KnightWRX
May 2, 04:35 PM
Is anybody actually bothering to do this in the wild against any OS?
The types of attacks you are referring to are not occurring in the wild on a massive scale. When was the last time you heard about one in the media?
Again, look, if you're not interested in the mechanics, that's fine. Stop replying to me.
My post is inquiring about the mechanics. For the past hour, I've been trying to find how this thing ticks by searching around for in-depth articles (none to find, everyone just points to Intego's brief overview that is seriously lacking in details) or for the archive itself.
If you don't want to take this discussion to the technical level I am trying to take it, just don't participate.
At the moment, there is no way to prevent the kinds of attacks you are referring to on any OS if a vulnerability exists that allows the attacker to exploit a running application.
I don't know of any other Web browser (this is not a OS problem, it's a Safari problem). that automatically assumes executables are safe and thus should be auto-executed.
Webkit2 will reduce access to user space when Safari (or any app using webkit2) is exploited by restricting the privileges of apps on a per app basis.
What does Webkit2 have anything to do with running an installer on the OS after downloading it ? That happens outside the rendering engine's sandbox. You're not quite understanding what this sandbox does if you think this protects you against these types of attacks.
Turn off "Open safe files after downloading" if you are worried about that type of attack implemented via "safe" files.
I think you missed the part where I don't use Safari. I'm pretty far away from allowing it to "auto-run" "safe" files (I choose what I want to run).
Again munkery, I appreciate you taking the time to respond, but I'm not some noob user. You are not answering my inquiries nor helping any here at the level I want to discuss this. I get everything you are saying. I've been getting that level for quite a few years. I'm trying to discuss at another level here. Do you want to participate or not at a higher level where we discuss the actual mechanics of this rather than just starring at the tip of the iceberg ?
The types of attacks you are referring to are not occurring in the wild on a massive scale. When was the last time you heard about one in the media?
Again, look, if you're not interested in the mechanics, that's fine. Stop replying to me.
My post is inquiring about the mechanics. For the past hour, I've been trying to find how this thing ticks by searching around for in-depth articles (none to find, everyone just points to Intego's brief overview that is seriously lacking in details) or for the archive itself.
If you don't want to take this discussion to the technical level I am trying to take it, just don't participate.
At the moment, there is no way to prevent the kinds of attacks you are referring to on any OS if a vulnerability exists that allows the attacker to exploit a running application.
I don't know of any other Web browser (this is not a OS problem, it's a Safari problem). that automatically assumes executables are safe and thus should be auto-executed.
Webkit2 will reduce access to user space when Safari (or any app using webkit2) is exploited by restricting the privileges of apps on a per app basis.
What does Webkit2 have anything to do with running an installer on the OS after downloading it ? That happens outside the rendering engine's sandbox. You're not quite understanding what this sandbox does if you think this protects you against these types of attacks.
Turn off "Open safe files after downloading" if you are worried about that type of attack implemented via "safe" files.
I think you missed the part where I don't use Safari. I'm pretty far away from allowing it to "auto-run" "safe" files (I choose what I want to run).
Again munkery, I appreciate you taking the time to respond, but I'm not some noob user. You are not answering my inquiries nor helping any here at the level I want to discuss this. I get everything you are saying. I've been getting that level for quite a few years. I'm trying to discuss at another level here. Do you want to participate or not at a higher level where we discuss the actual mechanics of this rather than just starring at the tip of the iceberg ?
Chupa Chupa
Apr 28, 07:46 AM
Next year you will see iPhones and iPods counted too. I mean you need to do all you can to make it look good to shareholders.
Apple just point blank told shareholders that last Q more than half it's profits came from the iOS devices. That is no secret. I would further argue that Apple shareholders own the stock because of the growth of iOS, not OS X. AAPL was a worthless stock until the iPod and all it's siblings took hold of the modern culture. Mac sales are just a bonus now.
Apple just point blank told shareholders that last Q more than half it's profits came from the iOS devices. That is no secret. I would further argue that Apple shareholders own the stock because of the growth of iOS, not OS X. AAPL was a worthless stock until the iPod and all it's siblings took hold of the modern culture. Mac sales are just a bonus now.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:41 PM
I don't wish to piss on your bonfire too much, but I don't believe there are any nuclear plants anywhere in the world which have been built without government subsidy.
I was talking about the invention of hydro?
