skunk
Mar 27, 04:38 AM
That's why you can translate a sentence from one language to another language. If I'm only beginning to learn French, I may say something that may be ungrammatical literally meaningless. But my teacher or another expert in the French language may know what it is I'm trying to say with it. Skunk seems to be talking mostly about a signifier, the group of words, when I'm talking mostly about what Caocao intended to signify with it. You have completely missed the point.
appleguy123
Mar 24, 07:22 PM
Not supporting actions is hate?
You do real that Tomasi is talking about the attacks on "People who criticise gay sexual relations..."
If I said that I don't want blacks to be married, because it hurts the sacrament of marriage, would that be hate? I think that it would be.
Like it or not, the zeitgeist is shifting to make homophobia as stigmatized as racism. The Catholic Church will have to either adapt, or perish.
You do real that Tomasi is talking about the attacks on "People who criticise gay sexual relations..."
If I said that I don't want blacks to be married, because it hurts the sacrament of marriage, would that be hate? I think that it would be.
Like it or not, the zeitgeist is shifting to make homophobia as stigmatized as racism. The Catholic Church will have to either adapt, or perish.
matticus008
Mar 19, 04:59 PM
I'd like to see the RIAA, or in my case BPI, try to revoke the license on the 200 CDs I own simply because I've ripped them to my HDD to load onto my iPod. Removing the DRM to load songs I have purchased onto my phone, media streamer or Panasonic digital music player seems very similar to me, as does buying them without DRM.
Your CD does not have DRM built in that you agreed to when purchasing the CD. Thus burning your CD is not a violation of the DMCA. Furthermore, the iTunes Music Store terms of service don't govern the usage of your CD collection.
Burning or ripping a CD does not bypass copy protection (unless it's one of those ridiculous anti-copy CDs which is a separate argument altogether), does not break encryption, and does not violate any laws as long as you are not redistributing the files. Breaking DRM on a digital file DOES break a law--specifically, that DRM protection cannot be bypassed or broken. Using PyMusique software DOES violate the iTMS terms of service, specifically that the iTMS is ONLY authorized through iTunes itself. Songs from iTunes have DRM and users are bound to the TOS. Those are the terms of the purchase, and doing anything to change that is a violation of international copyright laws.
Your analogy is invalid.
Your CD does not have DRM built in that you agreed to when purchasing the CD. Thus burning your CD is not a violation of the DMCA. Furthermore, the iTunes Music Store terms of service don't govern the usage of your CD collection.
Burning or ripping a CD does not bypass copy protection (unless it's one of those ridiculous anti-copy CDs which is a separate argument altogether), does not break encryption, and does not violate any laws as long as you are not redistributing the files. Breaking DRM on a digital file DOES break a law--specifically, that DRM protection cannot be bypassed or broken. Using PyMusique software DOES violate the iTMS terms of service, specifically that the iTMS is ONLY authorized through iTunes itself. Songs from iTunes have DRM and users are bound to the TOS. Those are the terms of the purchase, and doing anything to change that is a violation of international copyright laws.
Your analogy is invalid.
FreeState
Apr 15, 01:40 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWYqsaJk_U8
Well worth the watch. Im so glad they did this.
----------------------------------------------------------------
***Moderator Note: This thread is now associated with a front-page news story (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/15/apple-employees-contribute-to-it-gets-better-project/). Due to the potentially controversial nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.
Well worth the watch. Im so glad they did this.
----------------------------------------------------------------
***Moderator Note: This thread is now associated with a front-page news story (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/15/apple-employees-contribute-to-it-gets-better-project/). Due to the potentially controversial nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 10:04 AM
Before I'd consider suicide on being fat I would first try to loose some weight maybe. I lost 30 kilograms (keeping that weight for some years now) and I am very happy with that. My personal receipt was to distract from eating with wonderful electronic gadgets. I don't need to medicate my diabetes II any more. Just try that. It's possible.
