It is only the "Its Apple! Its immune to hacks!! Its got the ultimate security!!!" fanbois will be affected.
Careful, I recently got into a week long flamewar with phayes by mentioning that such people exist. You don't want to trigger that raving lunitic, trust me.
the necessary bioequivalence studies require a sample of the existing medication provided directly by the company, and not simply purchased from a pharmacy, which Turing could decline to provide.
Well that's fucking bullshit. For starters, a sample provided by a pharmacy is less likely to have been tampered with than a sample provided by the manufacturer to a competitor. The second point I would make is already made in the quote; a pharmacy is less likely to decline the purchase.
I did not know that was the case but, now that I'm aware, certainly hold the position that it should be changed. That's clearly a bought law.
Mylan still holds patents related to EpiPen...
Mylan is run by a group of absolute scumbags. I very much enjoyed the look of terror on Heather Bresch's face as she testified before Congress last September. I watched the whole thing; it's the first time in my adult life I've intently watched CNN. For the record, though, generic adrenaline autoinjectors are available, FDA-approved, and considerably cheaper than the EpiPen. If you have insurance, the generic may not be on the company's formulary; but, then, you have insurance and should only be paying your copay for prescriptions, anyway. If you don't have insurance, or your insurance won't cover the EpiPen, you can have your doctor write the prescription for the generic.
The only places you'll see the "approved device" issue come up are schools and other government-run institutions, which already get them for free (or at cost) through a Mylan-sponsored program. In that case, you can't really complain about the price of the name brand, as nobody could undercut them in the first place. While I still think Mylan are complete scum, I'll chalk that program up as something good they've done, at least as long as sugh institutions are legally bound to purchase only from a pre-approved list of name brands.
It's like in 1997 when the FDA banned Seldane (terfenadine) in favor of its successor Allegra (fexofenadine) the same month the generic for terfenadine was due to come out.
Now that just reads like a conspiracy theory once you read up on the actual history of terfenadine.
That's not to say none of what you're alluding to actually happens -- I'm certain it does -- but you've chosen extremely poor examples. You chose a drug with a generic available and a drug pulled over legitimate safety concerns.
The fexofenadine patent expired in 2001, Allegra is still on the market and there are generics for it. The real story is that the manufacturer attempted to suppress the release of terfenadine generics by claiming that they infringed on the fexofenadine patent because fexofenadine is the active metabolite of terfenadine. That's right, they claimed that people taking terfenadine generics were violating their patent by manufacturing fexofenadine in their bodies; of course, this also meant that people taking the name brand Seldane were doing the same, but I'm guessing they didn't stop to consider this.
Do you not find it easier to make yourself do something you enjoy than it is to make yourself do something boring? There are multiple ways something might be easy and, yes, it is possible for something to be both easy and challenging at the same time; performing the task itself may well be the most challenging thing anyone's ever done but, if you truly enjoy it, it might be the easiest thing you've ever made yourself do.
Eh? He was being pedantic about someone's use of the word "easy". How does me pointing out his pednatry (after he called me a pedant, mind you) make me a cunt? Sorry, no, he was both wrong and being pedantic; I was merely pointing that out after he fired the first shot.
The post of mine to which he initially replied was actually making a point which he still has been unable to acknowledge.
I used to bitch about dupes like you do, then I realized that you can often get two differing perspectives by reading both stories. When both summaries link to the same story, you can still git differing views by reading the comments on both.
As annoying as it might be until you realize this, there is actually some value in the dupes.
Ah yes, chargebacks. I've only had to fall back on those twice in the past decade, but by golly if the issue didn't get resolved immediately! One of them, the vendor claimed they couldn't get their system to accept the refund and suggested the chargeback, so I did it -- and they didn't fight it, so I'm half inclined to believe them.
Both were for services where my other payment option was a check. Total for both transactions? Over $1000. Across 10 years, that's $100/yr I managed to not lose by using a credit card.
Add in rewards, which range on my cards from 1% to 5%, and I pay one month's rent each year with rewards and legitimate chargebacks. In the SF Bay Area where rent ain't cheap.
Suckers, people with something to hide, and gamblers use cash. I do fall into that last category, which is just more incentive for me to not keep cash on hand.
