All any company need do, when threatened by this typical deceitful bullshite from Microsoft, is site the case THEY ALREADY LOST in court, then slam the door in their face and ignore them to death.
"Microsoft built its browser so that users must deliberately turn on privacy settings every time they start up the software."
Therefore, yet again, the Marketing Morons have managed to screw up something else. By all means treat the customer as a source of cash and nothing more.
Then consider the fact that Microsoft is currently run by a Marketing Moron, Steve Ballmer. This is how companies die.
A Marketing Maven treats the customer with respect. They know the customer pays the bills and keeps the company running and dictates what is good product and what is bad. The customer runs the show.
This law professor is profoundly ignorant. NO ONE 'owns' the Internet. There is no domain to grab via 'eminent domain'.
Lest people forget, or for newbies, the 'Internet' was born as ARPANET, which was invented and created by the government. It was never given away. There are no plots within it owned by anyone. There is nothing to take over. It is owned by the citizens, who own the government. Any concepts to the contrary are inventions of The Corporate Oligarchy. Nice try 'professor'.
"You can still buy and develop other films that are considered superior to Kodachrome."
No actually. I'd go so far as to state your comment is profoundly ignorant. Kodakchrome was a patented film that used permanent dyes that did not fade with time and provided far more vibrant colors than any other color film in history. Read up on it. Do your homework.
Meanwhile, digital is here and you can make just as spectacular pictures with it. And, if stored correctly, digital data doesn't fade with time either. I loved Kodachrome, but I like digital better, thank you.
1) Move out Kodak. Your film is dead, or certainly this form. Digital rulz. Hello Kodak Digital.
2) Kodak no longer have to deal with the severely nasty toxic carcinogenic chemicals required to process Kodachrome. The toxicity has been a thorn in Kodak's side for many decades. They're glad to see the end of it, even if we'll miss those nice bright colors, the greens of summer...
I hope this wreckless and insane spending by the RIAA and MPAA KILLS THEM OFF. Their funding companies deserve death for their shameful attitude toward EVERYONE but their lawyers.
SCREW THE ARTISTS! (Every penny of the wasted $16 MILLION was earned by the work of artists).
SCREW THE CUSTOMERS! (DRM, Digital Rights Manglement, 'til it HURTS!!! Sue them 'till we die!)
SCREW THE BUSINESS! (2.4% Return on Investment! Looks great on the books. Tax writeoff!)
I personally was hoping that Microsoft would at last become of benefit to the computer community. Bill Gates consistently corrupted the computer community in his favor. Having him gone was potentially the moment for positive change at Microsoft. Instead Microsoft fell into the all too common pit of hell known as 'Marketing As Management'. There is no more efficient way to destroy a company than to put marketing into the position of management, which is exactly what Microsoft have with Steve Ballmer. Until such time as Microsoft put someone with an entrepreneurial spirit at the top, expect decline.
Microsoft have clearly entered their age of dementia. Apparently the idea is to give up on bullets and use buckshot instead. Something is sure to hit the target, right?
I used to think this BS from Microsoft was hilarious. Now I just feel sorry for them. I used to hope that after Gates left they'd turn into a company that was actually beneficial to the computer community. Now I've given up on them. They are beyond the reach of mortal man. They shall not be returning to our dimension. (o_0)
AKA 'Newspeak' by George Orwell. Black is white. Hate is love. War is peace. Windows is secure.
It's about time the world got off the MS arsenic. Bravo Google. I wish the US federal government would follow your example so we don't get pwned by the Red Chinese hackers (the Red Hacker Alliance) every other week.
The declining status of science these days is appalling. This is George W. Bush science!
For those who think this claim has validity: What REALLY happened is that a computer CHIP was stuck in the guy (aka he was 'chipped'). The CHIP was infected. The CHIP was then used to infect a PC. You might as well replace the 'human' element with 'hamster' or 'cement mixer' or 'dirt' or 'asteroid', blahblahblah. Someone send this guy back to high school please.
Darn again! More swagger about how successful the XBox is. But where oh where are the profits?
Here's how it works: You buy your way into a market and knock out all the competition with loads of spend, spend, spend to promote your product and buy game developers and sell your hardware for less than cost, and eat all the costs from over 50% hardware failure (yes, entirely true!) and in the end, after all the carnage to your competitors, WHERE ARE THE PROFITS? Oh. That sucks.
Particularly telling is the lack of profit from Bing. Propagandists like to swagger about how 'successful' Bing is. But DARN! No profit!