But being homosexual seems to be something unchangeable, you can't do anything against that obviously even when you are mentally strong. So there are lots of desperate people. Maybe helful: Imagine (or even better: meet) a person that is jewish, black, gay, fat, small, handicapped and bold altogether. And see how happy this person is maybe or how this person stays alive in our cruel community.
So basically, fat kids deserve to be bullied! Crying themselves to sleep every night is sure to burn extra calories. We should give the bullies a medal for helping reduce our public health care costs.
But hands off the gays!
But being homosexual seems to be something unchangeable, you can't do anything against that obviously even when you are mentally strong. So there are lots of desperate people. Maybe helful: Imagine (or even better: meet) a person that is jewish, black, gay, fat, small, handicapped and bold altogether. And see how happy this person is maybe or how this person stays alive in our cruel community.
So basically, fat kids deserve to be bullied! Crying themselves to sleep every night is sure to burn extra calories. We should give the bullies a medal for helping reduce our public health care costs.
But hands off the gays!
kainjow
Oct 25, 10:31 PM
OK. I know that many of my apps aren't going to take advantage of this level of multithreaded power, but I can't help but get excited by this development. After so many years of sluggish improvement, it feels like we're in the midst of rapid (and radical) change.
Each process is it's own thread. And most processes have multiple threads. Unless you only always have one program open at a time, more cores always can help speed up your system.
Each process is it's own thread. And most processes have multiple threads. Unless you only always have one program open at a time, more cores always can help speed up your system.
kingtj
Apr 15, 09:59 AM
I can't speak for everyone, but I found myself torn between clicking to rate it positive, or to rate it negative. Why? Not strictly because I think there was anything wrong with someone from Apple participating in this project and contributing.... But more because in a larger, overall sense, I think the whole "bullying" thing is being blown out of proportion in recent years.
Basically, it's just the latest crusade for folks to take up, as yet another "we've gotta do anything to save the children!" move.
I'm a 40 year old adult, but I remember clearly struggling with lots of being bullied from the time I was in 1st. or 2nd. grade through the first half of high-school. I was a kid who didn't really fit in with any of the norms. I didn't like organized sports, and was really bad at playing them. I was really into science-fiction/fantasy when that was decidedly "uncool" to show any interest in. And I didn't have any clue, or care, about dressing in whichever clothing styles were considered "in style".
There was a point, during my early high-school years where I even thought about "ending it all" on a daily basis. (Only reason I didn't go through with it is because I think I was too chicken and afraid of pain to attempt it.)
Even given that background? I still can't see how all this "anti-bullying" nonsense will accomplish much? I know in my situation, every time teachers or faculty were called upon to try to "do something" about my problems, it only made matters worse. It's part of human nature that kids have mean streaks, and the only thing that's guaranteed to make a bully stop bullying you is to stand up for yourself, to his/her face. Asking OTHER people to solve the problem just escalates it, most of the time. (The faculty or teachers or even police can't guard a kid 100% of the time. Eventually, the kid(s) harassing him/her are going to corner the kid in a place where the parental figures aren't able to intervene, and it's going to get ugly -- especially since now it's about "payback" for getting those authority figures involved.)
Only 2 things ever remedied my situation. #1 was fighting back, punching a kid square in the jaw and sending him to the nurse's office, when he started chasing after me on the school playground. I earned a TON of respect that day and a whole lot of people who used to harass me backed off after that. #2 was getting older, along with my peers, and all of us simply growing out of that phase where being different was perceived as a negative.
Why on earth are people marking this as 'negative'?!?
Basically, it's just the latest crusade for folks to take up, as yet another "we've gotta do anything to save the children!" move.
I'm a 40 year old adult, but I remember clearly struggling with lots of being bullied from the time I was in 1st. or 2nd. grade through the first half of high-school. I was a kid who didn't really fit in with any of the norms. I didn't like organized sports, and was really bad at playing them. I was really into science-fiction/fantasy when that was decidedly "uncool" to show any interest in. And I didn't have any clue, or care, about dressing in whichever clothing styles were considered "in style".
