The fact they have never had a fatal crash (the only such major airline) is reason I would rather NOT fly with anyone else.
All major airlines never had a fatal crash until they had a fatal crash. The fact is that your chances of dying in an aviation-related accident are so negligible (several times less than driving your car anywhere at any time for any purpose) that taking such statistics into account when choosing an airline to fly is quite pointless.
First off, QANTAS had a fatal crash in 1951.
On your second point you're right, your chances of dying whilst travelling overseas is greater on the drive to and from the airport. So if you get to the check-in counter, congratulate yourself for surviving the most dangerous part of your journey.
Given their abysmal safety record of late (a lot of engine trouble and hull loss incidents not including the problems with the Trent engines on the A380, QANTAS cant fairly be held responsible for a design fault). The Wikipedia list is a bit incomplete missing, including a pair of engine fires in a B747 (Link 1)(Link 2) in late in 2010. Not to mention Flight QF30
QANTAS have seriously dropped in the last few years from one of the safest western airlines to one of the least safest. But it's everything else that makes me want to fly Singapore Air, Air Asia, Virgin Blue or even Tiger instead of QANTAS, bad service, surly flight attendants, dodgy luggage collection, uncompetitive prices, bad food. Why pay $1100 to fly QANTAS from PER-BKK when I can pay Singapore $1050 for the same trip (Air Asia is often around $500 but they are a budget airline).
Your willingness to pre-judge people on something as random as what type of computer they prefer is striking
You're comprehension is less then stellar.
I commented on the people I've observed, sorry that reality is different to what you perceive.
This survey says 'Mac users are 21 percent more likely to believe they are 'computer-savvy gearheads.'"
I've boded the key word, the infographic proves nothing, it doesn't even pretend to. Dunning-Kruger is sufficient evidence against that.
Of course they believe it, they need to justify why they paid twice as much for a white Dell. The question is can their self evaluation be considered accurate, given the fact they don't beleive that Mac's use the same components and manufacturing process as Dell indicates that the Dunning-Kruger effect is alive and well with Mac Users.
All you've managed to demonstrate is that you're not very good at finding proof and possibly quite gullible. "Fact-based" indeed, you cant even tell the difference between a causal survey and proper research (CLUE BY FOUR, real research does not use the word "believe"). Especially when you don't have access to the raw data and methodology.
It'll never happen. A lot more mac users are designers and hipsters, just like than the stereotypes suggest and these people just would just accept it.
There, fixed that for you.
I hardly ever see a Mac in the hands of someone who understands how computers work. They aren't marketed towards power users who understand what they are buying.
Now marketing and design people, you'll be hard pressed to find one without a Mac.
What you need to remember is that you, as a Mac User are not indicative of the general Mac using population. Most people buy one because they are not computer savvy and don't want to figure out how to use one. The marketing is geared towards these type of people and just like with the Iphone, they'll roll over and take any restriction because Jobs tells them its good.
I've worked as a net admin for 4 years, I also worked as tech support for 3 before that. Part of my duties was looking after a design and marketing subsidiary and inhouse dev team, none of the admins or developers had Macs, they were running Windows or dual booting with Linux (OK, one of the JEEE guys was running Solaris only). Only the designers were Mac users, I think you're projecting the world you'd like to live in onto the world we actually live in.
The end result would be the same, all its going to do is effect a single user.
Until that userspace malware exploits something to elevate itself to root.
Just because it starts as a limited user doesn't mean it won't go somewhere:).
Exactly,
Why do you need root access to send Spam or participate in a DDOS.
All you need is net access on ports 25 and 443/80 (maybe 23 also) respectively. I don't know of a consumer OS that restricts net access to a limited user account. You don't even need to start the program as a service, just drop a script into the login script directory (been a while since I've done this on OS X but IIRC it wasn't that hard if you had any understanding of *nix).
How about the comments in the last article from the fanboys screaming "BUT THEY NEED TO PUT IN THEIR PASSWORD UNLIKE SHITTY WINDOWS" and then modded up to +5 insightful.
How many Mac users are running without a password.
When starting/re-installing OSX the password is still optional (just like shitty Windows). Basically, running as admin on a Windows box with not password is pants on head retarded and we all deride MS for making that possible, why does Apple receive a free ride?
MS should make passwords mandatory for admin accounts with the next Windows release at the very minimum. So should Apple.
Welcome to the new reality. I think they'll find that userland rights on any modern OS are pretty lenient and will allow for a great deal of scammy malware activities. Malware doesnt need to run in any system directory or open any low ports or anything.
