
They're not truly right wing in that case. Google libertarianism.
How does speech take away the liberty of others? How does calling a person a "skank" somehow violate their constitutional rights? The right to not be offended does not exist.
All that's true, but there are drugs and other methods that can deal with pretty much any withdraw symptoms. Part of the problem there is convincing the often religiously motivated treatment fanatics to actually consider using them. Hazelden was so extreme at one point they even banned use of coffee. For addiction science to progress AA has got to be publicly debunked as a religious cult-like group that stagnates science and the governement has to stop sentencing people to it (it's already technically prohibited but may judges don't seem to care.)
Why the hell are informative/insightful comments being modded flamebait today? Parent's post is informative in response to the GP. You might not agree with his last paragraph but that doesn't make the whole post irrelevant.
A predictable response, but consider that if a person is clinically addicted to certain drugs, then not having those drugs regularly is highly likely to cause death. In that sense, there is some truth to the reasoning that "the drugs made me do it" - the drugs are necessary to avoid death, and if the person were not addicted, then the drugs would not be necessary. Consider the hypothetical scenario where you hold in your hand a button that when pressed will electrocute and kill another innocent human. If you don't press the button within 60 seconds, you will be electrocuted and killed. If you press the button, you will be released. Your action in pressing the button is murder of an innocent person, regardless of the motive. So which do you choose - to commit the crime or murder, or to be murdered? It's an old philosophical question, but one that can easily be extended to this scenario (obviously murder is an extreme example, substitute with the more likely crimes of prostitution or theft as appropriate).
No. There is a third option. A person can choose to get treatment voluntarily if they are under financial stress as a result of their habit. Quitting even heroin properly does not have to be painful. Drugs from ibogaine to commercially available alternatives are available. The psychological desire can be dealt with through psychotherapy to look at the underlying issues creating that desire, support groups (secular or religious) and so on.
It's not a "commit crime or die" thing. If that were true drugs truly would secondary crimes and they should be illegal, but it's not true. People who used heroin in vietnam regularly for the vast majority did not continue the habit after returning stateside. Studies in Vancouver and elsewhere shows that people can quit on their own even after being provided unlimited availability of drugs. People provided medical heroin in Switzerland and elsewhere often choose to quit on their own. You're acting like a person does not have a free choice. That's simply not the case. Here's an article on the matter you might find interesting and there are many similar books written.
The idea that people are powerless is a fallacy that appeals to "addicts" because it lets them believe that all those bad things that they've done in their past were really not their fault and was simply the "disease". It helps people get rid of guilt, sure, but it's just not true. It also encourages them to ack recklessly while under the influence and jettison even trying to quit since they're under the learned perception that it's futile. This is the likely reason why studies in the 70s (Brandsma, et. al) show a 5 fold in relapse and binge behavior (compared to the control group) after court mandated AA (which teaches powerlessness as a relgious doctrine supposedly handed down by god to their prophet Bill Wilson, may he rot in hell). IMO if any progress is to be made in educating society we've got to start teaching people that they *can* control their actions.
wtf? When did the OP say that all users are addicts?
He might not have, but it's implied. Are you saying the courts can make this distinction?
In Portuagal addicts who commit crimes to fund their habits are offered treatment as an alternative to going to prison. Seem like a smart move to me.
Seems like an easy way out for people who commit crimes to avoid actual punishment for their actions ("It's not my fault I have a disease! The devil drugs made me do it!"). I'm all for people who *want* treatment getting it. But they can do that fine from inside jail while thinking about what they've done. I think that all drugs should be legalzed but at the same time drug use should not ever be an excuse for a person's actions.
So you're telling me that making something illegal prevents somebody from doing it and making it legal automatically makes it more attractive? Well. Let me know when you find that one guy who has always wanted to use heroin but has simply been waiting for it to become legal.
With some positive results. Drug dealers still go to jail, but addicts go to treatment centers.
So all users are addicts? All users get locked up *and* treated against their will. Since when is forced medical (if it is medical) treatment any of the States's business?
We the people want our booze and we ultimately don't give a shit what it does to anyone but Number One.
But it only affects number one directly. Alcohol is not itself responsible for people's actions who are under the influence. If it were, you'd have to find murderers innocent because they were drunk at the time and could not control themselves. You'd have to find repeat offenders innocent because alcohol, according to the mindless 12 steppers, makes people "powerless" (without god) to avoid taking another drink. It's just good sense to hold individuals responsible for their actions and to ignore what *might* have contributed to those actions.
Both do, but the difference is that private corporations have no direct authority over you.
Indirect authority is even worse because you never know when it comes at you. At least the government is more or less limited by the constitution and also predictable, a corporation is only limited by what the execs think they can get away with.
Companies are limited by the law just like any other citizen. By stopping Google from taking pictures in public how are you not selectively interfering with their first amendment rights? What about the precedent you set by doing that?
Why? Isn't each photo automatically geo-referenced so that the exact spot can be referenced from a map? Why couldn't those coordinates be used by the camera, in a second run, to snap pictures at the exact same spot? The angle of the camera is fixed. That wouldn't change.
