Once a security edict came down from on high. No freeware of any kind. All e-mail must be checked via Outlook. No browsers other than IE. All machines must be Win2k.
Our company's only product was software we developed that only ran on UNIX/Linux. All development was done on like systems. All Web and e-mail servers were running Linux. Our phones system ran on a Linux server. The end result of this edict would have been to stop all production and sales and make our entire company grind to a complete halt and disappear to the world.
This is why good management is important. If the CEO does not understand what the company does and how, and will not listen to those who do, the company is doomed. I'm very glad I don't work there anymore.
How long will it now take before we start seeing iTunes Payola.
That is a good question. So far, however, Apple deserves our admiration for not giving in to this temptation. Many people assumed that Apple would do this very thing with music, it was/is common practice on the radio. Even with the majority of the music download market they have not showed any preferential treatment.
If network executives have even half a brain (which is doubtful) they will be working on deals to offer a few free episodes of all their current and back shows. People need a way to find shows they like and this is one of the easiest ways to advertise them. It makes a lot of sense for them to pay Apple the cost of the hosting and downloads, just for the advertising it will provide. And the first one to complete a deal will see the biggest bump, since free shows on itunes will be major news and a lot of people will grab something, just to see if it is good.
Hard maybe but not impossible. Let's face it if it was that hard they would not have kept it up for decades.
You brought up this argument as a "refutation" of an article that an armed populace makes secret arrests and subjugation of an entire nation very difficult for the government. The examples given were Germany and Haiti. In neither of those cases was the poster talking about a foreign power with hundreds of times the manpower of the subjugated nation. Sure having an armed citizenry is not a panacea and the United States could take and hold the entire country of Liechtenstein indefinitely, whether they are armed or not. What does that, however, have to do with the original point? Your argument does not refute the original one, it merely demonstrates that with a sufficiently large manpower advantage and the willingness to be a worldwide pariah a nation can subjugate another for a time, despite the armament of the citizens. I don't think anyone with and ability to reason ever doubted this.
The original poster's argument stands. You have failed to refute it.
Words like "flamebait" and "troll" are most often used seriously by those who are trying to incite trouble amongst people who are pointing out real, solid facts.
On Slashdot I usually see them applied to comments that are either ignorant, or deliberately wrong in such a way as to try to get a response. I rarely (although occasionally) see them misapplied. Of course truly ignorant people who make bold assertions may believe these labels are being misapplied to them, in truth that is usually just because they are ignorant.
I think palestine is a facinating study on just how ineffectual guns are against a well organized, well funded modern army with accurate intelligence.
Lets see a nation orders of magnitude larger than the occupied territory is devoting a significant portion of their military forces to holding a small territory and even then suffers from enormous internal and external political pressure due to the regular uprisings, bombings, and other incidents. They maintain this only through ruthless, constant military action that has earned them a horrible reputation around the world and put them on every civil rights group's emergency list. Even people in the US boycott grocery stores that contribute to Israeli causes. I'd say that is a testament to how hard it is to maintain an armed occupation among an armed people. Given the same manpower ration China might be able to keep the U.S. similarly occupied, but I doubt it.
I mean, if you look just at the US, close one eye and squint really with the other, I can just about see it. Barely. But that doesn't explain other countries, like Switzerland (yes, they have guns, but as part of the military; it just so happens that citizens are soldiers, too)...
This was originally the case in the United States as well. The military was supposed to be made up of a "well ordered militia" from each state which was in turn composed of volunteers from within that state. The model was a "minute man" where armed citizens would train in military tactics and rise up in emergencies. The founding fathers would probably be appalled by a strong federal government with its own military.
The reasoning of those who consider "owning a gun" to be an important civil liberty is that it is the final protector of freedom of expression.
That is only one of the many reasons the 2nd amendment was created.
Other reasons include, so that individuals specifically had the power to defend themselves and their homes. To provide a more even distribution of real power between the "aristocracy" and the common man. And as a guarantee that pioneers would have the ability to hunt and protect themselves while settling new land. Finally, so that weapons would be available should citizens need to fight a war against either an invading power, or an oppressive local government.
None of these reasons are any less true today. Citizens really should have a gun while in some wilderness areas. Ask any police officer and they will tell you their job is not to protect your safety, but to enforce laws. Less than 4% of 911 calls are answered in time to stop a crime. Further the police have no legal obligation to even enforce the law in any particular case. You can call them repeatedly over the course of an evening telling them you are being raped and beaten and begging for help and there is no punishment if they don't bother to respond (this is not a theoretical case, it has happened). Should there be a war in this country, civilian firearms are still effective weapons, especially when used secretly. What many people don't consider when talk of civil war occurs is that usually a good portion of the military and police side with the rebellion as well. An armed populace could easily make a difference. In feudal Europe, only the aristocracy was allowed to carry weapons. In the U.S. many of those who would advocate banning guns are people who have armed guards protecting them. Obviously they envision a few exceptions for those wealthy and famous people, huh?
...that's probably enough for most to consider me lumped in with the gun nuts, even though I'm not sure if I would choose to defend myself with a firearm.
This is an attitude I see on many issues and I think it is a reflection of the media and political tendency to try to express everything as two opposites. Having the right to own and carry a firearm does not mean you have to do so or that you have to think that not defending yourself is unethical. It simply means each individual is given the choice to make that ethical decision for themselves. My girlfriend, for example, owns a pistol and is quite a good shot. She has, however, expressed that in most cases she would probably rather let someone kill her than kill them. That is a perfectly acceptable choice. What is not acceptable is taking that choice away from her and telling her she either must kill to defend herself or cannot do so.
Obviously a mobile Opteron. Very good performance, high clock-rates, low latency, low power, and 64-bit.
AMD does not list a mobile Opteron on their Web site. They provide Embedded, Workstation, and Server versions only. If you want me to take you seriously actually provide a real processor name/number preferably with a link to the specifications such as performance and power consumption and ideally with a comparison.
