I have not installed brand new, never before run software on my Mac lately - too busy trying to get my work done. But I seem to recall that the very first time an application is run, a dialog pops open and asks you if you want to run it. Is that correct, or am I imaging things?
How is "display suspicious file" any different than opening suspicious file in a viewer like Preview on the Mac? Preview will not run an executable any more than the "display" command will. So how is the command line giving you more protection?
The real protection comes from being suspicious, in the first place.
...spout political nonsense. In the real world, the best defense is a great offense. It is amazing your mod points are so high. I guess there are a lot of people like you.
Using the "D" key to force a boot from an internal optical device on a Mac is new to me. I have been using the machines for many years and never heard of that, nor I can get my current Macs to boot from the optical by holding down the "D".
The "C" key, is a horse of another color. That is the traditional key and it works fine under every version of the Mac operating system that I have ever used since the advent of optical drives for computers up through now OS X.4.4.
Interesting that the author didn't mention the "C" key. And no, I did not read the story. Just looking at your quote.:-)
Strength is a skill. I can be learned and trained for to the full potential of the individual. Watch someone skilled hand/eye coordination but low in strength attempt parallel parking with manual steering. Then watch them with power steering.
And for the lighting, thank you. You made my point. Artificial lighting enhances our seeing skills so that we can drive in conditions that we ordinarily should not. Sometimes even artificial lighting is not enough. My wife, for example, has terrible depth perception at night even with artificial lighting.
Drive is a privilege. But if you think that technology is not already making up for poor driving skills, then you are mistaken. What do you call power steering, power brakes, and automatic transmissions? How about artificial lighting to make up for our species generally poor night vision?
Microsoft better hope Bill Gates stays around. Because when they want/need to make an impact, they only have him to trot out. We could take a look at companies throughout history and say the same thing. And it is true. Don't you think that Apple was quaking when Steve Jobs was diagnosed with cancer? However, Dell does not have that problem. Few people even know who Michael Dell is...really. And, if he left the company, I doubt it would hurt them in image or management. Mr. Dell's genius was in getting senior players into his fledging home computer business early. He let the really bright guys run the company. And don't dismiss how much courage and smarts that takes.
But, if Mr. Dell left, then Dell, Inc is not loosing a visionary or motivating force behind an organization. They are just loosing the guy who started it and nothing more. They'll gladly toast to the founder's portrait in the boardroom every meeting. But the board knows who is making the real decisions at Dell.
Besides, "vision" is not something that Dell, Inc. is known for. They look at what others are doing and then try to make it cheaper. Never (there might be exceptions) do they attempt to make something better. And even when there are apparent attempts, do they succeed. Are Dell's desktop/laptops/servers/MP3 players better than anyone else's. No. They just offer decent (giving them benefit of the doubt here) products that appear less expensive, in their catalogs, than their competitors. I say "appears" because if you even compare a Dell to an Apple -feature for feature - the Dells often cost nearly the same or even more. And Apple is supposed to be a premium player. So they should always be clearly higher in price than the Dells...right? But they are not.
Actually, iPods do support vorbis it is just not enabled. If you were a real/. geek you would be able to hack it and enable it. So quit complaining and start hacking - if you can.
So, you think that "artists" should develop their ideas and put them into a form that can be seen and shared, but for free? And you think that all artists should have a "day job", perhaps working at McDonanld's, in order to live (food, shelter, etc.). Is there any room in your vision for artists that want to focus exclusively on their art and can do so because people find it worthwhile and are willing to pay for it? These, mind you, are not artists that do their work because they love money. I am talking about artists that can do their art because of money.
You must be kidding. The French were just trying to protect their under the table oil deals. The Americans catch hell over even the possible implication of doing anything for oil. The French do it and it is suddenly "okay". Give me a break.
First, let me thank you for a well reasoned response. Please don't mistake that for agreeing with you. But I do appreciate the tone and depth. Now to the meat...
Few things are pure. That includes military, political, or religious responses, while we are on this planet. The military response from me was motivated primarily by the talk of training terrorists and some other comments I read on this article's thread. The solution for America and for the world is not just as simple as pulling America out of Iraq and ceasing all support for Israel. I wish it were that simple, even if I do not agree that we should abandon Israel to the mercy of its enemies. And make no mistake, there will be no peace there whether with our without America involved.
