It's as if thousands of voices cried out in horror and were suddenly silenced when they realized there was no reason to use Virtual PC when there are already much better solutions available for the Mac anyway.
The real question is: will elevating oneself to administrator become common practice or not? If admin land stay reserved for the likes of Slashdot, then problems like this will probably be greatly reduced. But that assumes that the difficulty in setting up an admin account isn't worth it for most people.
Bad news for shareholders and possibly some Apple employess, but unless this is an extremely massive problem it shouldn't really have much effect after a couple of initial punishments.
You realize you didn't actually contradict anything I said, right? I never said that no part of OS X was open source. The sad thing is a lot of hackers don't even have experience with anything besides Windows because it's such an easy target. Even if they do write exploits for OS X there's still the matter of spreading them, which despite Mac user's overconfidence may prove more difficult than you think, especially in comparison to Windows.
Yeah after posting this comment I did some research and read a tidbit about that. Are they really scratch resistant or is that layer just to make them equal to DVDs / HD DVDs scratch resistance?
Hardrives will wear out, but here are the key differences:
1) The hardrives I use are relatively well protected inside my computers. 2) They do not have to be removed (or constantly inserted and removed) in order to use them. 3) Even if they were removed, simply touching their exterior would not break them. 4) They can hold most of my data, whereas I am required to have many CDs and DVDs to do so. 4) I constantly transfer data from one hardrive to another, something that the RIAA and (especially) the MPAA are trying to prevent me from doing with CDs and DVDs.
I'm sorry, but I think it's ridiculous to create a disc that is intended to be inserted and removed from various machines without any real durability. If you keep them in cases (which I do) you protect them while they're not being transferred. However, removing them from the case (or forgetting to return them to the case), handling them, inserting them into devices, removing them from devices, and placing them back in the case are all prone to damage. It's true that CDs and DVDs do have some level of protection. Some scratches *MAY* not mess up the data. Even a lot of serious scratches may not ruin all of the data. But that's not enough.
Now, your mileage may very. For all you people who never have damaged CDs and DVDs it's fine. But for people like me it sucks, bad. I never broke a VHS tape. Of course, they've all worn out, but none of them broke. VHS tapes had a degree of durability. They could be roughly handled because they were made of plastic. Except for the joy of playing with them floppies and ZIP disks were the same way.
I pray that holographic disks have some sort of casing.
Too bad everyone is going to cling to their flash factories. If it weren't for that darn commercialization we could have the best technology as soon as it's invented! Of course, we would also have to pay 100x as much for it:(. Mark my words, investing in the first companies to begin offering large MRAM (or similar) chips at competitive prices is a recipe for $$$.
To best honest hardrives and flash memory are both doomed. Hardrives are too slow and mechanical, flash is too slow and garunteed to wear out. No, the future is in something like MRAM where you get superior speed and longevity. Too bad there are so many flash factories:(.
My God people do some research. These guys used a 3rd party card because they don't want to reveal what hardware is vulnerable. As for operating systems, the one (and only) reason they chose to use a Mac was for shock value. Windows and Linux are both vulnerable, though if there are any exploits you can bet good money they'll be on Windows and not Mac OSX or Linux.
This is disgusting. No matter how many stories you run about Mac OSX and how it "really isn't secure" two facts will remain:
1) It's more secure than Windows. There are both less flaws and less exploits. It doesn't matter why, it's still true and, most likely, it will remain true for a long time to come. It's difficult to prove which has less flaws because neither is open source, but I think all of you, no matter how devoted to Microsoft you are, know deep down what would happen if both systems went open source tomorrow. It's very easy to prove which has less exploits, and it makes no difference whether that's because of less flaws, a different user base, a smaller user base, or some combination of the three because the net effect is a safer OS. Even if you disagree with the statement that OS X has less flaws on the basis that you believe it is secretly harboring more crappy code than Windows my second argument still holds.
2) There are almost never any malicious programs of any kind spread among Mac OS X users, unless you count people sharing copies of Windows XP to be installed with BootCamp. This may change in the future, but I doubt it.