Dual cores is slightly nice, but not worth the increased power requirements, particularly since very few applications can take advantage of both cores.
This is for a mac, not a Windows machine. Dual cores don't provide double the processing but they do provide very significant increases in power and given the number of threads running on an average machine will be used the majority of the time a machine is being used.
The "best" mobile AMD chip I see is the Opteron Mobile 4000 which seems to have less performance and higher power requirements than an Intel Duo based upon indirect comparisons. It is a 130nm fab, accounting for the larger power requirements versus Intel's 65nm chip. Do you have any reason at all to think that this chip would be a better choice or are you just trying to find facts to justify the opinion you hold?
Not only are thes comparisons incredibly unfair, but they're also vastly unfair due to the timing. You're comparing Intel's nice new chip that was just recently available, to AMD's older chip, that has been on the market for a very (relatively) long time now.
This was in response to someone claiming Apple made the wrong choice for a chip, they are idiots, and they should be using some (unspecified) AMD chip. Apple obviously needed something on the market now, or very soon. AMD will not putting a new mobile chip out till Q4 according to most estimates. How is comparing what chips are available to put in their machine unfair? You think they should consider delaying going to market for a year rather than using the best available chip now and considering new chips as they become available?
Here's a great way to change my opinion. Find an AMD chip better suited for Apple's all-in-one and pro laptop and then show me a comparison of the performance and power to the Intel Duo they are using now. Otherwise, you're just an AMD fanatic who did not bother to read the context of this thread and whose knee is jerking faster than light. Do tell, what do you think is the best chip available for this application right now and why?
"Being a Microsoft proponent in an argument about operating systems is like being a white male in a discussion on discrimination."
You are incorrect. Being a Microsoft proponent in an argument about operating systems is like being a Nazi, KKK member in a discussion on discrimination. White males are born that way and in no way predisposed to being racist. People who argue the superiority of Windows have made a choice to use and extoll that OS.
People who argue Windows is superior are like KKK members, generally misguided and misinformed. I'd also like to say that as a white male, I've had plenty of discussions about racism and I've noticed as many black people who are racist as white people.
I find that MSN is used more often up here in Canada... any word on compatibility?
Google moved to an open interchange format. There is nothing stopping MSN from interoperating, other than their own business goals. It is possible to run your own Jabber server and use it as a gateway to talk to MSN users, but that is still a bit of work and requires you have a server somewhere. I expect AOL will start ICQ and AIM interoperating with XMMP in the near future. When this happens, you might want to send a note to MSN asking for compatibility, but I'm not sure they will care what their users want. They are hoping to somehow own the whole market with their proprietary protocol and to be able to make money off of every IM.
Remember, Mac OS X is often targetted towards more inexperienced users...
And Windows is not? If anything I'd say Mac users, in general, are more clueful about security than Windows users. When making an assertion like this, I'd like to see some sort of numbers to back it up. I'm sure Apple includes vim, by default, for all those clueless newbies. Just because something is easy to use, does not mean it is targeted at idiots.
Are we talking a Ubuntu here. Because the description is pretty accurate. Except well that Ubuntu is free, and runs on any PC.
Ubuntu is a fine distro, but it does not compare well for functionality or ease of use with OS X. I work at a company that makes network security devices. Three years ago there were a couple of powerbooks here. Most everyone was running Linux or a BSD. Today powerbooks dominate and only one regularly runs anything but OS X. That is because a lot of people switch, but basically no one ever switches back. Ubunto is great if it does what you want and need. Do not, however, believe it can do the same things as OS X, as easily until you try both.
Or can you actually name one specific instance where Windows fails and OSX excels at multitasking?
Certainly i can. Using both Win2K and Windows XP I have attempted to use the same workflow as on the OS X machine sitting next to it. Both have the same amount of RAM and the CPU in the Mac is about 25% slower. Common tasks include:
Create a large PDF from InDesign while browsing Web pages.
Run a perl script on a large XML file while reading e-mail.
Edit photos in Photoshop, while performing search and replace operations in a word processor.
Export a large.doc file to.rtf while updating items in CVS.
In every one of these tasks Windows has choked, using three separate machines. As of Win2K doing something in one application while others sit idle has been acceptable, but you still can't actually do two CPU intensive operations simultaneously and expect the GUI to actually respond. Attempting some of the tasks above has left me waiting as long as ten minutes for the mouse to start responding again. All of these tasks work just fine in OS X. This alone has saved me so much time at work that it makes up for posting on Slashdot all the time.
Note, Linux handles multiple operations as well or better yet. Pretending this flaw does not exist in Windows, however, is just fooling yourself. Talk to any PC gamer. How many of them leave other programs running in the background while playing a CPU intensive game? How many would leave a big, resource intensive application running? If I'm gaming on Windows, everything else needs to be shut down. On the mac, I don't bother.
Those power figures are from an entire _desktop_ systems, not just the CPUs as you imply. Now, the idle load of a desktop is very different from that of a laptop system --- so those numbers don't support your claim.
True, but they are very indicative of power usage in real world applications. I'm quite willing to read any comparisons you can show to the contrary, or for that matter any technical specs on the chips themselves. Everything, and I mean everything, I've read by a reputable journalist (not some guy in a forum like you) has shown the Intel Core Duo to outperform every portable AMD in regard to power consumption and performance. This is expected as it is a fairly new chip, using a smaller die than other portables. When AMD comes out with their new chip it may very well be better yet. To flame multiple people in a forum, however, based entirely upon your lack of knowledge (first mistaking which chips were being discussed and then claiming an article that does not fundamentally prove a chip is better supports your position that it is obviously inferior), well that is arrogant and rude. You are an AMD fanatic, unwilling to objectively look at information. You only seem interested in information that might support the opinion you already hold. I don't see much point in having a discussion with you.
Sure, I'd like to get a clue on how the accompanying Mac software which represent mediocre family album organiser, DVD video burner and a calendar (basically) impacts the daily work of artificial intelligence researchers, security experts and so on.
