Apple will end up doing that I imagine, but they also want the publicity of "not handing over iMessage data to the FBI" before they do it.
Or, maybe, just maybe, they don't want to force the Court into finding Apple in Contempt, with possible sanctions of who-knows-how-much per day until they "comply" with an Order with which they really can't comply (because they really don't have a "master key").
Or even worse, the DoJ gets some fascist Judge to Order Apple to install a backdoor, and it turns into a REALLY ugly (and expensive) fight.
BTW, this really should shut up all the slashtards that say that Apple secretly colludes with the Gummint; but it won't.
NetBSD. It even runs on my SE/30. A worthy upgrade from anything Apple on nearly any Apple hardware.
Really? Have you ever tried A/UX?
I was just talking with a friend yesterday about "what ever happened to..." in regard to A/UX. If you can scare up an install set (and I think he said there is someone who has posted same up to the internet), it would run on your SE/30, and give you a nice MacOS GUI plus a UNIX POSIX environment.
Alas, I don't know much more about it, and I'm really just throwing it out there, because a lot of people don't even realize that Apple's involvement with UNIX actually goes WAY back, at least to around 1991. The reason it didn't take off was that Apple didn't market it very aggressively, and it was pricey.
But as far as preferring NetBSD over OS X, isn't that pretty much just saying you don't like OS X's GUI; because, unlike ANY Linux distro, OS X is a descendant of BSD UNIX, which, among other things, begat NetBSD?
But you simply won't admit that anything that comes out of Cupertino is worthy; so I don't know why I am wasting my e-breath.
According to this 2008 biomed paper: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1..., Naegleria fowleri is likely vulnerable to Mimivirus (possibly Mamavirus too?) infection.
Given that Naegleria fowleri is close to 100% fatal, why not try infecting the Naegleria fowleri infection with Mimivirus?
Mimivirus is only speciously associated with Pneumonia in humans, and Pneumonia has a much better survivability rate. Worst case scenario it does nothing and the patient dies (which was going to happen anyways), best case scenario the Mimivirus kills Naegleria fowleri and the patient survives with no pathology. Middle road scenario, the Mimivirus kills Naegleria fowleri, the patient survives but has Pneumonia.
Personally, I would choose having a bout of Pneumonia over having my brain eaten by an amoeba any day.
Exactly. The article points out that the amoeba can survive in choline levels found in drinking water. That is precisely why chlorine levels in swimming pools are much higher than those in drinking water.
The episode of "Monsters Inside Me" that featured this lovely organism was based on someone who had swum in a warm, freshwater pond. Which is yet another reason I won't swim in anything but a chorinated pool.
There is a largish group of people who believe that distillation somehow makes water poisonous. This is utter ignorance. Distillation makes water pure, and the body *loves* pure water.
It doesn't make the water "poisonous", per se; but it does leave behind some beneficial micronutrients.
So, if you drink exclusively distilled, or Reverse-Osmosis water, you should look into taking some micronutrient supplements, too.
I am also of the opinion that attempting to remove all the immune-system challenges from your life is actually not a good thing; but I also understand that there are limits. I just think that the limits have both an upper, and a lower, boundary, beyond which we are in increasingly dangerous territory.
SMS? This is an apple script exploit on a mac PC. not a mobile device. Nowhere does the article explain that SMS is an attack vector and unless iOS is vulnerable as well,I do not see how it could be.
Having said that, I still believe that the amount of disabling of security by the User, and the Granting of Permissions by the User puts this Exploit solidly in the "Yawn" territory.
The "security feature" in this case is just saying you want to run a program that Apple hasn't approved. I can already see the excuse for drive-by malware will be it is your fault for visiting a website Apple didn't approve.
You mean, that's the only "asterisk" that you want to admit-to?
But it is important to note that, even on the weakest setting, the User is still required to grant "First Run" privileges. So even if the User has done everything to de-fang GateKeeper, s/he still has to be "complicit" for the Exploit to Run.
At that point, how much responsibility can be heaped on Apple, versus the User?
The "security feature" in this case is just saying you want to run a program that Apple hasn't approved. I can already see the excuse for drive-by malware will be it is your fault for visiting a website Apple didn't approve.
Even when you reduce the GateKeeper settings to the minimum, you still have to answer a Dialog that warns that this is an Application that was downloaded from the internet, and do you want to run it? THEN you have to specifically grant Sudo Permission.