But, even if we did do the above, we and the world would still be a target for the current extreme Islamic leaders and nations. Do you really think that there is anything that prevent a fully nuclear capable Iran from unleashing an atomic salvo against nations that it contends are "satan"?
Something that our presence in Iraq provides is the ability to increase our intelligence (a lack of which led to a failure to find alleged weapons of mass destruction, in Iraq) and to our ability to respond if needed. I doubt you would agree with any American military response. But understand the need for that ability in this world.
I must go now. The family requires my presence. But perhaps I can continue my response to you post, in the very near future.
Since we are having a discussion regarding military strategy and the training of the combatants, asking about your personal experience is very relevant and substantive. I wish to understand your experience. No personal attack was intended and I apologize if it was perceived as such. I was merely pointing out the normal audience on this particular board and making a guess regarding your experience based on that normal population.
Had this discussion been about Einstein's theories, I would not be as quick to doubt your ability to competently discuss it. However, after reading this the posts here on/. for years, I have concluded that the vast majority of posters have no real world understanding of the military, its purpose, and usage beyond there own personal agenda whether it be hawk or dove (and on this board typically anti-American).
Have you every actually been in a military unit? I have. I'll assume that you have not for the rest of my comment. I can redirect later if I find I have been mistaken. But my bet is that you are the typical geek armchair general/politician that thinks that anyone's ideas but yours are absurd.
Sorry. I just don't believe your numbers (i.e. the numbers provided by the Lancet study). My belief is that they are trumped up to justify an anti-war position.
As to Korea, if a country had acted on the violation of the Cease Fire, then we would not be having an issue with Korea over nuclear arms today.
I'll start with your last comment first. I am using quoting the word, "terrorist", precisely to make a point. Since the vast majority of the deaths in Iraq were caused by their own countrymen (and women) and by invaders (people from other countries), you can stop with the righteous left-wing fantasy that the US is the cause. Yes, some Americans have died. But the vast majority of the deaths have been otherwise peaceful Iraqis.
Now to the Saddam Hussein stuff. No, the UN inspectors were not given free reign to investigate the areas of interest. I remember quite clearly following the statements made by the Iraqi government and the UN about the progress of inspection. I don't care a rat's posterior about whether or not they actually did have any weapons of mass destruction. The point was that they failed to live up to the agreement and they paid the price.
The terrorists have a great training ground - right. They are dying. If you call that training, then so be it. On the other hand, the Americans are also getting in a great deal of training in how to deal with terrorists. Is it bloodless? No. But then that is impossible.
As to the violation of the Cease Fire by the North Koreans, had the world (or a single capable country with the will and the means) enforced those Cease Fire terms, then we would not be in the situation we are now with North Korea and the threat of nuclear arms.
I'll refrain from the personal attacks you seem to like to make. We may disagree, but if you want to exchange ideas engage in further debate, then you'll need to refrain, as well.
Whether or not the Iraqis gained anything from the US prosecuting the consequence for the Iraqi government's violation of the Cease Fire is not the point of our involvement in the country. We are there...again...because the Iraqi government led by Saddam Hussein violated the terms of the Cease Fire. A Cease Fire that was brought about by the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq-a pure invasion of conquest.
They, the Iraqi government was told that "dire consequences" would result from violating the Cease Fire. Every government involved in the liberation of Kuwait signed off on it. Since everyone knows that the UN is a toothless old corruption dog, everyone knew that the US or another nation with the will to act would be required to put teeth into the agreement. Teeth that bite, as Saddam Hussein found out.
That said. I truly hope that the Iraqi people can directly benefit from the current involvement of the US. And perhaps they will. However, it is not right of you to blame the deaths of the people killed by the insurrection (terrorists) on the US. The US would have pulled out long ago had the terrorists not fired up their machine of violence. I think it would have been a mistake to pull out, but that is what they would have done.
That is always a possibility. Any country that feels threatened has historically done unsavory things. However, if you follow the internal politics of the United States, then you would know that actions like that cause huge problems for the people in power, at the time. Our country is pretty split on many issues and it takes a lot to get things like that done.