The main thing is, of course, the OS and its capabilities. Instantaneous searching of files, including the contents of many common binary formats and a plug-in architecture that lets you add any missing ones. It helps to be able to instantly search your PDFs, proprietary format prototyping files,.doc, open office, and e-mails all at once.
And then there is the ability to run all the staple Linux/UNIX software and most major commercial software and all the mac specific software. The ability to use functionality across applications, like adding a common text script and having it available for all text in the vast majority of applications. And then there is the old Volkswagen mantra. They wanted to build a car that you don't have to think about. Something that was a tool that never got in your way. That is what I feel Apple has managed. I don't have to install an application, I just drag it where I want it. Need it on another machine; just drag it onto the mounted drive. Need to configure some obscure setting for the computer itself, just open the system preferences and the whole thing is searchable.
Multitasking. It actually works and you can do multiple CPU intensive tasks at once. I can compile something and browse the Web. Amazing! Some day Windows will catch up.
Finally, your characterization of the software that comes with macs is misguided. You forgot a complete dev environment, e-mail, browser, address book, disk utilities, encryption tools, GUI scripting linking software, etc., etc. As for the calendar, it imports my bugzilla items as a to-do list.
Basically it is no one thing. It is just that everything works better and easier and I don't end up waiting for that crashed application to restart or the mouse to start responding again or spend 15 minutes searching for where they hid the preference I need in this version. Ease of Use is not just for newbies. Maybe that is why more than half of my office now uses powerbooks. Been to a Blackhat or Defcon conference lately? There sure are a lot of macs there for some reason. The same goes for a whole slew of scientific fields. Decent hardware and a great OS make it hard to resist for people who just want to get shit done.
I have a hard time imagining you could be so far wrong by accident. Since I don't want to duplicate my last post, here's a link... Feel free to point me to any of your sources showing an Intel chip using less power at 100% than the lowest-power AMD chips. (Note: Idiots on other web forums, and talking dogs don't count.)
How about next time you feel like posting numbers you actually look up the chip we're talking about. The Intel Duo is not a Pentium-M, like the ones you listed in your previous post. You're the one who is out of date. Intel Core Duo (known as the Yonah before the official name was released) is the 65nm chip and has been out for a while now. Here's a link to a review and a pertinent quote, "In fact, a 2.0GHz Yonah under 100% load consumes less power than an Athlon 64 X2 3800+ at idle." These are comparisons of Intel's latest versus AMDs current offerings, that compare similarly for performance. Please feel free to show me any comparisons of AMD chips that outperform the Intel Core Duo, or even come close, but I don't expect to see anything in that range until AMD brings their 65nm solution to market in Q4.
Lets see, who do I know that uses a mac? Well, I know a couple of graphic artists and a few professional writers. Yup they are artists. And then there are about fifty computer programmers working on various software. There are a few computer security experts and a couple of artificial intelligence researchers. There are a few chemists and biologists. I know a few geologists. There are a lot of teachers and a few lawyers. Hmm, from my personal survey, most mac users are computer geeks, not artists or casual users.
At least half the value a Mac has is design and perceived value (former of course for a reason, while the latter is rarely based on reality).
Or perhaps those that can perceive the value of the OS and accompanying software as it impacts them and their daily work are just more perceptive than you. Or maybe all those people I mentioned are just stupid whereas you are some sort of intellectual giant. Get a clue.
Apple chose the same processor that Dell so heavily rely on. Of all the reasons, I just don't believe AMD can't manufacture enough chips. I think Steve Jobs always wanted to use Dell as the model to follow whether his mouth admits it or not.
Are you trolling or just slow in the head? Apple went with Intel for laptops. They needed a fast portable. AMD has nothing useful for laptops right now. their top chip uses 15-60% more power and is slightly slower than the Intel Duo. It uses more power idle than the Intel does at 100%. Choosing between going from a 6 hour battery with the g4 to a 3 hour battery with the Intel or a 2 hour battery with the AMD. Gee, tough choice. Apple may very well ship AMD chips some day, but not in portables or all-in-ones until they get their power consumption under control (AMD 65nm is due Q4). As for business models, Dell is about cheap, cheap, cheap with little inventory and interchangable supply. Apple is about grabbing the high end with innovative tech as a differentiator. The business models are very different.
The plugin architecture in Mozilla, off the top of my head, also meets these criteria, except the "without the user being asked" requirement (which hasn't been the case for a long time).
There is a distinct difference between being asked if you want to install a new component to your web browser and a built in "run random code" feature. By default, Mozilla does not ship in such a state that random plugins from remote sites are executed. There is no need for this functionality at all. If a Web site wants to execute random code they can do so on their server or in a virtual machine you run with limited access to the rest of the system. Anything else is an architectural flaw.
Having looked through Google for flaws, I have learned that a default install of XP SP2 is safe enough for everyday use. Most things people can be hit with now are caused by people clicking through warning screens, which is essentially a large problem with most systems. The worm problem you mention before is not so much of a problem any more, since the firewall (not the best of solutions, no, but it works) stops exposed services and is enabled by default.
If you think the problems are fixed, you're fooling yourself. Security problems in Windows, even with SP2 are haphazardly patched. They might be "good enough" to last while there are plenty of older systems to compromise, but it will not last in the long run. After years of work MS has still not managed to reach even the moderate level of security offered by an OS X or Linux install. There is a long way to go before any system has the user as the weakest link, but Windows is still, by far, the least secure and worm authors will find ways to exploit it. Your faith in SP 2 is badly misplaced.
Only compared to using nothing to organize your windows. I use desktop manager for keeping my various apps organized by default. I hardly ever used Exposé as result.
Perhaps you misunderstood me. Different people like different GUI features. I did not even bother installing a virtual desktop client on my latest machine. A lot of "UNIX guys" are still using them, but for me expose is easier. The statement I made was that it is nice to have choices.
Very few applications provide services (in the application's menu). To make applications interact, windows' COM is actually superior.