There was a point, during my early high-school years where I even thought about "ending it all" on a daily basis. (Only reason I didn't go through with it is because I think I was too chicken and afraid of pain to attempt it.)
Even given that background? I still can't see how all this "anti-bullying" nonsense will accomplish much? I know in my situation, every time teachers or faculty were called upon to try to "do something" about my problems, it only made matters worse. It's part of human nature that kids have mean streaks, and the only thing that's guaranteed to make a bully stop bullying you is to stand up for yourself, to his/her face. Asking OTHER people to solve the problem just escalates it, most of the time. (The faculty or teachers or even police can't guard a kid 100% of the time. Eventually, the kid(s) harassing him/her are going to corner the kid in a place where the parental figures aren't able to intervene, and it's going to get ugly -- especially since now it's about "payback" for getting those authority figures involved.)
Only 2 things ever remedied my situation. #1 was fighting back, punching a kid square in the jaw and sending him to the nurse's office, when he started chasing after me on the school playground. I earned a TON of respect that day and a whole lot of people who used to harass me backed off after that. #2 was getting older, along with my peers, and all of us simply growing out of that phase where being different was perceived as a negative.
Why on earth are people marking this as 'negative'?!?
Ugg
Apr 15, 10:50 AM
I have a couple problems with this approach. There's so much attention brought to this issue of specifically gay bullying that it's hard to see this outside of the framework of identity politics.
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied?
Bullying is a universal problem that affects just about anyone with some kind of difference others choose to pick on. It seems like everyone is just ignoring all that for this hip, trendy cause.
It's absolutely appalling that you're hijacking this thread to promote your own agenda. The project was started because a boy named Trevor committed suicide because he was bullied for being gay.
Are there fat kids who commit suicide for being bullied? Probably, but since this is a voluntary, grass roots effort on the part of gay adults who were bullied when they were young....
Maybe the rest of society needs to do pick up the banner for their own cause instead of lashing out at what is, once again, a voluntary effort.
First and foremost, I myself am a gay male in his 20's. I know all about discrimination and bullying. I've lived it first-hand, but perhaps nowhere near to the extent that it appears to be common these days, where teenagers are basically pushed to suicide in some cases. It is sad and I can barely begin to imagine their pain.
With that said, however, I'm not super excited by these campaigns that seem to be sprouting, left and right, that, more or less, encourage people to be gay/lesbian/whatever. At the end of the day that's basically the underlying message in all these videos: "Go ahead, by gay. It's perfectly fine."
Personally, I think that is a decision that one has to arrive to after much soul-searching. It's a very private journey and I'm not so sure that the media should be offering this type of "GO FOR IT!" message. One should come to accept who he/she is and embrace the inevitable consequences of the lifestyle. Let's face it, it's not easy at all for the vast majority of people who live this lifestyle, no matter how picture-perfect they want to brag about how their life is. That's 100% BULL. I have a very open-minded family (who even welcomes my other half like a son of their own) and I live in Orlando (one VERY gay city), but this alternate route is nowhere near easy or rose-colored.
So, I'm very in between. I'm all for ensuring we don't get mistreated or discriminated but I also think all these teens (the target audience of these campaigns) shouldn't be exposed to this type of encouragement either. I'm very disgusted with the GLBT community as of late, with all the bigotry and one-sided attitude. It's funny how we all want to be heard, accepted, and given a chance to express ourselves and fight for what we believe in, but the minute any group, church, or organization stands behind their beliefs, they're immediately labeled as hateful, homophobes with no hearts. Seriously, WTF? Aren't THEY entitled to fight for what THEY believe in as well? I think respect is a two-way street. We sure cry and moan and whine if we don't get any of it, but I see a lot of my own community acting quick to bad-mouth anyone that doesn't support our agenda. Maybe that's why I'm so "eh" about this whole thing.