Contrary to the Bush administration's bungling of the Iraq situation (which is what I assume you are alluding to), the "fact" of weapons of mass destruction are *not* the reason that the US should have gone in to Iraq. The fact is the original Iraq War was NEVER over. We, the Coalition, had a cease fire, in place, with a country, Iraq, that lost a war of aggression against Kuwait. Iraq violated the terms of that cease fire (not allowing WMD inspectors the free access that was stipulated in the cease fire to ensure that there are no weapons of mass destruction). The post September 11 environment in the United States was very intolerant of states like Iraq that had already demonstrated a willingness to simply invade another country and claim it. The continued rhetoric and actions of the Iraqi government were not tolerable to the United States and to several other countries. On the basis of the legal cease fire, the Coalition meted out the consequences of Iraq's disobedience.
Now, I personally think that we should have let Hussein continue to run the country rather than basically turn over Iraq to Iran, which is what is happening. Iran is a far greater threat. Hussein was and is a stupid delusional man with more ambition than means to accomplish it. Iran, on the other hand, offers real instability to the region. Evidence is mounting that they are actively working on a nuclear weapons program combined with their political leaders openly pronounced that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth. That is a real threat.
In the Cold War conflict, the Soviet Union and the United States both had the capability to create mass destruction. The the concept of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) worked. Neither side had any desire for the death and destruction of their own side. However, with the martyrs that run religious states like Iran, there is not such concept holding them back. Ending their own lives and the lives of others (millions if possible) only mean greater glory for them in heaven.
The exact nation who is producing the oil is not of concern to me. Rather it is any of the oil producing nations. I always hear that American should come up with the solution to things like global warming (if it is indeed a human caused problem and not just one cycle in the billions of years of a planet ecology). What I want to hear is the plan and efforts of the oil producing nations. America isn't the only one here with the money and resources to clean up the air. Heck, if oil producing nations really thought that cutting out the burning of oil would solve the perceived global warming problem and they REALLY CARED, then they could just stop pumping oil entirely - couldn't they.
The thought had occurred to me. However, that is my point. They have the money for the research. Plus, I thought that only us Americans were the only greedy capitalists in the world. Reading/., at least that is the opinion most often expressed.
I just want to hear from the oil producing nations what their plan for alternative energy is.
Slashdot Mirror
That is true. But the standard mom and pop users don't have to. Yet, Apple may be forced to it if the pirates get their hands in it.
I have not installed brand new, never before run software on my Mac lately - too busy trying to get my work done. But I seem to recall that the very first time an application is run, a dialog pops open and asks you if you want to run it. Is that correct, or am I imaging things?
How is "display suspicious file" any different than opening suspicious file in a viewer like Preview on the Mac? Preview will not run an executable any more than the "display" command will. So how is the command line giving you more protection?
The real protection comes from being suspicious, in the first place.
...spout political nonsense. In the real world, the best defense is a great offense. It is amazing your mod points are so high. I guess there are a lot of people like you.
n/m
I knew that. Just didn't know that they had changed the "C" to a "D". It makes sense, just didn't know they had done that.
Again, that is news to me. Thank you for the update and the reference link. I appreciate it.
Using the "D" key to force a boot from an internal optical device on a Mac is new to me. I have been using the machines for many years and never heard of that, nor I can get my current Macs to boot from the optical by holding down the "D".
:-)
The "C" key, is a horse of another color. That is the traditional key and it works fine under every version of the Mac operating system that I have ever used since the advent of optical drives for computers up through now OS X.4.4.
Interesting that the author didn't mention the "C" key. And no, I did not read the story. Just looking at your quote.
Strength is a skill. I can be learned and trained for to the full potential of the individual. Watch someone skilled hand/eye coordination but low in strength attempt parallel parking with manual steering. Then watch them with power steering.
And for the lighting, thank you. You made my point. Artificial lighting enhances our seeing skills so that we can drive in conditions that we ordinarily should not. Sometimes even artificial lighting is not enough. My wife, for example, has terrible depth perception at night even with artificial lighting.
Drive is a privilege. But if you think that technology is not already making up for poor driving skills, then you are mistaken. What do you call power steering, power brakes, and automatic transmissions? How about artificial lighting to make up for our species generally poor night vision?
Microsoft better hope Bill Gates stays around. Because when they want/need to make an impact, they only have him to trot out. We could take a look at companies throughout history and say the same thing. And it is true. Don't you think that Apple was quaking when Steve Jobs was diagnosed with cancer? However, Dell does not have that problem. Few people even know who Michael Dell is...really. And, if he left the company, I doubt it would hurt them in image or management. Mr. Dell's genius was in getting senior players into his fledging home computer business early. He let the really bright guys run the company. And don't dismiss how much courage and smarts that takes.