Seriously, what else would you have Apple do, that wouldn't have the Slashdot crowd whine that "You can't run non-Approved Apps"?
Seriously. Damned if they do, and Damned if they don't. Security is, and always will be, a set of tradeoffs.
That's not apologizing; that's recognizing reality, rather than holding something up to an utterly impossible, hypothetical ideal.
If this was happening in Linux, they freetards would be all over blaming the User for being stupid. But when it's Apple, it is always their fault. Again, not apologizing; just observing the typical modus operandi around here.
If you run around turning off security features and running random.apps from people willy-nilly on your computer, no matter what OS you're running.
Exactly.
I would bet that the people that are on here declaring gloom and doom and "Apple doesn't care about Security", etc. are some of the very same people who will defend Android to the death when a user clicks-through the "Permissions" list when Installing an App, saying that it is the User's responsibility to be vigilant about granting Permissions.
Guess what? Social Engineering works, and will likely continue to work, on certain people, and it is damn-near impossible to protect all users from themselves in all situations, and still have an OS that won't have everyone simply turning all security off, like with the first version of UAC on Vista. When the User says it's ok, then what else can be done if they hold the ultimate authority?
So, if you were head of Security Development for OS X, what would you do that would actually work in all situations?
You are strangely deluded - it'd be cute if it wasn't so sad.
And you are a Coward. It'd be cute if it wasn't so annoyingly common on here.
BTW, exactly what is delusional about recognizing that there is only one Platform that has actually taken a stance on User Privacy in writing, and has actually honored those Words?
Microsoft? Nope. Isn't that the whole reason behind this Article?
Google? Hahahahaha!
Linux? Well, considering that there really isn't a "Linux, Inc.", the answer to the question lies in the code of a hundred-plus distros. Care to code-review them all? I'll wait.
So, AFAICT, that pretty much leaves Apple. And when you can show me the firewall logs from an OS X system, where the User has opted-out of their PUBLISHED "Data Collection" programs, such as "Spotlight Suggestions" and "Share details about my iTunes Library with Apple" using the readily available GUI switches for same (rather than having to resort to Hosts file editing, external Firewall devices and Traffic Sniffers to attempt to plug the NON-PUBLISHED holes like with Windows), THEN I will agree that Apple == Microsoft.
But not before.
It is not "delusional" to call for evidence; remember that.
BTW, here's a recent Wired article that sort of underscores what I have been saying in this post and previous ones in this sub-thread about Apple putting their money where their mouth is. As I said, they have recognized that protecting and not-collecting User data is a marketing tool unto itself. Fortunately, as a hardware-based "monetization" model, they can keep enforcing, and enhancing, that policy without cutting into their revenues. In fact, in the long run, and especially with stuff like WinSpy10, that may look more and more attractive to users.
There is a logical fallacy right at the front of your extended reply.
If p, then q does not imply if q, then p.
My statement that "Macs are good for people who can't handle much else" stands. That statement did not assert "all people who use Macs can't handle much else."
True enough; but the meme still gets tiresome, because, in my many years immersed in both Mac and Windows environments, (including a stint admin-ing a mixed network of about 50 machines, of both Windows and Macs), I find Mac users are pretty much no different from Windows users, a far as average technical prowess goes. Linux users are another matter; but that just goes with the territory.
Macs are great for people who can't handle much else.
I'm really getting tired of this/. meme. Perhaps I just need to publish my resume as part of my User Profile...
Not to sound big-headed; but the short story is that I am an Embedded designer with almost 40 years of paid hardware and software development experience on a wide variety of microcontroller platforms, from 6502 to ARM9 Cortex (and many others in between), mostly in Assembly and C. Although I have done quite a wide range of applications, my forte and first love lies in real-time process control. So, to say that I have done more than my fair share of fiddle farting around would be an extreme understatement. Oh, and BTW, some of that Development, including software development, CAD for schematic capture and PCB development, some LabView stuff (BTW, LabView was for years a Mac-Only system), and other stuff was done on Macs.
But, because the Embedded market has in recent years devolved into little else besides chasing contract work (which doesn't work well when you have a house and family to drag all over the country), I currently am employed doing Windows Application Development for a small local company. This also means that I do a fair bit of Windows Server admin stuff on pretty much a daily basis. Oh, and BTW, I am also a Certified SQL Server admin.
So with all due respect, you don't know anything about my credentials. Now you do.
Care to retract your fallacious and misinformed generalization regarding Mac Users?