What does your rant have to do with the Trevor Project? Kids have the right to grow up in a healthy supporting environment. Encouraging religious hate in schools sort of defeats the point of education, doesn't it?
Gay kids have the highest rate of self-harm, substance abuse, homelessness, and yes, suicide. Why should a special effort not be made to help them? Why shouldn't we encourage kids to feel good about who they are?
You don't choose to be gay, you do choose to hate.
You could make the argument that a certain amount of bullying is actually a good thing because it forces kids to develop a thick skin and learn how to deal with aggressive and negative people. Life isn't a nice place -- and it's not like you can rat to a teacher or your parents if your boss is a d-bag who makes your life miserable every day because he is charge.
So as I mentioned above, gay kids have the highest rate of self-harm, substance abuse, homelessness, and yes, suicide. Is it wrong to tell the kids to hang in there? That things will truly get better? I don't think so and once again I'm appalled that anyone could view the Trevor Project as a BAD thing. This is a matter of adults who were bullied and now work for one of the most creative and successful companies in the world.
They overcame their problems, in part by sticking it out, by not committing suicide, by sharing their secret.
This isn't about everyone wins at T-ball, this is about surviving.
I'm not against the message of encouraging people to reach out for help in a time of need, or helping those under the stress of bullying to realize that it gets better. Though, I am curious why a commercial company is attaching itself to a particular community? If Apple participated in a video that supported a community of people believing that marriage should be between only a man and a woman, the LGBT community would be outraged. Why alienate customers that may have strong opinions on the subject, no matter which side they're on?
So, it's ok for corporations to make political contributions, but it's wrong for employees to band together and make social statements? Apple has always been a company that "Thinks Different" and they've also been at the forefront of offering benefits to same sex partners. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that they support gay causes.
Why you would think that this video, done voluntarily by a handful of employees is a bad thing is beyond me.
I'm gay, in my late 40s and was bullied some in school. I can only imagine what a video like this could have done for me. I'm not as politically strident as LeeKohler, but the Trevor Project has struck a deep chord in me and I totally fail to understand how anyone can be against this project. It's real people, telling their own stories, why is that wrong?
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied?
Bullying is a universal problem that affects just about anyone with some kind of difference others choose to pick on. It seems like everyone is just ignoring all that for this hip, trendy cause.
It's absolutely appalling that you're hijacking this thread to promote your own agenda. The project was started because a boy named Trevor committed suicide because he was bullied for being gay.
Are there fat kids who commit suicide for being bullied? Probably, but since this is a voluntary, grass roots effort on the part of gay adults who were bullied when they were young....
Maybe the rest of society needs to do pick up the banner for their own cause instead of lashing out at what is, once again, a voluntary effort.
First and foremost, I myself am a gay male in his 20's. I know all about discrimination and bullying. I've lived it first-hand, but perhaps nowhere near to the extent that it appears to be common these days, where teenagers are basically pushed to suicide in some cases. It is sad and I can barely begin to imagine their pain.
With that said, however, I'm not super excited by these campaigns that seem to be sprouting, left and right, that, more or less, encourage people to be gay/lesbian/whatever. At the end of the day that's basically the underlying message in all these videos: "Go ahead, by gay. It's perfectly fine."
Personally, I think that is a decision that one has to arrive to after much soul-searching. It's a very private journey and I'm not so sure that the media should be offering this type of "GO FOR IT!" message. One should come to accept who he/she is and embrace the inevitable consequences of the lifestyle. Let's face it, it's not easy at all for the vast majority of people who live this lifestyle, no matter how picture-perfect they want to brag about how their life is. That's 100% BULL. I have a very open-minded family (who even welcomes my other half like a son of their own) and I live in Orlando (one VERY gay city), but this alternate route is nowhere near easy or rose-colored.