Better than increasing prices 3.5% and getting 0% back. As long as credit cards exist, we'll be paying for them whether we use them or not; might as well use them.
I use credit cards almost exclusively. I pay them in full monthly.
When a card number is stolen, I have 0 liability. I also only spend what I have on hand; again, because I pay the cards in full monthly.
If I get mugged, I call the CC company and report them stolen, I've lost a wallet, but no cash. If you get mugged, you'd better hope you weren't on your way to make a large purchase.
Oh, and I get rewards points for my purchases and still don't pay interest -- because I pay the cards in full monthly.
And if the shit hits the fan one day, I've got all the cash I didn't spend this month, minus minimum payments on the cards, on hand to hold me through next month. What's your safety net look like?
But seriously, do they not load test in the run-up to these extravaganzas?
No. Last time I was there for a one-day sale (unplanned, so I didn't have my Macy's card with me), their system for looking up Macy's accounts was down. There was an additional 20% off that day if you used your Macy's card so, while I was able to still make my purchase, I didn't save as much as I could have.
Their website seems to be broken and unable to display Macy's card account info more often than not, as well.
It's almost like they've forgotten they're not some mom and pop operation.
You're complaining about an exception, rather than the rule. Cheaper generics for most drugs do exist shortly after the patents on those drugs expire; even if the alternatives aren't cheaper, alternatives can still be made.
Contrast that against the broadband market, where having an alternative provider is the exception.
The other reply below yours points out yet another difference; one problem is caused by too much regulation while the other is caused by too little.
Huh. That's actually a thing? Offhand, I can think of a handful of ways around it, most of which involve finding people who already take the name brand. Before you go on about liability, one would imagine there'd be less liability with a clinical trial of a "copy" of a known-safe drug than there was with the clinical trials of the name brand when it was first brought to market.
I could be wrong about that, this isn't a field I've worked in, but the logic seems to bear out.
However, that's all got nothing to do with my point, which was that the drug patent is the only legal barrier to entry; once that expires, there is none. Are there other barriers? Of course, as with any other business, there are! But it's not the same situation as with ISPs, where most localities say "we already have a [cable/phone] provider, there's no room for you, piss off"; it is conceivable that you might find a way to bring a generic to market.
As for the other comment below yours, well, they weren't prevented from coming to market, were they? Furthermore, those drugs are the exception, rather than the rule; for most of us, that would be an acceptable situation in the ISP market, rather than the current situation where having an alternative at all is the exception.
You go ahead and think that. Most people would find what I do for a living to be quite difficult; I find it easy because I love what I do.
Most people would find it hard to work in a field like rocket science, as well; but rocket scientists find it easy. Sure, the math might be complex, and there's a lot you have to keep track of; but, if you have a genuine interest in what you're doing, you find it easy, no matter what it is. Personally, I doubt I'd last a week as a rocket scientist or a farmer, and it's just as likely that rocket scientists and farmers would find my work hard, as well.
If you can't understand what that means, well, I feel sorry for you as you'll likely never live up to your full potential.
And, for the record, that AC's use of easy was correct.
achieved without great effort; presenting few difficulties
- or -
Thinking that farming is a job achieved without great effort is a quick path to personal bankruptcy.
Yeah, I think that's the point they were trying to make, and it reads quite well.
If you don't find your job easy (even the hardest of labor is easy if you enjoy it), you're in the wrong line of work. I'd say finding an easy job is the first step to a happy and productive life.
Whatever junior, when you lie to yourself and others the way you have demonstrated here, nothing you say can be trusted.
So your argument has boiled down to shouting "FAKE NEWS" at the top of your lungs?
And that includes your claims that spotlight has a problem on your old Mac.
You mean the one I'm sitting in front of right now? Go back and read again; I made it clear that I still use the machine, just not as my primary.
Your avoidance of saying what dtrace said about the fake spotlight issue can now be laid to rest as well.
I haven't avoided it; dtrace hasn't said anything because it's literally not worth my time. I made that clear, as well. My hourly billables are high enough to justify not putting aside billable work during the day and I respect work-life balance (my own and that of my employees) too much to bother with it off of work hours. Sounds like someone's simply jealous that it was literally cheaper for me to put the machine in a role where the impact of its issues would be minimized and replace it than it was to lose billable hours tracking it down.