Regarding nuclear subsidization, I'm quite aware of this fact. We subsidize ethanol, we subsidize oil, we subsidize nuclear, we subsidize wind, we subsidize solar. Seems kind of pointless, doesn't it? It's like playing roulette and putting a chip on every single number.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
I'm not arguing for MORE oil production necessarily, I'm arguing for government to stay out of the freaking way and allow the free market to determine what we want/need more of. It might be oil, it might not be. In the immediate term, I'm sure it would be. You're right, I would not advocate any sort of government mandate forcing American oil to be marketed outside of the global markets, what I would be 100% ok with though would be a consortium of American drillers deciding that they wanted to keep their oil separate and market it to the American people as such so that people could make a decision. Additional American oil on the world market would increase supply in the supply/demand ratio which would result in the price being decreased to bring the balance back to the market place.
I was talking about the invention of hydro?
Regarding nuclear subsidization, I'm quite aware of this fact. We subsidize ethanol, we subsidize oil, we subsidize nuclear, we subsidize wind, we subsidize solar. Seems kind of pointless, doesn't it? It's like playing roulette and putting a chip on every single number.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
I'm not arguing for MORE oil production necessarily, I'm arguing for government to stay out of the freaking way and allow the free market to determine what we want/need more of. It might be oil, it might not be. In the immediate term, I'm sure it would be. You're right, I would not advocate any sort of government mandate forcing American oil to be marketed outside of the global markets, what I would be 100% ok with though would be a consortium of American drillers deciding that they wanted to keep their oil separate and market it to the American people as such so that people could make a decision. Additional American oil on the world market would increase supply in the supply/demand ratio which would result in the price being decreased to bring the balance back to the market place.
hcho3
Apr 20, 05:35 PM
Good to hear Jobs isn't planning to retire. The question about Android being like Windows was to the Mac to iOS was probably the dumbest question of the call.
Dumbest question was about product cycle on iPod and iphone.
Tim and Peter would never comment on future products.
Dumbest question was about product cycle on iPod and iphone.
Tim and Peter would never comment on future products.
flopticalcube
Apr 15, 12:28 PM
I agree with WestonHarvey1. The lifestyle of the Catholic and that of a member of the LGBT community is not easily reconcilable, if at all. Then again, it's not reconconcilable with an ever increasing portion of the population so I feel the problem lies with the church, and not the community at large. Shame how such a noble project has been pulled OT by religion but it does tend to do sh:t like this.
ricgnzlzcr
Jul 11, 10:47 PM
Wow, I seriously want one and seriously don't need one. That sounds like amazing power
odedia
Sep 20, 06:11 AM
For 300$, it'll only have a tiny hard drive for caching large h.264 videos on the iTV itself instead of continuesly streaming it over the Wi-Fi.
I am pretty darn sure that iTV will be able to play ANY quicktime video. Meaning - in order to playback other formats, like DivX, just download the quicktime Codec.
I am pretty darn sure that iTV will be able to play ANY quicktime video. Meaning - in order to playback other formats, like DivX, just download the quicktime Codec.
sisyphus
Sep 25, 11:59 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Kentsfield/Core 2 Quadro is also unlikely to see an inclusion in any current models.
Which of course leads to the missing piece! :D
We can't just go from 2 Cores on the iMac to 8 Cores on the Mac Pro without a handy dandy 4 core prosumer model in the middle. ;)
(Somebody around here has to keep the "Mac" computer around in the rumor threads). :rolleyes:
I had thought Apple was going to release a Conroe based computer, but now seeing that Intel is releasing the Kentsfield as early as Late October/Early November it would make no sense. Apple would release the machine in September, be unable to meet demand then replace it less than 2 months later? Not very Appleish (ignore the November/January iMac occurence last year ;) ).
But now that would make a hot item for the Christmas shopping season wouldn't it? This is the reason Apple didn't release a Conroe based system... too short of a time in the pipeline.
This now gives us the perfect differentiated lineup going into Christmas:
Mac Mini - Core Duo
iMac - Core 2 Duo
Mac - Core 2 Quattro
Mac Pro - Dual Cloverton (May not arrive until MWSF)
I'd buy myself a Mac Quattro for Christmas! :D
Kentsfield/Core 2 Quadro is also unlikely to see an inclusion in any current models.
Which of course leads to the missing piece! :D
We can't just go from 2 Cores on the iMac to 8 Cores on the Mac Pro without a handy dandy 4 core prosumer model in the middle. ;)
(Somebody around here has to keep the "Mac" computer around in the rumor threads). :rolleyes:
I had thought Apple was going to release a Conroe based computer, but now seeing that Intel is releasing the Kentsfield as early as Late October/Early November it would make no sense. Apple would release the machine in September, be unable to meet demand then replace it less than 2 months later? Not very Appleish (ignore the November/January iMac occurence last year ;) ).
