If the refund wasn't given at the time of removal and still has not been given, then, until a refund is given, it's "Too bad and no refund.", as I stated. Given Sony's history, I have no expectation that it will change from that.
Don't just read the headline, RTFA (I know, I know). Yes, all the malware he lists is old news and yes, most of it is variants of the same code. Read all of it, up to the part where he points out that, as old as those examples are, they're all still out there because nobody on a Mac gives security a second thought (hey, they're on a Mac and Macs are invinceable, they "Just Work"); read to where he points out that this doesn't happen on Windows, because Windows virii are detected and added to antivirus definitions fairly quickly.
Maybe, and I could be wrong here, I mean, I only work in information security so I probably don't know what I'm talking about, but please hear me out anyway... Maybe malware authors aren't writing as many MAc virii because they don't need to? Follow my logic here, for a moment:
Windows virus comes out, gives hacker full access to system.
Windows virus is detected and added to AV definitions.
People update their AV.
Virus now next to useless.
Author abandons it and writes a new one.
--OR--
Mac virus comes out, gives hacker full access to system.
The majority of Windows virii are detected by heuristic realtime scanners before being sent off to AV vendors for analysis. I'll quote myself:
Also, because OSX users don't typically run antivirus software and those who do typically don't run a realtime scanner with decent heuristics, it is possible (read: probable) that there are more OSX virii out there that we don't know about than there are that we do.
Further, the.THT is not a file extension, it is a malware class abbreviation; it identifies the malware as a Trojan Horse Threat (typically, a trojan would be marked with.TRJ, but some vendors use different terminology). You can read more on this specific thread here, including typical filenames used by this threat (which, by the way, do not have extensions) Since you've never heard of AppleScript.TrojanHorseThreat and it is still out there, with new infections being reported on a fairly regular basis, perhaps you should click that little link.
Or, stay ignorant and be taken by surprise; isn't that what you used to look down on us PC users for, until fairly recently?
AppleScript.THT, uses a flaw in Apple's remote desktop implementation. There was next to no network security at the company when I started in 2010; at the end of 2010, after the infections, I took over security. We don't have these issues, now.
There are several known Mac viruses out there, you can read about them here. Also, because OSX users don't typically run antivirus software and those who do typically don't run a realtime scanner with decent heuristics, it is possible (read: probable) that there are more OSX virii out there that we don't know about than there are that we do.
I use all three operating systems on a daily basis. Here's my breakdown: CentOS 6.2 as a host OS on my laptop Win7 Ultimate as a VM guest on my laptop OSX as a VM guest on my laptop CentOS 5.8 on my server Debian 5.0.9 and 6.0.4 on servers at work
Why is CentOS the host OS on my laptop? Because two of the four Macs at my workplace have had viruses and the Windows version of VMWare Workstation doesn't play a nicely with OSX guests as the Linux version does. That's right, I chose Windows or Linux over OSX for security reasons and chose Linux over Windows for performance reasons. Yes, that distills down to "I chose Windows over OSX for security reasons." and that is based entirely on my use of both systems, side by side, on a daily basis, for several years.
I remember trojans and viruses from the DOS days, as well. Ahh, the good ol' DOS days, when getting infected meant you executed something you shouldn't have. Wait... That still happens; that's how Macs get infected. That's how Linux installs get infected. That's the vast majority of how Windows installs get infected. Windows 7 defaults to "locked-down and secure", questions you if you try to do something stupid, and alerts you if an application tries to do something stupid (UAC); Linux, in general, will nag you if you try to do something stupid and alert you if an application tries to do something stupid (asking for root/your password); OSX halfheartedly does this, but in my experience it's trivial to bypass (wait for the user to authorize a legit application and piggyback on that authorization). Some Linux distros have similar functionality to OSX and allow the same exploit, and somehow this is considered "good enough" for a desktop system.
