You can modify your hosts file to point back to localhost for ad hosting sites. Mike Skallas maintains one here. There is even an installer for Windows users.
vim termpaper.txt^M
i
What is a mouse, and how many Linux users would watch, or would need to watch, an instructional video on using one?^M
ESC
ZZ
lpr term*.txt^M
When you use beta apps on your computer, do you expect them to be bug free? Why would an internet application differ from, say, a pre-release version of Longhorn?
If you are doing mission-critical email (as if email's even suitable for anything m-c) or are overly converned about privacy, here's an idea: try using established technology, and maybe even GPG. Don't use something that says "beta" for those sensitive transactions....
I'm glad this article was posted, I'm just confused by some of the reponses to it.
Apple iControl
a Bluetooth or 802.11 remote control compatible with AirTunes/iTunes/TiVO Employs a click wheel in addition to programmable standard remote keys....or an 802.11 or BT compatible iPod, which is compatible with all of the above... Can navigate iTunes library and TiVO from iPod screen or TV screen. Also can connect to iTunes Music Store on any open WiFi network.
Imagine being able to control your stereo/tv from any room in the house via a click wheel.
It's ridiculous to put a computer marketed and priced for the entry level in this list and to call it "pathetic." The eMac isn't made for 3D gaming, it's made for running Office and web browsers, etc.
Explorer is a rinkydink file manager managing an obsolete and obtuse file system for a kludgy operating system. Aqua/Finder, warts and all, is light years ahead of Windows and Gnome/KDE, IMO. Especially if you take the time to learn about some of its features that might not be obvious at first.
But who needs a GUI when you can drop into a bash session anyway!
Actually, there's a running tally of the word count in the bottom toolbar of both versions of Word for OS X, but it just has the number down there without explicitly saying "Word Count" next to it, so perhaps some folks might never notice.
"Gee, what's that number that keeps getting bigger as I type this memo?"
There are plenty of things that can be done easier in the command line than the GUI, he just picked a bad example.
What exactly makes you consider Linux to be more "Unix" than OS X? Are you using SCO's definition?
What a strange post. And you appear to be so passionate about your delusion.
An "unimpeachable source" by definition should be current, particularly with regard to computing. I don't know if you've noticed, but things in the computing world tend to change very quickly. Try and see if you can keep your sources at least within a half decade, 'k junior?
Don't get me wrong, as a Mac user I'd love to delude myself into thinking I'm much smarter than everyone else just because I happen to use a certain platform, but Paul Murphy also wrote this gem of an article, in which he demonstrated his own lack of intelligence. Throughout the article, he promulgates the upcoming,gaming specialized Cell chip as the computing platform (not gaming or multimedia platform, mind you) of the future, and then speculating that the POWER-based PPC line made by THE SAME COMPANY responsible in large part for the Cell is a dead end. Like they just lured Apple in with a roadmap and then threw it out. The solution? Team up with Sun, they seem like a stable, well-run company with a much brighter future than IBM... WHAT?!
Some examples:
"Sun has the technology to compete... No one else does."
"So what can Apple do? What the company should have done two years ago: Hop into bed with Sun."
He also conspiracy-theorizes that IBM hasn't reached 3.0 GHz not because of technical issues, but because of ego: that the performance gap would be too embarassing. Despite the fact that every other chip has had the same difficulties in transitioning to 90nm...
OK, back on topic:
So, having this nitwit tell me who is intelligent, and that we can evaluate such by looking at which platform they use, rings a little hollow.
Even if you did think those grammar checkers are accurate, you have to take into account anti-Mac trolls on the Mac websites, and people writing code on Slashdot. Is there a Perl/C/++/#/Java/Python/Ruby parser in any of those algorithms?
Idiocy....
No. Apple's core philosophy is to make great products. Sometimes great products have an element of efficiency or ease of use, but more often they're great for other reasons. A great product can be highly baroque, for instance, because baroque things can be beautiful.
Ridiculous argument. Apple ISN'T baroque, and never has been. Apple has always been simple, usable and efficient. That's been one of the key selling points for years. They haven't made great products that just happen to be usable, the products' greatness is derived in great part from their usability.
For instance, the iPod is the easiest and most efficient mp3 player. It also supports more formats, has great integration, but the main selling point is the UI engineering of both the iPod and iTunes.
That's why nothing in Mac OS X requires the use of either a control-click or a second-mouse-button click. Some highly specialized applications like Shake and Maya do, but they're hardly common.
That simply isn't true. There are plenty of unaliased commands in many situations in OS X that require a secondary click. Examples include customizing toolbars, assigning labels, configuring/enabling folder actions. Or in a commonplace app like Safari, Google searching selected text. Apple engineers its consumer and professional software to use secondary, and even tertiar, clicks.
