What do you mean "non-mac hardware"? The mainboard is the only "mac" hardware in the machine. The rest is Intel, Nvidia, ATI, and Western Digitital, LG, etc.
Nonsense. There's a pretty distinct difference between stumbling across evidence while serving a warrant and going beyond the scope of a warrant to see if there's any other crimes you can uncover.
I'm pretty sure that 141 million hits qualifies as a DDOS, especially on a site not designed to handle that much traffic. Of course, it depends on the timeframe for those hits, but even over a year, that's 5 hits per second.
It's even funnier because if you'd have taken another 5 minutes to verify the claims in the article, you would have found that it was untrue. Don't believe me? Go do what the author said he did. The prices are the same whether you come through Bing or not. I tried it with two machines...one with the Bing cookie and one without.
The article is completely untrue. I've checked several items, including the one he was looking at, and the prices were the same (or less) if you came through Bing. I used two different computers, one with a Bing cookie, and one with all the cookies dumped.
I use Bing Because Its Not Google. I've not bought the line that Google is the end-all, be-all of internet search. I'd like to see some competition in the market, and Bing does a pretty dang good job. I've switched to it in all of my browsers.
You know what corporations like less than customer freedom? Class action lawsuits and criminal penalties, which is what they'd be facing if it was ever discovered that they wrote a worm for iPhones. All it would take is one whistleblower.
>I see a future where Apple, the RIAA, and others might wish to write worms
So you're telling me that in the future, Apple could possibly have the strong desire to write a worm for iPhones? You're like the prophet of uncertainty.
This is the first time I've ever said this, but with the release of Windows 7, Windows "just works". XP had plenty of bugs, Vista drove me to Ubuntu for a few years, and now with Windows 7, I've had very few problems. It's nearly none, but I had to run a few older games in XP compatibility mode and some proxification program didn't work because it lacked a 64 bit driver.
That said, I'm thinking that Chrome OS will "just work" too, but because it's functionality will be limited and hardware support tightly controlled.
Of course, we're taking the word of the people responsible for releasing the patch on that. I don't see what having a third party examine the code could harm.
Dear God, read the summary at least. They want the source so they can tell if this: " The iPhone 1.1.1 'bricked' those first-generation iPhones that had been hacked, rendering them useless and wiping all personal data from the device" was intentional or coincidental.
Saying that comparing apples to apples is more accurate than comparing apples to oranges is bullshit? Ok...
>First: Any comparison concerning security is misleading. I don't care if I'm just as secure as X; I only care whether I'm secure enough for a given use case.
Fine. In that case, I find Windows to be more than secure enough for desktop and server use.
>Second: Any attempt to compare conceptual levels of security between two different platforms, in which one is responsible for the overwhelming majority of all malware infections and the other is widely understood to be effectively malware-free... well, such a comparison is disingenuous at best.
I agree. It's disingenuous to compare an OS with >1% market share to an OS with ~90% market share. (Yes, I saw your third point.)
>And lest anyone respond with how vulnerable Linux would be just as soon as X, Y or Z transpires, let me just say that Linux is safe now, today.
And I think the last time I had a virus while using Windows was 2003. It was a trojan, which I stupidly got from downloading some pirated app. That tells me that Windows is safe today and for the last 6 years.
I can think of a few things here. First, why would MS care about your saved games? Second, the games are still playable on the banned Xbox, right? Third, what's the monetary value of a saved game?
Sample response: "It is impossible for our engineers to predict how systems that have had warranty voiding modifications done to them will react when removed from Xbox Live."
>An idea this bad should have been squashed 5 minutes after it was proposed instead of being allowed to actually make it into a released distribution.
Because there should never be any discussion and the security nazis are always right (even when they're wrong and trying to apply server/workstation security concepts out of context).
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a black screen of death. It's black because Explorer.exe isn't loading and thus you get no desktop.
What do you mean "non-mac hardware"? The mainboard is the only "mac" hardware in the machine. The rest is Intel, Nvidia, ATI, and Western Digitital, LG, etc.
Nonsense. There's a pretty distinct difference between stumbling across evidence while serving a warrant and going beyond the scope of a warrant to see if there's any other crimes you can uncover.