You're the one who's in denial, my friend. Every issue I stated my Mac has, I provided references to others having the same issue; you chose to ignore all of that because it doesn't fit your world view that Macs never have real problems. Sorry to burst your bubble, but not everything we true Mac fans (who want to see the company put out its best work) is cosmetic.
So, while you're thinking I'm some hater who's making shit up to destroy your precious Apple, I've almost certainly got more Apple gear in my home than you do (hell, there are more iPads than people here, it's like the damned things are multiplying) and have been considering, for the past few days, putting Mac Minis on my employees' desks so they no longer have to share this MacBook Pro for testing.
I'm far from a hater, my friend. I simply want Apple to live up to their "Just Works" advertising from a few years ago the way they used to.
Oh, also, it's "suffices" and "ad-hominem". Objective facts do matter, which is why I stick to the facts I know, even when you insist that the people I've met (who believe their Macs to be invulnerable) must not exist because their mere existence completely fucks your world view.
Is there a particular reason you replied to GP post 4 separate times?
You've been repeatedly arguing "that Macs users think that they are invulnerable" and that that's false
I've been repeatedly stating that I've met many a Mac user who has believed that, which is true. In your eyes, my experience simply can't be true because it differs from yours; that's indicative of a mental health condition that I'm not qualified to diagnose. You may want to go see someone who is.
The minor GUI inconsistencies the TFA whines about are not as nearly as important to Mac users as this much lower susceptibility to malware. That's been the point you've repeatedly avoided recognising over the last dozen exchanges.
Who do you think is whining about those inconsistencies? Certainly not Windows and Android users; they would never see them. Think about that for a moment.
Oh please... Like the people at Talos, Checkpoint, etc performing de-assembly of malware whose reports I read regularly need to be told that Macs have malware?
No, I'm sure they don't. I'm also sure that they can't analyze and report on what they haven't seen.
details Mac virii dating from 1997-1998. It's not 15 years old it's _19_ year old data.
Again, consider what point I was trying to make. You keep ignoring that and concentrating on the age of the data used to compare systems from that era; of course, it would be painful to you to admit that your point about the age of my data supported my point about how long ago your position on Windows vulnerability was true. My secondary point was that, back when Windows was that vulnerable, so was Mac -- and I've never said that current Macs are as vulnerable as OS9, that's a point you invented to argue against. Go read it all again after you calm down a bit.
Aww gee snookers has run plain out of coherent arguments & is now resorting to ad homonyms. Grow up junior.
No, I'm just fucking tired of you sitting here shouting "STRAWMAN! STRAWMAN!" when all you're actually tearing down yourself are your own strawmen.
Your malware knowledge is just as dated as your Mac AV info.
Again, the data was relevant to the point; the point, of course, being that something that far back is not relevant, a point which you supported in your reply.
Talos, Checkpoint etc are not just looking for known threats. They keep track of signatures of infectable elements and regularly re-examine what has been transmitted/received and to/from whom.
That's great. Macs are more prevalent in startups; startups are less likely to employ those solutions. You know both of those facts as well as I do. Your appeal to authority argument (that you've got a security background) is worthless to me as I know my own background and, well, I don't have to fall back on that as an argument. Let's just say we're not too different, you and I; at least, I'm not too different form who you claim to be. You'll see why I'm pointing that out in a moment.
Thus when a 0day is used it'll pass through.
It'll pass through what, exactly? The security solutions that aren't in place and, therefore, can't detect it? You see, someone with a security background would realize that the solutions have to be implemented to be effective.
However when someone analyses the malware (AV vendor, side effects of it activating anywhere that gets it noticed at any of their client's sites, etc), they can then notify every one of their other clients that saw the signature.
Very good, that is how it works! Now, what about all those startups, where most commercially-used Macs are found, and those home users? You know, everyone not using those solutions? There are very few Macs on the protected side of any sort of IDS (and you know
Slashdot Mirror
location tracking off
At the OS level, sure. Don't think that stops the apps themselves. GP did also reference
telemetry-riddled always-listening power sucking shit
but you didn't quote it.
"Apple has courage. We have balls."
Well, yes, but I was actually pointing out that you don't need the root password at all. That's the whole point of sudo.