But, if Mr. Dell left, then Dell, Inc is not loosing a visionary or motivating force behind an organization. They are just loosing the guy who started it and nothing more. They'll gladly toast to the founder's portrait in the boardroom every meeting. But the board knows who is making the real decisions at Dell.
Besides, "vision" is not something that Dell, Inc. is known for. They look at what others are doing and then try to make it cheaper. Never (there might be exceptions) do they attempt to make something better. And even when there are apparent attempts, do they succeed. Are Dell's desktop/laptops/servers/MP3 players better than anyone else's. No. They just offer decent (giving them benefit of the doubt here) products that appear less expensive, in their catalogs, than their competitors. I say "appears" because if you even compare a Dell to an Apple -feature for feature - the Dells often cost nearly the same or even more. And Apple is supposed to be a premium player. So they should always be clearly higher in price than the Dells...right? But they are not.
Actually, iPods do support vorbis it is just not enabled. If you were a real /. geek you would be able to hack it and enable it. So quit complaining and start hacking - if you can.
So, you think that "artists" should develop their ideas and put them into a form that can be seen and shared, but for free? And you think that all artists should have a "day job", perhaps working at McDonanld's, in order to live (food, shelter, etc.). Is there any room in your vision for artists that want to focus exclusively on their art and can do so because people find it worthwhile and are willing to pay for it? These, mind you, are not artists that do their work because they love money. I am talking about artists that can do their art because of money.
You must be kidding. The French were just trying to protect their under the table oil deals. The Americans catch hell over even the possible implication of doing anything for oil. The French do it and it is suddenly "okay". Give me a break.
First, let me thank you for a well reasoned response. Please don't mistake that for agreeing with you. But I do appreciate the tone and depth. Now to the meat...
Few things are pure. That includes military, political, or religious responses, while we are on this planet. The military response from me was motivated primarily by the talk of training terrorists and some other comments I read on this article's thread. The solution for America and for the world is not just as simple as pulling America out of Iraq and ceasing all support for Israel. I wish it were that simple, even if I do not agree that we should abandon Israel to the mercy of its enemies. And make no mistake, there will be no peace there whether with our without America involved.
But, even if we did do the above, we and the world would still be a target for the current extreme Islamic leaders and nations. Do you really think that there is anything that prevent a fully nuclear capable Iran from unleashing an atomic salvo against nations that it contends are "satan"?
Something that our presence in Iraq provides is the ability to increase our intelligence (a lack of which led to a failure to find alleged weapons of mass destruction, in Iraq) and to our ability to respond if needed. I doubt you would agree with any American military response. But understand the need for that ability in this world.
I must go now. The family requires my presence. But perhaps I can continue my response to you post, in the very near future.
Fine. What is the *real nature* of the conflict we face?
Since we are having a discussion regarding military strategy and the training of the combatants, asking about your personal experience is very relevant and substantive. I wish to understand your experience. No personal attack was intended and I apologize if it was perceived as such. I was merely pointing out the normal audience on this particular board and making a guess regarding your experience based on that normal population.
/. for years, I have concluded that the vast majority of posters have no real world understanding of the military, its purpose, and usage beyond there own personal agenda whether it be hawk or dove (and on this board typically anti-American).
Had this discussion been about Einstein's theories, I would not be as quick to doubt your ability to competently discuss it. However, after reading this the posts here on
Oh. And you did not answer the question.
Have you every actually been in a military unit? I have. I'll assume that you have not for the rest of my comment. I can redirect later if I find I have been mistaken. But my bet is that you are the typical geek armchair general/politician that thinks that anyone's ideas but yours are absurd.
Sorry. I just don't believe your numbers (i.e. the numbers provided by the Lancet study). My belief is that they are trumped up to justify an anti-war position.
As to Korea, if a country had acted on the violation of the Cease Fire, then we would not be having an issue with Korea over nuclear arms today.
I'll start with your last comment first. I am using quoting the word, "terrorist", precisely to make a point. Since the vast majority of the deaths in Iraq were caused by their own countrymen (and women) and by invaders (people from other countries), you can stop with the righteous left-wing fantasy that the US is the cause. Yes, some Americans have died. But the vast majority of the deaths have been otherwise peaceful Iraqis.