You just keep telling yourself that. In the mean time I use the same spelling checker in my browser and my professional layout applications. I have a grammar checker in my chat client, and I have the same text transformation scripts everywhere. I use both a Windows box and an OS X box. One gives me this functionality. One does not. Gee, which is better?
This is exactly what Microsoft COM does, and like I said it's more powerful than Apple services. You can integrate application components into your own, like for example an Excel spreadsheet into your own accounting software, whatever.
That is not quite the same thing. On Windows where do I put the service that lets the majority of my applications translate German to English? On OS X it is ~/Library/Services. On Windows I've seen no generic functionality like this. Every application has to specifically tie into every other, rather than allowing generic services to be offered for all text or all images. Expecting all developers to collaborate with each other is ridiculous.
Superior to the windows' way of installing anywhere and modifying the registry, but not as good as something like stow IMHO. Anyway, this is a 1990 NeXTStep feature.
Gee, with stow I can run a separate program that manages applications, installs, uninstalls, and backs them up. Or I can just drag applications where I want them to install, uninstall, or back up. I'm going to go with the latter option. Especially given the extra ability to keep applications contained, the lack of worrying about dependencies, and the ability to easily access the resources within an application. Sure this is old Next technology, but they did it right. If only Linux developers would see the light and adopt GNUStep.
System spellchecking is great, but it's not enabled for all applications under OS/X, only certain Cocoa apps. Firefox doesn't have the system spellchecking at all for example. Word comes with its own spellchecker (incompatible with the system's). None of the Adobe apps, all built with Carbon, have system spellchecking.
You're somewhat mistaken. It works for all applications that use the default handling routines for that type of data. Some Carbon apps can access the spell checking just fine, for example. You're right in that some application cannot, like Word and java apps. You're also wrong about Adobe applications. It works in Photoshop, InDesign, and Illustrator at the minimum. Firefox's lack of text services is one reason I avoid it. You're right about me overstating the case though. Services work in most applications, but do not work in some old applications, ports, and runtime environment applications.
For some apps yes, for others, no. Usually the large applications require an installer.
MS Office does not. No it is not large apps, it is apps that want to modify the kernel or subsystem. Also a few apps from developers that can't wrap their brains around OS X and thus include an unneeded installer. Beware of apps that do run an installer. They are usually messy apps that don't follow the appropriate guidelines and may contain call-home features. It is what tipped me off to the fact that some Adobe apps try to randomly contact a foreign web server for no particular reason.
Between Cocoa (white and brushmetal), Carbon and X apps, I tend to disagree.
If so, it was by people without a clue. OS X has never shipped with unnecessary, exposed services.
Also, clarification (rather than laughter) would be nice on the ActiveX issue
ActiveX is basically a way to run random code on your machine, from a website, without the user being asked, and without a proper VM or jail. This is not a "good idea." They have made ways to turn it off (but it is not off by default). They have built a whole series of ACLs to try to restrict it differently on different sites. They have proclaimed this "fixed" more times than I care to recall. That does not change the fact that it is a fundamentally insecure idea and a huge liability. Don't be surprised when ActiveX is part of yet another security exploit.
Windows no longer ships with exposed services, and I think we all know that was really, really fucking dumb in the first place, though, yes.
Windows does ship with many exposed services. The current incarnations also ship with a software firewall on to "cover over" these services. This is not the same thing. By default Windows still runs RPC on the network, even when not needed. Having a software firewall is some protection, but there are windows of opportunity during boot and the possibility of taking down the firewall. As usual MS has not done it right (like everyone else has) they have just tried to make it barely good enough to be less of a problem.
Worm-style exploits are high-profile, but in general, in particular since SP2, there's not a lot more in Windows to allow this sort of attack.
Yes there is. Extra services, poorly secured services, and web browser code mingled with the core OS all provide opportunities for automated exploits.
Good point, but on Windows since SP2 warnings are generated for scripts being run (correct me if there's exceptions to this).
How about when default applications automatically fetch remote images? How about when default applications automatically run scripts due to flaws (outlook). I don't have an SP2 machine in front of me right now. Last time I used an XP box nothing warned me when I downloaded an.exe or a.jpg.exe file using IE. Nothing warned me the first time I ran a.exe file. Is this no longer the case?
Only the case on Windows if the user is running as Administrator. Which they often are.
No, in all cases. Googling for "Windows local escalation exploit" returns hundreds of thousands of hits. The first one for me was an unpatched exploit that allows a non-admin user to run code as admin. They even included the script for me to execute. MS has not been bothering to fix any of these partly because everyone runs as admin anyway. You have to fix both of these separate issues to make any difference.
This is the case on Windows, since SP2 (unless applications specifically override this behaviour, which I assume it is possible to do on OSX?).
What?!? I'm talking about the OS. When you try to write any executable file to disk and when you execute any executable file that has not been executed before it warns you. If this behavior does not apply across everything it is a lot less useful. So if I install an FTP client on XP-SP2, you're telling me I get a warning when I download a.exe,.pl, or.vb file? Because if you are, it is news to me.
Basically you have focused all of your attention on one security limitation of Windows without addressing the myriad other problems. Fixing one problem will help, but it won't make much difference in the long term. You have to close and lock all the doors. There is a lot of information on Windows security flaws available online. Google is your friend.
You've got great points; don't get your arguments dismissed by being a Word Nazi(TM). Idiomatic expressions are an accepted part of the language and is probably the least problem we have on Slashdot when it comes to understanding posts.
Unless specifically asked, I only point out one kind of grammatical/spelling/style mistake. I point out when I can't understand what the writer was trying to say. In this case you'll note I had to use two sentences at the beginning of my reply to address multiple possible meanings of the previous author's ambiguous statement. I don't think this is unreasonable or nazi-esque. In old English, or colonial English, perhaps this had an agreed upon meaning. In modern English it does not. If the writer wanted me to know whether or not he meant "more secure" or "perfectly secure" he should have used understandable English. The purpose of writing is to communicate. If you fail to do that, your writing is flawed.
