You denounce people for judging based on a "few" people, then make judgements based on "the Christians you know". DO YOU KNOW THEM ALL? Then you're a fucking hypocrite, because YOU judged based on the few Christians YOU know.
I did no such thing. I used a few people I know as an example, showing that you can not judge an entire people based upon just the few I know. Your understanding of English seems a little weak.
Muslims are against homosexuality too. So your statement that "there is nothing wrong with it aside from Christian oppression?" is a lie.
You definitely have a limited grasp of English. Are you a non-native speaker, perhaps? I said there is nothing wrong with homosexuality in and of itself, but it is banned from some forums because of the controversy caused by christians who oppose it on religious grounds. This is an example of a topic made sensitive by christian religious restrictions and the source of violence because of the same.
How does the fact that muslims share this same religious restriction and treat it similarly have any bearing on the topic? I hope you simply misunderstood my statement because the alternative is pretty shameful. You actually think because two religious both oppose something then it must be fundamentally wrong and anyone who says otherwise is lying (not just disagreeing but lying)? If that is your opinion then your reasoning skills are nonexistent.
The worst part is, it's obvious, yet you're too biased and self-righteous to see (or admit) it.
I see and what bias would that be? I'm neither christian nor muslim but I've read both the koran and the bible and studied the history and practice of both religions. So am I self-righteous? I don't see how you can draw that conclusion. I spoke to the evidence and presented logic and reason, not opinion. I made no ethical or moral judgments, merely pointed out flaws in yours (both factual and logical).
As I see this either you're failing to understand the English language, for which there is reasonable evidence, or you are intentionally misunderstanding in order to try to bully some sort of religious bigotry because you feel the need to express your hatred. Either way you need education both in fundamental reasoning and in understanding the islamic religion. Please read up on both of them. The former will change your life for the better. The latter will be more and more important as the US becomes entangled in the muslim culture.
I think banning homosexuals has a lot to do with people in general and not any one religion. The world in general is yet to come to terms with homosexuality, and it's not because of Christianity (or any one religion).
Homosexuality has been embraced by and rejected by various cultures at different times over the years. Religions too, have had different stances on the subject. The Roman catholic and Greek orthodox churches both have historical marriage ceremonies specifically for gay couples.
Even so, I've never heard anyone argue against gay rights, gay marriage, or the right to have consensual same sex relations without voicing religious objections. In the US, with christianity dominating, they are the most vocal and influential opposition to the concept. The point I was making was that controversial things are treated specially, like removing "gay" and "allah" from forums. This applies to both muslim and christian hot topics.
I did not mean to characterize christians as a whole or in general. Rather I thought that it would be useful to the previous poster to show why you should not judge all members of a given religion based upon the radical, violent misdeeds of some adherents. As I suspected (and has been confirmed by their later posts) they are radically christian and very hateful towards muslims. I hoped that a comparison with their own religion would have some hope of reflecting to him (or her) that same prejudice so that they could recognize it for what it was and reject it.
But you think it's "good for them" that that reason they choose not to publish the cenerpiece of controversy in that insane situation is clearly fear of attack by a small extremist minority?
I disagree with your characterization. If they are acting out of fear it is despicable. If, however, they are acting out of respect as they claim then I applaud them. More organizations should show respect to various religions. Since I have no proof, I will accept their stated purpose, unless given reason to believe otherwise. I would not presuppose that someone is lying with no proof or knowledge of the situation.
Really. Just who did I elect?
Theoretically, you elected the majority of our current government (directly or indirectly).
First of all, America is not a Christian country. That sort of thing is banned by the Constitution. Mosques are protected here. As a matter of fact, more churches have been burned down in Alabama this week than Mosques have been in the entire US.
Yeah 12% of the country is a member of a non-christian religion. In any case I don't see your point. Most countries that are primarily muslim are also composed of some non-muslims and most have laws that ensure equal rights based upon religion. The US is as much a "christian nation" as most middle eastern countries are "muslim nations." Certainly from the point of view of a muslim whose country has been invaded, the fact that the majority of the invaders are christians, not unlike the the historical crusades where christians invaded and tried to conquer/convert them, is a significant fact. Think of it from someone in the middle east's point of view.
Christianity teaches to turn the other cheek, not burn down an embassy.
So does islam for that matter. But you still see plenty of christians killing others because they are gay or for numerous other reasons. Hell, one of the primary tenets of christianity is "thou shall not kill." How many people did the primarily christian US army kill when they invaded Iraq? Christians and muslims both do things their religions don't approve of, what a surprise.
According to the bible it is ok to get your father drunk and screw him if you want a kid. So what? Christianity has alternately approved of and spoke against slavery many times. Currently slavery is illegal in most all of the middle east as it is in the US.
How long do you think such a picture of Mohammed would last anywhere, especially in the Arab world? How long do you think the artist would live, or the museum director, or the mayor of that town?
It all depends upon the town and the people. In many cases it would be regarded as distasteful and perhaps the subject of boycotts. Same as the US, when someone puts up a blasphemous piece of art. It is fine in the big city, but in the country you're likely to get shot by some redneck who watches the 700 club.
And yes, there have been a few murders committed by those who call themselves Christian, but those are prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and Christains agree with this prosecution. Besides, how many gays and abortion doctors have been murdered this week? Can you point to one story? I can tell you about at least 18 Christians who were murdered in Nigeria this weekend. A Jewish man in France was tortured for three weeks and killed in France by several muslims. How many gays died again?
...not having access to all the news everywhere I wouldn't know. How many people have the US killed since invading Iraq? 100,000? 200,000? It doesn't matter. The point is both christians and muslims regularly commit violent acts sometimes for religious reasons. There are plenty of other factors, like education, relative wealth, and how many of their relatives have been killed by foreign bombs that come into play. Muslims are no more inherently violent than christians.
How many riots have there been because muslims are burning red banners with crosses on them (the Danish flag). How would muslims respond if we were burning flags with a koran on it?
You know the red cross on a white background was also the symbol of the crusades right? That is why the red cross is called the red crescent there. In any case if we were burning flags with pictures of a book on it I imagine they would be confused.
Need I go on? Now, stop being ignorant. Stop comparing the true religion of peace with that of murderous thugs.
"The true religion of peace" as you call it is responsible for more death than almost any other in history. Between crusades, biological w
Challenge you to point out one hypocrisy or lie in my post. I double dog dare you.
Just so I'm clear, you're making the case that ALL of the people involved in the cartoon protests constitute a "few people". Maybe I made a mistake.
You think protests are unethical? No, a lot of people were involved in protests, but a small minority were involved in or condoned violence. Some went to extremes to try to stop violence and the violence was denounced by nearly every public and religious muslim figure you can think of.
So stop saying we're judging based on a few people. That's wrong.
You're right, judging many based upon the actions of a few is wrong. If you stop doing it, I'll stop calling you out for doing it.
REALLY? REALLY? So, muslims are ok with gays then? Oh wait, that's wrong too...
Did I ever say that they were? I was just demonstrating that christians regularly act violently against people with non-christain and non-violent beliefs. Apparently you missed the point entirely. Some people of all religions will act and react violently. Larger numbers will do so when threatened and under extreme circumstances. Many muslims today feel that they are the subjects of a christian crusade and they have a lot of valid reasons to think so. Hell the very fact that the word "crusade" is still considered a good thing is tragic. You don't hear many people saying, "lets have a holocaust against hunger."
So, your facts are wrong, you're arguments are hypocritical, and you lie.