At any rate, all 3 systems ship in a secure state and all 3 can be made just as vulnerable to worms by exposing services to a network. OSX users who still believe they're immune are in for a rude awakening, very soon. This is where Linux and OSX users differ; Linux users are aware that exploits exist for every platform and know that countermeasures must be taken. It's one thing that Microsoft has finally started doing right, by the way, they've started driving the point home that your system is only as secure as how you use it; again, something Linux users have known from the start.
I'm sure it was insured against a great number of possible occurences, and I'm sure there were just as great a number of exclusions. Have you ever read an insurance document?
I'm not even gonna bother quoting this ignorant tirade.
No, I don't leave my house unlocked because someone could just break a window, because the window still provides some level of entry for breaking in; just because one windows is broken in one house does not mean every window in every house breaks, so there's still a point in locking the door. This is different. Here, once one person has broken secure boot in one place, that same code breaks it everywhere. There is no need to break secure boot on every device you want to get into, like you'd have to do with windows->homes; break it once, get in anywhere, you have a master key now.
And the people I'm talking about are the ones described in the rest of the paragraph you selectively quoted from my post. Most people I know are like most people you know, but most people we know aren't most people. You know why? Because, and this is how society works in case you didn't know, we tend to associate with like-minded people, so it would stand to reason that most people you know would be similar to you. Now, consider the few you know who install every cute screensaver or cursor pack or cutesy little free game they see, then consider how many people they know, who shared these games with them or who they share these games with, then consider the people they know, now you see the majority and it's not most of the people you know. If most people cared about security over functionality, we'd all be using Linux and that's a fact.
Disclaimer: System Administrator on a Win/OSX/Linux mixed network. I love all my children.
I wrote a whole long list of points, then the submission got fucked up, so I'll just summarize.
If they don't verify signatures on every file, what's stopping someone from running 3rd party apps containing malware? Hell, they could autorun, run in the background, and the user will never see them. Sure, antivirus software would be able to catch them, which is the current situation, except for rootkits, which wouldn't be possible until an exploit for secure boot was found. Oh, and one will be found, the hacker community as a whole will see this as a challenge and tackle it head-on, just for fun. So, then, we have added expense for a security measure that is cracked within a week and rendered useless, leaving us right back where we started. The only way to accomplish the type of security some people assume Microsoft is after here is to require every bit of code to be signed, and to verify those signatures every time the code is executed.
Ok, so let's only run signed code. Great.
One of the following happens:
- It gets cracked. All that expense for nothing.
- Microsoft's signing certificate is compromised. All that expense for nothing.
- Cost of certification set low enough to allow for free games and apps, but the vetting process has to be sped up in order to keep up with demand, which allows some malware through. Now that there's an exploit out there, it gets cracked. All that expense for nothing.
- Cost of certification set low enough to allow for free games and apps, but the vetting process required for certification prior to signing creates a huge waitlist, the apps just aren't there because they're all waiting to be certified, and people flee to other platforms which have apps (see WebOS for an example).
- Cost of certification set too high for free games and apps to be feasible. People want their free games and apps, so they go to a platform that has them.
In 3 of the 5 possible scenarios, it gets cracked; Microsoft paid more to implement the "feature", manufacturers paid more to implement the hardware requirements and to license OS containing the "feature", developers paid more to sign their code, end-users paid more for the device and the apps, all for nothing, because it was all rendered worthless when it was cracked. In the other 2, the platform fails because it was unable to provide what end-users wanted.
People don't care about security, nor does this provide any of it. We wouldn't be talking about requiring signed code if people cared about security, because people would take the time to secure their own systems using tools already available. People want their cute shit apps and games, they want them for free, and they want them whether or not they'll send spam to half the world every time they're run, so they'll go to the platform that can give them that. This is not a problem that can be solved by technical means, because any platform which implements those means won't be used by those users. Period.
You don't need to be a security expert to know that a vault with 1 door you control is more secure than a vault with one door you control, and another you don't, while a vault with only one door you don't control is least secure of all.
There, fixed that for you.
These new requirements create a vault, YOUR vault, with a single door, which you do not control. At least if you control the door, you can see what's inside and verify that everything is as it should be. Does that mean that you can also let someone in who you shouldn't? Yes; but, so can whoever's in control of that other door. Thus why it's important to have your own door, to access your own vault, so you can possibly know of the keeper of that other door has done just that.