Now is probably a good time to invest in OSX AV products.
But the new reality doesn't "Just Work(TM)". I'm sure Mac Fanboys will just stick their heads in the sand until its over.
are you by any chance running xp, or maybe turned off the uac?
XP post SP2 asks before executing a lot of files, any one that hasn't been signed by MS (so Firefox doesn't but CutePDF will).
So the GGP needs to be running a six year old version of Windows and to be frank, not having UAC would be the least of his security problems.
Security companies of all types release information about vulnerabilities...that's nothing new.
And this a vulnerability how? Don't start to blur the meaning of yet another concept in computer security.
Since when has "the user is any systems biggest vulnerability" been a fuzzy concept in computer security.
Methinks you need to go back an re-read a few books on the subject. A big part of security is actually limiting what users can screw up and making sure you can recover whatever users manage to screw up.
Where's the point in all this? PC games can have some very confusing control sets. However They havent failed yet. Many gamers prefer them over consoles with a more limited set of controls. I think the confusion over gesture UI will fade and with time more people will learn to accept the nuances
PC games tend to standardise on WASD. The PC supports control schemes as simple as any console, it also supports hundreds of inputs using key combinations. ARMA and X3 are the biggest culprits in my collection, Shift+Dx2 to take a dump, just make sure you've pressed P+Down to drop your strides first (double tapping B to toggle the belt and yes, I wouldn't have it any other way).
I think IBM is more or less the Apple of the server industry, the only one left doing any substantial R&D and concentrating on qualities of service,
It's really sad that you think that.
You've been taken in by the marketing, Apple develop very little themselves (Thunderbolt == Intel, Retina == LG) and their customer service is crap (_I_ have to go to a an apple store where they might look at it... some time next week). Seriously, MS and Red Hat do a lot more R&D then Apple does. Not even considering the amount of stuff that comes out of Google, the difference being Google, Red Hat or even MS wont patent the crap out of everything they invent, let alone the stuff they didn't invent (like rounded corners and a grid of icons)
IBM is the complete opposite of this. When I buy an IBM X series server, I know I can depend on it and in the off chance it does fail, I can depend on IBM. I describe the IBM X3650 as the Aston Martin DB9 of x86-64 servers, well worth the extra $K or 2 you pay over a Dell x64 server. They are fast, powerful, functional, reliable and an absolute pleasure to work with, IBM tapes all the important info you'd need to work on an X3650 to the lid of the server.
That sort of openness, adaptability and user friendliness is the antitheses of Apple lock down policies.
Don't you hate it when inferior people get all uppity and attempt to judge their betters? They should just mindlessly consume what they are told to and spare us their worthless, inferior opinions.
Sarcasm aside,
What is happening is an enormous number of people with no knowledge and limited experience of subjects commenting as an authority. Working in I.T. (tech support then network admin) I see this a lot and it hurts the industry as well as regular consumers. The number of times I've had to correct things like "my friend who has like 3 computers said..." as evidence correcting me about a subject I've studied and practices for years. I've probably wasted 2-3 weeks per year on correcting things like that when I was doing tech support.
I don't get why, I don't know jack about cutting hair so I wont correct a hair dresser. Why do people think that 5 minutes on Yelp or god help them, Wikipedia make people think they are more knowledgeable then doctors or other professionals. I read the Wiki page on CV joints yesterday but I'm sure as hell not qualified to replace one now.
Of course this will eventually sort itself out. User based reviews will become so polarised and inaccurate that people will instantly dismiss them. I already do that to a large degree, sites like Trip Advisor and Yelp I find completely useless.
It's always seemed to me that design patents seem inherintly more just.
How?
1:1 aspect ratio and corners clipped by a circle with a diameter 90% of the width.
You cannot patent mathematical equation because of their obviousness.
Put simply, what you've stated can be discovered by anyone who is following the same path as Apple did without ever seeing an iDevice or even knowing of it's existence. You should not be able patent things that obvious.
Designs cant be patented, designs like logo's can be trademarked or even copyrighted. Blueprints can be patented.
Have you actually read what Apple is suing over? One of the things Apple is suing Samsung over is rounded corners, that's right, Apple is trying to claim exclusivity on rounded corners.
the safest software in the world can't protect against Stupid
This is the idea behind the walled garden approach they've taken to the iPhone and iPad. All the software they run has to be approved by apple first. They seem to be heading this direction with their desktops as well.
Nope, that's failed miserably too.
Malware and data miners have made it into the app store.