You have not shown a single incorrect fact, or hypocritical statement. I'm personally not fond of the muslim religion. I fundamentally disagree with certain basic philosophies. It does, however, have a lot of good things to offer as well. At the same time, I also recognize that christianity is in the same boat. They are actually very similar religions. What I'm trying to show you is that you can't judge a people or a religion based upon 30 second news bites designed to be sensational and you can't judge others unless you can understand their position. Never judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes. You also can't judge an entire people or religion based upon the radical actions of a few. As I said, American, christians would behave just as badly if the positions were reversed.
Please try to overcome your ignorance, prejudice, and hate.
Is there any doubt that we have lost the war on terror?
Is there any doubt that waging war against a fundamental emotion is a fallacy dreamed up as a way to justify arbitrary actions?
should we even bother fighting it anymore?
We never did.
We repeatedly show these extremist nutcases that they can get whatever it is they want by terrorizing us.
Not really, we just show them we're willing to play ball. They can kill a bunch of people to consolidate power and the US will denounce it and take some action (like revoke fundamental rights in the US, or invade an unrelated but oil rich country) using it as justification. Both sides win. The more fear and hate and sensationalism they can generate, the more support they can get from the angry and frightened.
Every article about these ridiculous cartoons on CNN.com ends with a disclaimer: CNN has chosen not to reprint the cartoons out of repect for Islam
Good for them. The freedom of speech includes the freedom not to speak. They can publish or not publish as they see fit.
CNN has chosen not to reprint the cartoons out of fear of getting firebombed
I don't think there is much danger of that, at least no more so than they already face. Besides, they are still banned from Iran after reporting statements mistranslated to mean the exact opposite for what was said.
proof that we have lost:
Who is "we" and what do you think "our" goals were?
Osama may be on the run in remote areas of Pakistan & Afghanistan, but it takes me 40 mins to get through security at the airport, and I have to have my personal belongings searched to ride the subway.
You have only yourself to blame. You elected, the government that is implementing these useless measures as a propaganda stunt. The press is the one generating most of the fear. People killed by terrorists in the US are so rare that anyone who is terrorized is an idiot or is misinformed. Misinformation is spewed by the government and media and gobbled up by the credulous. Terrorists are just the excuse de jour. We're still at war with drugs (penicillin shot five people yesterday and blew up a bridge) and after this we'll start a war with some other nebulous concept. None of this is new or surprising. We lost the war over a hundred years ago.
I consider it a completely irony that Islam is supposed to be a religon of peace and tolerance. Someone decides to write a dumb cartoon and the Muslim world gets upset.
I consider it sad that even on a self proclaimed site for "nerds" some people insist on describing the actions of a few people as "the muslim world."
Muslims are always getting upset about something. Threatening death, riots, bombings, etc...
And then they insist on making prejudicial remarks, about what "muslims" are always doing. You might as well say, "christians are always bombing foreign cities. We should ban the religion."
Christianity, people may get upset but the world doesn't do a damn thing. What's wrong with this picture?
Your ignorance. When was the last time Christians murdered someone for being homosexual? I seem to recall a mass murder a few weeks ago. How many forums ban the word "gay" even though there is nothing wrong with it aside from Christian oppression?
Muslims want the world to change for them but refuses to adapt in any way shape or form.
Yeah, that is why they keep invading countries half a world away... oh wait, that was a predominantly christian country wasn't it?
The problems with your "ideas" are multiple and fundamental. First, you are judging a religion based upon the actions of a few members of that religion. Second, all your information about those actions is what you have seen promoted by mass media, who has a vested interest in sensationalism over truth. Third, you are failing to account for the fear and anger of a people who is being invaded and conquered by a nation composed primarily of another religion and who has repeatedly openly scorned their religion, as you are doing now.
The christians I know would act no better, and probably worse given a similar situation. After a united middle east had just finished conquering the US, the mexicans and the refugees from the US who escaped the bombs would be less then kindly disposed towards and muslims. When they start making excuses to invade mexico, who has little hope of defending itself, and after seeing on TV the sexual abuse of captive Americans, if some other muslim nation were to print sacrilegious pictures of Jesus being raped by a dog, while also including in these cartoons some of the lies used to justify the invasion of the US, well there would be plenty of riots and lynching of muslims in Mexico. And I have no doubt there would be christian priests trying to stop the violence, just as there were muslim priests throwing themselves between the mob and the danish embassy. And I have no doubt ignorant muslims would make comments similar to those you are making about how the uncivilized christians need to grow thicker skins.
Documents are always getting reclassified, both up and down.
...and there is a procedure for reclassifying documents, which is not being followed.
The thing is that something that wasn't secret before may become sensitive in the future due to changing conditions.
Yes a plan to drop propaganda on Russia in the 50s and a CIA evaluation about China during the Korean war that turned out to be dramatically wrong couldn't possibly be left in the hands of the people. They are far too dangerous. People might think, oh I don't know, that the government has regularly engaged in propaganda and our military intelligence is often wrong.
This is the whole reason for review procedures.
Yes, the procedures this article complains have not been followed.
Only people who are constantly willing to believe the worst in the government are going to see a grand conspiracy here.
First, I'm sure this is business as usual. Millions spent on a useless program to hide historical data from the people because someone wanted more head count. It is a travesty, but not a conspiracy, per se. Second, it is the duty of every citizen to be ready to believe the worst of the government. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. It is the duty of each and every one of us to look for and denounce government abuses of power like those clearly demonstrated here.
I believe that hunters purposely avoid making that distinction because they enjoy hunting for sport, but they want to distinguish themselves from the non-politically-correct hunters of yesteryear who hunted for the sake of hunting and then wasted the kill. They rationalize "Well, I'm going to eat the animal, so it's ok for me to hunt it even though it would be easier for me to go to the supermarket and buy food."
As a hunter who knows a lot of other hunters, I think you are way off-base. Just because it is easier to go to the supermarket does not mean it is better. Most of the people who become hunters do so because they are following a tradition. They are taught hunting at a young age and understand the consequences. They spend time in the wild and have seen the effects of humans on the wilds. In north america we've basically eliminated the presence of most large predators. There are a few left and plenty of smaller predators, but not enough to control populations. I can't tell you how many animals I've killed with half their face rotted away, or that were missing most of their fur. This is primarily the result of overpopulation and stopping hunting makes the situation much worse.
Given the choice between killing wild animal herds and helping to control their population and going to a supermarket and buying a steak I'll almost always take the former. It is more cost effective. It helps prevent the suffering of animals in the wild. It does not encourage the practices of factory farming which promotes cruelty to animals in captivity. The meat itself is usually leaner and not full of steroids.
In any case, while some people do "need to eat" meat, most of us "want to eat" meat. And we're OK with that. Not everyone views all killing as unethical. For those who do, I often wonder how they rationalize animals in the wild. Are tigers "evil" for hunting and killing other animals? If not, are tigers somehow inferior to humans in a way that makes what is fine for them, unethical for us? Contrary to your assertion I believe most hunters do not shy away from making the distinction between wanting to kill and needing to kill. They kill when they need to and when they want to and it seems justified. Most hunters are conservationists and would not "want" to kill an endangered species, at least not more then they want to ensure the survival of the species.
One final point I'd like to make is, there are a lot of people for whom hunting is a very practical and affordable way to feed their families. A lot of very poor people live in remote areas and I've seen plenty of buried refrigerators used to hide meat from conservation officers. I won't begrudge anyone enough hunting to feed themselves and their families.
Ummm... what is your native language? [Do you not know the ways of the Neologicians?] That still does not make a complete sentence. I might have the gist of your question, but I'm not sure. [Everybody back! Someone wrote their thesis on semantics!]