There are security reasons to require these "features" to be implemented and made available to the user to enable. There are even security reasons to require that they be enabled by default, possibly even requiring the user to click through a dozen or so warning screens or even download special software to disable the "features". There is absolutely no security reason to require the "features" to be made impossible to disable.
Hell, if security is the actual concern here and MS is worried that any mechanism by which the settings can be configured may be attacked through software, dictate that any such configuration be locked by a hardware switch placed in the battery compartment, under the battery or battery cover, allowing the device to boot only into a special mode where the settings can be modified, requiring that the switch be placed back into "safe" mode to boot the OS. In this way, the settings can only be modified when the switch is enabled and, then, only by the user configuration utility, under the user's control, since no other software could run while in that mode.
Damn, it just seems so simple when you look at it from the perspective of USER security, rather than MARKET SHARE security. I can see how that latter perspective may complicate matters a bit; this is why it's obvious that Microsoft's intentions are.
In one of many cities. I, personally, had never seen a metered handicap space until your post, in 30 years of life. I'd say seeing something once in 30 years makes it pretty rare on a global scale, regardless how prevalent that thing may be in one location, or a handful thereof.
You really think your body absorbs everything you put into it? What are you shitting out, then?
Your body takes what it thinks it needs and shits out the rest. When your eating habits are irregular, your body thinks it needs to prepare for impending famine, so it takes more and shits out less; that's when you start getting fat.
If you can't eat a regular diet at regular intervals, limiting your intake is the only way to prevent this; of course, that further reinforces your body's notion that you'll be running out of food soon, so it will store every extra calorie it can.
Now, I'm no scientist, but I can back this up with personal experience. I stayed at 132lb for 12 years, regardless of how much I ate or how active I was. There were months where I would sit around all day, not lift a god damned finger, and eat 10k calories most days. No weight gain during those months. There were months that I would be super active and only take in 2-3k calories. No weight loss during those months. Why? Because I ate nutritionally balanced meals on a fairly regular schedule, with light snacks between meals.
That means I always ate breakfast within 30min of waking, lunch 5hr after, and dinner 5hr after that. Assuming I was waking at 7:30AM, that means I was eating at 8AM, 11AM, and 6PM. If I wake earlier or later, my mealtimes would be adjusted; and I never had an issue should I eat a half hour earlier or later.
Then, my lifestyle changed and I was no longer able to keep with that schedule. I put on 61lb in 2 months before I was able to get back on that meal schedule. That was 7 years ago and I still haven't lost most of that weight, though I am down to 177lb (from 193) due to adding a regular exercise routine 30min after dinner 2 months ago.
You'll want to talk to a physician and a dietician, make sure they know about each other and know to communicate with each other, to figure out what "balanced meal" means for you. Once you do that, start eating on a regular schedule (from waking time, not based on a 24hr clock) and you'll find that, after a short while, your weight will stabilize, regardless of caloric intake or activity. Then, you'll find as I'm finding, if you're active 30-60min after eating, your body will start to work itself toward its ideal weight, though this process is much slower than weight gain. Also, planning for exercise will help you limit your intake during those meals after which you intend to exercise; you'll eventually learn that it's uncomfortable to get up and move a lot after overeating. While, as I laid out above, that doesn't have an effect on weight gain if you're eating the right foods at the right times, it does affect weight loss.
I'm not the only person I know who uses this diet successfully, but I don't have the same level of details about others as I do about my own experience, so I can't recount their details for you. You'll just have to take my word for it, or try it yourself for a year.
No, that's trying to push someone out from in front of your car door; but, though you're pushing them hard enough that their ribs are cracking, you're unable to move them and they're refusing to move themselves.
Street parking rarely, if ever, has reserved accessible spaces.
Emphasis mine. Please note that "rarely" != "never"; the buzzer and counterexample were unnecessary, as the poster to whom you are responding already acknowledged that those spaces exist, while stating that they are, indeed, rare.