Users will jailbreak, as every Iphone fanboy points out that is extremely easy to do on an Iphone. This means unsigned code can run on it
Finally, many people have tried the walled garden approach in the enterprise before, it always fails for the same reason, it's impossible to regulate threats from the users own stupidity from the gateway. A single infected floppy disk (yes, we've known the walled garden architecture was an utter failure that long ago) will circumvent all your security.
Gruber aside (he posed Mac App Store as the "solution" to these kind of trojans), Apple needs to acknowledge that 90% of users download potentially-executable stuff from the internet, and OSX users need to get savvy security-wise on that... growing pains and all.
Apple is a very safe platform, but the safest software in the world can't protect against Stupid.
By the same token, Windows is a very safe platform, but it cant protect against stupid.
Both statements are true, but MS never promised to protect us from ourselves.
The biggest threat to computer security has always been the user. It is delusional at best to think a platform can magically protect you when you deliberately do bad things(TM).
Can someone explain the incongruity between these two statements:
"Don't worry, your data is encrypted with 256-bit RSA."
"Computer experts have cracked the encryption."
So why doesn't the fantastic mathematically complex encyption ever work? Why should I trust https? Or any other encrypted transmission?
Because encryption cannot get around having physical access to the device. Even being on the same network (subnet) makes things measurably easier as most OS's don't do anything about a brute force attack.
Once you've got physical access, you can easily use brute force to crack encryption, your only limitation is time. Reading the article, they have physical access to the devices they are cracking. Considering that ElcomSoft makes tools for forensics not attackers it makes sense that you'd have physical access.
Encryption does work, as network security but not as physical security. My WPA key on my home wireless network is there to stop people who are locked outside my house, it does nothing inside as someone can walk up to the modem and use a blue cable.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact they have never had a fatal crash (the only such major airline) is reason I would rather NOT fly with anyone else.
All major airlines never had a fatal crash until they had a fatal crash. The fact is that your chances of dying in an aviation-related accident are so negligible (several times less than driving your car anywhere at any time for any purpose) that taking such statistics into account when choosing an airline to fly is quite pointless.
First off, QANTAS had a fatal crash in 1951.
On your second point you're right, your chances of dying whilst travelling overseas is greater on the drive to and from the airport. So if you get to the check-in counter, congratulate yourself for surviving the most dangerous part of your journey.
The fact they have never had a fatal crash (the only such major airline) is reason I would rather NOT fly with anyone else.
They had a fatal crash in 1951 So that one is a myth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QANTAS#Airline_incidents
Given their abysmal safety record of late (a lot of engine trouble and hull loss incidents not including the problems with the Trent engines on the A380, QANTAS cant fairly be held responsible for a design fault). The Wikipedia list is a bit incomplete missing, including a pair of engine fires in a B747 (Link 1) (Link 2) in late in 2010. Not to mention Flight QF30
QANTAS have seriously dropped in the last few years from one of the safest western airlines to one of the least safest. But it's everything else that makes me want to fly Singapore Air, Air Asia, Virgin Blue or even Tiger instead of QANTAS, bad service, surly flight attendants, dodgy luggage collection, uncompetitive prices, bad food. Why pay $1100 to fly QANTAS from PER-BKK when I can pay Singapore $1050 for the same trip (Air Asia is often around $500 but they are a budget airline).
All prices in AUD, just add 5% to get USD.
The bloke at the airport couldn't get the RFID tag to work after three goes.
(Translation: The guy at the airport couldn't get the RFID tag to work after three tries.)
In other words, it's QANTAS. Things like this are the reason I'd rather fly anyone else.
You're comprehension is less then stellar.
I commented on the people I've observed, sorry that reality is different to what you perceive.
I've boded the key word, the infographic proves nothing, it doesn't even pretend to. Dunning-Kruger is sufficient evidence against that.
Of course they believe it, they need to justify why they paid twice as much for a white Dell. The question is can their self evaluation be considered accurate, given the fact they don't beleive that Mac's use the same components and manufacturing process as Dell indicates that the Dunning-Kruger effect is alive and well with Mac Users.
All you've managed to demonstrate is that you're not very good at finding proof and possibly quite gullible. "Fact-based" indeed, you cant even tell the difference between a causal survey and proper research (CLUE BY FOUR, real research does not use the word "believe"). Especially when you don't have access to the raw data and methodology.
It allows Big Brother to collect information on you sans any justification whatsoever
The FBI has been doing this for decades. That notorious threat to public safety, Lucille Ball, had an extensive FBI file.
Hoover was a cross dresser, he probably just wanted to know where she got her skirts from.