Please I ignored plenty of misspellings and grammar errors. I don't point out that sort of mistake in a forum, we all make errors, but that scrambled mass of words was not a sentence and did not even express a coherent thought. You can make grammar mistakes all you want, but I only point them out if I can't understand what you're trying to express.
I don't think MS is particularly interested in getting Linux running on Apple boxes and have no idea why they would be. [Topic Title: "Windows on iMac?"]
Yes, there are other people than those at Microsoft that are trying to install Windows somewhere. Next you'll be telling me the only people who could possibly be trying to get Linux running on an X-Box would be someone who works at Suse.
The DMCA makes distributing tools that allow for breaking encryption on copyrighted materials illegal. Since their was no encryption, or copyrighted work, or distribution of tools, methinks it does not apply. Didn't you bother reading it?
I still don't know what you're trying to say, or if you have some sort of meaningful contribution to this discussion. I recommend, therefore, that you read the book "Gravity's Rainbow" and replace every reference to sex with a mental picture of Groucho Marx hitting a squash with a frying pan full of Barbie doll heads. Only in this way will you understand the secret behind the illuminati.
If the program needs to be installed, what they will download will be an installer, so when they explicitly request it by opening it in Finder it will be installed. Similarly, other files that need to be installed already have handlers that Finder can use after the user requests it to install.
And you think this is a good idea from a security perspective? You're no where near paranoid enough. Most security people I know avoid installers whenever possible, since it is already the method of choice for installing spyware, rootkits, and messy programs that scatter files everywhere. The only reason to use one is for a program that needs to install new kernel modules, drivers, or subsystem elements. Regular user space applications, or applets that use them make me very, very suspicious. I'd much rather the OS is hard wired to put dashboard widgets only in their proper place than that users are conditioned to run arbitrary "installer" applications that put files wherever and do who knows what else. Think about it, what is worse a user is tricked into having a possibly malicious widget installed in the right place so that if they ever run that widget and it has permission it can do damage, or a user is tricked into running a malicious installer that runs right then (and users are already conditioned to think installers often need your password for some reason). No thanks.
I agree. Good security lets the user do what they want. Good security doesn't let a potential attacker do what they want, subject to a snap decision by the user.
You don't get it. A "snap decision by the user" is another way of saying "a quick and easy action based upon the user's choice." All you are adding is making it harder to do things because you think it will make users think more. All you are doing is proposing a harder to use UI, with additional steps to confuse the user and add social engineering attack space.
instead of clicking "Open" in the dialog box, they will select "Open" in the download manager.
No, since the download manager is specific to the downloading application.
I just don't agree with your recommendations. They are all based upon the premise that dialogue boxes are bad. As a security guy and a UI guy my opinion is they are not. Just because one implementation is bad does not mean the concept is bad. They work and work well. As it stands, the system is more secure, in my opinion, than any of your suggested improvements.
I didn't say they should have to. I said they should explicitly request an install. Please try reading for content.
You try reading for content. How can they explicitly request a program be installed if they don't know it needs to be installed. This is OS X. Installing is a rarity, most programs are dropped in the Applications folder. Dashboards won't work there and need to be put in a specific place. That means they need to be moved by the system or they need to have instructions the user follows. You propose adding extra, unnecessary steps to the process because you believe dialogue boxes are inherently insecure. You're wrong. Extra steps leave extra room for social engineering. Dialogue boxes work when properly implemented, as I believe they are in this case.
I didn't say I thought the people who clicked the equivalent button at work were the brightest bulbs in the box, but that didn't mean I didn't have to go in and clean up after them.
Here's an idea, just cut the power cords of the machines. They won't do anything then and you won't have to clean up after anything. Good security lets the user do what they want and informs them what is going on. What you propose is making it hard for users to do what they want in the hopes that they will give up.
The point isn't what the dialog says, the point is that the dialog presents and accept/deny choice, that accept is the normal response, and the system as a whole presents accept/deny choices on a regular enough basis for it to become a reflex.
I think you are still trained by Windowsisms. The dialogues don't represent a dichotomy and may have more than two options when presented. You can't just click "whatever is accept" because you don't know which one it is on a given dialogue. You actually have to read the dialogue and pick which one you want to do.
No, and I didn't say they should. I said that it shouldn't do it automatically without an explicit request.
Look users don't know they have to "install" a dashboard in a specific location. They just want to download and install one from the Web. Your choices are then either give them an automated way to put it where it needs to be, or rely upon instructions that they are given with the file to tell them what to do with it. I think the former is a better option. It is more user friendly and it makes social engineering attacks more unusual and obvious.
Clicking "yes", "install", "ok", or "infect me" on a dialog box is not a request, it's approving an action that the untrusted content has requested.
True, but that does not make them a bad idea. If you have to click "infect me" to get a virus, then you are a lost cause or you probably really want a virus.
I'm done wasting my time arguing with you. You obviously can't wrap your head around my arguments and you would rather find and post quotes that support my position than bother researching either copyright or basic human rights to gain an understanding of the subject. Suffice it to say that your position is an ignorant one that flies in the face of both the foundations of copyright and every human rights accord I have ever seen. It is also exactly the position the RIAA, MPAA, and several other organizations have been trying to convince people of with their 30 second sound bites. You seem happy to redefine common words and equate different things in your haste to oversimplify reality to make it comprehensible to your own limited understanding. You agree, "oh that is wrong" when I tell you the results of copyright but then blithely assert that copyright should be lengthened and more of the public's half of the bargain should be removed. You assert that the constitution itself should be changed to remove free speech in favor of a continual profit for people who have done nothing. You completely fail to understand 90% of my arguments as evidenced by your inane remarks. For example, when I write that someone could also make money in several new ways you argue that those making money only from those methods is insufficient, something I never claimed it was. Either you're pretending to be stupid or you just plain are stupid, but either way it doesn't really matter.
Your assertions are indefensible and the results of your beliefs being put into practice would only worsen the wretched mess that is copyright law. I'd tell you to do yourself a favor and read up on copyright, but I don't expect that you could understand it based upon your presuppositions and consistent failure to understand even the very simple construction of sentences I have previously posted here. You truly are what I try to tell foreign friends Americans are not, ignorant and concerned only with profitability. Hopefully, Benjamin Franklin will kidney punch you in hell a few times for me.
Referring to the Safari "Open Safe Files After Downloading"
Then you incorrectly phrased your sentence. It should read "Safari should NEVER have an option for any application that displays untrusted content to open files automatically after downloading."
Two "yes/no" dialog boxes is not significantly better than one "yes/no" dialog box.
Excepting of course that Apple does not use Yes/No dialogue boxes and their HIG calls for all such boxes to contain action verbs as the button titles. I think in this case you get a (Cancel/Continue) and then an (Install/Don't Install). This largely ameliorates the OK/Cancel rote training that is a problem on Windows.
It would be far better for Safari to simply download the file and leave it sitting in the download manager
The download manager is not a location, it is a list of what has been downloaded. Do you really think it is better to get users used to having to take the downloaded file and put it in some random path? Then what happens when they get a trojan that tells them the file needs to be put in some random location, like the startup directory? Don't you think they will no longer find such a thing unusual? I prefer the current methodology.
But the end result DOES matter. If anything can be freely copied with no compensation to the original owner, then no physical thing has material value.
Are you being purposefully obtuse or are you just slow. The end result does not matter for defining the action, stealing. I never claimed end results have no meaning, just that they don't define what it and is not stealing (an action). Sheesh!