It works like this: Blow advertising dollars for months on end promoting a product, and it will gain market share. But will it gain actual profit? Let's watch what happens when MS stop the advertising bucks.
IE 6 was supposed to pick up the speed lag of IE 5. IE 7 was supposed to pick up the speed lag of IE 6. IE 8 was supposed to pick up the speed lag of IE 7. IE 9 is supposed to pick up the speed lag of IE 8. IE 10 will supposedly pick up the speed lag of IE 9.
Ad Nauseam.
Something about the definition of 'insanity' comes to mind.
Major DUH factor that the China foreign ministry LIED: 'Some people outside of China are bent on fabricating lies of so-called Chinese computer spies.'
The paid hacker arm of the Chinese government, called "The Red Hacker Alliance" has been documented since 1998.
The fact that Red China declared 'Technological War' on the USA has been known for years.
And Red China still has US 'Most Favored Nation' status because why? Are we out of our minds?!
The Red Hacker Alliance is a paid loose knit group of cyber-spies from around China who are paid by the totalitarian Chinese government to break into and compromise all government computers connected to the Internet all around the world. They were formally instituted in 1998 and have been the single worst security threat on the Internet ever since. Meanwhile the US government will only acknowledge their existence from 2003 on, whatever that denial is supposed to prove.
China consistently lie that the Red Hacker Alliance even exists, let alone that they fund them. Meanwhile, the exploits of the Red Hacker Alliance are regularly published in Chinese newspapers and are cheered and championed by many Chinese citizens.
And will we hear the words 'Red Hacker Alliance' uttered in any journalism regarding the Olympics? Of course not.
The Chinese 'cyber-militia' has a name. It is called the 'Red Hacker Army'. Google them up. From what I have read they were formed in 1998, immediately after China was given 'Most Favored Nation' status by the Clinton administration. Way to go Clinton Cult. The Red Hacker Army has always been funded by the Chinese communist government and are featured frequently, by name, in public Chinese newspapers. Their published exploits are followed and cheered by many Chinese citizens. Remember that the next time you buy Chinese at Wal-Mart etc.
Meanwhile, back in the USA, the military will only admit exploits by the RHA starting in 2003. And only this year have they begun publicly disclosed counter measures against these attacks that have been going on for 10 years. Way to go Bush League.
:-P
I have read comments that the military would not be stupid enough to make secret information accessible via the Internet. Um, sure. Right.
And that's why the military was ordered last year to begin migration to Macintosh Internet client and server computers. Yup. Someone over there managed to figure out which commercial OS is the single LEAST secure on the Internet. It's you know who...
Oh dear. Apple haven't made shiny new iBooks in over a year and a half. I'm not aware of Apple ever pulling the wool over anyone's eyes about the cost of.Mac. When you get a shiny new MacBook (which replaced the iBook in early 2006) you have an offer provided for a free trial period on.Mac. If you don't like it after the trial period then you aren't charged. It's very simple.
As for what happens to your data, huh? The #1 rule of computing is (repeat after me): MAKE A BACK UP. If you don't and you lose your data, you get what you deserve. End of story. But Apple actually make storage of your data when closing your.Mac account very easy. In System Preferences you open the.Mac preference pane and turn everything off for your.Mac account. This includes syncing of critical files and syncing of your iDisk. When you are finished, Mac OS X will create a complete disk image (.dmg) of EVERYTHING you had uploaded to your iDisk. If you want to access that data later you just mount the disk image.
Imagine Microsoft making it so easy. You can't.:-D
Certainly this was silly fun and all, and for many people Vista may be the logical winner for their needs and circumstances. But some of the things said by the referee in this contest, CNET, were outright ignorant. The ref needs glasses. Throw the bum out!
A list of CNET stupidity:
- Why wasn't Linux in this competition? Didn't fit the cute Elizabethan dual metaphor?
- Mac OS X 'forged from the fires of Linux.' Linus Torvalds just had an aneurism over that one. It is blatantly and unforgivably WRONG. The kernel for each of these operating systems have NOTHING to do with each other, never have. The only similarity is their use of the UNIX model for the rest of the operating system. Mac OS X literally IS UNIX because it incorporates BSD Unix. It is forged from the fires of OpenBSD and FreeBSD. Linux is NOT. The only real commonality is the ability of both OSes to use a vast number of the same applications, recompiled for each platform, or in the case of Mac OS X run in X11. Shame shame shame on CNET.