Oh, and does this also mean that the plethora of people who show up at hacker conferences sporting Mac laptops also "can't handle much else"? Or are you going to claim that they don't count, just because they dual-boot a Linux Distro on their MacBooks?
What evidence have you personally seen? It's trivial to stick a network sniffer and see what they're sending. But you seem like a non-technical nutjob incapable of even this basic task. Thats probably why you're using a Mac.
I'm an embedded designer with nearly 40 years' paid experience. So I am quite a technical nutjob, thankyouverymuch!
I use a Mac so I don't have to use a traffic sniffer on my own computer.
Primarily because the IT community keeps on sucking Bill Gates' cock, because "Nobody ever got fired for spec-ing Windows" and because "It is Job Security" (can't tell you how many SysAdmins have told me that).
But the real reason people still use Windows is that their fucking work uses, or worse yet, depends on Windows.
Another fallacious "free" concept: "Linux is only free if your time is."
Windows License+Seat is only hundreds of dollars per machine if my time is worth nothing. In reality, the cost is far higher. See, it works both ways dumbfuck.
Only the fact that you are trusting Microsoft to accurately and truthfully denote when Updates are really Security-Related, and when they are not. And what happens when an Update has some Security components to it; but then there are "other" "Stability Improvements" (or whatever) that are actually Spyware? Kind of like how a Bill in Congress will "be for" giving poor schoolchildren free lunch over the Summer; but then there will be some innocent-looking "Amendment" to the Bill that does something like divert all your banking information to the IRS/NSA/CIA, etc...
Slashdot Mirror
Apple will end up doing that I imagine, but they also want the publicity of "not handing over iMessage data to the FBI" before they do it.
Or, maybe, just maybe, they don't want to force the Court into finding Apple in Contempt, with possible sanctions of who-knows-how-much per day until they "comply" with an Order with which they really can't comply (because they really don't have a "master key").
Or even worse, the DoJ gets some fascist Judge to Order Apple to install a backdoor, and it turns into a REALLY ugly (and expensive) fight.
BTW, this really should shut up all the slashtards that say that Apple secretly colludes with the Gummint; but it won't.
NetBSD. It even runs on my SE/30. A worthy upgrade from anything Apple on nearly any Apple hardware.
Really? Have you ever tried A/UX?
I was just talking with a friend yesterday about "what ever happened to..." in regard to A/UX. If you can scare up an install set (and I think he said there is someone who has posted same up to the internet), it would run on your SE/30, and give you a nice MacOS GUI plus a UNIX POSIX environment.
Alas, I don't know much more about it, and I'm really just throwing it out there, because a lot of people don't even realize that Apple's involvement with UNIX actually goes WAY back, at least to around 1991. The reason it didn't take off was that Apple didn't market it very aggressively, and it was pricey.
But as far as preferring NetBSD over OS X, isn't that pretty much just saying you don't like OS X's GUI; because, unlike ANY Linux distro, OS X is a descendant of BSD UNIX, which, among other things, begat NetBSD?
But you simply won't admit that anything that comes out of Cupertino is worthy; so I don't know why I am wasting my e-breath.
According to this 2008 biomed paper: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1..., Naegleria fowleri is likely vulnerable to Mimivirus (possibly Mamavirus too?) infection.
Given that Naegleria fowleri is close to 100% fatal, why not try infecting the Naegleria fowleri infection with Mimivirus?
Mimivirus is only speciously associated with Pneumonia in humans, and Pneumonia has a much better survivability rate. Worst case scenario it does nothing and the patient dies (which was going to happen anyways), best case scenario the Mimivirus kills Naegleria fowleri and the patient survives with no pathology. Middle road scenario, the Mimivirus kills Naegleria fowleri, the patient survives but has Pneumonia.
Personally, I would choose having a bout of Pneumonia over having my brain eaten by an amoeba any day.
Dr. House, is that you?
Probably not much better than copper pipes but a lot more expensive.
Not at the current prices for copper!
That article also says: Someone can get infected with PAM from swimming in warm fresh water, such as a lake or river. .
How does someone get infected with Cooking Spray?
Exactly. The article points out that the amoeba can survive in choline levels found in drinking water. That is precisely why chlorine levels in swimming pools are much higher than those in drinking water.
The episode of "Monsters Inside Me" that featured this lovely organism was based on someone who had swum in a warm, freshwater pond. Which is yet another reason I won't swim in anything but a chorinated pool.
There is a largish group of people who believe that distillation somehow makes water poisonous. This is utter ignorance. Distillation makes water pure, and the body *loves* pure water.