GPS isn't that precise. Even two meters of difference taken 5 meters from a storefront would be a big problem.
Sure, but you're dealing with basically no perspective from high altitudes. Try taking a photo of European architecture from multiple angles and stitching those together. If the photo was taken from very similar angles I can get that, but that would be difficult from a moving van.
But the photos would be taken from different perspectives. That's a nightmare with anything more than trivial geometry such as flat walls. It's not a simple task.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't put too much faith in "drag to install", because most malware doesn't actually need system privledges.
Sure, but then it's quarantined to the specific user.
Also, reportedly websites have figured out how to make Safari automatically download this trojan and then launch the installer program. Users still need to enter their password, but having the dialog automatically popup makes the social engineering step that much easier.
Source? I think this might have been true with older versions of OSX or Safari but i'm not sure it still works. I use firefox and even still whenever I download something and want to run it it reminds me that it's downloaded from the Internet and might not be safe (even when it's not installed system-wide).
Apple needs to stop marketing itself as immune from viruses. They have never been immune, just not targeted and fortunately better built so that only a true idiot user with correct privileges can take down the whole system.
Which is why my dad, who uses my old powerbook, does not have admin priviliedges. He can still install apps by dragging them to his desktop or elsewhere. He's never had a problem or even called me for support other than advice on where to find a good replacement battery (old one was over 5 years old and barely held a charge). My mom, on the other hand, with her vista box, even without admin privs, is constantly calling me about why it's so slow and so on and so forth. It's a daily tech support thing. Something is always broken. I should start charging.
Unfortunately their marketing that Macs are immune leads to user complacency and foolhardiness. The OS security is useless when the users circumvent or ignore it, which is what has happened with Mac malware, as well as a lot of newer Windows stuff. An idiot Mac user with admin privileges is just as dangerous as one in Vista or 7.
Or in linux for that matter. I agree. You can't fix stupid so I don't think it's fair to say the OS is at fault when it's really the user. So in a sense apple is accurate that Macs don't get viruses. What they do is allow users to install malicious software if they choose to. *snickers*
I knew she would be better off with a mac but your statement of "anybody who uses a Mac knows" makes me cringe. Bottom line: do not underestimate stupidity.
Good point. Apple should probably be more explicit about what it entails when you are asked for your admin password and the risks associated.
>It's a trojan that only installs if you're stupid enough to download a program from a dodgy source
Err, thats pretty much the biggest vector for malware. Pick any popular app for Windows, go to pirate bay, download it, run it, and guess what? You have an infection.
Sure, but on a mac most installs consist of dragging a piece of software (app folder) to a location of your choice. System files common to all users are only affected if and only if you give an app permission via a password. If you download something from TPB and it asks to run an installer, sure, there's a risk, but most apps are just drag n drop to install. In windows pretty much everything has an installer and it's anybody's guess what it does.
The "virus"mentioned in the screen shot isn't much of a virus. It's a trojan that only installs if you're stupid enough to download a program from a dodgy source (after browsing for porn) and install it after entering your admin password (which anybody who uses a mac knows means it's installing itself systemwide).
Photoshop will eat up memory by the gigabyte as will 3d sculpting apps and reyes type renderers. Video editing in HD almost always requires a large amount of ram for ram previews and smooth scrubbing among other things.
Can you define "skank", prove that in the context she used it is a statement of fact and prove it objectively false? If not, it's opinion. That's protected speech. Even if it was a false statement of fact, Cohen likely is a public figure (limited purpose if nothing else). She would then have to prove that Port acted with actual malice. And that's almost impossible to do unless you can prove that she at the very least doubted Cohen was a "skank" and said it anyway. Defamation is rightly a very hart tort to win in the US.
And yeah, I have been defamed before with allegations similar to what you imply. I don't feel differently. My response was to point out the truth and show her to be a liar. Even if I wanted to sue this woman who defamed me, IRL, i'd probably be considered a limited purpose public figure and as a result there is very little chance I could win a defamation tort against the woman.
Now that Wikipedia editors themselves are approving and editing content about people, I wonder if they can be held responsible for information alleged to be defamatory. Before they could claim "anybody can edit this". Now they have to say "we approved and published this text".
If only I had mod points left. I agree that what you're saying is exactly what will probably happen.
Well, I guess they spend their time raving mad about everything and are highly suspicious of everyone including other right wingers and have to feel they have ultimate power over every little detail of their lives and everyone else they would like to control.
They're not truly right wing in that case. Google libertarianism.
How does speech take away the liberty of others? How does calling a person a "skank" somehow violate their constitutional rights? The right to not be offended does not exist.
All that's true, but there are drugs and other methods that can deal with pretty much any withdraw symptoms. Part of the problem there is convincing the often religiously motivated treatment fanatics to actually consider using them. Hazelden was so extreme at one point they even banned use of coffee. For addiction science to progress AA has got to be publicly debunked as a religious cult-like group that stagnates science and the governement has to stop sentencing people to it (it's already technically prohibited but may judges don't seem to care.)