- Mac OS X performance used to be held back by Apple's use of the PowerPC chip? For a period of many years this statement was quite incorrect. The PPC chips were verifiably 2x faster and cooler running in their heyday. Sadly this lead was lost at the time when Motorola stagnated at 500MHz with the G4 chip for years. IBM managed to come out with the G5 to keep speed between PCs and Macs on a par as long as you were using a desktop box. But if you were using a PowerBook you were held back by IBM's laziness or inability to make a cool running G5 chip that was compatible. During this period of time up until the Intel Dual Core MacBooks were released the PC laptops had a distinct speed advantage. Them's the facts that CNET conveniently glossed over. Tsk tsk.
- Mac OS X's 'performance' is currently held back by having fewer games? That is a 100% illogical non sequitur. A better criticism would be that there are many applications for Windows that do not have equivalents on the Macintosh. At least let Mac OS X lose on its real deficits, not nonsense. Regarding the similar criticism of Macs not getting the latest bleeding edge gaming cards, this is only a matter of when drivers are written for compatibility, as long as you are using a Mac Pro desktop box or an XServe, which I assume is what any serious graphics of gaming geek would prefer over an iMac or a MacBook. Make sense CNET!
- Usability complaints. There are a bunch of these that are quite dopey. (1) CNET want to be able to resize windows with ANY corner? Why? On Mac OS X it is simple. Use the bottom right corner. (2) The 'mystery meat' school of navigation regarding the three control buttons in the top left corner of every window. Huh? Funny how I have never ever been confused. CNET even pointed out that hovering over the buttons provides symbols to indicate the button purposes. The only complaint I can see anyone realistically making would be the use of colors for the three buttons. If you are color blind then you may have some minor difficulty. But if you know the Rule Of Fives you know that we humans are capable of remembering between three to seven, an average of 5, things at any one moment. Remembering the purposes of left, center and right buttons on a window are not a challenge. (3) CNET want to delete files by only hitting the Delete key? Why? On the Mac there is a safety measure added: You have to hold down the command key first. This prevents unwanted blunders. I have never found it a burdon compared to the Windows method. Then again I have two hands. If someone only had one hand I could see their point, and I would direct them to Mac OS X's kewl Universal Access features for help. (4) Again with the games criticism. Hey CNET: Go get a PlayStation! You clearly are too immature for a computer.
- The final battle is won over propaganda and myths? Come on! (1) Mac OS X is perturbed by his ISP's lack of support for Macs? In what decade? This is the 21st century. That old myth is dead and buried. (2) Greenpeace are holding a
To use the term 'Love' here is incredibly naive. MS would obviously 'love' to destroy Open Source by any means possible. They only become involved with it when forced, when they can make a buck off it, or when it saves them time and effort. There isn't the remotest attitude of benevolence. This guy may well be laughed off the stage.
But enough from me. Be sure to read the comments below the article on the source page. They are very insightful and diverse.
Color prints should be created within a color management system, such as ColorSync on Macintosh. When a print is made the lighting environment in which the print will be viewed must be taken into account, be it indoors using incandescent lights or outdoors under sunlight. Each viewing environment has its own color temperature of the lighting source that is used. For example, sunlight is approximately 5000 Kelvin. Every lighting environment must use a continuous tone light source, which is to say that the light has a full spectrum of colors from red to blue in various proportions.
Fluorescent light does not qualify as a continuous tone light source. All fluorescent lights have distinct bands of specific wavelengths which means that some colors are not at all represented in their light. The result makes it impossible to properly judge the color of a print.
This study therefore has two huge faults: (1) There was no color management used. (2) All prints were judged under fluorescent light. We don't even know what kind of fluorescent bulbs were used. There are a number of different kinds, each with their own overall color balance.
Conclusion: For judging black in prints as well as other qualities of the print other than color, this test was useful. But the folks who performed the test do not have an adequate background in color technology or they would not have made the blunders noted above. There are some terrific books about color printing. I wish they had read one. Testing such as this needs to be carried out by professional print specialists.
Meanwhile, I can't say I disagree with the results. I have worked with all four manufacturer's printers and I would put them in the same order of quality as the results of the testing. In other words, I have always found the quality of prints from Epson machines and inks to be generally of lower quality than those of HP despite hype to the contrary. I don't even consider the other two manufacturers in the running for color printing.
One thing that should be added to this testing is consideration of pigment inks, such as from Epson, versus dye inks. Pigment inks provide a longer life of color accuracy in prints. However, recently designed dye inks have claimed improved longevity. There have been problems getting pigment inks to reliably print with the same color balance from cartridge to cartridge, making it difficult to use color management. Are the benefits of pigment inks worth this problem?