So, I'm very in between. I'm all for ensuring we don't get mistreated or discriminated but I also think all these teens (the target audience of these campaigns) shouldn't be exposed to this type of encouragement either. I'm very disgusted with the GLBT community as of late, with all the bigotry and one-sided attitude. It's funny how we all want to be heard, accepted, and given a chance to express ourselves and fight for what we believe in, but the minute any group, church, or organization stands behind their beliefs, they're immediately labeled as hateful, homophobes with no hearts. Seriously, WTF? Aren't THEY entitled to fight for what THEY believe in as well? I think respect is a two-way street. We sure cry and moan and whine if we don't get any of it, but I see a lot of my own community acting quick to bad-mouth anyone that doesn't support our agenda. Maybe that's why I'm so "eh" about this whole thing.
What does your rant have to do with the Trevor Project? Kids have the right to grow up in a healthy supporting environment. Encouraging religious hate in schools sort of defeats the point of education, doesn't it?
Gay kids have the highest rate of self-harm, substance abuse, homelessness, and yes, suicide. Why should a special effort not be made to help them? Why shouldn't we encourage kids to feel good about who they are?
You don't choose to be gay, you do choose to hate.
You could make the argument that a certain amount of bullying is actually a good thing because it forces kids to develop a thick skin and learn how to deal with aggressive and negative people. Life isn't a nice place -- and it's not like you can rat to a teacher or your parents if your boss is a d-bag who makes your life miserable every day because he is charge.
So as I mentioned above, gay kids have the highest rate of self-harm, substance abuse, homelessness, and yes, suicide. Is it wrong to tell the kids to hang in there? That things will truly get better? I don't think so and once again I'm appalled that anyone could view the Trevor Project as a BAD thing. This is a matter of adults who were bullied and now work for one of the most creative and successful companies in the world.
They overcame their problems, in part by sticking it out, by not committing suicide, by sharing their secret.
This isn't about everyone wins at T-ball, this is about surviving.
I'm not against the message of encouraging people to reach out for help in a time of need, or helping those under the stress of bullying to realize that it gets better. Though, I am curious why a commercial company is attaching itself to a particular community? If Apple participated in a video that supported a community of people believing that marriage should be between only a man and a woman, the LGBT community would be outraged. Why alienate customers that may have strong opinions on the subject, no matter which side they're on?
So, it's ok for corporations to make political contributions, but it's wrong for employees to band together and make social statements? Apple has always been a company that "Thinks Different" and they've also been at the forefront of offering benefits to same sex partners. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that they support gay causes.
Why you would think that this video, done voluntarily by a handful of employees is a bad thing is beyond me.
I'm gay, in my late 40s and was bullied some in school. I can only imagine what a video like this could have done for me. I'm not as politically strident as LeeKohler, but the Trevor Project has struck a deep chord in me and I totally fail to understand how anyone can be against this project. It's real people, telling their own stories, why is that wrong?
GGJstudios
May 2, 04:38 PM
Cutting a deal with a hacker, if we can get one who's up high enough ...
This sounds like you're under the mistaken impression that hackers are members of some kind of organization or ranking.... they're not. They are, for the most part, quite independent. There's no such thing as "Hacker, Class 3" or "Hacker, Class 1". Also, not all hackers write malware and not all malware writers are hackers. The more you offer such statements, the more you reveal that you have no idea what you're talking about.
This sounds like you're under the mistaken impression that hackers are members of some kind of organization or ranking.... they're not. They are, for the most part, quite independent. There's no such thing as "Hacker, Class 3" or "Hacker, Class 1". Also, not all hackers write malware and not all malware writers are hackers. The more you offer such statements, the more you reveal that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Gelfin
Mar 27, 05:08 PM
But no one here has proved that Nicolosi is an unreliable representative of his field. If someone proves that Nicolosi is mistaken, maybe no one will need to attack him.
No one has to. Modern psychology already did, as has been repeated over and over again. Nicolosi is not Galileo. He's the geocentrist.
No one has to. Modern psychology already did, as has been repeated over and over again. Nicolosi is not Galileo. He's the geocentrist.