Now to the Saddam Hussein stuff. No, the UN inspectors were not given free reign to investigate the areas of interest. I remember quite clearly following the statements made by the Iraqi government and the UN about the progress of inspection. I don't care a rat's posterior about whether or not they actually did have any weapons of mass destruction. The point was that they failed to live up to the agreement and they paid the price.
The terrorists have a great training ground - right. They are dying. If you call that training, then so be it. On the other hand, the Americans are also getting in a great deal of training in how to deal with terrorists. Is it bloodless? No. But then that is impossible.
As to the violation of the Cease Fire by the North Koreans, had the world (or a single capable country with the will and the means) enforced those Cease Fire terms, then we would not be in the situation we are now with North Korea and the threat of nuclear arms.
I'll refrain from the personal attacks you seem to like to make. We may disagree, but if you want to exchange ideas engage in further debate, then you'll need to refrain, as well.
Whether or not the Iraqis gained anything from the US prosecuting the consequence for the Iraqi government's violation of the Cease Fire is not the point of our involvement in the country. We are there...again...because the Iraqi government led by Saddam Hussein violated the terms of the Cease Fire. A Cease Fire that was brought about by the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq-a pure invasion of conquest. They, the Iraqi government was told that "dire consequences" would result from violating the Cease Fire. Every government involved in the liberation of Kuwait signed off on it. Since everyone knows that the UN is a toothless old corruption dog, everyone knew that the US or another nation with the will to act would be required to put teeth into the agreement. Teeth that bite, as Saddam Hussein found out. That said. I truly hope that the Iraqi people can directly benefit from the current involvement of the US. And perhaps they will. However, it is not right of you to blame the deaths of the people killed by the insurrection (terrorists) on the US. The US would have pulled out long ago had the terrorists not fired up their machine of violence. I think it would have been a mistake to pull out, but that is what they would have done.
Rarely work as intended. The better solution is education and incentive and even a little shame.
That is always a possibility. Any country that feels threatened has historically done unsavory things. However, if you follow the internal politics of the United States, then you would know that actions like that cause huge problems for the people in power, at the time. Our country is pretty split on many issues and it takes a lot to get things like that done.
Contrary to the Bush administration's bungling of the Iraq situation (which is what I assume you are alluding to), the "fact" of weapons of mass destruction are *not* the reason that the US should have gone in to Iraq. The fact is the original Iraq War was NEVER over. We, the Coalition, had a cease fire, in place, with a country, Iraq, that lost a war of aggression against Kuwait. Iraq violated the terms of that cease fire (not allowing WMD inspectors the free access that was stipulated in the cease fire to ensure that there are no weapons of mass destruction). The post September 11 environment in the United States was very intolerant of states like Iraq that had already demonstrated a willingness to simply invade another country and claim it. The continued rhetoric and actions of the Iraqi government were not tolerable to the United States and to several other countries. On the basis of the legal cease fire, the Coalition meted out the consequences of Iraq's disobedience.
Now, I personally think that we should have let Hussein continue to run the country rather than basically turn over Iraq to Iran, which is what is happening. Iran is a far greater threat. Hussein was and is a stupid delusional man with more ambition than means to accomplish it. Iran, on the other hand, offers real instability to the region. Evidence is mounting that they are actively working on a nuclear weapons program combined with their political leaders openly pronounced that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth. That is a real threat.
In the Cold War conflict, the Soviet Union and the United States both had the capability to create mass destruction. The the concept of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) worked. Neither side had any desire for the death and destruction of their own side. However, with the martyrs that run religious states like Iran, there is not such concept holding them back. Ending their own lives and the lives of others (millions if possible) only mean greater glory for them in heaven.
The exact nation who is producing the oil is not of concern to me. Rather it is any of the oil producing nations. I always hear that American should come up with the solution to things like global warming (if it is indeed a human caused problem and not just one cycle in the billions of years of a planet ecology). What I want to hear is the plan and efforts of the oil producing nations. America isn't the only one here with the money and resources to clean up the air. Heck, if oil producing nations really thought that cutting out the burning of oil would solve the perceived global warming problem and they REALLY CARED, then they could just stop pumping oil entirely - couldn't they.
The thought had occurred to me. However, that is my point. They have the money for the research. Plus, I thought that only us Americans were the only greedy capitalists in the world. Reading /., at least that is the opinion most often expressed.
I just want to hear from the oil producing nations what their plan for alternative energy is.