KE1LR Sez: "Hmm, why did I instantly think of cross-platform viruses/worms being early uses of this technology? Self-propagating flash-based advertising?"
Indeed. My first thought is: Great, let's bring an ActiveX style security hole to the Mac!
You'd think Adobe would take a look at the state of computer security before perpetrating something as potentially dangerous as this. I can tell you that I most certainly am not touching this thing until it has been proven to have zero vulnerabilities, and even then I am never going to give it full permissions in Little Snitch. Why would I trust Adobe to keep my computers safe? Thank goodness Apple is getting serious about making certain Mac OS X remains safe. I bask in the luxury of zero malware in my computer world. I'm not giving that up for anything.:-Derek
Let's cut to the chase and provide URLs to FREEWARE every Mac user should have on hand to combat the ***still mythical** malware that is going to bring DOOM to the Macintosh:
1) ClamXav: http://www.markallan.co.uk/clamXav/>Its OpenSource, its updated regularly, its free. So use it already. I regularly receive Windows malware from email or web sites. Rather than possibly pass them on to my Windows using friends, I zap them by checking my Users account folder regularly.
2) Paranoid Android: http://www.unsanity.com/haxies/pa> Its OpenSource, its free. It was originally created to patch a doorway malware could use to attack Mac OS X. That doorway was mostly closed in Apple's 'Security Update 2004-06-07'. But the fact is that Paranoid Android goes way beyond that patch and stops any potentially evil process dead in its tracks. Some people may find it too intrusive, making you verify every little process. But I LOVE IT! It have it on full steam all the time. There ain't no malware gonna get me! It literally runs rings around the MOSX-catch-up security being put into Windows Vista, and is also far more secure than what Mac OS X alone provides.
Now some personal comments:
- I subscribe to the 'Cry Wolf' theory: The more that certain people, well intentioned as they might be, whine and carry on about how the Mac is DOOMED because of this and that, the less people listen. So when the BIG ONE really does come, they are less prepared. It really was an excellent idea to totally ignore Symantec when they lectured the Mac community, two months in a row, that they were DOOMED if they did not buy Norton Anti-virus. It turns out that NAV has itself got a major security hole, and potentially does some MAJOR damage to your OS. NO ONE should buy or run NAV. NO ONE. It is itself nearly as dangerous as malware! Irony. Then there was attempt by the SANS Institute to perpetrate FUD against MOSX. http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/ 7725/> I personally wrote to the editor of the article and discovered in his reply he had no justification for his DOOM hypothesis beyond a hacker using a nasty AppleScript that would have to be planted via sneaking them onto an insecure MAc workstation. Duh! Any idiot knows that is possible! Only a dolt doesn't lock down their machine when they walk away from it. The guy was crying wolf.
- Then there is the 'Mac users are SMUG' crap. Bite me! What are smug are the Windows users constantly trying to justify their purchases by way of attacking the opposition, namely Macintosh purchasers. Hey Windows users: You have over 15,000 pieces of malware out there in the wild that want to ruin your computer. Deal with it. Thank Microsoft, the authors of your fate. Mac OS X has NO malware at all. Deal with it. Thank the authors of FreeBSD, NeXTstep, Darwin and Mac OS X, who have kept security in the forefront of OS development, where it belongs.
- As an avid listener to the GREAT podcast 'SECURITY NOW!' http://grc.com/securitynow.htm> I am intrigued at all the ways there are to hack a computer either directly or via malware. I am also in shock at just how poor Windows security really is, and amazed at how relatively brilliant Mac OS X security really is. Nonetheless, Mac OS X security IS NOT PERFECT! So I stay on my toes, stay prepared, and make sure doorways to potential hackers are as closed as possible. Listen to this GREAT show and you will learn how. I gave you two kewl keys above to get you started. Use ClamXav and Paranoid Android, for FREE! and tell the 'You're So Smug!' rectal pores to shut the hell up and worry about their own multitudinous security problems.
Slashdot Mirror
All any company need do, when threatened by this typical deceitful bullshite from Microsoft, is site the case THEY ALREADY LOST in court, then slam the door in their face and ignore them to death.
The END of SCO (aka Microsoft) case:
SCO loses another round in Unix fight, must pay $2.55M to Novell
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9110258/SCO_loses_another_round_in_Unix_fight_must_pay_2.55M_to_Novell_
SCO loses again: jury says Novell owns UNIX SVRX copyrights
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/03/sco-loses-again-jury-says-novell-owns-unix-svrx-copyrights.ars
SCO/Novell suit is over, SCO loses
http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/06/11/sconovell-suit-is-over-sco-loses/
And so forth...