Slashdot Mirror
Once a security edict came down from on high. No freeware of any kind. All e-mail must be checked via Outlook. No browsers other than IE. All machines must be Win2k.
Our company's only product was software we developed that only ran on UNIX/Linux. All development was done on like systems. All Web and e-mail servers were running Linux. Our phones system ran on a Linux server. The end result of this edict would have been to stop all production and sales and make our entire company grind to a complete halt and disappear to the world.
This is why good management is important. If the CEO does not understand what the company does and how, and will not listen to those who do, the company is doomed. I'm very glad I don't work there anymore.
How long will it now take before we start seeing iTunes Payola.
That is a good question. So far, however, Apple deserves our admiration for not giving in to this temptation. Many people assumed that Apple would do this very thing with music, it was/is common practice on the radio. Even with the majority of the music download market they have not showed any preferential treatment.
If network executives have even half a brain (which is doubtful) they will be working on deals to offer a few free episodes of all their current and back shows. People need a way to find shows they like and this is one of the easiest ways to advertise them. It makes a lot of sense for them to pay Apple the cost of the hosting and downloads, just for the advertising it will provide. And the first one to complete a deal will see the biggest bump, since free shows on itunes will be major news and a lot of people will grab something, just to see if it is good.
Hard maybe but not impossible. Let's face it if it was that hard they would not have kept it up for decades.
You brought up this argument as a "refutation" of an article that an armed populace makes secret arrests and subjugation of an entire nation very difficult for the government. The examples given were Germany and Haiti. In neither of those cases was the poster talking about a foreign power with hundreds of times the manpower of the subjugated nation. Sure having an armed citizenry is not a panacea and the United States could take and hold the entire country of Liechtenstein indefinitely, whether they are armed or not. What does that, however, have to do with the original point? Your argument does not refute the original one, it merely demonstrates that with a sufficiently large manpower advantage and the willingness to be a worldwide pariah a nation can subjugate another for a time, despite the armament of the citizens. I don't think anyone with and ability to reason ever doubted this.
The original poster's argument stands. You have failed to refute it.
Words like "flamebait" and "troll" are most often used seriously by those who are trying to incite trouble amongst people who are pointing out real, solid facts.
On Slashdot I usually see them applied to comments that are either ignorant, or deliberately wrong in such a way as to try to get a response. I rarely (although occasionally) see them misapplied. Of course truly ignorant people who make bold assertions may believe these labels are being misapplied to them, in truth that is usually just because they are ignorant.
The "best" mobile AMD chip I see is the Opteron Mobile 4000...
Whoops, I meant Athalon Mobile 4000. Pardon the typo.
I think palestine is a facinating study on just how ineffectual guns are against a well organized, well funded modern army with accurate intelligence.
Lets see a nation orders of magnitude larger than the occupied territory is devoting a significant portion of their military forces to holding a small territory and even then suffers from enormous internal and external political pressure due to the regular uprisings, bombings, and other incidents. They maintain this only through ruthless, constant military action that has earned them a horrible reputation around the world and put them on every civil rights group's emergency list. Even people in the US boycott grocery stores that contribute to Israeli causes. I'd say that is a testament to how hard it is to maintain an armed occupation among an armed people. Given the same manpower ration China might be able to keep the U.S. similarly occupied, but I doubt it.
I mean, if you look just at the US, close one eye and squint really with the other, I can just about see it. Barely. But that doesn't explain other countries, like Switzerland (yes, they have guns, but as part of the military; it just so happens that citizens are soldiers, too)...
This was originally the case in the United States as well. The military was supposed to be made up of a "well ordered militia" from each state which was in turn composed of volunteers from within that state. The model was a "minute man" where armed citizens would train in military tactics and rise up in emergencies. The founding fathers would probably be appalled by a strong federal government with its own military.
The reasoning of those who consider "owning a gun" to be an important civil liberty is that it is the final protector of freedom of expression.
That is only one of the many reasons the 2nd amendment was created.
Other reasons include, so that individuals specifically had the power to defend themselves and their homes. To provide a more even distribution of real power between the "aristocracy" and the common man. And as a guarantee that pioneers would have the ability to hunt and protect themselves while settling new land. Finally, so that weapons would be available should citizens need to fight a war against either an invading power, or an oppressive local government.
None of these reasons are any less true today. Citizens really should have a gun while in some wilderness areas. Ask any police officer and they will tell you their job is not to protect your safety, but to enforce laws. Less than 4% of 911 calls are answered in time to stop a crime. Further the police have no legal obligation to even enforce the law in any particular case. You can call them repeatedly over the course of an evening telling them you are being raped and beaten and begging for help and there is no punishment if they don't bother to respond (this is not a theoretical case, it has happened). Should there be a war in this country, civilian firearms are still effective weapons, especially when used secretly. What many people don't consider when talk of civil war occurs is that usually a good portion of the military and police side with the rebellion as well. An armed populace could easily make a difference. In feudal Europe, only the aristocracy was allowed to carry weapons. In the U.S. many of those who would advocate banning guns are people who have armed guards protecting them. Obviously they envision a few exceptions for those wealthy and famous people, huh?
This is an attitude I see on many issues and I think it is a reflection of the media and political tendency to try to express everything as two opposites. Having the right to own and carry a firearm does not mean you have to do so or that you have to think that not defending yourself is unethical. It simply means each individual is given the choice to make that ethical decision for themselves. My girlfriend, for example, owns a pistol and is quite a good shot. She has, however, expressed that in most cases she would probably rather let someone kill her than kill them. That is a perfectly acceptable choice. What is not acceptable is taking that choice away from her and telling her she either must kill to defend herself or cannot do so.
Obviously a mobile Opteron. Very good performance, high clock-rates, low latency, low power, and 64-bit.
AMD does not list a mobile Opteron on their Web site. They provide Embedded, Workstation, and Server versions only. If you want me to take you seriously actually provide a real processor name/number preferably with a link to the specifications such as performance and power consumption and ideally with a comparison.