KnightWRX
May 2, 05:51 PM
Until Vista and Win 7, it was effectively impossible to run a Windows NT system as anything but Administrator. To the point that other than locked-down corporate sites where an IT Professional was required to install the Corporate Approved version of any software you need to do your job, I never knew anyone running XP (or 2k, or for that matter NT 3.x) who in a day-to-day fashion used a Standard user account.
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
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.
Women Hairstyles 2011
hairstyles 2011 women with
hairstyles 2011 women
long hair styles for women
Bill McEnaney
Apr 26, 10:11 PM
And this lady just likely has glossitis or could even be a squamous cell carcinoma of her tongue. These people are mental.
I would have liked to have seen her tongue before the priest put the host on it.
I would have liked to have seen her tongue before the priest put the host on it.
aristobrat
Mar 18, 12:33 PM
I'm going to tether til they change my plan, and when they do, cancel with no ETF, and use the money I would have spent paying the ETF on clear spot 4g+.
Really? There's an active lawsuit against Clear for throttling the speed of the high-bandwidth users on some of Clear's unlimited plans. Oh, and their CEO just quit. Switch with confidence!
I smell a lawsuit against AT&T coming along!
Maybe.
T-Mobile and Verizon have both (in previous years) goine after people tethering on plans that don't include tethering. No lawsuits.
Here's what happens: the carrier cracks down, the blogosphere publicizes that the carriers are doing it, forums have threads like this, and after a few weeks, the commotion dies down and people pick the appropriate data plans.
The weird thing was that with unauthorized tethering on T-Mobile and Verizon, how to do it wasn't really mainstream info. Some folks figured it out, and they'd post on forums like howardforum, but it's nothing like how info about MyWi/iPhone is pretty much virtually everywhere nowadays.
Really? There's an active lawsuit against Clear for throttling the speed of the high-bandwidth users on some of Clear's unlimited plans. Oh, and their CEO just quit. Switch with confidence!
I smell a lawsuit against AT&T coming along!
Maybe.
T-Mobile and Verizon have both (in previous years) goine after people tethering on plans that don't include tethering. No lawsuits.
Here's what happens: the carrier cracks down, the blogosphere publicizes that the carriers are doing it, forums have threads like this, and after a few weeks, the commotion dies down and people pick the appropriate data plans.
The weird thing was that with unauthorized tethering on T-Mobile and Verizon, how to do it wasn't really mainstream info. Some folks figured it out, and they'd post on forums like howardforum, but it's nothing like how info about MyWi/iPhone is pretty much virtually everywhere nowadays.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 23, 04:14 PM
No, the basis of Christianity is the Old and New Testaments.
The Old and New Testaments make up the Bible :confused:
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.
The Old and New Testaments make up the Bible :confused:
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.
happydude
Oct 7, 02:24 PM
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.
hairstyles for women 2011
hairstyles 2011 women with
2011 wavy hairstyle trends
ZilogZ80
Apr 6, 04:02 AM
Most of these "problems" are down to people not knowing how to operate their Macs. I would recommend to any new switcher (& a lot of the people who have posted in this thread!) get a good book ("The Missing Manual" is great) which explains everything you need to know.
ender land
Apr 23, 11:20 PM
You are correct ... there are no Gods ... zero ... nada ... zilch.
I am not sure what all that other rambling on you were going on about ... most of it made no sense
Nice. You've proven my point with that one statement. Congratulations, you are my first I & R.
Thank you. I thought it was only me.
We don't have the answers, so why must we persist in this feckless inquiry??
No, we are not the centre of the Universe, as was believed not-so-long-ago, but still our delusions of grandeur carry us forward, along this path to nothingness.
*shrug*
I guess this sort of style of posting is why the question in the OP is relevant. Thanks guys for providing examples of what I was talking about in my initial posts in this thread.