When you can't compete: Litigate.
"Microsoft built its browser so that users must deliberately turn on privacy settings every time they start up the software."
Therefore, yet again, the Marketing Morons have managed to screw up something else. By all means treat the customer as a source of cash and nothing more.
Then consider the fact that Microsoft is currently run by a Marketing Moron, Steve Ballmer. This is how companies die.
A Marketing Maven treats the customer with respect. They know the customer pays the bills and keeps the company running and dictates what is good product and what is bad. The customer runs the show.
This law professor is profoundly ignorant. NO ONE 'owns' the Internet. There is no domain to grab via 'eminent domain'.
Lest people forget, or for newbies, the 'Internet' was born as ARPANET, which was invented and created by the government. It was never given away. There are no plots within it owned by anyone. There is nothing to take over. It is owned by the citizens, who own the government. Any concepts to the contrary are inventions of The Corporate Oligarchy. Nice try 'professor'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET
"You can still buy and develop other films that are considered superior to Kodachrome."
No actually. I'd go so far as to state your comment is profoundly ignorant. Kodakchrome was a patented film that used permanent dyes that did not fade with time and provided far more vibrant colors than any other color film in history. Read up on it. Do your homework.
Meanwhile, digital is here and you can make just as spectacular pictures with it. And, if stored correctly, digital data doesn't fade with time either. I loved Kodachrome, but I like digital better, thank you.
Well, Kodak is relieved in a couple ways:
1) Move out Kodak. Your film is dead, or certainly this form. Digital rulz. Hello Kodak Digital.
2) Kodak no longer have to deal with the severely nasty toxic carcinogenic chemicals required to process Kodachrome. The toxicity has been a thorn in Kodak's side for many decades. They're glad to see the end of it, even if we'll miss those nice bright colors, the greens of summer...
Clone Apple. They have ARM. Microsoft must have ARM. Same old shite.
I hope this wreckless and insane spending by the RIAA and MPAA KILLS THEM OFF. Their funding companies deserve death for their shameful attitude toward EVERYONE but their lawyers.
SCREW THE ARTISTS! (Every penny of the wasted $16 MILLION was earned by the work of artists).
SCREW THE CUSTOMERS! (DRM, Digital Rights Manglement, 'til it HURTS!!! Sue them 'till we die!)
SCREW THE BUSINESS! (2.4% Return on Investment! Looks great on the books. Tax writeoff!)
Idiots on the road to self-destruction.
Do Windows box users still have to wait for IE to catch up with Web standards? Or does MS still FLAUNT its use of non-standard web code?
Does IE9 dump ActiveX? Is that security scourge of the Internet finally dead and gone? Or will IE9 users still be victims of ActiveX malware?
I personally was hoping that Microsoft would at last become of benefit to the computer community. Bill Gates consistently corrupted the computer community in his favor. Having him gone was potentially the moment for positive change at Microsoft. Instead Microsoft fell into the all too common pit of hell known as 'Marketing As Management'. There is no more efficient way to destroy a company than to put marketing into the position of management, which is exactly what Microsoft have with Steve Ballmer. Until such time as Microsoft put someone with an entrepreneurial spirit at the top, expect decline.
'Give up all hope, ye who enter here.'
Microsoft have clearly entered their age of dementia. Apparently the idea is to give up on bullets and use buckshot instead. Something is sure to hit the target, right?
I used to think this BS from Microsoft was hilarious. Now I just feel sorry for them. I used to hope that after Gates left they'd turn into a company that was actually beneficial to the computer community. Now I've given up on them. They are beyond the reach of mortal man. They shall not be returning to our dimension.
(o_0)
AKA 'Newspeak' by George Orwell. Black is white. Hate is love. War is peace. Windows is secure.
It's about time the world got off the MS arsenic. Bravo Google. I wish the US federal government would follow your example so we don't get pwned by the Red Chinese hackers (the Red Hacker Alliance) every other week.
I keep track of Mac security over at:
http://mac-security.blogspot.com/
The declining status of science these days is appalling. This is George W. Bush science!
For those who think this claim has validity: What REALLY happened is that a computer CHIP was stuck in the guy (aka he was 'chipped'). The CHIP was infected. The CHIP was then used to infect a PC. You might as well replace the 'human' element with 'hamster' or 'cement mixer' or 'dirt' or 'asteroid', blahblahblah. Someone send this guy back to high school please.
Seriously. A noise anyone can make by twiddling with their short wave radio is worth publishing?