Price out a Mac. Go ahead, go for a top-of-the-line machine.
Now, price out a PC with identical specs and no OS. We'll account for the OS later. Be sure to choose quality components, here; match the performance and quality of the Mac you just priced out as closely as possible. Where you can't find an exact match, opt for the higher-performance part; you'll understand why, later.
Then, subtract the price of the PC from the price of the Mac. That's the cost of OSX for that machine; the full, non-upgrade version.
Now, find pricing for full versions of windows. To be fair, we'll go with Win 7 Professional for this, as includes similar functionality to OSX. Home Premium lacks the backup functionality and some of the configurability, Premium includes features you can't get in OSX.
Subtract the price of Win 7 Professional (currently $299.99, direct from MS) from the cost of OSX. This is how much more OSX costs than Windows.
That said, yes, with Windows 7 Professional priced at $199.99 for an upgrade, the $29.99 OSX Lion upgrade is cheaper by $170.00. With that said, how many times do you have to upgrade both operating systems before you come out ahead with OSX?
The masses might not care about it now, but when Google can't keep up with takedown notices on Youtube, and gets shut down because of it, people will care. Millions of Facebook posts link to Youtube, if Youtube is in violation, Facebook would be, as well; so, for those who never use Youtube, Facebook will be the real eye-opener.
Indeed. I want one for this very purpose. Something I can toss in the glove box without caring too much, and velcro flat on the dash to use as a HUD when I need those extra gauges.
Of course, being able to do other stuff with it, as well, when it's not acting as a performance gauge HUD, would be a benefit.
Slashdot Mirror
If the refund wasn't given at the time of removal and still has not been given, then, until a refund is given, it's "Too bad and no refund.", as I stated. Given Sony's history, I have no expectation that it will change from that.
You did miss it... Re-read TFS, it's right there. You paid for it but didn't download it yet? Too bad and no refund. Painful.
You didn't know what to say, huh?
Here's an intesting read: http://blogs.techworld.com/war-on-error/2010/04/the-truth-about-mac-malware-its-a-joke/index.htm
Don't just read the headline, RTFA (I know, I know). Yes, all the malware he lists is old news and yes, most of it is variants of the same code. Read all of it, up to the part where he points out that, as old as those examples are, they're all still out there because nobody on a Mac gives security a second thought (hey, they're on a Mac and Macs are invinceable, they "Just Work"); read to where he points out that this doesn't happen on Windows, because Windows virii are detected and added to antivirus definitions fairly quickly.
Maybe, and I could be wrong here, I mean, I only work in information security so I probably don't know what I'm talking about, but please hear me out anyway... Maybe malware authors aren't writing as many MAc virii because they don't need to? Follow my logic here, for a moment:
Follow?
The majority of Windows virii are detected by heuristic realtime scanners before being sent off to AV vendors for analysis. I'll quote myself:
Also, because OSX users don't typically run antivirus software and those who do typically don't run a realtime scanner with decent heuristics, it is possible (read: probable) that there are more OSX virii out there that we don't know about than there are that we do.
Further, the .THT is not a file extension, it is a malware class abbreviation; it identifies the malware as a Trojan Horse Threat (typically, a trojan would be marked with .TRJ, but some vendors use different terminology). You can read more on this specific thread here, including typical filenames used by this threat (which, by the way, do not have extensions) Since you've never heard of AppleScript.TrojanHorseThreat and it is still out there, with new infections being reported on a fairly regular basis, perhaps you should click that little link.
Or, stay ignorant and be taken by surprise; isn't that what you used to look down on us PC users for, until fairly recently?
AppleScript.THT, uses a flaw in Apple's remote desktop implementation. There was next to no network security at the company when I started in 2010; at the end of 2010, after the infections, I took over security. We don't have these issues, now.
There are several known Mac viruses out there, you can read about them here. Also, because OSX users don't typically run antivirus software and those who do typically don't run a realtime scanner with decent heuristics, it is possible (read: probable) that there are more OSX virii out there that we don't know about than there are that we do.