It'll never happen. A lot more mac users are designers and hipsters, just like than the stereotypes suggest and these people just would just accept it.
There, fixed that for you.
I hardly ever see a Mac in the hands of someone who understands how computers work. They aren't marketed towards power users who understand what they are buying.
Now marketing and design people, you'll be hard pressed to find one without a Mac.
What you need to remember is that you, as a Mac User are not indicative of the general Mac using population. Most people buy one because they are not computer savvy and don't want to figure out how to use one. The marketing is geared towards these type of people and just like with the Iphone, they'll roll over and take any restriction because Jobs tells them its good.
I've worked as a net admin for 4 years, I also worked as tech support for 3 before that. Part of my duties was looking after a design and marketing subsidiary and inhouse dev team, none of the admins or developers had Macs, they were running Windows or dual booting with Linux (OK, one of the JEEE guys was running Solaris only). Only the designers were Mac users, I think you're projecting the world you'd like to live in onto the world we actually live in.
Until that userspace malware exploits something to elevate itself to root.
Just because it starts as a limited user doesn't mean it won't go somewhere :).
Exactly,
Why do you need root access to send Spam or participate in a DDOS. All you need is net access on ports 25 and 443/80 (maybe 23 also) respectively. I don't know of a consumer OS that restricts net access to a limited user account. You don't even need to start the program as a service, just drop a script into the login script directory (been a while since I've done this on OS X but IIRC it wasn't that hard if you had any understanding of *nix).
Comments like that make me think you are not participating in the two minute hate.
Just embrace the hate of apple and join the group think.
So Microsoft is not responsible for malware because it's the users fault.
/sarcasm
That means MS isn't lying to us, Windows really is the most secure Operating System out there.
Blame the user is the cheapest trick in the book, it never worked for MS so why aren't we holding Apple to that high standard?
How about the comments in the last article from the fanboys screaming "BUT THEY NEED TO PUT IN THEIR PASSWORD UNLIKE SHITTY WINDOWS" and then modded up to +5 insightful.
How many Mac users are running without a password. When starting/re-installing OSX the password is still optional (just like shitty Windows). Basically, running as admin on a Windows box with not password is pants on head retarded and we all deride MS for making that possible, why does Apple receive a free ride? MS should make passwords mandatory for admin accounts with the next Windows release at the very minimum. So should Apple.
Welcome to the new reality. I think they'll find that userland rights on any modern OS are pretty lenient and will allow for a great deal of scammy malware activities. Malware doesnt need to run in any system directory or open any low ports or anything.
Now is probably a good time to invest in OSX AV products.
But the new reality doesn't "Just Work(TM)". I'm sure Mac Fanboys will just stick their heads in the sand until its over.
are you by any chance running xp, or maybe turned off the uac?
XP post SP2 asks before executing a lot of files, any one that hasn't been signed by MS (so Firefox doesn't but CutePDF will). So the GGP needs to be running a six year old version of Windows and to be frank, not having UAC would be the least of his security problems.
Security companies of all types release information about vulnerabilities...that's nothing new.
And this a vulnerability how? Don't start to blur the meaning of yet another concept in computer security.
Since when has "the user is any systems biggest vulnerability" been a fuzzy concept in computer security.
Methinks you need to go back an re-read a few books on the subject. A big part of security is actually limiting what users can screw up and making sure you can recover whatever users manage to screw up.
One of the companies is Vodafone, who own 45% of Verizon, so there are plenty of US assets to get hold of.
Doesn't that just mean the US govt now has a vested interest in protecting them. It's not like they are a non-US telco like Singtel or Hutchinson.
Jaffa... KREE.
should be goodbye-dr.-jones dept
He belongs in a museum.
PC games tend to standardise on WASD. The PC supports control schemes as simple as any console, it also supports hundreds of inputs using key combinations. ARMA and X3 are the biggest culprits in my collection, Shift+Dx2 to take a dump, just make sure you've pressed P+Down to drop your strides first (double tapping B to toggle the belt and yes, I wouldn't have it any other way).
Aren't there enough fart apps for IOS already.
I think IBM is more or less the Apple of the server industry, the only one left doing any substantial R&D and concentrating on qualities of service,
It's really sad that you think that.