Some of the UI engineers who worked on the original Macs have admitted it was a mistake not to make the original mice 2 button. The fact that Apple has cultured some of its user base to be happy with the inneficiency of a one button mouse doesn't mean it's an efficient model.
Apple has been consistently profitable since 1998. That's something like 24 consecutive quarters of profitability, which is virtually unprecedented in their industry.
What are they shooting themselves in again?
The foot. Have you looked at market share lately? Are you aware that Apple never pays dividends to shareholders and like most Silicon Valley corporations doesn't include paid stock options in the annual expenses? This is millions of dollars of business they're pissing away. Sure, include the "Pro" (my ass) mouse.... but offer a good one too. G5 sales are sluggish, everything is behind schedule... They're missing our on millions of dollars in sales due to supply chain problems... The iPod wave may have crested, or might soon... That extra cash could really help, because hardware sales are down and they have just announced a retarded schedule of major upgrades to OS X.
Apple doesn't want to sell you one because there's no good business case for it
That's simply not true. Almost EVERY single professional Mac user would buy a nice multibutton mouse from Apple. That's plenty of money considering the low cost of engineering and manufacturing such a product.
Just how many of these suckers do you think Apple will sell? One for every ten Macs? One for every 20?
I imagine the numbers would be around one in every 5 Macs sold, and possibly more if it were included as an upgrade option, because people who would never have bought a third-party mouse would buy a well-designed Apple mouse just because it was an Apple mouse, particularly if it shipped with good features, like a wire/wireless (BT) option.
Don't quit your day-job, okay? It's clear that you've got no head for business.
I guess that's why I've successfully brokered $multimillion deals with Target, Westinghouse, Menard's, Lowe's, and Wal-Mart a few times each.
Hey dipshit, Apple is about usability and efficiency. Having to use two hands to do what can easily be done with one is antithetical to Apple's modus. Not to mention the scroll wheel and all the time it saves. Not to mention the THIRD button. CTRL-click is a ridiculous model to use.
Once you have used a programmable three button, scrolling mouse, particularly with Expose, you can't go back to a one button mouse.
As for the caps, that denoted SHOUTING, because I was yelling at Apple, who keeps shooting themselves in the foot, forcing Mac users to buy products from Apple's #1 competitor Microsoft, by their pigheaded adherence to the one button handicap.
I WANT to buy an Apple mouse because Apple makes excellent products. No one who has to right click often, like a programmer and graphic designer like myself, or people in audio/video/effects (you know, Apple's key professional markets) uses Apple mice. That could easily change, and millions of dollars could be made, with one reasonable decision.
Who's going to buy the Apple bluetooth mouse?
Almost no one. They keyboard, sure... not the useless mouse. I went Logitech instead.
Interestingly, Apple has professional apps that list three button mice as a requirement, yet THEY STILL REFUSE TO JOIN US IN THE 21st CENTURY AND MAKE A MULTI-BUTTON MOUSE.
Steve, must we remind you that you are the usability leader? Many of us would like to buy a quality mouse from you instead of Microsoft or Logitech.
One possible way to determine if it is a trojan is to get info on it and see if it is really an application bundle. If it is just a compiled applescript, a right-click won't give you the option to view package contents because the file isn't an application bundle (directory) but is just an executable.
"Virus" writers could work around this, but it is at lease one way to investigate.
Another dead giveaway is how small the compiled AppleScript application will be: very small, unless, again, the writer is intelligent enough to work around that.
I imagine the virus scanners will start looking for these hosses. Just don't blithely download and click shit's my advice.
Yes, you can turn on the firewall, but it would be better if the services were off in the first place. There are ways of getting around firewalls, there are not ways to exploit vulnerabilities on ports that aren't open. Windows Firewall is stateful and as of SP2 launches early in the boot process and is on by default, but if you REALLY want to be secure, the best thing you can do is limit the number of ports available to the world...
OOTB, you will find OS X much more secure than the default configuration of almost any Windows or Linux boxen. If you further configure your OS X box to be a hair's breadth shy of paranoia, you will find that NO Windows box can even enter the conversation about security by comparison.
This is FUD. Apple doesn't owe it to their customers to explain security holes. Why would they weaken their position so? Just keep quiet about it and fix it. And most of the security flaws of late were in third party packages that Apple didn't write.
The article has a sensationalist headline and it says that the OS X security holes, which never made it beyond proof-of-concept, because they were patched quickly, are more dramatic than SASSER, which has cost millions of dollars and possibly a few lives by knocking out banks and other financial institutions and the British Coast Guard. Holes that were never exploited and that aren't even exposed OOTB are worse than SASSER? Doesn't this fact prove this to be an agenda-driven article?