Dual cores is slightly nice, but not worth the increased power requirements, particularly since very few applications can take advantage of both cores.
This is for a mac, not a Windows machine. Dual cores don't provide double the processing but they do provide very significant increases in power and given the number of threads running on an average machine will be used the majority of the time a machine is being used.
The "best" mobile AMD chip I see is the Opteron Mobile 4000 which seems to have less performance and higher power requirements than an Intel Duo based upon indirect comparisons. It is a 130nm fab, accounting for the larger power requirements versus Intel's 65nm chip. Do you have any reason at all to think that this chip would be a better choice or are you just trying to find facts to justify the opinion you hold?
Not only are thes comparisons incredibly unfair, but they're also vastly unfair due to the timing. You're comparing Intel's nice new chip that was just recently available, to AMD's older chip, that has been on the market for a very (relatively) long time now.
This was in response to someone claiming Apple made the wrong choice for a chip, they are idiots, and they should be using some (unspecified) AMD chip. Apple obviously needed something on the market now, or very soon. AMD will not putting a new mobile chip out till Q4 according to most estimates. How is comparing what chips are available to put in their machine unfair? You think they should consider delaying going to market for a year rather than using the best available chip now and considering new chips as they become available?
Here's a great way to change my opinion. Find an AMD chip better suited for Apple's all-in-one and pro laptop and then show me a comparison of the performance and power to the Intel Duo they are using now. Otherwise, you're just an AMD fanatic who did not bother to read the context of this thread and whose knee is jerking faster than light. Do tell, what do you think is the best chip available for this application right now and why?
"Being a Microsoft proponent in an argument about operating systems is like being a white male in a discussion on discrimination."
You are incorrect. Being a Microsoft proponent in an argument about operating systems is like being a Nazi, KKK member in a discussion on discrimination. White males are born that way and in no way predisposed to being racist. People who argue the superiority of Windows have made a choice to use and extoll that OS.
People who argue Windows is superior are like KKK members, generally misguided and misinformed. I'd also like to say that as a white male, I've had plenty of discussions about racism and I've noticed as many black people who are racist as white people.
I find that MSN is used more often up here in Canada... any word on compatibility?
Google moved to an open interchange format. There is nothing stopping MSN from interoperating, other than their own business goals. It is possible to run your own Jabber server and use it as a gateway to talk to MSN users, but that is still a bit of work and requires you have a server somewhere. I expect AOL will start ICQ and AIM interoperating with XMMP in the near future. When this happens, you might want to send a note to MSN asking for compatibility, but I'm not sure they will care what their users want. They are hoping to somehow own the whole market with their proprietary protocol and to be able to make money off of every IM.
Remember, Mac OS X is often targetted towards more inexperienced users...
And Windows is not? If anything I'd say Mac users, in general, are more clueful about security than Windows users. When making an assertion like this, I'd like to see some sort of numbers to back it up. I'm sure Apple includes vim, by default, for all those clueless newbies. Just because something is easy to use, does not mean it is targeted at idiots.
Are we talking a Ubuntu here. Because the description is pretty accurate. Except well that Ubuntu is free, and runs on any PC.
Ubuntu is a fine distro, but it does not compare well for functionality or ease of use with OS X. I work at a company that makes network security devices. Three years ago there were a couple of powerbooks here. Most everyone was running Linux or a BSD. Today powerbooks dominate and only one regularly runs anything but OS X. That is because a lot of people switch, but basically no one ever switches back. Ubunto is great if it does what you want and need. Do not, however, believe it can do the same things as OS X, as easily until you try both.
Or can you actually name one specific instance where Windows fails and OSX excels at multitasking?
Certainly i can. Using both Win2K and Windows XP I have attempted to use the same workflow as on the OS X machine sitting next to it. Both have the same amount of RAM and the CPU in the Mac is about 25% slower. Common tasks include:
In every one of these tasks Windows has choked, using three separate machines. As of Win2K doing something in one application while others sit idle has been acceptable, but you still can't actually do two CPU intensive operations simultaneously and expect the GUI to actually respond. Attempting some of the tasks above has left me waiting as long as ten minutes for the mouse to start responding again. All of these tasks work just fine in OS X. This alone has saved me so much time at work that it makes up for posting on Slashdot all the time.
Note, Linux handles multiple operations as well or better yet. Pretending this flaw does not exist in Windows, however, is just fooling yourself. Talk to any PC gamer. How many of them leave other programs running in the background while playing a CPU intensive game? How many would leave a big, resource intensive application running? If I'm gaming on Windows, everything else needs to be shut down. On the mac, I don't bother.
Those power figures are from an entire _desktop_ systems, not just the CPUs as you imply. Now, the idle load of a desktop is very different from that of a laptop system --- so those numbers don't support your claim.
True, but they are very indicative of power usage in real world applications. I'm quite willing to read any comparisons you can show to the contrary, or for that matter any technical specs on the chips themselves. Everything, and I mean everything, I've read by a reputable journalist (not some guy in a forum like you) has shown the Intel Core Duo to outperform every portable AMD in regard to power consumption and performance. This is expected as it is a fairly new chip, using a smaller die than other portables. When AMD comes out with their new chip it may very well be better yet. To flame multiple people in a forum, however, based entirely upon your lack of knowledge (first mistaking which chips were being discussed and then claiming an article that does not fundamentally prove a chip is better supports your position that it is obviously inferior), well that is arrogant and rude. You are an AMD fanatic, unwilling to objectively look at information. You only seem interested in information that might support the opinion you already hold. I don't see much point in having a discussion with you.
Sure, I'd like to get a clue on how the accompanying Mac software which represent mediocre family album organiser, DVD video burner and a calendar (basically) impacts the daily work of artificial intelligence researchers, security experts and so on.
The main thing is, of course, the OS and its capabilities. Instantaneous searching of files, including the contents of many common binary formats and a plug-in architecture that lets you add any missing ones. It helps to be able to instantly search your PDFs, proprietary format prototyping files, .doc, open office, and e-mails all at once.