You've been taken in by the marketing, Apple develop very little themselves (Thunderbolt == Intel, Retina == LG) and their customer service is crap (_I_ have to go to a an apple store where they might look at it... some time next week). Seriously, MS and Red Hat do a lot more R&D then Apple does. Not even considering the amount of stuff that comes out of Google, the difference being Google, Red Hat or even MS wont patent the crap out of everything they invent, let alone the stuff they didn't invent (like rounded corners and a grid of icons)
IBM is the complete opposite of this. When I buy an IBM X series server, I know I can depend on it and in the off chance it does fail, I can depend on IBM. I describe the IBM X3650 as the Aston Martin DB9 of x86-64 servers, well worth the extra $K or 2 you pay over a Dell x64 server. They are fast, powerful, functional, reliable and an absolute pleasure to work with, IBM tapes all the important info you'd need to work on an X3650 to the lid of the server.
That sort of openness, adaptability and user friendliness is the antitheses of Apple lock down policies.
Don't you hate it when inferior people get all uppity and attempt to judge their betters? They should just mindlessly consume what they are told to and spare us their worthless, inferior opinions.
Sarcasm aside,
What is happening is an enormous number of people with no knowledge and limited experience of subjects commenting as an authority. Working in I.T. (tech support then network admin) I see this a lot and it hurts the industry as well as regular consumers. The number of times I've had to correct things like "my friend who has like 3 computers said..." as evidence correcting me about a subject I've studied and practices for years. I've probably wasted 2-3 weeks per year on correcting things like that when I was doing tech support.
I don't get why, I don't know jack about cutting hair so I wont correct a hair dresser. Why do people think that 5 minutes on Yelp or god help them, Wikipedia make people think they are more knowledgeable then doctors or other professionals. I read the Wiki page on CV joints yesterday but I'm sure as hell not qualified to replace one now.
Of course this will eventually sort itself out. User based reviews will become so polarised and inaccurate that people will instantly dismiss them. I already do that to a large degree, sites like Trip Advisor and Yelp I find completely useless.
How?
You cannot patent mathematical equation because of their obviousness.
Put simply, what you've stated can be discovered by anyone who is following the same path as Apple did without ever seeing an iDevice or even knowing of it's existence. You should not be able patent things that obvious.
Designs cant be patented, designs like logo's can be trademarked or even copyrighted. Blueprints can be patented.
Have you actually read what Apple is suing over? One of the things Apple is suing Samsung over is rounded corners, that's right, Apple is trying to claim exclusivity on rounded corners.
This is the idea behind the walled garden approach they've taken to the iPhone and iPad. All the software they run has to be approved by apple first. They seem to be heading this direction with their desktops as well.
Nope, that's failed miserably too.
Malware and data miners have made it into the app store.
Users will jailbreak, as every Iphone fanboy points out that is extremely easy to do on an Iphone. This means unsigned code can run on it
Finally, many people have tried the walled garden approach in the enterprise before, it always fails for the same reason, it's impossible to regulate threats from the users own stupidity from the gateway. A single infected floppy disk (yes, we've known the walled garden architecture was an utter failure that long ago) will circumvent all your security.
Gruber aside (he posed Mac App Store as the "solution" to these kind of trojans), Apple needs to acknowledge that 90% of users download potentially-executable stuff from the internet, and OSX users need to get savvy security-wise on that... growing pains and all.
Isn't that the antithesis of it "Just Works(TM)".
Apple is a very safe platform, but the safest software in the world can't protect against Stupid.
By the same token, Windows is a very safe platform, but it cant protect against stupid.
Both statements are true, but MS never promised to protect us from ourselves.
The biggest threat to computer security has always been the user. It is delusional at best to think a platform can magically protect you when you deliberately do bad things(TM).
Can someone explain the incongruity between these two statements:
"Don't worry, your data is encrypted with 256-bit RSA."
"Computer experts have cracked the encryption."
So why doesn't the fantastic mathematically complex encyption ever work? Why should I trust https? Or any other encrypted transmission?
Because encryption cannot get around having physical access to the device. Even being on the same network (subnet) makes things measurably easier as most OS's don't do anything about a brute force attack.
Once you've got physical access, you can easily use brute force to crack encryption, your only limitation is time. Reading the article, they have physical access to the devices they are cracking. Considering that ElcomSoft makes tools for forensics not attackers it makes sense that you'd have physical access.
Encryption does work, as network security but not as physical security. My WPA key on my home wireless network is there to stop people who are locked outside my house, it does nothing inside as someone can walk up to the modem and use a blue cable.
It's the beginning of summer....why is it so cold in here!
It's winter here sunshine and its fucking freezing.
Signed,
The Southern Hemisphere
There, fixed that for... uhhh... me.
It's the beginning of summer....why is it so cold in here!
It's winter here sunshine and its fucking freezing.
Signed,
+8 GMT