Your story is sad, but doesn't answer my question.
I'm pretty sure that 141 million hits qualifies as a DDOS, especially on a site not designed to handle that much traffic. Of course, it depends on the timeframe for those hits, but even over a year, that's 5 hits per second.
When was the last time you were harassed by a Scientology member?
It's even funnier because if you'd have taken another 5 minutes to verify the claims in the article, you would have found that it was untrue. Don't believe me? Go do what the author said he did. The prices are the same whether you come through Bing or not. I tried it with two machines...one with the Bing cookie and one without.
It's automatically questionable, especially if no one else can verify the claim.
The article is completely untrue. I've checked several items, including the one he was looking at, and the prices were the same (or less) if you came through Bing. I used two different computers, one with a Bing cookie, and one with all the cookies dumped.
I use Bing Because Its Not Google. I've not bought the line that Google is the end-all, be-all of internet search. I'd like to see some competition in the market, and Bing does a pretty dang good job. I've switched to it in all of my browsers.
You know what corporations like less than customer freedom? Class action lawsuits and criminal penalties, which is what they'd be facing if it was ever discovered that they wrote a worm for iPhones. All it would take is one whistleblower.
>I see a future where Apple, the RIAA, and others might wish to write worms
So you're telling me that in the future, Apple could possibly have the strong desire to write a worm for iPhones? You're like the prophet of uncertainty.
This is the first time I've ever said this, but with the release of Windows 7, Windows "just works". XP had plenty of bugs, Vista drove me to Ubuntu for a few years, and now with Windows 7, I've had very few problems. It's nearly none, but I had to run a few older games in XP compatibility mode and some proxification program didn't work because it lacked a 64 bit driver.
That said, I'm thinking that Chrome OS will "just work" too, but because it's functionality will be limited and hardware support tightly controlled.
Of course, we're taking the word of the people responsible for releasing the patch on that. I don't see what having a third party examine the code could harm.
Or they could say something like "Judge, it appears that Apple programmed this patch to wipe out the data on jailbroken iPhones."
Dear God, read the summary at least. They want the source so they can tell if this: " The iPhone 1.1.1 'bricked' those first-generation iPhones that had been hacked, rendering them useless and wiping all personal data from the device" was intentional or coincidental.
It's not funny. It all hinges on whether or not it was intentional. If it was chance, then ok. If not, then Apple should pay out the ass for it.
The 2 year contract is with AT&T, not Apple.
>What utter bullshit.
Saying that comparing apples to apples is more accurate than comparing apples to oranges is bullshit? Ok...
>First: Any comparison concerning security is misleading. I don't care if I'm just as secure as X; I only care whether I'm secure enough for a given use case.
Fine. In that case, I find Windows to be more than secure enough for desktop and server use.
>Second: Any attempt to compare conceptual levels of security between two different platforms, in which one is responsible for the overwhelming majority of all malware infections and the other is widely understood to be effectively malware-free... well, such a comparison is disingenuous at best.
I agree. It's disingenuous to compare an OS with >1% market share to an OS with ~90% market share. (Yes, I saw your third point.)
>And lest anyone respond with how vulnerable Linux would be just as soon as X, Y or Z transpires, let me just say that Linux is safe now, today.
And I think the last time I had a virus while using Windows was 2003. It was a trojan, which I stupidly got from downloading some pirated app. That tells me that Windows is safe today and for the last 6 years.
I can think of a few things here. First, why would MS care about your saved games? Second, the games are still playable on the banned Xbox, right? Third, what's the monetary value of a saved game?
Nazi =/= Hitler: "derogatory term for a person who is fanatically dedicated to, or seeks to control, some activity, practice, etc."
And I don't think that a majority of the Linux community agrees, I think it's just another case of the noisiest people getting the most attention.
But how do they stop you?
I'm pretty sure that their modifications were still there after being banned from XBL.
Sample response: "It is impossible for our engineers to predict how systems that have had warranty voiding modifications done to them will react when removed from Xbox Live."
>An idea this bad should have been squashed 5 minutes after it was proposed instead of being allowed to actually make it into a released distribution.
Because there should never be any discussion and the security nazis are always right (even when they're wrong and trying to apply server/workstation security concepts out of context).