And then there is the ability to run all the staple Linux/UNIX software and most major commercial software and all the mac specific software. The ability to use functionality across applications, like adding a common text script and having it available for all text in the vast majority of applications. And then there is the old Volkswagen mantra. They wanted to build a car that you don't have to think about. Something that was a tool that never got in your way. That is what I feel Apple has managed. I don't have to install an application, I just drag it where I want it. Need it on another machine; just drag it onto the mounted drive. Need to configure some obscure setting for the computer itself, just open the system preferences and the whole thing is searchable.
Multitasking. It actually works and you can do multiple CPU intensive tasks at once. I can compile something and browse the Web. Amazing! Some day Windows will catch up.
Finally, your characterization of the software that comes with macs is misguided. You forgot a complete dev environment, e-mail, browser, address book, disk utilities, encryption tools, GUI scripting linking software, etc., etc. As for the calendar, it imports my bugzilla items as a to-do list.
Basically it is no one thing. It is just that everything works better and easier and I don't end up waiting for that crashed application to restart or the mouse to start responding again or spend 15 minutes searching for where they hid the preference I need in this version. Ease of Use is not just for newbies. Maybe that is why more than half of my office now uses powerbooks. Been to a Blackhat or Defcon conference lately? There sure are a lot of macs there for some reason. The same goes for a whole slew of scientific fields. Decent hardware and a great OS make it hard to resist for people who just want to get shit done.
I have a hard time imagining you could be so far wrong by accident. Since I don't want to duplicate my last post, here's a link... Feel free to point me to any of your sources showing an Intel chip using less power at 100% than the lowest-power AMD chips. (Note: Idiots on other web forums, and talking dogs don't count.)
How about next time you feel like posting numbers you actually look up the chip we're talking about. The Intel Duo is not a Pentium-M, like the ones you listed in your previous post. You're the one who is out of date. Intel Core Duo (known as the Yonah before the official name was released) is the 65nm chip and has been out for a while now. Here's a link to a review and a pertinent quote, "In fact, a 2.0GHz Yonah under 100% load consumes less power than an Athlon 64 X2 3800+ at idle." These are comparisons of Intel's latest versus AMDs current offerings, that compare similarly for performance. Please feel free to show me any comparisons of AMD chips that outperform the Intel Core Duo, or even come close, but I don't expect to see anything in that range until AMD brings their 65nm solution to market in Q4.
He sells to artists and casual users.
Lets see, who do I know that uses a mac? Well, I know a couple of graphic artists and a few professional writers. Yup they are artists. And then there are about fifty computer programmers working on various software. There are a few computer security experts and a couple of artificial intelligence researchers. There are a few chemists and biologists. I know a few geologists. There are a lot of teachers and a few lawyers. Hmm, from my personal survey, most mac users are computer geeks, not artists or casual users.
At least half the value a Mac has is design and perceived value (former of course for a reason, while the latter is rarely based on reality).
Or perhaps those that can perceive the value of the OS and accompanying software as it impacts them and their daily work are just more perceptive than you. Or maybe all those people I mentioned are just stupid whereas you are some sort of intellectual giant. Get a clue.
Apple chose the same processor that Dell so heavily rely on. Of all the reasons, I just don't believe AMD can't manufacture enough chips. I think Steve Jobs always wanted to use Dell as the model to follow whether his mouth admits it or not.
Are you trolling or just slow in the head? Apple went with Intel for laptops. They needed a fast portable. AMD has nothing useful for laptops right now. their top chip uses 15-60% more power and is slightly slower than the Intel Duo. It uses more power idle than the Intel does at 100%. Choosing between going from a 6 hour battery with the g4 to a 3 hour battery with the Intel or a 2 hour battery with the AMD. Gee, tough choice. Apple may very well ship AMD chips some day, but not in portables or all-in-ones until they get their power consumption under control (AMD 65nm is due Q4). As for business models, Dell is about cheap, cheap, cheap with little inventory and interchangable supply. Apple is about grabbing the high end with innovative tech as a differentiator. The business models are very different.
Yes.
The plugin architecture in Mozilla, off the top of my head, also meets these criteria, except the "without the user being asked" requirement (which hasn't been the case for a long time).
There is a distinct difference between being asked if you want to install a new component to your web browser and a built in "run random code" feature. By default, Mozilla does not ship in such a state that random plugins from remote sites are executed. There is no need for this functionality at all. If a Web site wants to execute random code they can do so on their server or in a virtual machine you run with limited access to the rest of the system. Anything else is an architectural flaw.
Having looked through Google for flaws, I have learned that a default install of XP SP2 is safe enough for everyday use. Most things people can be hit with now are caused by people clicking through warning screens, which is essentially a large problem with most systems. The worm problem you mention before is not so much of a problem any more, since the firewall (not the best of solutions, no, but it works) stops exposed services and is enabled by default.
If you think the problems are fixed, you're fooling yourself. Security problems in Windows, even with SP2 are haphazardly patched. They might be "good enough" to last while there are plenty of older systems to compromise, but it will not last in the long run. After years of work MS has still not managed to reach even the moderate level of security offered by an OS X or Linux install. There is a long way to go before any system has the user as the weakest link, but Windows is still, by far, the least secure and worm authors will find ways to exploit it. Your faith in SP 2 is badly misplaced.
Only compared to using nothing to organize your windows. I use desktop manager for keeping my various apps organized by default. I hardly ever used Exposé as result.
Perhaps you misunderstood me. Different people like different GUI features. I did not even bother installing a virtual desktop client on my latest machine. A lot of "UNIX guys" are still using them, but for me expose is easier. The statement I made was that it is nice to have choices.
Very few applications provide services (in the application's menu). To make applications interact, windows' COM is actually superior.