It is only the "Its Apple! Its immune to hacks!! Its got the ultimate security!!!" fanbois will be affected.
Careful, I recently got into a week long flamewar with phayes by mentioning that such people exist. You don't want to trigger that raving lunitic, trust me.
sudo uses your user password...
the necessary bioequivalence studies require a sample of the existing medication provided directly by the company, and not simply purchased from a pharmacy, which Turing could decline to provide.
Well that's fucking bullshit. For starters, a sample provided by a pharmacy is less likely to have been tampered with than a sample provided by the manufacturer to a competitor. The second point I would make is already made in the quote; a pharmacy is less likely to decline the purchase.
I did not know that was the case but, now that I'm aware, certainly hold the position that it should be changed. That's clearly a bought law.
Mylan still holds patents related to EpiPen...
Mylan is run by a group of absolute scumbags. I very much enjoyed the look of terror on Heather Bresch's face as she testified before Congress last September. I watched the whole thing; it's the first time in my adult life I've intently watched CNN. For the record, though, generic adrenaline autoinjectors are available, FDA-approved, and considerably cheaper than the EpiPen. If you have insurance, the generic may not be on the company's formulary; but, then, you have insurance and should only be paying your copay for prescriptions, anyway. If you don't have insurance, or your insurance won't cover the EpiPen, you can have your doctor write the prescription for the generic.
The only places you'll see the "approved device" issue come up are schools and other government-run institutions, which already get them for free (or at cost) through a Mylan-sponsored program. In that case, you can't really complain about the price of the name brand, as nobody could undercut them in the first place. While I still think Mylan are complete scum, I'll chalk that program up as something good they've done, at least as long as sugh institutions are legally bound to purchase only from a pre-approved list of name brands.
It's like in 1997 when the FDA banned Seldane (terfenadine) in favor of its successor Allegra (fexofenadine) the same month the generic for terfenadine was due to come out.
Now that just reads like a conspiracy theory once you read up on the actual history of terfenadine.
That's not to say none of what you're alluding to actually happens -- I'm certain it does -- but you've chosen extremely poor examples. You chose a drug with a generic available and a drug pulled over legitimate safety concerns.
The fexofenadine patent expired in 2001, Allegra is still on the market and there are generics for it. The real story is that the manufacturer attempted to suppress the release of terfenadine generics by claiming that they infringed on the fexofenadine patent because fexofenadine is the active metabolite of terfenadine. That's right, they claimed that people taking terfenadine generics were violating their patent by manufacturing fexofenadine in their bodies; of course, this also meant that people taking the name brand Seldane were doing the same, but I'm guessing they didn't stop to consider this.
Do you not find it easier to make yourself do something you enjoy than it is to make yourself do something boring? There are multiple ways something might be easy and, yes, it is possible for something to be both easy and challenging at the same time; performing the task itself may well be the most challenging thing anyone's ever done but, if you truly enjoy it, it might be the easiest thing you've ever made yourself do.
Eh? He was being pedantic about someone's use of the word "easy". How does me pointing out his pednatry (after he called me a pedant, mind you) make me a cunt? Sorry, no, he was both wrong and being pedantic; I was merely pointing that out after he fired the first shot.
The post of mine to which he initially replied was actually making a point which he still has been unable to acknowledge.
EA is hoping to increase the morale of their money-mill workers (e.g. customers) so they spend more on those microtransactions.
I used to bitch about dupes like you do, then I realized that you can often get two differing perspectives by reading both stories. When both summaries link to the same story, you can still git differing views by reading the comments on both.
As annoying as it might be until you realize this, there is actually some value in the dupes.
Ah yes, chargebacks. I've only had to fall back on those twice in the past decade, but by golly if the issue didn't get resolved immediately! One of them, the vendor claimed they couldn't get their system to accept the refund and suggested the chargeback, so I did it -- and they didn't fight it, so I'm half inclined to believe them.
Both were for services where my other payment option was a check. Total for both transactions? Over $1000. Across 10 years, that's $100/yr I managed to not lose by using a credit card.
Add in rewards, which range on my cards from 1% to 5%, and I pay one month's rent each year with rewards and legitimate chargebacks. In the SF Bay Area where rent ain't cheap.