Unless either of these formats is scratch resistant I think I'll stick with hardrives, thanks. How they ever got people to buy little disks that get the crap scratched out of them no matter what you do is beyond me - it's a recipe for paying for the same thing twice if you ask me.
She will hear it, and when she hears it is of extremely little importance. In fact, it would be better if she heard it with her family rather than at school. I have yet to see scientific evidence supporting the conclusion than these words are harmful to children's development and, even if I did, I'm not sure if there is any practical way to accomplish that.
That may be one of the worst things I have ever seen. Do they know that Microsoft doesn't make or maintain IE for every operating system and even if they did no one in their right mind would use it?
Not true at all. Obscene language is not protected because it supposedly isn't language, indecent language is. Tune in to any radio station that plays rap music (that isn't controlled by large corporations mind you, you may not find anyway) after 10/12pm and you can hear all the glorious shits, pisses, fucks, cunts, cocksuckers, motherfuckers, and tits left in.
Ok, you've cast a level 1 dispell magic and my true form has been revealed. I'm a Republican free speech advocate and I believe that restricting indecent speech is so far beyond pointless that it amounts to one of the biggest jokes human society has to offer. The vast majority of the population in the United States uses indecent speech, including the President of the United States. Kids learn it at an extremely young age to no obvious provable scientific detriment that I have been able to detect.
Shit shit shit. If every person in the United States heard me say that right now a bunch of them would be offended, but not a single one would be harmed. In fact, many of those offended have probably used the word themselves. If everyone would just take one minute out of their lives and think about the words they claim are harmful, they would realize that not only is that impossible to accurately define but they in fact have no harmful effect of any kind. Language is entirely about context. If you want to restrict harmful speech, fine. Good luck determining what is and is not harmful in specific cases. Instead we label some words "bad" and almost no matter how they are used they are heavily restricted to protect our children and easily offended hypocrites.
I got kicked out of a gym for wearing a shirt that said "I may be fat, but I have a huge cock." There was a picture of Buddha, but no penis or anything like that. You know why? Because traditional human taboos on publicly discussing sex made words related to it a natural choice for use as "harmful" words. Here's the key: the "cock" on my shirt isn't being used in a harmful context. It's clearly intended as a joke or friendly boast, I'm not sceaming "Die you cocksucker!" at someone while plunging at them with a knife. There's nothing harmful about my shirt, in fact, it's funny. I find many things offensive, but none of them are restricted. If we restricted every form of speech that offended someone we wouldn't have a language left. People have an artificial notion that the word "cock" is inappropriate and therefore harmful, when in fact it can be used in many, many, many contexts where it clearly isn't. The word fuck is commonly used for completely non-sexual meanings, yet the word is blanketly restricted.
Ok, I've thought about it and here's what I mean. Rating systems, if they are good and even if they required by law, are great. It's absolutely awesome for parents who are really concerned to be able to change a channel or pick a different game easily. But those rating systems can't be so simplistic and based on age, they need to be based on content so that stupid parents and stupid companies can be *a little* saved from their own stupidity. Also, under no circumstances, should companies or the government be charged with enforcing things for parents. A movie theatre or video game store should not, by law, refuse to sell my kid something for me. If they have a stupid corporate policy I can simply shop at a competitor who cares a little more about the idea behind our country.
They key is that parents, not the government, should be responsible for what their kids watch and play. The Courts have determined that protecting children from reality is more important than broadcaster's 1st amendment rights. You can't say "piss" on the radio during the day because little Susie might hear it. That's ludicrious. Little Susie has heard shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, tits already - probably from her parents - and if she hasn't she won't know what they mean anyway! I'm not saying she should be listening to a show full of those words, quite the opposite. But her parents should be monitoring that, not the government!
It's none of the government's godamn business which movies, tv shows, video games, or radio shows I let me kids listen to.
Rating systems are completely unecessary attempts to circumvent the 1st amendment. The idea that the government (or even industry) is responsible for keeping kids away from "adult" material is laughable. Only one group of people is responsible for that: the children's caretakers, be that parents at home, teacher's at school, whoever is watching over the children at any given time. The legal guardians are responsible for gradually teaching the kids what's what.