But now that would make a hot item for the Christmas shopping season wouldn't it? This is the reason Apple didn't release a Conroe based system... too short of a time in the pipeline.
This now gives us the perfect differentiated lineup going into Christmas:
Mac Mini - Core Duo
iMac - Core 2 Duo
Mac - Core 2 Quattro
Mac Pro - Dual Cloverton (May not arrive until MWSF)
I'd buy myself a Mac Quattro for Christmas! :D
faroZ06
May 2, 06:46 PM
Except this is not a virus. Some of you guys need a course on malware terminology. This is a trojan at best. Spyware at worst. Hardly a virus.
Exactly, everyone always talks about Macs being susceptible to viruses and viruses already existing for Macs, then they give the whole "market share" speech. I'm just sitting here virus and malware free laughing :p and most likely will be even if Apple gains market share. I'm a halftime Windows user, and I see soooo many security problems in it, but the MS fanboys blame market share!
I will say that market share DOES up the number of attacks on something, which is why Windows gets attacked so much, but it's also much much easier to attack than Mac OS.
Exactly, everyone always talks about Macs being susceptible to viruses and viruses already existing for Macs, then they give the whole "market share" speech. I'm just sitting here virus and malware free laughing :p and most likely will be even if Apple gains market share. I'm a halftime Windows user, and I see soooo many security problems in it, but the MS fanboys blame market share!
I will say that market share DOES up the number of attacks on something, which is why Windows gets attacked so much, but it's also much much easier to attack than Mac OS.
bpaluzzi
Apr 28, 09:29 AM
Yeah, he seems to have forgotton those personal computers known as the Apple ][, the Commodore PET, the Atari 400 and 800, and so on that predated the IBM PC. He's creating a very limited definition that ignores history.
The way I interpreted his comments was exactly the opposite -- he is specifically mentioning the fact that there are "PC" as in IBM PC ("capital PC"), but there are also "personal computers", such as your examples above (his "lower case pc"). I think we're all saying the same thing, just phrasing it differently.
The way I interpreted his comments was exactly the opposite -- he is specifically mentioning the fact that there are "PC" as in IBM PC ("capital PC"), but there are also "personal computers", such as your examples above (his "lower case pc"). I think we're all saying the same thing, just phrasing it differently.
Rt&Dzine
Mar 25, 11:46 PM
The Catholic Church recognizes that people don't choose to be homosexual, however it does recognize that acting on those urges is entirely their choice. Chastity is what they are called to.
That is only if they choose to be Catholic (or other manmade religion with such beliefs). Otherwise, they aren't called to chastity.
That is only if they choose to be Catholic (or other manmade religion with such beliefs). Otherwise, they aren't called to chastity.
rasmasyean
Mar 15, 02:07 AM
Someone has a Geiger Counter reading set up in Tokyo (I assume that is the location). If someone can explain this that would be wonderful.
LINK (http://park18.wakwak.com/~weather/geiger_index.html)
http://park18.wakwak.com/~weather/uploaddata/radiation.jpg (http://park18.wakwak.com/~weather/uploaddata/radiation.jpg)
http://www.geigercounters.com/AboutGgr.htm
CPM
Counts per minute (cpm) is a measure of radioactivity. It is the number of atoms in a given quantity of radioactive material that are detected to have decayed in one minute.
http://forums.macrumors.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=12154991
As to why theres that peak thing? Maybe a was the wind change.
:::::
Come to think of it...it wouldn't be too bad if Japan had to mass evacuate because of contamination. I mean, that place might eventually like blow up and flood at some point in the future right? It looks like it's on the verge of happening actually.
That would be pretty cool if they evacuated now. I mean, where would they go you may ask? I think they would mostly come the the US. I mean, we sort of helped them build their country up after WWII and we've always had pretty strong ties. Our economy is similar too.
Hey, we'll take Toyota, and Sony, and Mitsubishi...and heck, whatever can fit on the barges. :) I think it would be pretty symbiotic too as we use a lot of their crap anyway so might as well bring it all home. They have like the best manufacturing in the world and the US can use some of that today. We have lots of barren land all over the place that can be used for industry and Japanese ppl have the money to build here, rather than in the expensive cramped up island of theirs. Jobs for all! woot!
LINK (http://park18.wakwak.com/~weather/geiger_index.html)
http://park18.wakwak.com/~weather/uploaddata/radiation.jpg (http://park18.wakwak.com/~weather/uploaddata/radiation.jpg)
http://www.geigercounters.com/AboutGgr.htm
CPM
Counts per minute (cpm) is a measure of radioactivity. It is the number of atoms in a given quantity of radioactive material that are detected to have decayed in one minute.
http://forums.macrumors.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=12154991
As to why theres that peak thing? Maybe a was the wind change.