It doesn't make the water "poisonous", per se; but it does leave behind some beneficial micronutrients.
So, if you drink exclusively distilled, or Reverse-Osmosis water, you should look into taking some micronutrient supplements, too.
I am also of the opinion that attempting to remove all the immune-system challenges from your life is actually not a good thing; but I also understand that there are limits. I just think that the limits have both an upper, and a lower, boundary, beyond which we are in increasingly dangerous territory.
Stallman warned everyone that proprietary software turns on the user in the end.
I know of some that won't.
idiot.
I know you are, but what am I?
Are you serious?
No, he is the co-founder of Mondo 2000 magazine.
You should have gone to school.
I did; but clearly your forte is not communication skills.
Hey faggot, I'm having a hard time understanding you with Jobs' rotting cancer cock in your mouth.
Wow, what an erudite discussion. That's what keeps me coming back to Slashdot; the stimulating verbal intercourse.
SMS? This is an apple script exploit on a mac PC. not a mobile device. Nowhere does the article explain that SMS is an attack vector and unless iOS is vulnerable as well,I do not see how it could be.
Not to support the obvious shill-article; but I believe that, since OS X 10.10 (Yosemite), Macs have been able to receive/send SMS and MMS messages that are routed through Apple's iMessage service.
Having said that, I still believe that the amount of disabling of security by the User, and the Granting of Permissions by the User puts this Exploit solidly in the "Yawn" territory.
The "security feature" in this case is just saying you want to run a program that Apple hasn't approved. I can already see the excuse for drive-by malware will be it is your fault for visiting a website Apple didn't approve.
You mean, that's the only "asterisk" that you want to admit-to?
But the Reality is far different.
Grow up. Or better yet, just STFU, hater.
No, the default is app store only.
2nd option is the one you said.
3rd option is allow all apps.
But it is important to note that, even on the weakest setting, the User is still required to grant "First Run" privileges. So even if the User has done everything to de-fang GateKeeper, s/he still has to be "complicit" for the Exploit to Run.
At that point, how much responsibility can be heaped on Apple, versus the User?
The "security feature" in this case is just saying you want to run a program that Apple hasn't approved. I can already see the excuse for drive-by malware will be it is your fault for visiting a website Apple didn't approve.
Even when you reduce the GateKeeper settings to the minimum, you still have to answer a Dialog that warns that this is an Application that was downloaded from the internet, and do you want to run it? THEN you have to specifically grant Sudo Permission.
Seriously, what else would you have Apple do, that wouldn't have the Slashdot crowd whine that "You can't run non-Approved Apps"?
Seriously. Damned if they do, and Damned if they don't. Security is, and always will be, a set of tradeoffs.
That's not apologizing; that's recognizing reality, rather than holding something up to an utterly impossible, hypothetical ideal.
If this was happening in Linux, they freetards would be all over blaming the User for being stupid. But when it's Apple, it is always their fault. Again, not apologizing; just observing the typical modus operandi around here.
If you run around turning off security features and running random .apps from people willy-nilly on your computer, no matter what OS you're running.
Exactly.
I would bet that the people that are on here declaring gloom and doom and "Apple doesn't care about Security", etc. are some of the very same people who will defend Android to the death when a user clicks-through the "Permissions" list when Installing an App, saying that it is the User's responsibility to be vigilant about granting Permissions.
Guess what? Social Engineering works, and will likely continue to work, on certain people, and it is damn-near impossible to protect all users from themselves in all situations, and still have an OS that won't have everyone simply turning all security off, like with the first version of UAC on Vista. When the User says it's ok, then what else can be done if they hold the ultimate authority?
So, if you were head of Security Development for OS X, what would you do that would actually work in all situations?
You are strangely deluded - it'd be cute if it wasn't so sad.
And you are a Coward. It'd be cute if it wasn't so annoyingly common on here.
BTW, exactly what is delusional about recognizing that there is only one Platform that has actually taken a stance on User Privacy in writing, and has actually honored those Words?
Microsoft? Nope. Isn't that the whole reason behind this Article?
Google? Hahahahaha!
Linux? Well, considering that there really isn't a "Linux, Inc.", the answer to the question lies in the code of a hundred-plus distros. Care to code-review them all? I'll wait.