Why the hell are informative/insightful comments being modded flamebait today? Parent's post is informative in response to the GP. You might not agree with his last paragraph but that doesn't make the whole post irrelevant.
A predictable response, but consider that if a person is clinically addicted to certain drugs, then not having those drugs regularly is highly likely to cause death. In that sense, there is some truth to the reasoning that "the drugs made me do it" - the drugs are necessary to avoid death, and if the person were not addicted, then the drugs would not be necessary. Consider the hypothetical scenario where you hold in your hand a button that when pressed will electrocute and kill another innocent human. If you don't press the button within 60 seconds, you will be electrocuted and killed. If you press the button, you will be released. Your action in pressing the button is murder of an innocent person, regardless of the motive. So which do you choose - to commit the crime or murder, or to be murdered? It's an old philosophical question, but one that can easily be extended to this scenario (obviously murder is an extreme example, substitute with the more likely crimes of prostitution or theft as appropriate).
No. There is a third option. A person can choose to get treatment voluntarily if they are under financial stress as a result of their habit. Quitting even heroin properly does not have to be painful. Drugs from ibogaine to commercially available alternatives are available. The psychological desire can be dealt with through psychotherapy to look at the underlying issues creating that desire, support groups (secular or religious) and so on.
It's not a "commit crime or die" thing. If that were true drugs truly would secondary crimes and they should be illegal, but it's not true. People who used heroin in vietnam regularly for the vast majority did not continue the habit after returning stateside. Studies in Vancouver and elsewhere shows that people can quit on their own even after being provided unlimited availability of drugs. People provided medical heroin in Switzerland and elsewhere often choose to quit on their own. You're acting like a person does not have a free choice. That's simply not the case. Here's an article on the matter you might find interesting and there are many similar books written.
The idea that people are powerless is a fallacy that appeals to "addicts" because it lets them believe that all those bad things that they've done in their past were really not their fault and was simply the "disease". It helps people get rid of guilt, sure, but it's just not true. It also encourages them to ack recklessly while under the influence and jettison even trying to quit since they're under the learned perception that it's futile. This is the likely reason why studies in the 70s (Brandsma, et. al) show a 5 fold in relapse and binge behavior (compared to the control group) after court mandated AA (which teaches powerlessness as a relgious doctrine supposedly handed down by god to their prophet Bill Wilson, may he rot in hell). IMO if any progress is to be made in educating society we've got to start teaching people that they *can* control their actions.
wtf? When did the OP say that all users are addicts?
He might not have, but it's implied. Are you saying the courts can make this distinction?
In Portuagal addicts who commit crimes to fund their habits are offered treatment as an alternative to going to prison. Seem like a smart move to me.
Seems like an easy way out for people who commit crimes to avoid actual punishment for their actions ("It's not my fault I have a disease! The devil drugs made me do it!"). I'm all for people who *want* treatment getting it. But they can do that fine from inside jail while thinking about what they've done. I think that all drugs should be legalzed but at the same time drug use should not ever be an excuse for a person's actions.
So you're telling me that making something illegal prevents somebody from doing it and making it legal automatically makes it more attractive? Well. Let me know when you find that one guy who has always wanted to use heroin but has simply been waiting for it to become legal.
FARC deals in cocaine. Ironically they don't allow their own people to consume it.
Before you outright state its a bad idea you might want to read about how it was before it was illegal.
With some positive results. Drug dealers still go to jail, but addicts go to treatment centers.
So all users are addicts? All users get locked up *and* treated against their will. Since when is forced medical (if it is medical) treatment any of the States's business?
We the people want our booze and we ultimately don't give a shit what it does to anyone but Number One.
But it only affects number one directly. Alcohol is not itself responsible for people's actions who are under the influence. If it were, you'd have to find murderers innocent because they were drunk at the time and could not control themselves. You'd have to find repeat offenders innocent because alcohol, according to the mindless 12 steppers, makes people "powerless" (without god) to avoid taking another drink. It's just good sense to hold individuals responsible for their actions and to ignore what *might* have contributed to those actions.
They can do the masking on the un-blurred faces in the existing half-blurred photos. Still no need to keep the originals.
Indirect authority is even worse because you never know when it comes at you. At least the government is more or less limited by the constitution and also predictable, a corporation is only limited by what the execs think they can get away with.
Companies are limited by the law just like any other citizen. By stopping Google from taking pictures in public how are you not selectively interfering with their first amendment rights? What about the precedent you set by doing that?
Why? Isn't each photo automatically geo-referenced so that the exact spot can be referenced from a map? Why couldn't those coordinates be used by the camera, in a second run, to snap pictures at the exact same spot? The angle of the camera is fixed. That wouldn't change.
GPS isn't that precise. Even two meters of difference taken 5 meters from a storefront would be a big problem.
Sure, but you're dealing with basically no perspective from high altitudes. Try taking a photo of European architecture from multiple angles and stitching those together. If the photo was taken from very similar angles I can get that, but that would be difficult from a moving van.
But the photos would be taken from different perspectives. That's a nightmare with anything more than trivial geometry such as flat walls. It's not a simple task.