When they are old enough not to be cared for they are old enough (and should have been taught enough) to decide what to watch and play for themselves. Movies theatres and retail stores are not needed in the process.
When will MMORPG makers realize that when you create a capitalistic economy you're going to get capitalists?? I'm not convinced that banning people is the right solution, it seems fairly doomed to failure. Though if they're going to do these things I wish they'd clean up what's left of Diablo II: Lord of Destruction.
Yeah I 3 them but I'm holding out for their high-end 2nd generation Intel desktops (which I sincerely hope will have 2 dual core processors each). No one should buy 1st generation, even from Apple.
Yeah they could definitely takes some clues from the old shows. I really don't like the sets in the new series, they all seem very very dark, plain, confined, and similar. The Doctor is supposed to travel through time and space, and that *should* mean some really serious variations in his surroundings:(. That having been said no show is immune from the effect, Stargate's Canadian wilderness effect comes to mind (I swear they have 5 sets: sgc, forest, town, ship, house).
Whatever happened to the Tardis randomly landing on some strange planet and fun adventures that lasted several episodes ensuing? That has got to come back!!! Also, they do need to visit Earth (preferably saving it from various Alien threads) BUT they do to choose not London and not dark, gloomy places. They're sort of doing these things, but they sort of screw them up. I don't know if I'm just high on something but I really feel like all they have are dark gloomy confined sets. Maybe I need to buy the DVDs.
I feel like the Doctor always used to get thrown into cool situations and you would get to watch them unfold, every so often unveiling one of his adversaries was behind it or solving some local trouble. There really wasn't too much plot interaction outside the individual story archs (beyond the adversaries re-appearing) and, at least initially, he always seemed to be sort of thrown around my the winds of fate only to gradually uncover what was going on and take action. That's what I really loved, and I feel like it's just not the same in the new series.
Slashdot Mirror
It's as if thousands of voices cried out in horror and were suddenly silenced when they realized there was no reason to use Virtual PC when there are already much better solutions available for the Mac anyway.
I can think of a lot of better ways to blow $900 million dollars, for example, on vodka and hookers.
The real question is: will elevating oneself to administrator become common practice or not? If admin land stay reserved for the likes of Slashdot, then problems like this will probably be greatly reduced. But that assumes that the difficulty in setting up an admin account isn't worth it for most people.
You can't really lose to Microsft per se, you just sort of run out of money.
Bad news for shareholders and possibly some Apple employess, but unless this is an extremely massive problem it shouldn't really have much effect after a couple of initial punishments.
You realize you didn't actually contradict anything I said, right? I never said that no part of OS X was open source. The sad thing is a lot of hackers don't even have experience with anything besides Windows because it's such an easy target. Even if they do write exploits for OS X there's still the matter of spreading them, which despite Mac user's overconfidence may prove more difficult than you think, especially in comparison to Windows.
Yeah after posting this comment I did some research and read a tidbit about that. Are they really scratch resistant or is that layer just to make them equal to DVDs / HD DVDs scratch resistance?
Hardrives will wear out, but here are the key differences:
1) The hardrives I use are relatively well protected inside my computers.
2) They do not have to be removed (or constantly inserted and removed) in order to use them.
3) Even if they were removed, simply touching their exterior would not break them.
4) They can hold most of my data, whereas I am required to have many CDs and DVDs to do so.
4) I constantly transfer data from one hardrive to another, something that the RIAA and (especially) the MPAA are trying to prevent me from doing with CDs and DVDs.
I'm sorry, but I think it's ridiculous to create a disc that is intended to be inserted and removed from various machines without any real durability. If you keep them in cases (which I do) you protect them while they're not being transferred. However, removing them from the case (or forgetting to return them to the case), handling them, inserting them into devices, removing them from devices, and placing them back in the case are all prone to damage. It's true that CDs and DVDs do have some level of protection. Some scratches *MAY* not mess up the data. Even a lot of serious scratches may not ruin all of the data. But that's not enough.