Suckers, people with something to hide, and gamblers use cash. I do fall into that last category, which is just more incentive for me to not keep cash on hand.
Better than increasing prices 3.5% and getting 0% back. As long as credit cards exist, we'll be paying for them whether we use them or not; might as well use them.
I use credit cards almost exclusively. I pay them in full monthly.
When a card number is stolen, I have 0 liability. I also only spend what I have on hand; again, because I pay the cards in full monthly.
If I get mugged, I call the CC company and report them stolen, I've lost a wallet, but no cash. If you get mugged, you'd better hope you weren't on your way to make a large purchase.
Oh, and I get rewards points for my purchases and still don't pay interest -- because I pay the cards in full monthly.
And if the shit hits the fan one day, I've got all the cash I didn't spend this month, minus minimum payments on the cards, on hand to hold me through next month. What's your safety net look like?
But seriously, do they not load test in the run-up to these extravaganzas?
No. Last time I was there for a one-day sale (unplanned, so I didn't have my Macy's card with me), their system for looking up Macy's accounts was down. There was an additional 20% off that day if you used your Macy's card so, while I was able to still make my purchase, I didn't save as much as I could have.
Their website seems to be broken and unable to display Macy's card account info more often than not, as well.
It's almost like they've forgotten they're not some mom and pop operation.
You're complaining about an exception, rather than the rule. Cheaper generics for most drugs do exist shortly after the patents on those drugs expire; even if the alternatives aren't cheaper, alternatives can still be made.
Contrast that against the broadband market, where having an alternative provider is the exception.
The other reply below yours points out yet another difference; one problem is caused by too much regulation while the other is caused by too little.
Huh. That's actually a thing? Offhand, I can think of a handful of ways around it, most of which involve finding people who already take the name brand. Before you go on about liability, one would imagine there'd be less liability with a clinical trial of a "copy" of a known-safe drug than there was with the clinical trials of the name brand when it was first brought to market.
I could be wrong about that, this isn't a field I've worked in, but the logic seems to bear out.
However, that's all got nothing to do with my point, which was that the drug patent is the only legal barrier to entry; once that expires, there is none. Are there other barriers? Of course, as with any other business, there are! But it's not the same situation as with ISPs, where most localities say "we already have a [cable/phone] provider, there's no room for you, piss off"; it is conceivable that you might find a way to bring a generic to market.
As for the other comment below yours, well, they weren't prevented from coming to market, were they? Furthermore, those drugs are the exception, rather than the rule; for most of us, that would be an acceptable situation in the ISP market, rather than the current situation where having an alternative at all is the exception.
Well, it was previously unknown that there was a market for a 20% cheaper model. Expect to see it soon.
Very much this. The drug market is not like the broadband "market"; there's actual competition once the patents expire.
I wouldn't know, I was only responding to your pedantry.
Most people would find it hard to work in a field like rocket science, as well; but rocket scientists find it easy. Sure, the math might be complex, and there's a lot you have to keep track of; but, if you have a genuine interest in what you're doing, you find it easy, no matter what it is. Personally, I doubt I'd last a week as a rocket scientist or a farmer, and it's just as likely that rocket scientists and farmers would find my work hard, as well.
If you can't understand what that means, well, I feel sorry for you as you'll likely never live up to your full potential.
And, for the record, that AC's use of easy was correct.
achieved without great effort; presenting few difficulties
- or -
Thinking that farming is a job achieved without great effort is a quick path to personal bankruptcy.
Yeah, I think that's the point they were trying to make, and it reads quite well.
If you don't find your job easy (even the hardest of labor is easy if you enjoy it), you're in the wrong line of work. I'd say finding an easy job is the first step to a happy and productive life.
Whatever junior, when you lie to yourself and others the way you have demonstrated here, nothing you say can be trusted.
So your argument has boiled down to shouting "FAKE NEWS" at the top of your lungs?
And that includes your claims that spotlight has a problem on your old Mac.
You mean the one I'm sitting in front of right now? Go back and read again; I made it clear that I still use the machine, just not as my primary.
Your avoidance of saying what dtrace said about the fake spotlight issue can now be laid to rest as well.