Ultimately, this argument is pointless. Things will resolve themselves one way or another. Either digtal data is going to become worthless to the point that only the idle rich can afford to produce it, or DMA is going to to lock things down sufficiently that people who make digital content can be reasonbly sure that some minimum number of the people who are consuming it are paying for it.
This is called a false dichotomy. There are more than two possibilities here. I don't know if you know this, but before copyrights, people still made music, art, literature, etc. They got paid for it too. Copyright is by no means the only way to make money off of content. Ask 95% of musicians where they make their money and they'll tell you it isn't from copyrighted songs, it is from touring, concerts, appearances, and merchandise. Without copyright it would be from the same thing and probably from commissions and donations as well.
Surely you can understand that even a gift that was given to you was _paid_for_by_someone. We are not talking about gifts, and you know it.
No, we're talking about your laughably bad new definition for the word stealing. Which receiving a gift fits into. I don't care how much lipstick you put on your pig, it is still a pig.
Because thousands of people have put their lives into something with the expectation that they can get paid from it and you are reaping the benefits of that for FREE. You don't see an ethical problem here?
Nope. I'm not responsible for other people's expectations, whether that is that gold will be valuable tomorrow or that water won't be. If you want to talk about expectations, how about the people's expectations of copyright. We made a deal. Producers get to have the sole privilege of making copies and after 7 years we get the work in perpetuity, as based upon the two best copies they gave us. I'm not the one changing the goal posts in the middle of the game. Most of the artists who made the works are dead, and they still are being compensated so that they will make more art. It's a steaming load of crap.
Sure "technology" has progressed. But not like you would have us believe. Has some technology come along that obsoletes digital data? No. All that has come along is technology that makes copying existing digital data virtually free. It's not about trying to restrain progress, or stifle competition.
Gee, a product is basically producible for free due to technology, but we're all expected to pay extortionate fees for it due to legal shenanigans. It sounds like the law is holding back progress to me.
Oh come on. If I stole a CD out of a store, would it be subjective as to whether or not I should have it or not? If you got something, and you didn't pay for it, you should not be in possession of it, unless it is a gift or a loan.
We're not talking about taking a CD out of a store. We're talking about me, three weeks ago, scanning in one of the few remaining copies of C. Monte's pulp fiction classic. What I did was illegal. I copied the work without the permission of the copyright holder. Of course nobody knows who C. Monte really was or is and their is no way to get permission to copy it. And I was preserving one of the last copies of a valuable historical and literary work. So should I have that second copy? Should my friends have a copy? If you say the answer is no, well then we certainly have different subjective views huh? The law certainly says I should not have it. That is an extreme example, but their is plenty of middle ground we can each have opinions about.
Should Microsoft attempt to get Vista going on Apple hardware without Job's blessing, well, he could claim they have reverse engineered Apple's proprietary hardware, ROMS, etc.
Umm, reverse engineering is perfectly legal. I have little doubt that Windows will run on these macs once MS gets around to supporting EFI in their consumer OS variants. I think that is scheduled for Vista. It is possible there are other hardware issues that Windows will not support, as Apple has pretty much ignored legacy hardware features and gone straight for the latest/greatest whatever for video etc. Unless Apple used some encrypted hardware (more than the TPM) there is no way to stop other OS's from booting and I don't see any reason why they would want to.
The option I'm talking about, "Open safe files after downloading", does not apply to any of those cases. And you know that.
You initially wrote, "No application that displays untrusted content should EVER have an option to open files automatically after downloading." You did not limit this to one option in Safari as evidenced by the "No application" part. Even if you did mean to limit it to Safari, you certainly did not limit it to just one setting in Safari and exclude all the HTML content Safari normally downloads.
If the user has explicitly requested that the file be run, locally... rather than having that execution happen automatically without anything but simple dialog boxes after the link is clicked... it doesn't matter whether it's an application, a Dashboard widget, a screen saver, the user has explicitly requested execution, rather than simply allowed it to happen.
I can't parse this sentence. What are you trying to say here? If you click a link to download something, then Safari warns you with a dialogue that it is an executable and asks if you still wish to download it. Then it asks you if you want it to be automatically installed in the proper location. I don't see the problem.
Now, going back a few messages, you said Safari doesn't automatically run the file. Do you mean that Safari leaves the file in place and you have to explicitly navigate to and open it in Finder, or that Safari gives you a dialog box before calling Finder, which then gives you another dialog box?
Safari warns you the file may be contain an executable when you download it. If you tell it to continue the download it does so and leaves the file in your default download directory. In some configurations it may automatically open the.tgz for you, but all that does is save the contained script in the same location. You still need to navigate to this file with the finder (Safari provides a shortcut in the download manager) and then double click on the script. In order to double click on it, you need to see it in the finder which by default will show you it has the wrong extension and will fail to show a preview of the image, which it shows for all jpegs. Safari is not the problem here.
Both types of accounts will be asked, the difference is that a non-admin account can't say yes.
Have you actually tried this? All three resources I've looked at, each written by security people doing write-ups have disagreed with you. It only touches the applications and Library directories, both of which are writable by an admin account without a password. Try writing a file if you don't believe me.
From the initial Ambrosia write up: "It requires the admin password if you're not running as an admin user." I think you are misreading the analysis. Non-admin users require an admin password to write to the shared Applications directory, which this virus does. This is separate from admin users needing to type their password when they want to use superuser privileges like adding a kernel module, driver, or the like.
That still does not make a complete sentence. I might have the gist of your question, but I'm not sure. Apple has no grounds under the DMCA to do anything about this and I can't imagine why they would want to. Linux has run on pretty much every mac as long as I can remember. I don't think MS is particularly interested in getting Linux running on Apple boxes and have no idea why they would be.
The cost involved with getting Windows to run on Mac hardware wouldn't be worth it to Microsoft.
You've completely missed the point. Nowhere in the title or the article is Microsoft mentioned. Since you apparently have not been paying attention to Slashdot lately, with Apple's new firmware (an EFI implementation) and new, more standard, processors on new boxes - hackers have been rushing to get alternative OS's running on them. Most users are interested in dual booting Windows so that they can play games (although most of us would rather run Windows in a VM or just use Wine when it is ported) and getting Linux up and running. Since Linux and Windows both have versions that run on EFI and intel chips there was some question as to which would be up and running first. This article answers that question by getting Linux booting.
This has no more to do with MS than it has to do with IBM.
Viruses need to a) spread by themselves and b) infect applications... The application in question is a Trojan and possibly a Worm
The malware in question does infect applications, changing several parameters and attempting to cause itself to be loaded when they are run (although a bug prevents this from working). It also attempts to spread itself automatically via file sharing and the bon jour auto discovery protocol.
Hey, you make ridiculous demands, I'll happily demonstrate why they are ridiculous. There are plenty of instances when it is expected and appropriate for a program to download and then automatically display/execute the content of that download.
Where did I say that they would have to manually move a file to some random location? I said that they shouldn't do it automatically on download without an explicit request from the user. Navigating to the file in Finder or running it from a download manager counts as a request to run what's in that file.
Then why did you explicitly mention Dashboard which already asks the user if they would like it to install the file for them?
Not in Safari, anyway. It seems that AIM is less cautious.
I'm confused. First AIM is a protocol. Are you referring to the official AIM client for OS X or something different? And you're saying it auto extracts the.tgz file and then runs the contained script upon transfer? Or are you referring to iChat? Or are you referring to something else entirely?