:::::
Come to think of it...it wouldn't be too bad if Japan had to mass evacuate because of contamination. I mean, that place might eventually like blow up and flood at some point in the future right? It looks like it's on the verge of happening actually.
That would be pretty cool if they evacuated now. I mean, where would they go you may ask? I think they would mostly come the the US. I mean, we sort of helped them build their country up after WWII and we've always had pretty strong ties. Our economy is similar too.
Hey, we'll take Toyota, and Sony, and Mitsubishi...and heck, whatever can fit on the barges. :) I think it would be pretty symbiotic too as we use a lot of their crap anyway so might as well bring it all home. They have like the best manufacturing in the world and the US can use some of that today. We have lots of barren land all over the place that can be used for industry and Japanese ppl have the money to build here, rather than in the expensive cramped up island of theirs. Jobs for all! woot!
ElCidRo
May 2, 09:05 AM
so much for the no malware on macs myth :D
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:
pdjudd
Oct 7, 11:24 PM
I'm sorry OSX market share would most definitely go up. From a business perspective though it would would be a terrible move, you are right about that. Profits would drop as Apple would get next to nothing from the sale of software only. The market share of OSX would drop once Apple went bankrupt.
Which is kinda the point. Short term improvements are meaningless if they go right back down. I don;t contend that they would go up, but the whole point of increasing sales is to hope that they stay up. Otherwise it�s just a waste of time. You can;t just say �market share will go up�. Their market share goes up the minute a Mac gets sold. We have to look at the long run which you point out, will invariably go down and possibly lower than the base. A net loss kinda contradicts the idea of increased market share.
But this is all conjecture since Apple has already indicated that they are not playing the market share game.
[QUOTE]Allowing greater access to your product almost always leads to larger sales volumes, but it isn't always in your best interest.
Of course that statement is true. But does that require Apple to license their hardware out to others? I argue that it�s not the case. Taking the MS approach fundamentally changes Apple�s business. They don�t have to do that. Of course the Grueber article covers that too. There are tones of ways to increase access to your product. The tough part is making it profitable. Both Microsoft and Apple accomplish that goal just fine without getting into a fight that results in a bad outcome for Apple or MS.
Which is kinda the point. Short term improvements are meaningless if they go right back down. I don;t contend that they would go up, but the whole point of increasing sales is to hope that they stay up. Otherwise it�s just a waste of time. You can;t just say �market share will go up�. Their market share goes up the minute a Mac gets sold. We have to look at the long run which you point out, will invariably go down and possibly lower than the base. A net loss kinda contradicts the idea of increased market share.
But this is all conjecture since Apple has already indicated that they are not playing the market share game.
[QUOTE]Allowing greater access to your product almost always leads to larger sales volumes, but it isn't always in your best interest.
Of course that statement is true. But does that require Apple to license their hardware out to others? I argue that it�s not the case. Taking the MS approach fundamentally changes Apple�s business. They don�t have to do that. Of course the Grueber article covers that too. There are tones of ways to increase access to your product. The tough part is making it profitable. Both Microsoft and Apple accomplish that goal just fine without getting into a fight that results in a bad outcome for Apple or MS.
Edge100
Apr 15, 12:13 PM
Right, lame jokes. Ok. Modern equivalent of female stand-up comics that used to joke about men leaving the toilet seat up.
Real sophisticated.
Not a joke at all.
Celibate Catholic priests raped children, and the head of your ********* church (god's supposed representative on Earth) helped to cover it up. You'll excuse me if I politely ignore whatever craziness the Catholic church has to say about anything.
Real sophisticated.
Not a joke at all.
Celibate Catholic priests raped children, and the head of your ********* church (god's supposed representative on Earth) helped to cover it up. You'll excuse me if I politely ignore whatever craziness the Catholic church has to say about anything.
MadGoat
Oct 7, 11:04 AM
Of course Android might surpass the iPhone. The iPhone is limited to 1 device whereas the Android is spanned over many more devices and will continue to branch out.
Huston, Will Arnett
Poehler and Will Arnett
Julie Andrews, Will Arnett
KidStallyn
Mar 18, 10:50 AM
They actually give you an extra 2gb of data now with the tethering plan. I suspect you argument is one of the main reasons that was implemented.
1) Why would I need an extra 2GB when I'm already Unlimited?
2) Why would I need to pay an extra $20 for 1s and 0s going from my laptop thru my phone. If I'm using the laptop, I'm not using my phone and vice versa. It's still single use.