I haven't avoided it; dtrace hasn't said anything because it's literally not worth my time. I made that clear, as well. My hourly billables are high enough to justify not putting aside billable work during the day and I respect work-life balance (my own and that of my employees) too much to bother with it off of work hours. Sounds like someone's simply jealous that it was literally cheaper for me to put the machine in a role where the impact of its issues would be minimized and replace it than it was to lose billable hours tracking it down.
You're the one who's in denial, my friend. Every issue I stated my Mac has, I provided references to others having the same issue; you chose to ignore all of that because it doesn't fit your world view that Macs never have real problems. Sorry to burst your bubble, but not everything we true Mac fans (who want to see the company put out its best work) is cosmetic.
So, while you're thinking I'm some hater who's making shit up to destroy your precious Apple, I've almost certainly got more Apple gear in my home than you do (hell, there are more iPads than people here, it's like the damned things are multiplying) and have been considering, for the past few days, putting Mac Minis on my employees' desks so they no longer have to share this MacBook Pro for testing.
I'm far from a hater, my friend. I simply want Apple to live up to their "Just Works" advertising from a few years ago the way they used to.
Oh, also, it's "suffices" and "ad-hominem". Objective facts do matter, which is why I stick to the facts I know, even when you insist that the people I've met (who believe their Macs to be invulnerable) must not exist because their mere existence completely fucks your world view.
You've been repeatedly arguing "that Macs users think that they are invulnerable" and that that's false
I've been repeatedly stating that I've met many a Mac user who has believed that, which is true. In your eyes, my experience simply can't be true because it differs from yours; that's indicative of a mental health condition that I'm not qualified to diagnose. You may want to go see someone who is.
The minor GUI inconsistencies the TFA whines about are not as nearly as important to Mac users as this much lower susceptibility to malware. That's been the point you've repeatedly avoided recognising over the last dozen exchanges.
Who do you think is whining about those inconsistencies? Certainly not Windows and Android users; they would never see them. Think about that for a moment.
Oh please... Like the people at Talos, Checkpoint, etc performing de-assembly of malware whose reports I read regularly need to be told that Macs have malware?
No, I'm sure they don't. I'm also sure that they can't analyze and report on what they haven't seen.
details Mac virii dating from 1997-1998. It's not 15 years old it's _19_ year old data.
Again, consider what point I was trying to make. You keep ignoring that and concentrating on the age of the data used to compare systems from that era; of course, it would be painful to you to admit that your point about the age of my data supported my point about how long ago your position on Windows vulnerability was true. My secondary point was that, back when Windows was that vulnerable, so was Mac -- and I've never said that current Macs are as vulnerable as OS9, that's a point you invented to argue against. Go read it all again after you calm down a bit.
Aww gee snookers has run plain out of coherent arguments & is now resorting to ad homonyms. Grow up junior.
No, I'm just fucking tired of you sitting here shouting "STRAWMAN! STRAWMAN!" when all you're actually tearing down yourself are your own strawmen.
Your malware knowledge is just as dated as your Mac AV info.
Again, the data was relevant to the point; the point, of course, being that something that far back is not relevant, a point which you supported in your reply.
Talos, Checkpoint etc are not just looking for known threats. They keep track of signatures of infectable elements and regularly re-examine what has been transmitted/received and to/from whom.
That's great. Macs are more prevalent in startups; startups are less likely to employ those solutions. You know both of those facts as well as I do. Your appeal to authority argument (that you've got a security background) is worthless to me as I know my own background and, well, I don't have to fall back on that as an argument. Let's just say we're not too different, you and I; at least, I'm not too different form who you claim to be. You'll see why I'm pointing that out in a moment.
Thus when a 0day is used it'll pass through.
It'll pass through what, exactly? The security solutions that aren't in place and, therefore, can't detect it? You see, someone with a security background would realize that the solutions have to be implemented to be effective.
However when someone analyses the malware (AV vendor, side effects of it activating anywhere that gets it noticed at any of their client's sites, etc), they can then notify every one of their other clients that saw the signature.
Very good, that is how it works! Now, what about all those startups, where most commercially-used Macs are found, and those home users? You know, everyone not using those solutions? There are very few Macs on the protected side of any sort of IDS (and you know
So what if I did? I didn't, but so what?