For what it's worth, I enjoyed the past few hours of posting, as I greatly enjoy people challenging my beliefs and causing me to think through positions I hold and believe. Thank you to those of you who participated in the actual discussion (this includes you Mac'nCheese, in spite of your last post). If any of you honestly do care to continue this discussion, feel free to PM me.
I am not sure what all that other rambling on you were going on about ... most of it made no sense
Nice. You've proven my point with that one statement. Congratulations, you are my first I & R.
Thank you. I thought it was only me.
We don't have the answers, so why must we persist in this feckless inquiry??
No, we are not the centre of the Universe, as was believed not-so-long-ago, but still our delusions of grandeur carry us forward, along this path to nothingness.
*shrug*
I guess this sort of style of posting is why the question in the OP is relevant. Thanks guys for providing examples of what I was talking about in my initial posts in this thread.
For what it's worth, I enjoyed the past few hours of posting, as I greatly enjoy people challenging my beliefs and causing me to think through positions I hold and believe. Thank you to those of you who participated in the actual discussion (this includes you Mac'nCheese, in spite of your last post). If any of you honestly do care to continue this discussion, feel free to PM me.
-aggie-
May 5, 10:40 AM
AT&T's plan worked brilliantly.
They put me through a year where about 40% of my calls got dropped and then fixed it so only about 5% get dropped now.
So even though that's worse than the other carriers I am personally thrilled with that number.
So...good plan, AT&T!
I'm in your area, but out in the boonies. I've never had a dropped call.
They put me through a year where about 40% of my calls got dropped and then fixed it so only about 5% get dropped now.
So even though that's worse than the other carriers I am personally thrilled with that number.
So...good plan, AT&T!
I'm in your area, but out in the boonies. I've never had a dropped call.
mdriftmeyer
Apr 12, 11:19 PM
Reading the comments about $299 being a pretty good deal truly makes me laugh. Ten years ago a system of such capacity would be > $50K and you're downplaying $299.
Grow some perspective.
Grow some perspective.
ArcaneDevice
Apr 6, 03:09 PM
Navigation on a Mac is far faster.
If you know what you are doing.
Every folder can be moved to any visible location in the finder even if it's just in the file path.
Keyboard commands and shortcuts from OS 9 still apply. Everything can be navigated by CMD and cursors, dragging folders into dialog boxes opens the location in other apps, panel navigation is infinitely superior to the Explorer tree, CMD and clicking on a window title gives you instant path hierarchy, double-click still minimizes, you can drop any folder into the dock to provide access to anything you want to put in there, files can be viewed without opening the application, option and clicking on a folder arrow in list view opens all folder contents in list view, option and close closes all windows on screen ...
there are hundreds of tricks and shortcuts that can be found to navigate the Finder that Windows 7 still hasn't come around to yet. Switchers need to pick up a book otherwise the flexibility of the Finder will not be unlocked.
One of the basic failings of Windows is that even if you can see the location that doesn't mean you can interact with it.
If you know what you are doing.
Every folder can be moved to any visible location in the finder even if it's just in the file path.
Keyboard commands and shortcuts from OS 9 still apply. Everything can be navigated by CMD and cursors, dragging folders into dialog boxes opens the location in other apps, panel navigation is infinitely superior to the Explorer tree, CMD and clicking on a window title gives you instant path hierarchy, double-click still minimizes, you can drop any folder into the dock to provide access to anything you want to put in there, files can be viewed without opening the application, option and clicking on a folder arrow in list view opens all folder contents in list view, option and close closes all windows on screen ...
there are hundreds of tricks and shortcuts that can be found to navigate the Finder that Windows 7 still hasn't come around to yet. Switchers need to pick up a book otherwise the flexibility of the Finder will not be unlocked.
One of the basic failings of Windows is that even if you can see the location that doesn't mean you can interact with it.
firestarter
Mar 14, 06:51 PM
As someone already mentioned, mining uranium isn't "green". Dealing with radioactive waste isn't "green". Releasing heated water back into the environment isn't "green".