Darn again! More swagger about how successful the XBox is. But where oh where are the profits?
Here's how it works: You buy your way into a market and knock out all the competition with loads of spend, spend, spend to promote your product and buy game developers and sell your hardware for less than cost, and eat all the costs from over 50% hardware failure (yes, entirely true!) and in the end, after all the carnage to your competitors, WHERE ARE THE PROFITS? Oh. That sucks.
Particularly telling is the lack of profit from Bing. Propagandists like to swagger about how 'successful' Bing is. But DARN! No profit!
It works like this: Blow advertising dollars for months on end promoting a product, and it will gain market share. But will it gain actual profit? Let's watch what happens when MS stop the advertising bucks.
Hilarity.
IE 6 was supposed to pick up the speed lag of IE 5.
IE 7 was supposed to pick up the speed lag of IE 6.
IE 8 was supposed to pick up the speed lag of IE 7.
IE 9 is supposed to pick up the speed lag of IE 8.
IE 10 will supposedly pick up the speed lag of IE 9.
Ad Nauseam.
Something about the definition of 'insanity' comes to mind.
Major DUH factor that the China foreign ministry LIED: 'Some people outside of China are bent on fabricating lies of so-called Chinese computer spies.'
The paid hacker arm of the Chinese government, called "The Red Hacker Alliance" has been documented since 1998.
The fact that Red China declared 'Technological War' on the USA has been known for years.
And Red China still has US 'Most Favored Nation' status because why? Are we out of our minds?!
The Red Hacker Alliance is a paid loose knit group of cyber-spies from around China who are paid by the totalitarian Chinese government to break into and compromise all government computers connected to the Internet all around the world. They were formally instituted in 1998 and have been the single worst security threat on the Internet ever since. Meanwhile the US government will only acknowledge their existence from 2003 on, whatever that denial is supposed to prove.
China consistently lie that the Red Hacker Alliance even exists, let alone that they fund them. Meanwhile, the exploits of the Red Hacker Alliance are regularly published in Chinese newspapers and are cheered and championed by many Chinese citizens.
And will we hear the words 'Red Hacker Alliance' uttered in any journalism regarding the Olympics? Of course not.
Conclusion = collusion.
The Chinese 'cyber-militia' has a name. It is called the 'Red Hacker Army'. Google them up. From what I have read they were formed in 1998, immediately after China was given 'Most Favored Nation' status by the Clinton administration. Way to go Clinton Cult. The Red Hacker Army has always been funded by the Chinese communist government and are featured frequently, by name, in public Chinese newspapers. Their published exploits are followed and cheered by many Chinese citizens. Remember that the next time you buy Chinese at Wal-Mart etc.
:-P
Meanwhile, back in the USA, the military will only admit exploits by the RHA starting in 2003. And only this year have they begun publicly disclosed counter measures against these attacks that have been going on for 10 years. Way to go Bush League.
I have read comments that the military would not be stupid enough to make secret information accessible via the Internet. Um, sure. Right.
And that's why the military was ordered last year to begin migration to Macintosh Internet client and server computers. Yup. Someone over there managed to figure out which commercial OS is the single LEAST secure on the Internet. It's you know who...
Oh dear. Apple haven't made shiny new iBooks in over a year and a half. I'm not aware of Apple ever pulling the wool over anyone's eyes about the cost of .Mac. When you get a shiny new MacBook (which replaced the iBook in early 2006) you have an offer provided for a free trial period on .Mac. If you don't like it after the trial period then you aren't charged. It's very simple.
.Mac account very easy. In System Preferences you open the .Mac preference pane and turn everything off for your .Mac account. This includes syncing of critical files and syncing of your iDisk. When you are finished, Mac OS X will create a complete disk image (.dmg) of EVERYTHING you had uploaded to your iDisk. If you want to access that data later you just mount the disk image.
:-D
As for what happens to your data, huh? The #1 rule of computing is (repeat after me): MAKE A BACK UP. If you don't and you lose your data, you get what you deserve. End of story. But Apple actually make storage of your data when closing your
Imagine Microsoft making it so easy. You can't.
Certainly this was silly fun and all, and for many people Vista may be the logical winner for their needs and circumstances. But some of the things said by the referee in this contest, CNET, were outright ignorant. The ref needs glasses. Throw the bum out!
A list of CNET stupidity:
- Why wasn't Linux in this competition? Didn't fit the cute Elizabethan dual metaphor?