3) Do you pay "Extra" for home internet because you have a wireless router that allows you to connect multiple PCs to the same connection?? How is tethering on a mobile phone any different??? This sets a precedence that could allow for home internet providers to charge on a per PC connect basis.
1) Why would I need an extra 2GB when I'm already Unlimited?
2) Why would I need to pay an extra $20 for 1s and 0s going from my laptop thru my phone. If I'm using the laptop, I'm not using my phone and vice versa. It's still single use.
3) Do you pay "Extra" for home internet because you have a wireless router that allows you to connect multiple PCs to the same connection?? How is tethering on a mobile phone any different??? This sets a precedence that could allow for home internet providers to charge on a per PC connect basis.
Spanky Deluxe
Mar 18, 01:27 PM
It's only fair. After all, paying twice for our data allowance is completely fair and reasonable......
:rolleyes::rolleyes:
:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Bill McEnaney
Apr 27, 12:54 AM
Tampering with the text is not, per se, the real issue. What Huntn us probably referring to is the selective composition of the whole. The Protestant bible typically has 66 books. Some other versions can have as many as 81
I'm aware of ancient disputes about what books belong in the Bible. Eusebius describes some in his Ecclesiastical History But one this is plain to me: The Third Council of Carthage's canon included the titles of the Old Testament books that Protestants call the "Apocrypha." If you look in the 1611 edition of the King James Version, you'll see them in it.
Here's the Third Council of Carthage's canon (http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html). Meanwhile, I need to read the documents Sydde suggests. By the way, if you read the Historical Introduction to the Council of Ephesus, a council that met in 431 A.D., you'll know that council believed it taught infallibly. That council's belief is relevant because the Carthage council met in 397 A.D., only about 35 years before the Ephesene council and because the Ephesene council's Fathers would have thought the ancient Church had the authority to determine infallibly what books were canonical. Here's a like to the documents the Council of Ephesus wrote (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/ephesus.html).
I'm aware of ancient disputes about what books belong in the Bible. Eusebius describes some in his Ecclesiastical History But one this is plain to me: The Third Council of Carthage's canon included the titles of the Old Testament books that Protestants call the "Apocrypha." If you look in the 1611 edition of the King James Version, you'll see them in it.
Here's the Third Council of Carthage's canon (http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html). Meanwhile, I need to read the documents Sydde suggests. By the way, if you read the Historical Introduction to the Council of Ephesus, a council that met in 431 A.D., you'll know that council believed it taught infallibly. That council's belief is relevant because the Carthage council met in 397 A.D., only about 35 years before the Ephesene council and because the Ephesene council's Fathers would have thought the ancient Church had the authority to determine infallibly what books were canonical. Here's a like to the documents the Council of Ephesus wrote (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/ephesus.html).
Digitalclips
Apr 28, 08:32 AM
Now re tabulate by profitability.
kingtj
May 6, 09:27 AM
Ultimately, yes - that's probably the only realistic solution AT&T has, and they *are* adding new cell towers all the time. I got SMS messages a couple of times announcing new ones they put online in my city, over the last year or so.
But there's a technology battle here they're on the losing end of, as well. The CDMA network providers have an advantage automatically, because the frequencies they use penetrate structures better than the GSM network frequencies used by AT&T and T-Mobile. (Note that T-Mobile was the other carrier with equal customer dissatisfaction to AT&T in the bar graph ranking that metric.)
I have Verizon and I think I've had two dropped calls in years.
AT&T really needs to get more towers up, that's the only solution in my mind.
Kayle
But there's a technology battle here they're on the losing end of, as well. The CDMA network providers have an advantage automatically, because the frequencies they use penetrate structures better than the GSM network frequencies used by AT&T and T-Mobile. (Note that T-Mobile was the other carrier with equal customer dissatisfaction to AT&T in the bar graph ranking that metric.)
I have Verizon and I think I've had two dropped calls in years.
AT&T really needs to get more towers up, that's the only solution in my mind.
Kayle
Apple OC
Apr 24, 12:15 PM
Fear of death. That's why religion was invented and why it will always exist.
actually it is not the fear of Death ... many religious people do not worry when their time is done ... for them "the afterlife" trumps everything
actually it is not the fear of Death ... many religious people do not worry when their time is done ... for them "the afterlife" trumps everything
chabig
Sep 20, 09:59 AM
I'm wondering why they couldn't/wouldn't just combine the mini and the iTV into a single unit.They could, but it would cost a lot more.
c.hilding
Oct 27, 01:14 AM
You are right Multimedia, it's too early to worry about the FSB, we don't even know what rate they've put it at yet. ;)