Slashdot Mirror
You denounce people for judging based on a "few" people, then make judgements based on "the Christians you know". DO YOU KNOW THEM ALL? Then you're a fucking hypocrite, because YOU judged based on the few Christians YOU know.
I did no such thing. I used a few people I know as an example, showing that you can not judge an entire people based upon just the few I know. Your understanding of English seems a little weak.
Muslims are against homosexuality too. So your statement that "there is nothing wrong with it aside from Christian oppression?" is a lie.
You definitely have a limited grasp of English. Are you a non-native speaker, perhaps? I said there is nothing wrong with homosexuality in and of itself, but it is banned from some forums because of the controversy caused by christians who oppose it on religious grounds. This is an example of a topic made sensitive by christian religious restrictions and the source of violence because of the same.
How does the fact that muslims share this same religious restriction and treat it similarly have any bearing on the topic? I hope you simply misunderstood my statement because the alternative is pretty shameful. You actually think because two religious both oppose something then it must be fundamentally wrong and anyone who says otherwise is lying (not just disagreeing but lying)? If that is your opinion then your reasoning skills are nonexistent.
The worst part is, it's obvious, yet you're too biased and self-righteous to see (or admit) it.
I see and what bias would that be? I'm neither christian nor muslim but I've read both the koran and the bible and studied the history and practice of both religions. So am I self-righteous? I don't see how you can draw that conclusion. I spoke to the evidence and presented logic and reason, not opinion. I made no ethical or moral judgments, merely pointed out flaws in yours (both factual and logical).
As I see this either you're failing to understand the English language, for which there is reasonable evidence, or you are intentionally misunderstanding in order to try to bully some sort of religious bigotry because you feel the need to express your hatred. Either way you need education both in fundamental reasoning and in understanding the islamic religion. Please read up on both of them. The former will change your life for the better. The latter will be more and more important as the US becomes entangled in the muslim culture.
I think banning homosexuals has a lot to do with people in general and not any one religion. The world in general is yet to come to terms with homosexuality, and it's not because of Christianity (or any one religion).
Homosexuality has been embraced by and rejected by various cultures at different times over the years. Religions too, have had different stances on the subject. The Roman catholic and Greek orthodox churches both have historical marriage ceremonies specifically for gay couples.
Even so, I've never heard anyone argue against gay rights, gay marriage, or the right to have consensual same sex relations without voicing religious objections. In the US, with christianity dominating, they are the most vocal and influential opposition to the concept. The point I was making was that controversial things are treated specially, like removing "gay" and "allah" from forums. This applies to both muslim and christian hot topics.
I did not mean to characterize christians as a whole or in general. Rather I thought that it would be useful to the previous poster to show why you should not judge all members of a given religion based upon the radical, violent misdeeds of some adherents. As I suspected (and has been confirmed by their later posts) they are radically christian and very hateful towards muslims. I hoped that a comparison with their own religion would have some hope of reflecting to him (or her) that same prejudice so that they could recognize it for what it was and reject it.
But you think it's "good for them" that that reason they choose not to publish the cenerpiece of controversy in that insane situation is clearly fear of attack by a small extremist minority?
I disagree with your characterization. If they are acting out of fear it is despicable. If, however, they are acting out of respect as they claim then I applaud them. More organizations should show respect to various religions. Since I have no proof, I will accept their stated purpose, unless given reason to believe otherwise. I would not presuppose that someone is lying with no proof or knowledge of the situation.
Really. Just who did I elect?
Theoretically, you elected the majority of our current government (directly or indirectly).
First of all, America is not a Christian country. That sort of thing is banned by the Constitution. Mosques are protected here. As a matter of fact, more churches have been burned down in Alabama this week than Mosques have been in the entire US.
Yeah 12% of the country is a member of a non-christian religion. In any case I don't see your point. Most countries that are primarily muslim are also composed of some non-muslims and most have laws that ensure equal rights based upon religion. The US is as much a "christian nation" as most middle eastern countries are "muslim nations." Certainly from the point of view of a muslim whose country has been invaded, the fact that the majority of the invaders are christians, not unlike the the historical crusades where christians invaded and tried to conquer/convert them, is a significant fact. Think of it from someone in the middle east's point of view.
Christianity teaches to turn the other cheek, not burn down an embassy.
So does islam for that matter. But you still see plenty of christians killing others because they are gay or for numerous other reasons. Hell, one of the primary tenets of christianity is "thou shall not kill." How many people did the primarily christian US army kill when they invaded Iraq? Christians and muslims both do things their religions don't approve of, what a surprise.
According to Islaam, it's OK to enslave those who are not Muslims (see http://www.dhimmitude.org/)
According to the bible it is ok to get your father drunk and screw him if you want a kid. So what? Christianity has alternately approved of and spoke against slavery many times. Currently slavery is illegal in most all of the middle east as it is in the US.
How long do you think such a picture of Mohammed would last anywhere, especially in the Arab world? How long do you think the artist would live, or the museum director, or the mayor of that town?
It all depends upon the town and the people. In many cases it would be regarded as distasteful and perhaps the subject of boycotts. Same as the US, when someone puts up a blasphemous piece of art. It is fine in the big city, but in the country you're likely to get shot by some redneck who watches the 700 club.
And yes, there have been a few murders committed by those who call themselves Christian, but those are prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and Christains agree with this prosecution. Besides, how many gays and abortion doctors have been murdered this week? Can you point to one story? I can tell you about at least 18 Christians who were murdered in Nigeria this weekend. A Jewish man in France was tortured for three weeks and killed in France by several muslims. How many gays died again?
How many riots have there been because muslims are burning red banners with crosses on them (the Danish flag). How would muslims respond if we were burning flags with a koran on it?
You know the red cross on a white background was also the symbol of the crusades right? That is why the red cross is called the red crescent there. In any case if we were burning flags with pictures of a book on it I imagine they would be confused.
Need I go on? Now, stop being ignorant. Stop comparing the true religion of peace with that of murderous thugs.
"The true religion of peace" as you call it is responsible for more death than almost any other in history. Between crusades, biological w
You're a hypocrite... And, quite frankly a liar.
Challenge you to point out one hypocrisy or lie in my post. I double dog dare you.
Just so I'm clear, you're making the case that ALL of the people involved in the cartoon protests constitute a "few people". Maybe I made a mistake.
You think protests are unethical? No, a lot of people were involved in protests, but a small minority were involved in or condoned violence. Some went to extremes to try to stop violence and the violence was denounced by nearly every public and religious muslim figure you can think of.
So stop saying we're judging based on a few people. That's wrong.
You're right, judging many based upon the actions of a few is wrong. If you stop doing it, I'll stop calling you out for doing it.
REALLY? REALLY? So, muslims are ok with gays then? Oh wait, that's wrong too...
Did I ever say that they were? I was just demonstrating that christians regularly act violently against people with non-christain and non-violent beliefs. Apparently you missed the point entirely. Some people of all religions will act and react violently. Larger numbers will do so when threatened and under extreme circumstances. Many muslims today feel that they are the subjects of a christian crusade and they have a lot of valid reasons to think so. Hell the very fact that the word "crusade" is still considered a good thing is tragic. You don't hear many people saying, "lets have a holocaust against hunger."
So, your facts are wrong, you're arguments are hypocritical, and you lie.
You have not shown a single incorrect fact, or hypocritical statement. I'm personally not fond of the muslim religion. I fundamentally disagree with certain basic philosophies. It does, however, have a lot of good things to offer as well. At the same time, I also recognize that christianity is in the same boat. They are actually very similar religions. What I'm trying to show you is that you can't judge a people or a religion based upon 30 second news bites designed to be sensational and you can't judge others unless you can understand their position. Never judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes. You also can't judge an entire people or religion based upon the radical actions of a few. As I said, American, christians would behave just as badly if the positions were reversed.