I use all three operating systems on a daily basis. Here's my breakdown:
CentOS 6.2 as a host OS on my laptop
Win7 Ultimate as a VM guest on my laptop
OSX as a VM guest on my laptop
CentOS 5.8 on my server
Debian 5.0.9 and 6.0.4 on servers at work
Why is CentOS the host OS on my laptop? Because two of the four Macs at my workplace have had viruses and the Windows version of VMWare Workstation doesn't play a nicely with OSX guests as the Linux version does. That's right, I chose Windows or Linux over OSX for security reasons and chose Linux over Windows for performance reasons. Yes, that distills down to "I chose Windows over OSX for security reasons." and that is based entirely on my use of both systems, side by side, on a daily basis, for several years.
I remember trojans and viruses from the DOS days, as well. Ahh, the good ol' DOS days, when getting infected meant you executed something you shouldn't have. Wait... That still happens; that's how Macs get infected. That's how Linux installs get infected. That's the vast majority of how Windows installs get infected. Windows 7 defaults to "locked-down and secure", questions you if you try to do something stupid, and alerts you if an application tries to do something stupid (UAC); Linux, in general, will nag you if you try to do something stupid and alert you if an application tries to do something stupid (asking for root/your password); OSX halfheartedly does this, but in my experience it's trivial to bypass (wait for the user to authorize a legit application and piggyback on that authorization). Some Linux distros have similar functionality to OSX and allow the same exploit, and somehow this is considered "good enough" for a desktop system.
At any rate, all 3 systems ship in a secure state and all 3 can be made just as vulnerable to worms by exposing services to a network. OSX users who still believe they're immune are in for a rude awakening, very soon. This is where Linux and OSX users differ; Linux users are aware that exploits exist for every platform and know that countermeasures must be taken. It's one thing that Microsoft has finally started doing right, by the way, they've started driving the point home that your system is only as secure as how you use it; again, something Linux users have known from the start.
Mac fans will catch on some day, I hope.
I'm sure it was insured against a great number of possible occurences, and I'm sure there were just as great a number of exclusions. Have you ever read an insurance document?
On second thought, after re-reading GP, I will quote.
You can't simply allow other software to run on the machine that doesn't follow that chain and keep the system secure.
That's what I just said. And it will still be cracked.
I'm not even gonna bother quoting this ignorant tirade.
No, I don't leave my house unlocked because someone could just break a window, because the window still provides some level of entry for breaking in; just because one windows is broken in one house does not mean every window in every house breaks, so there's still a point in locking the door. This is different. Here, once one person has broken secure boot in one place, that same code breaks it everywhere. There is no need to break secure boot on every device you want to get into, like you'd have to do with windows->homes; break it once, get in anywhere, you have a master key now.
And the people I'm talking about are the ones described in the rest of the paragraph you selectively quoted from my post. Most people I know are like most people you know, but most people we know aren't most people. You know why? Because, and this is how society works in case you didn't know, we tend to associate with like-minded people, so it would stand to reason that most people you know would be similar to you. Now, consider the few you know who install every cute screensaver or cursor pack or cutesy little free game they see, then consider how many people they know, who shared these games with them or who they share these games with, then consider the people they know, now you see the majority and it's not most of the people you know. If most people cared about security over functionality, we'd all be using Linux and that's a fact.
Disclaimer: System Administrator on a Win/OSX/Linux mixed network. I love all my children.
I wrote a whole long list of points, then the submission got fucked up, so I'll just summarize.
If they don't verify signatures on every file, what's stopping someone from running 3rd party apps containing malware? Hell, they could autorun, run in the background, and the user will never see them. Sure, antivirus software would be able to catch them, which is the current situation, except for rootkits, which wouldn't be possible until an exploit for secure boot was found. Oh, and one will be found, the hacker community as a whole will see this as a challenge and tackle it head-on, just for fun. So, then, we have added expense for a security measure that is cracked within a week and rendered useless, leaving us right back where we started. The only way to accomplish the type of security some people assume Microsoft is after here is to require every bit of code to be signed, and to verify those signatures every time the code is executed.