- Mac OS X 'forged from the fires of Linux.' Linus Torvalds just had an aneurism over that one. It is blatantly and unforgivably WRONG. The kernel for each of these operating systems have NOTHING to do with each other, never have. The only similarity is their use of the UNIX model for the rest of the operating system. Mac OS X literally IS UNIX because it incorporates BSD Unix. It is forged from the fires of OpenBSD and FreeBSD. Linux is NOT. The only real commonality is the ability of both OSes to use a vast number of the same applications, recompiled for each platform, or in the case of Mac OS X run in X11. Shame shame shame on CNET.
- Mac OS X performance used to be held back by Apple's use of the PowerPC chip? For a period of many years this statement was quite incorrect. The PPC chips were verifiably 2x faster and cooler running in their heyday. Sadly this lead was lost at the time when Motorola stagnated at 500MHz with the G4 chip for years. IBM managed to come out with the G5 to keep speed between PCs and Macs on a par as long as you were using a desktop box. But if you were using a PowerBook you were held back by IBM's laziness or inability to make a cool running G5 chip that was compatible. During this period of time up until the Intel Dual Core MacBooks were released the PC laptops had a distinct speed advantage. Them's the facts that CNET conveniently glossed over. Tsk tsk.
- Mac OS X's 'performance' is currently held back by having fewer games? That is a 100% illogical non sequitur. A better criticism would be that there are many applications for Windows that do not have equivalents on the Macintosh. At least let Mac OS X lose on its real deficits, not nonsense. Regarding the similar criticism of Macs not getting the latest bleeding edge gaming cards, this is only a matter of when drivers are written for compatibility, as long as you are using a Mac Pro desktop box or an XServe, which I assume is what any serious graphics of gaming geek would prefer over an iMac or a MacBook. Make sense CNET!
- Usability complaints. There are a bunch of these that are quite dopey. (1) CNET want to be able to resize windows with ANY corner? Why? On Mac OS X it is simple. Use the bottom right corner. (2) The 'mystery meat' school of navigation regarding the three control buttons in the top left corner of every window. Huh? Funny how I have never ever been confused. CNET even pointed out that hovering over the buttons provides symbols to indicate the button purposes. The only complaint I can see anyone realistically making would be the use of colors for the three buttons. If you are color blind then you may have some minor difficulty. But if you know the Rule Of Fives you know that we humans are capable of remembering between three to seven, an average of 5, things at any one moment. Remembering the purposes of left, center and right buttons on a window are not a challenge. (3) CNET want to delete files by only hitting the Delete key? Why? On the Mac there is a safety measure added: You have to hold down the command key first. This prevents unwanted blunders. I have never found it a burdon compared to the Windows method. Then again I have two hands. If someone only had one hand I could see their point, and I would direct them to Mac OS X's kewl Universal Access features for help. (4) Again with the games criticism. Hey CNET: Go get a PlayStation! You clearly are too immature for a computer.
- The final battle is won over propaganda and myths? Come on! (1) Mac OS X is perturbed by his ISP's lack of support for Macs? In what decade? This is the 21st century. That old myth is dead and buried. (2) Greenpeace are holding a
To use the term 'Love' here is incredibly naive. MS would obviously 'love' to destroy Open Source by any means possible. They only become involved with it when forced, when they can make a buck off it, or when it saves them time and effort. There isn't the remotest attitude of benevolence. This guy may well be laughed off the stage.
But enough from me. Be sure to read the comments below the article on the source page. They are very insightful and diverse.
Color prints should be created within a color management system, such as ColorSync on Macintosh. When a print is made the lighting environment in which the print will be viewed must be taken into account, be it indoors using incandescent lights or outdoors under sunlight. Each viewing environment has its own color temperature of the lighting source that is used. For example, sunlight is approximately 5000 Kelvin. Every lighting environment must use a continuous tone light source, which is to say that the light has a full spectrum of colors from red to blue in various proportions. Fluorescent light does not qualify as a continuous tone light source. All fluorescent lights have distinct bands of specific wavelengths which means that some colors are not at all represented in their light. The result makes it impossible to properly judge the color of a print. This study therefore has two huge faults: (1) There was no color management used. (2) All prints were judged under fluorescent light. We don't even know what kind of fluorescent bulbs were used. There are a number of different kinds, each with their own overall color balance. Conclusion: For judging black in prints as well as other qualities of the print other than color, this test was useful. But the folks who performed the test do not have an adequate background in color technology or they would not have made the blunders noted above. There are some terrific books about color printing. I wish they had read one. Testing such as this needs to be carried out by professional print specialists. Meanwhile, I can't say I disagree with the results. I have worked with all four manufacturer's printers and I would put them in the same order of quality as the results of the testing. In other words, I have always found the quality of prints from Epson machines and inks to be generally of lower quality than those of HP despite hype to the contrary. I don't even consider the other two manufacturers in the running for color printing. One thing that should be added to this testing is consideration of pigment inks, such as from Epson, versus dye inks. Pigment inks provide a longer life of color accuracy in prints. However, recently designed dye inks have claimed improved longevity. There have been problems getting pigment inks to reliably print with the same color balance from cartridge to cartridge, making it difficult to use color management. Are the benefits of pigment inks worth this problem?