So, AFAICT, that pretty much leaves Apple. And when you can show me the firewall logs from an OS X system, where the User has opted-out of their PUBLISHED "Data Collection" programs, such as "Spotlight Suggestions" and "Share details about my iTunes Library with Apple" using the readily available GUI switches for same (rather than having to resort to Hosts file editing, external Firewall devices and Traffic Sniffers to attempt to plug the NON-PUBLISHED holes like with Windows), THEN I will agree that Apple == Microsoft.
But not before.
It is not "delusional" to call for evidence; remember that.
BTW, here's a recent Wired article that sort of underscores what I have been saying in this post and previous ones in this sub-thread about Apple putting their money where their mouth is. As I said, they have recognized that protecting and not-collecting User data is a marketing tool unto itself. Fortunately, as a hardware-based "monetization" model, they can keep enforcing, and enhancing, that policy without cutting into their revenues. In fact, in the long run, and especially with stuff like WinSpy10, that may look more and more attractive to users.
There is a logical fallacy right at the front of your extended reply.
If p, then q does not imply if q, then p.
My statement that "Macs are good for people who can't handle much else" stands. That statement did not assert "all people who use Macs can't handle much else."
True enough; but the meme still gets tiresome, because, in my many years immersed in both Mac and Windows environments, (including a stint admin-ing a mixed network of about 50 machines, of both Windows and Macs), I find Mac users are pretty much no different from Windows users, a far as average technical prowess goes. Linux users are another matter; but that just goes with the territory.
Macs are great for people who can't handle much else.
I'm really getting tired of this /. meme. Perhaps I just need to publish my resume as part of my User Profile...
Not to sound big-headed; but the short story is that I am an Embedded designer with almost 40 years of paid hardware and software development experience on a wide variety of microcontroller platforms, from 6502 to ARM9 Cortex (and many others in between), mostly in Assembly and C. Although I have done quite a wide range of applications, my forte and first love lies in real-time process control. So, to say that I have done more than my fair share of fiddle farting around would be an extreme understatement. Oh, and BTW, some of that Development, including software development, CAD for schematic capture and PCB development, some LabView stuff (BTW, LabView was for years a Mac-Only system), and other stuff was done on Macs.
But, because the Embedded market has in recent years devolved into little else besides chasing contract work (which doesn't work well when you have a house and family to drag all over the country), I currently am employed doing Windows Application Development for a small local company. This also means that I do a fair bit of Windows Server admin stuff on pretty much a daily basis. Oh, and BTW, I am also a Certified SQL Server admin.
So with all due respect, you don't know anything about my credentials. Now you do.
Care to retract your fallacious and misinformed generalization regarding Mac Users?
Oh, and does this also mean that the plethora of people who show up at hacker conferences sporting Mac laptops also "can't handle much else"? Or are you going to claim that they don't count, just because they dual-boot a Linux Distro on their MacBooks?
This raises the important question of whether the comma in that slogan means "and" or "or". Discuss.
Actually, all it really demonstrates, is that the person who came up with that catchphrase was too ignorant to know when to use a semicolon properly.
What evidence have you personally seen? It's trivial to stick a network sniffer and see what they're sending. But you seem like a non-technical nutjob incapable of even this basic task. Thats probably why you're using a Mac.
I'm an embedded designer with nearly 40 years' paid experience. So I am quite a technical nutjob, thankyouverymuch!
I use a Mac so I don't have to use a traffic sniffer on my own computer.
Next ignorant assumption?
Why, again, do people still use Windows?
Primarily because the IT community keeps on sucking Bill Gates' cock, because "Nobody ever got fired for spec-ing Windows" and because "It is Job Security" (can't tell you how many SysAdmins have told me that).
But the real reason people still use Windows is that their fucking work uses, or worse yet, depends on Windows.
Period.
Another fallacious "free" concept: "Linux is only free if your time is."
Windows License+Seat is only hundreds of dollars per machine if my time is worth nothing. In reality, the cost is far higher. See, it works both ways dumbfuck.
I'm sorry; but that truly made no sense.
Can anyone point out something I may miss?
Only the fact that you are trusting Microsoft to accurately and truthfully denote when Updates are really Security-Related, and when they are not. And what happens when an Update has some Security components to it; but then there are "other" "Stability Improvements" (or whatever) that are actually Spyware? Kind of like how a Bill in Congress will "be for" giving poor schoolchildren free lunch over the Summer; but then there will be some innocent-looking "Amendment" to the Bill that does something like divert all your banking information to the IRS/NSA/CIA, etc...
apple.com and enjoy your life.
FTFY.