Please try to overcome your ignorance, prejudice, and hate.
Is there any doubt that we have lost the war on terror?
Is there any doubt that waging war against a fundamental emotion is a fallacy dreamed up as a way to justify arbitrary actions?
should we even bother fighting it anymore?
We never did.
We repeatedly show these extremist nutcases that they can get whatever it is they want by terrorizing us.
Not really, we just show them we're willing to play ball. They can kill a bunch of people to consolidate power and the US will denounce it and take some action (like revoke fundamental rights in the US, or invade an unrelated but oil rich country) using it as justification. Both sides win. The more fear and hate and sensationalism they can generate, the more support they can get from the angry and frightened.
Every article about these ridiculous cartoons on CNN.com ends with a disclaimer: CNN has chosen not to reprint the cartoons out of repect for Islam
Good for them. The freedom of speech includes the freedom not to speak. They can publish or not publish as they see fit.
CNN has chosen not to reprint the cartoons out of fear of getting firebombed
I don't think there is much danger of that, at least no more so than they already face. Besides, they are still banned from Iran after reporting statements mistranslated to mean the exact opposite for what was said.
proof that we have lost:
Who is "we" and what do you think "our" goals were?
Osama may be on the run in remote areas of Pakistan & Afghanistan, but it takes me 40 mins to get through security at the airport, and I have to have my personal belongings searched to ride the subway.
You have only yourself to blame. You elected, the government that is implementing these useless measures as a propaganda stunt. The press is the one generating most of the fear. People killed by terrorists in the US are so rare that anyone who is terrorized is an idiot or is misinformed. Misinformation is spewed by the government and media and gobbled up by the credulous. Terrorists are just the excuse de jour. We're still at war with drugs (penicillin shot five people yesterday and blew up a bridge) and after this we'll start a war with some other nebulous concept. None of this is new or surprising. We lost the war over a hundred years ago.
I consider it a completely irony that Islam is supposed to be a religon of peace and tolerance. Someone decides to write a dumb cartoon and the Muslim world gets upset.
I consider it sad that even on a self proclaimed site for "nerds" some people insist on describing the actions of a few people as "the muslim world."
Muslims are always getting upset about something. Threatening death, riots, bombings, etc...
And then they insist on making prejudicial remarks, about what "muslims" are always doing. You might as well say, "christians are always bombing foreign cities. We should ban the religion."
Christianity, people may get upset but the world doesn't do a damn thing. What's wrong with this picture?
Your ignorance. When was the last time Christians murdered someone for being homosexual? I seem to recall a mass murder a few weeks ago. How many forums ban the word "gay" even though there is nothing wrong with it aside from Christian oppression?
Muslims want the world to change for them but refuses to adapt in any way shape or form.
Yeah, that is why they keep invading countries half a world away... oh wait, that was a predominantly christian country wasn't it?
The problems with your "ideas" are multiple and fundamental. First, you are judging a religion based upon the actions of a few members of that religion. Second, all your information about those actions is what you have seen promoted by mass media, who has a vested interest in sensationalism over truth. Third, you are failing to account for the fear and anger of a people who is being invaded and conquered by a nation composed primarily of another religion and who has repeatedly openly scorned their religion, as you are doing now.
The christians I know would act no better, and probably worse given a similar situation. After a united middle east had just finished conquering the US, the mexicans and the refugees from the US who escaped the bombs would be less then kindly disposed towards and muslims. When they start making excuses to invade mexico, who has little hope of defending itself, and after seeing on TV the sexual abuse of captive Americans, if some other muslim nation were to print sacrilegious pictures of Jesus being raped by a dog, while also including in these cartoons some of the lies used to justify the invasion of the US, well there would be plenty of riots and lynching of muslims in Mexico. And I have no doubt there would be christian priests trying to stop the violence, just as there were muslim priests throwing themselves between the mob and the danish embassy. And I have no doubt ignorant muslims would make comments similar to those you are making about how the uncivilized christians need to grow thicker skins.
Documents are always getting reclassified, both up and down.
...and there is a procedure for reclassifying documents, which is not being followed.
The thing is that something that wasn't secret before may become sensitive in the future due to changing conditions.
Yes a plan to drop propaganda on Russia in the 50s and a CIA evaluation about China during the Korean war that turned out to be dramatically wrong couldn't possibly be left in the hands of the people. They are far too dangerous. People might think, oh I don't know, that the government has regularly engaged in propaganda and our military intelligence is often wrong.
This is the whole reason for review procedures.
Yes, the procedures this article complains have not been followed.
Only people who are constantly willing to believe the worst in the government are going to see a grand conspiracy here.
First, I'm sure this is business as usual. Millions spent on a useless program to hide historical data from the people because someone wanted more head count. It is a travesty, but not a conspiracy, per se. Second, it is the duty of every citizen to be ready to believe the worst of the government. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. It is the duty of each and every one of us to look for and denounce government abuses of power like those clearly demonstrated here.
I believe that hunters purposely avoid making that distinction because they enjoy hunting for sport, but they want to distinguish themselves from the non-politically-correct hunters of yesteryear who hunted for the sake of hunting and then wasted the kill. They rationalize "Well, I'm going to eat the animal, so it's ok for me to hunt it even though it would be easier for me to go to the supermarket and buy food."
As a hunter who knows a lot of other hunters, I think you are way off-base. Just because it is easier to go to the supermarket does not mean it is better. Most of the people who become hunters do so because they are following a tradition. They are taught hunting at a young age and understand the consequences. They spend time in the wild and have seen the effects of humans on the wilds. In north america we've basically eliminated the presence of most large predators. There are a few left and plenty of smaller predators, but not enough to control populations. I can't tell you how many animals I've killed with half their face rotted away, or that were missing most of their fur. This is primarily the result of overpopulation and stopping hunting makes the situation much worse.
Given the choice between killing wild animal herds and helping to control their population and going to a supermarket and buying a steak I'll almost always take the former. It is more cost effective. It helps prevent the suffering of animals in the wild. It does not encourage the practices of factory farming which promotes cruelty to animals in captivity. The meat itself is usually leaner and not full of steroids.
In any case, while some people do "need to eat" meat, most of us "want to eat" meat. And we're OK with that. Not everyone views all killing as unethical. For those who do, I often wonder how they rationalize animals in the wild. Are tigers "evil" for hunting and killing other animals? If not, are tigers somehow inferior to humans in a way that makes what is fine for them, unethical for us? Contrary to your assertion I believe most hunters do not shy away from making the distinction between wanting to kill and needing to kill. They kill when they need to and when they want to and it seems justified. Most hunters are conservationists and would not "want" to kill an endangered species, at least not more then they want to ensure the survival of the species.
One final point I'd like to make is, there are a lot of people for whom hunting is a very practical and affordable way to feed their families. A lot of very poor people live in remote areas and I've seen plenty of buried refrigerators used to hide meat from conservation officers. I won't begrudge anyone enough hunting to feed themselves and their families.
Ummm... what is your native language? [Do you not know the ways of the Neologicians?] That still does not make a complete sentence. I might have the gist of your question, but I'm not sure. [Everybody back! Someone wrote their thesis on semantics!]
Please I ignored plenty of misspellings and grammar errors. I don't point out that sort of mistake in a forum, we all make errors, but that scrambled mass of words was not a sentence and did not even express a coherent thought. You can make grammar mistakes all you want, but I only point them out if I can't understand what you're trying to express.