KE1LR Sez:
:-Derek
"Hmm, why did I instantly think of cross-platform viruses/worms being early uses of this technology? Self-propagating flash-based advertising?"
Indeed. My first thought is: Great, let's bring an ActiveX style security hole to the Mac!
You'd think Adobe would take a look at the state of computer security before perpetrating something as potentially dangerous as this. I can tell you that I most certainly am not touching this thing until it has been proven to have zero vulnerabilities, and even then I am never going to give it full permissions in Little Snitch. Why would I trust Adobe to keep my computers safe? Thank goodness Apple is getting serious about making certain Mac OS X remains safe. I bask in the luxury of zero malware in my computer world. I'm not giving that up for anything.
Let's cut to the chase and provide URLs to FREEWARE every Mac user should have on hand to combat the ***still mythical** malware that is going to bring DOOM to the Macintosh: 1) ClamXav: http://www.markallan.co.uk/clamXav/>Its OpenSource, its updated regularly, its free. So use it already. I regularly receive Windows malware from email or web sites. Rather than possibly pass them on to my Windows using friends, I zap them by checking my Users account folder regularly. 2) Paranoid Android: http://www.unsanity.com/haxies/pa> Its OpenSource, its free. It was originally created to patch a doorway malware could use to attack Mac OS X. That doorway was mostly closed in Apple's 'Security Update 2004-06-07'. But the fact is that Paranoid Android goes way beyond that patch and stops any potentially evil process dead in its tracks. Some people may find it too intrusive, making you verify every little process. But I LOVE IT! It have it on full steam all the time. There ain't no malware gonna get me! It literally runs rings around the MOSX-catch-up security being put into Windows Vista, and is also far more secure than what Mac OS X alone provides. Now some personal comments: - I subscribe to the 'Cry Wolf' theory: The more that certain people, well intentioned as they might be, whine and carry on about how the Mac is DOOMED because of this and that, the less people listen. So when the BIG ONE really does come, they are less prepared. It really was an excellent idea to totally ignore Symantec when they lectured the Mac community, two months in a row, that they were DOOMED if they did not buy Norton Anti-virus. It turns out that NAV has itself got a major security hole, and potentially does some MAJOR damage to your OS. NO ONE should buy or run NAV. NO ONE. It is itself nearly as dangerous as malware! Irony. Then there was attempt by the SANS Institute to perpetrate FUD against MOSX. http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/ 7725/> I personally wrote to the editor of the article and discovered in his reply he had no justification for his DOOM hypothesis beyond a hacker using a nasty AppleScript that would have to be planted via sneaking them onto an insecure MAc workstation. Duh! Any idiot knows that is possible! Only a dolt doesn't lock down their machine when they walk away from it. The guy was crying wolf.
- Then there is the 'Mac users are SMUG' crap. Bite me! What are smug are the Windows users constantly trying to justify their purchases by way of attacking the opposition, namely Macintosh purchasers. Hey Windows users: You have over 15,000 pieces of malware out there in the wild that want to ruin your computer. Deal with it. Thank Microsoft, the authors of your fate. Mac OS X has NO malware at all. Deal with it. Thank the authors of FreeBSD, NeXTstep, Darwin and Mac OS X, who have kept security in the forefront of OS development, where it belongs.
- As an avid listener to the GREAT podcast 'SECURITY NOW!' http://grc.com/securitynow.htm> I am intrigued at all the ways there are to hack a computer either directly or via malware. I am also in shock at just how poor Windows security really is, and amazed at how relatively brilliant Mac OS X security really is. Nonetheless, Mac OS X security IS NOT PERFECT! So I stay on my toes, stay prepared, and make sure doorways to potential hackers are as closed as possible. Listen to this GREAT show and you will learn how. I gave you two kewl keys above to get you started. Use ClamXav and Paranoid Android, for FREE! and tell the 'You're So Smug!' rectal pores to shut the hell up and worry about their own multitudinous security problems.