Now, your mileage may very. For all you people who never have damaged CDs and DVDs it's fine. But for people like me it sucks, bad. I never broke a VHS tape. Of course, they've all worn out, but none of them broke. VHS tapes had a degree of durability. They could be roughly handled because they were made of plastic. Except for the joy of playing with them floppies and ZIP disks were the same way.
I pray that holographic disks have some sort of casing.
Too bad everyone is going to cling to their flash factories. If it weren't for that darn commercialization we could have the best technology as soon as it's invented! Of course, we would also have to pay 100x as much for it :(. Mark my words, investing in the first companies to begin offering large MRAM (or similar) chips at competitive prices is a recipe for $$$.
To best honest hardrives and flash memory are both doomed. Hardrives are too slow and mechanical, flash is too slow and garunteed to wear out. No, the future is in something like MRAM where you get superior speed and longevity. Too bad there are so many flash factories :(.
My God people do some research. These guys used a 3rd party card because they don't want to reveal what hardware is vulnerable. As for operating systems, the one (and only) reason they chose to use a Mac was for shock value. Windows and Linux are both vulnerable, though if there are any exploits you can bet good money they'll be on Windows and not Mac OSX or Linux.
This is disgusting. No matter how many stories you run about Mac OSX and how it "really isn't secure" two facts will remain:
1) It's more secure than Windows. There are both less flaws and less exploits. It doesn't matter why, it's still true and, most likely, it will remain true for a long time to come. It's difficult to prove which has less flaws because neither is open source, but I think all of you, no matter how devoted to Microsoft you are, know deep down what would happen if both systems went open source tomorrow. It's very easy to prove which has less exploits, and it makes no difference whether that's because of less flaws, a different user base, a smaller user base, or some combination of the three because the net effect is a safer OS. Even if you disagree with the statement that OS X has less flaws on the basis that you believe it is secretly harboring more crappy code than Windows my second argument still holds.
2) There are almost never any malicious programs of any kind spread among Mac OS X users, unless you count people sharing copies of Windows XP to be installed with BootCamp. This may change in the future, but I doubt it.
Sounds like Microsoft should try getting Apple to ship Macs with Windows.
Unless either of these formats is scratch resistant I think I'll stick with hardrives, thanks. How they ever got people to buy little disks that get the crap scratched out of them no matter what you do is beyond me - it's a recipe for paying for the same thing twice if you ask me.
I'd prefer something longer lasting (and faster) than flash memory.
Honestly I would consider getting a Mac and instructing her only to boot Windows when she absolutely had to.
She will hear it, and when she hears it is of extremely little importance. In fact, it would be better if she heard it with her family rather than at school. I have yet to see scientific evidence supporting the conclusion than these words are harmful to children's development and, even if I did, I'm not sure if there is any practical way to accomplish that.
That may be one of the worst things I have ever seen. Do they know that Microsoft doesn't make or maintain IE for every operating system and even if they did no one in their right mind would use it?
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Not true at all. Obscene language is not protected because it supposedly isn't language, indecent language is. Tune in to any radio station that plays rap music (that isn't controlled by large corporations mind you, you may not find anyway) after 10/12pm and you can hear all the glorious shits, pisses, fucks, cunts, cocksuckers, motherfuckers, and tits left in.
Ok, you've cast a level 1 dispell magic and my true form has been revealed. I'm a Republican free speech advocate and I believe that restricting indecent speech is so far beyond pointless that it amounts to one of the biggest jokes human society has to offer. The vast majority of the population in the United States uses indecent speech, including the President of the United States. Kids learn it at an extremely young age to no obvious provable scientific detriment that I have been able to detect.
Shit shit shit. If every person in the United States heard me say that right now a bunch of them would be offended, but not a single one would be harmed. In fact, many of those offended have probably used the word themselves. If everyone would just take one minute out of their lives and think about the words they claim are harmful, they would realize that not only is that impossible to accurately define but they in fact have no harmful effect of any kind. Language is entirely about context. If you want to restrict harmful speech, fine. Good luck determining what is and is not harmful in specific cases. Instead we label some words "bad" and almost no matter how they are used they are heavily restricted to protect our children and easily offended hypocrites.