I don't think MS is particularly interested in getting Linux running on Apple boxes and have no idea why they would be. [Topic Title: "Windows on iMac?"]
Yes, there are other people than those at Microsoft that are trying to install Windows somewhere. Next you'll be telling me the only people who could possibly be trying to get Linux running on an X-Box would be someone who works at Suse.
Umm, reverse engineering is perfectly legal. [Dust thine quoth thy DCMA?]
The DMCA makes distributing tools that allow for breaking encryption on copyrighted materials illegal. Since their was no encryption, or copyrighted work, or distribution of tools, methinks it does not apply. Didn't you bother reading it?
I still don't know what you're trying to say, or if you have some sort of meaningful contribution to this discussion. I recommend, therefore, that you read the book "Gravity's Rainbow" and replace every reference to sex with a mental picture of Groucho Marx hitting a squash with a frying pan full of Barbie doll heads. Only in this way will you understand the secret behind the illuminati.
If the program needs to be installed, what they will download will be an installer, so when they explicitly request it by opening it in Finder it will be installed. Similarly, other files that need to be installed already have handlers that Finder can use after the user requests it to install.
And you think this is a good idea from a security perspective? You're no where near paranoid enough. Most security people I know avoid installers whenever possible, since it is already the method of choice for installing spyware, rootkits, and messy programs that scatter files everywhere. The only reason to use one is for a program that needs to install new kernel modules, drivers, or subsystem elements. Regular user space applications, or applets that use them make me very, very suspicious. I'd much rather the OS is hard wired to put dashboard widgets only in their proper place than that users are conditioned to run arbitrary "installer" applications that put files wherever and do who knows what else. Think about it, what is worse a user is tricked into having a possibly malicious widget installed in the right place so that if they ever run that widget and it has permission it can do damage, or a user is tricked into running a malicious installer that runs right then (and users are already conditioned to think installers often need your password for some reason). No thanks.
I agree. Good security lets the user do what they want. Good security doesn't let a potential attacker do what they want, subject to a snap decision by the user.
You don't get it. A "snap decision by the user" is another way of saying "a quick and easy action based upon the user's choice." All you are adding is making it harder to do things because you think it will make users think more. All you are doing is proposing a harder to use UI, with additional steps to confuse the user and add social engineering attack space.
instead of clicking "Open" in the dialog box, they will select "Open" in the download manager.
No, since the download manager is specific to the downloading application.
I just don't agree with your recommendations. They are all based upon the premise that dialogue boxes are bad. As a security guy and a UI guy my opinion is they are not. Just because one implementation is bad does not mean the concept is bad. They work and work well. As it stands, the system is more secure, in my opinion, than any of your suggested improvements.
I didn't say they should have to. I said they should explicitly request an install. Please try reading for content.
You try reading for content. How can they explicitly request a program be installed if they don't know it needs to be installed. This is OS X. Installing is a rarity, most programs are dropped in the Applications folder. Dashboards won't work there and need to be put in a specific place. That means they need to be moved by the system or they need to have instructions the user follows. You propose adding extra, unnecessary steps to the process because you believe dialogue boxes are inherently insecure. You're wrong. Extra steps leave extra room for social engineering. Dialogue boxes work when properly implemented, as I believe they are in this case.
I didn't say I thought the people who clicked the equivalent button at work were the brightest bulbs in the box, but that didn't mean I didn't have to go in and clean up after them.
Here's an idea, just cut the power cords of the machines. They won't do anything then and you won't have to clean up after anything. Good security lets the user do what they want and informs them what is going on. What you propose is making it hard for users to do what they want in the hopes that they will give up.
The point isn't what the dialog says, the point is that the dialog presents and accept/deny choice, that accept is the normal response, and the system as a whole presents accept/deny choices on a regular enough basis for it to become a reflex.
I think you are still trained by Windowsisms. The dialogues don't represent a dichotomy and may have more than two options when presented. You can't just click "whatever is accept" because you don't know which one it is on a given dialogue. You actually have to read the dialogue and pick which one you want to do.
No, and I didn't say they should. I said that it shouldn't do it automatically without an explicit request.
Look users don't know they have to "install" a dashboard in a specific location. They just want to download and install one from the Web. Your choices are then either give them an automated way to put it where it needs to be, or rely upon instructions that they are given with the file to tell them what to do with it. I think the former is a better option. It is more user friendly and it makes social engineering attacks more unusual and obvious.
Clicking "yes", "install", "ok", or "infect me" on a dialog box is not a request, it's approving an action that the untrusted content has requested.
True, but that does not make them a bad idea. If you have to click "infect me" to get a virus, then you are a lost cause or you probably really want a virus.
Not relinquishing control of direction and development to Redmond seems a solid enough reason.
I think you must live on a different planet.
Hey Steve,
I'm done wasting my time arguing with you. You obviously can't wrap your head around my arguments and you would rather find and post quotes that support my position than bother researching either copyright or basic human rights to gain an understanding of the subject. Suffice it to say that your position is an ignorant one that flies in the face of both the foundations of copyright and every human rights accord I have ever seen. It is also exactly the position the RIAA, MPAA, and several other organizations have been trying to convince people of with their 30 second sound bites. You seem happy to redefine common words and equate different things in your haste to oversimplify reality to make it comprehensible to your own limited understanding. You agree, "oh that is wrong" when I tell you the results of copyright but then blithely assert that copyright should be lengthened and more of the public's half of the bargain should be removed. You assert that the constitution itself should be changed to remove free speech in favor of a continual profit for people who have done nothing. You completely fail to understand 90% of my arguments as evidenced by your inane remarks. For example, when I write that someone could also make money in several new ways you argue that those making money only from those methods is insufficient, something I never claimed it was. Either you're pretending to be stupid or you just plain are stupid, but either way it doesn't really matter.
Your assertions are indefensible and the results of your beliefs being put into practice would only worsen the wretched mess that is copyright law. I'd tell you to do yourself a favor and read up on copyright, but I don't expect that you could understand it based upon your presuppositions and consistent failure to understand even the very simple construction of sentences I have previously posted here. You truly are what I try to tell foreign friends Americans are not, ignorant and concerned only with profitability. Hopefully, Benjamin Franklin will kidney punch you in hell a few times for me.
Referring to the Safari "Open Safe Files After Downloading"
Then you incorrectly phrased your sentence. It should read "Safari should NEVER have an option for any application that displays untrusted content to open files automatically after downloading."
Two "yes/no" dialog boxes is not significantly better than one "yes/no" dialog box.
Excepting of course that Apple does not use Yes/No dialogue boxes and their HIG calls for all such boxes to contain action verbs as the button titles. I think in this case you get a (Cancel/Continue) and then an (Install/Don't Install). This largely ameliorates the OK/Cancel rote training that is a problem on Windows.
It would be far better for Safari to simply download the file and leave it sitting in the download manager
The download manager is not a location, it is a list of what has been downloaded. Do you really think it is better to get users used to having to take the downloaded file and put it in some random path? Then what happens when they get a trojan that tells them the file needs to be put in some random location, like the startup directory? Don't you think they will no longer find such a thing unusual? I prefer the current methodology.
But the end result DOES matter. If anything can be freely copied with no compensation to the original owner, then no physical thing has material value.
Are you being purposefully obtuse or are you just slow. The end result does not matter for defining the action, stealing. I never claimed end results have no meaning, just that they don't define what it and is not stealing (an action). Sheesh!