Ok, so let's only run signed code. Great.
One of the following happens:
- It gets cracked. All that expense for nothing.
- Microsoft's signing certificate is compromised. All that expense for nothing.
- Cost of certification set low enough to allow for free games and apps, but the vetting process has to be sped up in order to keep up with demand, which allows some malware through. Now that there's an exploit out there, it gets cracked. All that expense for nothing.
- Cost of certification set low enough to allow for free games and apps, but the vetting process required for certification prior to signing creates a huge waitlist, the apps just aren't there because they're all waiting to be certified, and people flee to other platforms which have apps (see WebOS for an example).
- Cost of certification set too high for free games and apps to be feasible. People want their free games and apps, so they go to a platform that has them.
In 3 of the 5 possible scenarios, it gets cracked; Microsoft paid more to implement the "feature", manufacturers paid more to implement the hardware requirements and to license OS containing the "feature", developers paid more to sign their code, end-users paid more for the device and the apps, all for nothing, because it was all rendered worthless when it was cracked. In the other 2, the platform fails because it was unable to provide what end-users wanted.
People don't care about security, nor does this provide any of it. We wouldn't be talking about requiring signed code if people cared about security, because people would take the time to secure their own systems using tools already available. People want their cute shit apps and games, they want them for free, and they want them whether or not they'll send spam to half the world every time they're run, so they'll go to the platform that can give them that. This is not a problem that can be solved by technical means, because any platform which implements those means won't be used by those users. Period.
Ahh, except that it's *their* vault. It's more secure because there is only one door, and they're the ones with access to it.
You don't need to be a security expert to know that a vault with 1 door you control is more secure than a vault with one door you control, and another you don't, while a vault with only one door you don't control is least secure of all.
There, fixed that for you.
These new requirements create a vault, YOUR vault, with a single door, which you do not control. At least if you control the door, you can see what's inside and verify that everything is as it should be. Does that mean that you can also let someone in who you shouldn't? Yes; but, so can whoever's in control of that other door. Thus why it's important to have your own door, to access your own vault, so you can possibly know of the keeper of that other door has done just that.
Ideally, the vault would have only one door and that door would belong to the user. Pretty simple to implement in a very secure manner, see here: http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2620774&cid=38704664
There are security reasons to require these "features" to be implemented and made available to the user to enable. There are even security reasons to require that they be enabled by default, possibly even requiring the user to click through a dozen or so warning screens or even download special software to disable the "features". There is absolutely no security reason to require the "features" to be made impossible to disable.
Hell, if security is the actual concern here and MS is worried that any mechanism by which the settings can be configured may be attacked through software, dictate that any such configuration be locked by a hardware switch placed in the battery compartment, under the battery or battery cover, allowing the device to boot only into a special mode where the settings can be modified, requiring that the switch be placed back into "safe" mode to boot the OS. In this way, the settings can only be modified when the switch is enabled and, then, only by the user configuration utility, under the user's control, since no other software could run while in that mode.
Damn, it just seems so simple when you look at it from the perspective of USER security, rather than MARKET SHARE security. I can see how that latter perspective may complicate matters a bit; this is why it's obvious that Microsoft's intentions are.
In one of many cities. I, personally, had never seen a metered handicap space until your post, in 30 years of life. I'd say seeing something once in 30 years makes it pretty rare on a global scale, regardless how prevalent that thing may be in one location, or a handful thereof.
Or, because there was a "legit" way to root the phone. Now that there's not, watch an exploit appear.
You really think your body absorbs everything you put into it? What are you shitting out, then?
Your body takes what it thinks it needs and shits out the rest. When your eating habits are irregular, your body thinks it needs to prepare for impending famine, so it takes more and shits out less; that's when you start getting fat.
If you can't eat a regular diet at regular intervals, limiting your intake is the only way to prevent this; of course, that further reinforces your body's notion that you'll be running out of food soon, so it will store every extra calorie it can.