I got kicked out of a gym for wearing a shirt that said "I may be fat, but I have a huge cock." There was a picture of Buddha, but no penis or anything like that. You know why? Because traditional human taboos on publicly discussing sex made words related to it a natural choice for use as "harmful" words. Here's the key: the "cock" on my shirt isn't being used in a harmful context. It's clearly intended as a joke or friendly boast, I'm not sceaming "Die you cocksucker!" at someone while plunging at them with a knife. There's nothing harmful about my shirt, in fact, it's funny. I find many things offensive, but none of them are restricted. If we restricted every form of speech that offended someone we wouldn't have a language left. People have an artificial notion that the word "cock" is inappropriate and therefore harmful, when in fact it can be used in many, many, many contexts where it clearly isn't. The word fuck is commonly used for completely non-sexual meanings, yet the word is blanketly restricted.
Sigh.
Ok, I've thought about it and here's what I mean. Rating systems, if they are good and even if they required by law, are great. It's absolutely awesome for parents who are really concerned to be able to change a channel or pick a different game easily. But those rating systems can't be so simplistic and based on age, they need to be based on content so that stupid parents and stupid companies can be *a little* saved from their own stupidity. Also, under no circumstances, should companies or the government be charged with enforcing things for parents. A movie theatre or video game store should not, by law, refuse to sell my kid something for me. If they have a stupid corporate policy I can simply shop at a competitor who cares a little more about the idea behind our country.
They key is that parents, not the government, should be responsible for what their kids watch and play. The Courts have determined that protecting children from reality is more important than broadcaster's 1st amendment rights. You can't say "piss" on the radio during the day because little Susie might hear it. That's ludicrious. Little Susie has heard shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, tits already - probably from her parents - and if she hasn't she won't know what they mean anyway! I'm not saying she should be listening to a show full of those words, quite the opposite. But her parents should be monitoring that, not the government!
It's none of the government's godamn business which movies, tv shows, video games, or radio shows I let me kids listen to.
Rating systems are completely unecessary attempts to circumvent the 1st amendment. The idea that the government (or even industry) is responsible for keeping kids away from "adult" material is laughable. Only one group of people is responsible for that: the children's caretakers, be that parents at home, teacher's at school, whoever is watching over the children at any given time. The legal guardians are responsible for gradually teaching the kids what's what.
When they are old enough not to be cared for they are old enough (and should have been taught enough) to decide what to watch and play for themselves. Movies theatres and retail stores are not needed in the process.
When will MMORPG makers realize that when you create a capitalistic economy you're going to get capitalists?? I'm not convinced that banning people is the right solution, it seems fairly doomed to failure. Though if they're going to do these things I wish they'd clean up what's left of Diablo II: Lord of Destruction.
Yeah I 3 them but I'm holding out for their high-end 2nd generation Intel desktops (which I sincerely hope will have 2 dual core processors each). No one should buy 1st generation, even from Apple.
Yeah they could definitely takes some clues from the old shows. I really don't like the sets in the new series, they all seem very very dark, plain, confined, and similar. The Doctor is supposed to travel through time and space, and that *should* mean some really serious variations in his surroundings :(. That having been said no show is immune from the effect, Stargate's Canadian wilderness effect comes to mind (I swear they have 5 sets: sgc, forest, town, ship, house).
Whatever happened to the Tardis randomly landing on some strange planet and fun adventures that lasted several episodes ensuing? That has got to come back!!! Also, they do need to visit Earth (preferably saving it from various Alien threads) BUT they do to choose not London and not dark, gloomy places. They're sort of doing these things, but they sort of screw them up. I don't know if I'm just high on something but I really feel like all they have are dark gloomy confined sets. Maybe I need to buy the DVDs.
I feel like the Doctor always used to get thrown into cool situations and you would get to watch them unfold, every so often unveiling one of his adversaries was behind it or solving some local trouble. There really wasn't too much plot interaction outside the individual story archs (beyond the adversaries re-appearing) and, at least initially, he always seemed to be sort of thrown around my the winds of fate only to gradually uncover what was going on and take action. That's what I really loved, and I feel like it's just not the same in the new series.
I guess we'll see.