You just keep telling yourself that. In the mean time I use the same spelling checker in my browser and my professional layout applications. I have a grammar checker in my chat client, and I have the same text transformation scripts everywhere. I use both a Windows box and an OS X box. One gives me this functionality. One does not. Gee, which is better?
This is exactly what Microsoft COM does, and like I said it's more powerful than Apple services. You can integrate application components into your own, like for example an Excel spreadsheet into your own accounting software, whatever.
That is not quite the same thing. On Windows where do I put the service that lets the majority of my applications translate German to English? On OS X it is ~/Library/Services. On Windows I've seen no generic functionality like this. Every application has to specifically tie into every other, rather than allowing generic services to be offered for all text or all images. Expecting all developers to collaborate with each other is ridiculous.
Superior to the windows' way of installing anywhere and modifying the registry, but not as good as something like stow IMHO. Anyway, this is a 1990 NeXTStep feature.
Gee, with stow I can run a separate program that manages applications, installs, uninstalls, and backs them up. Or I can just drag applications where I want them to install, uninstall, or back up. I'm going to go with the latter option. Especially given the extra ability to keep applications contained, the lack of worrying about dependencies, and the ability to easily access the resources within an application. Sure this is old Next technology, but they did it right. If only Linux developers would see the light and adopt GNUStep.
System spellchecking is great, but it's not enabled for all applications under OS/X, only certain Cocoa apps. Firefox doesn't have the system spellchecking at all for example. Word comes with its own spellchecker (incompatible with the system's). None of the Adobe apps, all built with Carbon, have system spellchecking.
You're somewhat mistaken. It works for all applications that use the default handling routines for that type of data. Some Carbon apps can access the spell checking just fine, for example. You're right in that some application cannot, like Word and java apps. You're also wrong about Adobe applications. It works in Photoshop, InDesign, and Illustrator at the minimum. Firefox's lack of text services is one reason I avoid it. You're right about me overstating the case though. Services work in most applications, but do not work in some old applications, ports, and runtime environment applications.
For some apps yes, for others, no. Usually the large applications require an installer.
MS Office does not. No it is not large apps, it is apps that want to modify the kernel or subsystem. Also a few apps from developers that can't wrap their brains around OS X and thus include an unneeded installer. Beware of apps that do run an installer. They are usually messy apps that don't follow the appropriate guidelines and may contain call-home features. It is what tipped me off to the fact that some Adobe apps try to randomly contact a foreign web server for no particular reason.
Between Cocoa (white and brushmetal), Carbon and X apps, I tend to disagree.
Where are the preferences
Wasn't OSX previously criticised for just that?
If so, it was by people without a clue. OS X has never shipped with unnecessary, exposed services.
Also, clarification (rather than laughter) would be nice on the ActiveX issue
ActiveX is basically a way to run random code on your machine, from a website, without the user being asked, and without a proper VM or jail. This is not a "good idea." They have made ways to turn it off (but it is not off by default). They have built a whole series of ACLs to try to restrict it differently on different sites. They have proclaimed this "fixed" more times than I care to recall. That does not change the fact that it is a fundamentally insecure idea and a huge liability. Don't be surprised when ActiveX is part of yet another security exploit.
Windows no longer ships with exposed services, and I think we all know that was really, really fucking dumb in the first place, though, yes.
Windows does ship with many exposed services. The current incarnations also ship with a software firewall on to "cover over" these services. This is not the same thing. By default Windows still runs RPC on the network, even when not needed. Having a software firewall is some protection, but there are windows of opportunity during boot and the possibility of taking down the firewall. As usual MS has not done it right (like everyone else has) they have just tried to make it barely good enough to be less of a problem.
Worm-style exploits are high-profile, but in general, in particular since SP2, there's not a lot more in Windows to allow this sort of attack.
Yes there is. Extra services, poorly secured services, and web browser code mingled with the core OS all provide opportunities for automated exploits.
Good point, but on Windows since SP2 warnings are generated for scripts being run (correct me if there's exceptions to this).
How about when default applications automatically fetch remote images? How about when default applications automatically run scripts due to flaws (outlook). I don't have an SP2 machine in front of me right now. Last time I used an XP box nothing warned me when I downloaded an .exe or a .jpg.exe file using IE. Nothing warned me the first time I ran a .exe file. Is this no longer the case?
Only the case on Windows if the user is running as Administrator. Which they often are.
No, in all cases. Googling for "Windows local escalation exploit" returns hundreds of thousands of hits. The first one for me was an unpatched exploit that allows a non-admin user to run code as admin. They even included the script for me to execute. MS has not been bothering to fix any of these partly because everyone runs as admin anyway. You have to fix both of these separate issues to make any difference.
This is the case on Windows, since SP2 (unless applications specifically override this behaviour, which I assume it is possible to do on OSX?).
What?!? I'm talking about the OS. When you try to write any executable file to disk and when you execute any executable file that has not been executed before it warns you. If this behavior does not apply across everything it is a lot less useful. So if I install an FTP client on XP-SP2, you're telling me I get a warning when I download a .exe, .pl, or .vb file? Because if you are, it is news to me.
Basically you have focused all of your attention on one security limitation of Windows without addressing the myriad other problems. Fixing one problem will help, but it won't make much difference in the long term. You have to close and lock all the doors. There is a lot of information on Windows security flaws available online. Google is your friend.
You've got great points; don't get your arguments dismissed by being a Word Nazi(TM). Idiomatic expressions are an accepted part of the language and is probably the least problem we have on Slashdot when it comes to understanding posts.
Unless specifically asked, I only point out one kind of grammatical/spelling/style mistake. I point out when I can't understand what the writer was trying to say. In this case you'll note I had to use two sentences at the beginning of my reply to address multiple possible meanings of the previous author's ambiguous statement. I don't think this is unreasonable or nazi-esque. In old English, or colonial English, perhaps this had an agreed upon meaning. In modern English it does not. If the writer wanted me to know whether or not he meant "more secure" or "perfectly secure" he should have used understandable English. The purpose of writing is to communicate. If you fail to do that, your writing is flawed.