Now, I'm no scientist, but I can back this up with personal experience. I stayed at 132lb for 12 years, regardless of how much I ate or how active I was. There were months where I would sit around all day, not lift a god damned finger, and eat 10k calories most days. No weight gain during those months. There were months that I would be super active and only take in 2-3k calories. No weight loss during those months. Why? Because I ate nutritionally balanced meals on a fairly regular schedule, with light snacks between meals.
That means I always ate breakfast within 30min of waking, lunch 5hr after, and dinner 5hr after that. Assuming I was waking at 7:30AM, that means I was eating at 8AM, 11AM, and 6PM. If I wake earlier or later, my mealtimes would be adjusted; and I never had an issue should I eat a half hour earlier or later.
Then, my lifestyle changed and I was no longer able to keep with that schedule. I put on 61lb in 2 months before I was able to get back on that meal schedule. That was 7 years ago and I still haven't lost most of that weight, though I am down to 177lb (from 193) due to adding a regular exercise routine 30min after dinner 2 months ago.
You'll want to talk to a physician and a dietician, make sure they know about each other and know to communicate with each other, to figure out what "balanced meal" means for you. Once you do that, start eating on a regular schedule (from waking time, not based on a 24hr clock) and you'll find that, after a short while, your weight will stabilize, regardless of caloric intake or activity. Then, you'll find as I'm finding, if you're active 30-60min after eating, your body will start to work itself toward its ideal weight, though this process is much slower than weight gain. Also, planning for exercise will help you limit your intake during those meals after which you intend to exercise; you'll eventually learn that it's uncomfortable to get up and move a lot after overeating. While, as I laid out above, that doesn't have an effect on weight gain if you're eating the right foods at the right times, it does affect weight loss.
I'm not the only person I know who uses this diet successfully, but I don't have the same level of details about others as I do about my own experience, so I can't recount their details for you. You'll just have to take my word for it, or try it yourself for a year.
No, that's trying to push someone out from in front of your car door; but, though you're pushing them hard enough that their ribs are cracking, you're unable to move them and they're refusing to move themselves.
Read what you replied to again.
Street parking rarely, if ever, has reserved accessible spaces.
Emphasis mine. Please note that "rarely" != "never"; the buzzer and counterexample were unnecessary, as the poster to whom you are responding already acknowledged that those spaces exist, while stating that they are, indeed, rare.
And the rest of the spots? Those are taken, as well, at those times, aren't they?
Price out a Mac. Go ahead, go for a top-of-the-line machine.
Now, price out a PC with identical specs and no OS. We'll account for the OS later. Be sure to choose quality components, here; match the performance and quality of the Mac you just priced out as closely as possible. Where you can't find an exact match, opt for the higher-performance part; you'll understand why, later.
Then, subtract the price of the PC from the price of the Mac. That's the cost of OSX for that machine; the full, non-upgrade version.
Now, find pricing for full versions of windows. To be fair, we'll go with Win 7 Professional for this, as includes similar functionality to OSX. Home Premium lacks the backup functionality and some of the configurability, Premium includes features you can't get in OSX.
Subtract the price of Win 7 Professional (currently $299.99, direct from MS) from the cost of OSX. This is how much more OSX costs than Windows.
That said, yes, with Windows 7 Professional priced at $199.99 for an upgrade, the $29.99 OSX Lion upgrade is cheaper by $170.00. With that said, how many times do you have to upgrade both operating systems before you come out ahead with OSX?
Facepalm...
A burger eating a skinny person?
So, when SOPA passes?
The masses might not care about it now, but when Google can't keep up with takedown notices on Youtube, and gets shut down because of it, people will care. Millions of Facebook posts link to Youtube, if Youtube is in violation, Facebook would be, as well; so, for those who never use Youtube, Facebook will be the real eye-opener.
Indeed. I want one for this very purpose. Something I can toss in the glove box without caring too much, and velcro flat on the dash to use as a HUD when I need those extra gauges.
Of course, being able to do other stuff with it, as well, when it's not acting as a performance gauge HUD, would be a benefit.