If not, then consider that @Stake, one of the cited sources, is Microsoft-owned and notirious for self-aggrandizing FUD designed to promote their services.
The reminds me of the FUD about an MP3 "trojan horse" vulnerability, which was blown way out of proportion as well. Such a theoretical virus was billed as an OS X vulnerability when it would in fact work in Classic as well. They tried to make a big deal about the fact that it was no longer safe to just double click on some file you downloaded. When was it ever?
Slashdot Mirror
You can modify your hosts file to point back to localhost for ad hosting sites. Mike Skallas maintains one here. There is even an installer for Windows users.
Mine are:
1: vim
2: jEdit
2: TextWrangler is moving up...
3: SubEthaEdit
4: Smultron
vim termpaper.txt^M i What is a mouse, and how many Linux users would watch, or would need to watch, an instructional video on using one?^M ESC ZZ lpr term*.txt^M
When you use beta apps on your computer, do you expect them to be bug free? Why would an internet application differ from, say, a pre-release version of Longhorn?
If you are doing mission-critical email (as if email's even suitable for anything m-c) or are overly converned about privacy, here's an idea: try using established technology, and maybe even GPG. Don't use something that says "beta" for those sensitive transactions....
I'm glad this article was posted, I'm just confused by some of the reponses to it.
signed,
Captain Ob(li)vious
Apple iControl a Bluetooth or 802.11 remote control compatible with AirTunes/iTunes/TiVO Employs a click wheel in addition to programmable standard remote keys. ...or an 802.11 or BT compatible iPod, which is compatible with all of the above... Can navigate iTunes library and TiVO from iPod screen or TV screen. Also can connect to iTunes Music Store on any open WiFi network.
Imagine being able to control your stereo/tv from any room in the house via a click wheel.
There's a $300 Windows machine that has any degree of quality and a monitor?
It's ridiculous to put a computer marketed and priced for the entry level in this list and to call it "pathetic." The eMac isn't made for 3D gaming, it's made for running Office and web browsers, etc.
Explorer is a rinkydink file manager managing an obsolete and obtuse file system for a kludgy operating system. Aqua/Finder, warts and all, is light years ahead of Windows and Gnome/KDE, IMO. Especially if you take the time to learn about some of its features that might not be obvious at first.
But who needs a GUI when you can drop into a bash session anyway!
Actually, there's a running tally of the word count in the bottom toolbar of both versions of Word for OS X, but it just has the number down there without explicitly saying "Word Count" next to it, so perhaps some folks might never notice.
"Gee, what's that number that keeps getting bigger as I type this memo?"
There are plenty of things that can be done easier in the command line than the GUI, he just picked a bad example.
What exactly makes you consider Linux to be more "Unix" than OS X? Are you using SCO's definition? What a strange post. And you appear to be so passionate about your delusion.
An "unimpeachable source" by definition should be current, particularly with regard to computing. I don't know if you've noticed, but things in the computing world tend to change very quickly. Try and see if you can keep your sources at least within a half decade, 'k junior?
Macs are still a superior platform, imo. Just pointing the fact out that Shake doesn't mean Apple hardware.
Some examples:
OK, back on topic: So, having this nitwit tell me who is intelligent, and that we can evaluate such by looking at which platform they use, rings a little hollow. Even if you did think those grammar checkers are accurate, you have to take into account anti-Mac trolls on the Mac websites, and people writing code on Slashdot. Is there a Perl/C/++/#/Java/Python/Ruby parser in any of those algorithms? Idiocy....
Ridiculous argument. Apple ISN'T baroque, and never has been. Apple has always been simple, usable and efficient. That's been one of the key selling points for years. They haven't made great products that just happen to be usable, the products' greatness is derived in great part from their usability.
For instance, the iPod is the easiest and most efficient mp3 player. It also supports more formats, has great integration, but the main selling point is the UI engineering of both the iPod and iTunes.
That's why nothing in Mac OS X requires the use of either a control-click or a second-mouse-button click. Some highly specialized applications like Shake and Maya do, but they're hardly common.
That simply isn't true. There are plenty of unaliased commands in many situations in OS X that require a secondary click. Examples include customizing toolbars, assigning labels, configuring/enabling folder actions. Or in a commonplace app like Safari, Google searching selected text. Apple engineers its consumer and professional software to use secondary, and even tertiar, clicks.
Some of the UI engineers who worked on the original Macs have admitted it was a mistake not to make the original mice 2 button. The fact that Apple has cultured some of its user base to be happy with the inneficiency of a one button mouse doesn't mean it's an efficient model.