Ultimately, this argument is pointless. Things will resolve themselves one way or another. Either digtal data is going to become worthless to the point that only the idle rich can afford to produce it, or DMA is going to to lock things down sufficiently that people who make digital content can be reasonbly sure that some minimum number of the people who are consuming it are paying for it.
This is called a false dichotomy. There are more than two possibilities here. I don't know if you know this, but before copyrights, people still made music, art, literature, etc. They got paid for it too. Copyright is by no means the only way to make money off of content. Ask 95% of musicians where they make their money and they'll tell you it isn't from copyrighted songs, it is from touring, concerts, appearances, and merchandise. Without copyright it would be from the same thing and probably from commissions and donations as well.
Surely you can understand that even a gift that was given to you was _paid_for_by_someone. We are not talking about gifts, and you know it.
No, we're talking about your laughably bad new definition for the word stealing. Which receiving a gift fits into. I don't care how much lipstick you put on your pig, it is still a pig.
Because thousands of people have put their lives into something with the expectation that they can get paid from it and you are reaping the benefits of that for FREE. You don't see an ethical problem here?
Nope. I'm not responsible for other people's expectations, whether that is that gold will be valuable tomorrow or that water won't be. If you want to talk about expectations, how about the people's expectations of copyright. We made a deal. Producers get to have the sole privilege of making copies and after 7 years we get the work in perpetuity, as based upon the two best copies they gave us. I'm not the one changing the goal posts in the middle of the game. Most of the artists who made the works are dead, and they still are being compensated so that they will make more art. It's a steaming load of crap.
Sure "technology" has progressed. But not like you would have us believe. Has some technology come along that obsoletes digital data? No. All that has come along is technology that makes copying existing digital data virtually free. It's not about trying to restrain progress, or stifle competition.
Gee, a product is basically producible for free due to technology, but we're all expected to pay extortionate fees for it due to legal shenanigans. It sounds like the law is holding back progress to me.
Oh come on. If I stole a CD out of a store, would it be subjective as to whether or not I should have it or not? If you got something, and you didn't pay for it, you should not be in possession of it, unless it is a gift or a loan.
We're not talking about taking a CD out of a store. We're talking about me, three weeks ago, scanning in one of the few remaining copies of C. Monte's pulp fiction classic. What I did was illegal. I copied the work without the permission of the copyright holder. Of course nobody knows who C. Monte really was or is and their is no way to get permission to copy it. And I was preserving one of the last copies of a valuable historical and literary work. So should I have that second copy? Should my friends have a copy? If you say the answer is no, well then we certainly have different subjective views huh? The law certainly says I should not have it. That is an extreme example, but their is plenty of middle ground we can each have opinions about.
Should Microsoft attempt to get Vista going on Apple hardware without Job's blessing, well, he could claim they have reverse engineered Apple's proprietary hardware, ROMS, etc.
Umm, reverse engineering is perfectly legal. I have little doubt that Windows will run on these macs once MS gets around to supporting EFI in their consumer OS variants. I think that is scheduled for Vista. It is possible there are other hardware issues that Windows will not support, as Apple has pretty much ignored legacy hardware features and gone straight for the latest/greatest whatever for video etc. Unless Apple used some encrypted hardware (more than the TPM) there is no way to stop other OS's from booting and I don't see any reason why they would want to.
The option I'm talking about, "Open safe files after downloading", does not apply to any of those cases. And you know that.
You initially wrote, "No application that displays untrusted content should EVER have an option to open files automatically after downloading." You did not limit this to one option in Safari as evidenced by the "No application" part. Even if you did mean to limit it to Safari, you certainly did not limit it to just one setting in Safari and exclude all the HTML content Safari normally downloads.
If the user has explicitly requested that the file be run, locally... rather than having that execution happen automatically without anything but simple dialog boxes after the link is clicked... it doesn't matter whether it's an application, a Dashboard widget, a screen saver, the user has explicitly requested execution, rather than simply allowed it to happen.
I can't parse this sentence. What are you trying to say here? If you click a link to download something, then Safari warns you with a dialogue that it is an executable and asks if you still wish to download it. Then it asks you if you want it to be automatically installed in the proper location. I don't see the problem.
Now, going back a few messages, you said Safari doesn't automatically run the file. Do you mean that Safari leaves the file in place and you have to explicitly navigate to and open it in Finder, or that Safari gives you a dialog box before calling Finder, which then gives you another dialog box?
Safari warns you the file may be contain an executable when you download it. If you tell it to continue the download it does so and leaves the file in your default download directory. In some configurations it may automatically open the .tgz for you, but all that does is save the contained script in the same location. You still need to navigate to this file with the finder (Safari provides a shortcut in the download manager) and then double click on the script. In order to double click on it, you need to see it in the finder which by default will show you it has the wrong extension and will fail to show a preview of the image, which it shows for all jpegs. Safari is not the problem here.
Both types of accounts will be asked, the difference is that a non-admin account can't say yes.
Have you actually tried this? All three resources I've looked at, each written by security people doing write-ups have disagreed with you. It only touches the applications and Library directories, both of which are writable by an admin account without a password. Try writing a file if you don't believe me.
From the initial Ambrosia write up: "It requires the admin password if you're not running as an admin user." I think you are misreading the analysis. Non-admin users require an admin password to write to the shared Applications directory, which this virus does. This is separate from admin users needing to type their password when they want to use superuser privileges like adding a kernel module, driver, or the like.
That still does not make a complete sentence. I might have the gist of your question, but I'm not sure. Apple has no grounds under the DMCA to do anything about this and I can't imagine why they would want to. Linux has run on pretty much every mac as long as I can remember. I don't think MS is particularly interested in getting Linux running on Apple boxes and have no idea why they would be.
The cost involved with getting Windows to run on Mac hardware wouldn't be worth it to Microsoft.
You've completely missed the point. Nowhere in the title or the article is Microsoft mentioned. Since you apparently have not been paying attention to Slashdot lately, with Apple's new firmware (an EFI implementation) and new, more standard, processors on new boxes - hackers have been rushing to get alternative OS's running on them. Most users are interested in dual booting Windows so that they can play games (although most of us would rather run Windows in a VM or just use Wine when it is ported) and getting Linux up and running. Since Linux and Windows both have versions that run on EFI and intel chips there was some question as to which would be up and running first. This article answers that question by getting Linux booting.
This has no more to do with MS than it has to do with IBM.
Is Microsoft planning this? Does Jobs approve of it, or will he used the DMCA to keep Microsoft of his farm?
Ummm... what is your native language? "of his farm???"
Viruses need to a) spread by themselves and b) infect applications... The application in question is a Trojan and possibly a Worm
The malware in question does infect applications, changing several parameters and attempting to cause itself to be loaded when they are run (although a bug prevents this from working). It also attempts to spread itself automatically via file sharing and the bon jour auto discovery protocol.
Har bloody har.
Hey, you make ridiculous demands, I'll happily demonstrate why they are ridiculous. There are plenty of instances when it is expected and appropriate for a program to download and then automatically display/execute the content of that download.
Where did I say that they would have to manually move a file to some random location? I said that they shouldn't do it automatically on download without an explicit request from the user. Navigating to the file in Finder or running it from a download manager counts as a request to run what's in that file.
Then why did you explicitly mention Dashboard which already asks the user if they would like it to install the file for them?
Not in Safari, anyway. It seems that AIM is less cautious.
I'm confused. First AIM is a protocol. Are you referring to the official AIM client for OS X or something different? And you're saying it auto extracts the .tgz file and then runs the contained script upon transfer? Or are you referring to iChat? Or are you referring to something else entirely?