Apple has been consistently profitable since 1998. That's something like 24 consecutive quarters of profitability, which is virtually unprecedented in their industry. What are they shooting themselves in again?
The foot. Have you looked at market share lately? Are you aware that Apple never pays dividends to shareholders and like most Silicon Valley corporations doesn't include paid stock options in the annual expenses? This is millions of dollars of business they're pissing away. Sure, include the "Pro" (my ass) mouse.... but offer a good one too. G5 sales are sluggish, everything is behind schedule... They're missing our on millions of dollars in sales due to supply chain problems... The iPod wave may have crested, or might soon... That extra cash could really help, because hardware sales are down and they have just announced a retarded schedule of major upgrades to OS X.
Apple doesn't want to sell you one because there's no good business case for it
That's simply not true. Almost EVERY single professional Mac user would buy a nice multibutton mouse from Apple. That's plenty of money considering the low cost of engineering and manufacturing such a product.
Just how many of these suckers do you think Apple will sell? One for every ten Macs? One for every 20?
I imagine the numbers would be around one in every 5 Macs sold, and possibly more if it were included as an upgrade option, because people who would never have bought a third-party mouse would buy a well-designed Apple mouse just because it was an Apple mouse, particularly if it shipped with good features, like a wire/wireless (BT) option.
Don't quit your day-job, okay? It's clear that you've got no head for business.
I guess that's why I've successfully brokered $multimillion deals with Target, Westinghouse, Menard's, Lowe's, and Wal-Mart a few times each.
Enjoy your trailer, putz.
Hey dipshit, Apple is about usability and efficiency. Having to use two hands to do what can easily be done with one is antithetical to Apple's modus. Not to mention the scroll wheel and all the time it saves. Not to mention the THIRD button. CTRL-click is a ridiculous model to use. Once you have used a programmable three button, scrolling mouse, particularly with Expose, you can't go back to a one button mouse. As for the caps, that denoted SHOUTING, because I was yelling at Apple, who keeps shooting themselves in the foot, forcing Mac users to buy products from Apple's #1 competitor Microsoft, by their pigheaded adherence to the one button handicap. I WANT to buy an Apple mouse because Apple makes excellent products. No one who has to right click often, like a programmer and graphic designer like myself, or people in audio/video/effects (you know, Apple's key professional markets) uses Apple mice. That could easily change, and millions of dollars could be made, with one reasonable decision. Who's going to buy the Apple bluetooth mouse? Almost no one. They keyboard, sure... not the useless mouse. I went Logitech instead.
Once Carbon was ported over to x86, porting Office would not take much work at all...
Steve, must we remind you that you are the usability leader? Many of us would like to buy a quality mouse from you instead of Microsoft or Logitech.
...to get it to run like a duallie G5
One possible way to determine if it is a trojan is to get info on it and see if it is really an application bundle. If it is just a compiled applescript, a right-click won't give you the option to view package contents because the file isn't an application bundle (directory) but is just an executable. "Virus" writers could work around this, but it is at lease one way to investigate. Another dead giveaway is how small the compiled AppleScript application will be: very small, unless, again, the writer is intelligent enough to work around that. I imagine the virus scanners will start looking for these hosses. Just don't blithely download and click shit's my advice.
Yes, you can turn on the firewall, but it would be better if the services were off in the first place. There are ways of getting around firewalls, there are not ways to exploit vulnerabilities on ports that aren't open. Windows Firewall is stateful and as of SP2 launches early in the boot process and is on by default, but if you REALLY want to be secure, the best thing you can do is limit the number of ports available to the world...
This is FUD. Apple doesn't owe it to their customers to explain security holes. Why would they weaken their position so? Just keep quiet about it and fix it. And most of the security flaws of late were in third party packages that Apple didn't write.
The article has a sensationalist headline and it says that the OS X security holes, which never made it beyond proof-of-concept, because they were patched quickly, are more dramatic than SASSER, which has cost millions of dollars and possibly a few lives by knocking out banks and other financial institutions and the British Coast Guard. Holes that were never exploited and that aren't even exposed OOTB are worse than SASSER? Doesn't this fact prove this to be an agenda-driven article?
If not, then consider that @Stake, one of the cited sources, is Microsoft-owned and notirious for self-aggrandizing FUD designed to promote their services.
The reminds me of the FUD about an MP3 "trojan horse" vulnerability, which was blown way out of proportion as well. Such a theoretical virus was billed as an OS X vulnerability when it would in fact work in Classic as well. They tried to make a big deal about the fact that it was no longer safe to just double click on some file you downloaded. When was it ever?