Fission itself may not produce greenhouse gases, but calling nuclear power "green" seems like quite a stretch.
(I have to correct my quote (http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm)... he described Nuclear as the only Green solution, not the only green choice - but the meaning is equivalent)
To answer you citizenzen:
1/ Perhaps you should take your complaint up with James Lovelock. I'm quoting him - I don't recall calling Nuclear energy 'Green'.
2/ Your English comprehension could be better. Calling Nuclear 'The only Green Solution' (or Choice) is NOT calling it Green. The opinion piece merely points out that hydrocarbon burning is LESS Green. See the difference?
Fission itself may not produce greenhouse gases, but calling nuclear power "green" seems like quite a stretch.
(I have to correct my quote (http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm)... he described Nuclear as the only Green solution, not the only green choice - but the meaning is equivalent)
To answer you citizenzen:
1/ Perhaps you should take your complaint up with James Lovelock. I'm quoting him - I don't recall calling Nuclear energy 'Green'.
2/ Your English comprehension could be better. Calling Nuclear 'The only Green Solution' (or Choice) is NOT calling it Green. The opinion piece merely points out that hydrocarbon burning is LESS Green. See the difference?
hcho3
Nov 12, 12:35 AM
Jesus christ...
I cannot wait for iphone to go to verizon, so you all whiners can get off the AT&T network. My signal with AT&T is not perfect, but it is good enough to meet my standards. I get 2-3 drop calls out of 50 calls I make. So, it it not OMFG.
Verizon service is better in my area, but it is not that much better. Verizon pissed me off enough with their poor customer service in the past. It will take me more than good signals to go back to VZ.
People seem to think like Verizon will save all of us from AT&T signal issues. Yea... sure....
We will see. We will see.
I cannot wait for iphone to go to verizon, so you all whiners can get off the AT&T network. My signal with AT&T is not perfect, but it is good enough to meet my standards. I get 2-3 drop calls out of 50 calls I make. So, it it not OMFG.
Verizon service is better in my area, but it is not that much better. Verizon pissed me off enough with their poor customer service in the past. It will take me more than good signals to go back to VZ.
People seem to think like Verizon will save all of us from AT&T signal issues. Yea... sure....
We will see. We will see.
Rodimus Prime
Mar 14, 09:05 AM
My opinion: it's time to end the age of light-water cooled pressurized uranium-fueled reactors. There's so many drawbacks to this design it's not funny.
Meanwhile, the new liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a vastly superior design that offers these advantages:
1) It uses thorium 232, which is 200 times more abundant than fuel-quality uranium.
2) The thorium fuel doesn't need to be made into fuel pellets like you need with uranium-235, substantially cutting the cost of fuel production.
3) The design of LFTR makes it effectively meltdown proof.
4) LFTR reactors don't need big cooling towers or access to a large body of water like uranium-fueled reactors do, substantially cutting construction costs.
5) You can use spent uranium fuel rods as part of the fuel for an LFTR.
6) The radioactive waste from an LFTR generated is a tiny fraction of what you get from a uranium reactor and the half-life of the waste is only a couple of hundred years, not tens of thousands of years. This means waste disposal costs will be a tiny fraction of disposing waste from a uranium reactor (just dump it into a disused salt mine).
So what are we waiting for?
Based on just that list I can assume several things. The biggest the LFTR reactors do not produce as much power for a given size because they use less water. They have less heat out put for a given size.
While good to have them I do not see them being more cost effiective since they more than likely require a fair amount of R&D.
I know we could get a lot more power out of our current Urainuim power ones in terms of heat energy instead of losing as much to cooling. Also I believe part of the reasons for the huge cooling towers is so less thermal pollution happens.
Meanwhile, the new liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a vastly superior design that offers these advantages:
1) It uses thorium 232, which is 200 times more abundant than fuel-quality uranium.
2) The thorium fuel doesn't need to be made into fuel pellets like you need with uranium-235, substantially cutting the cost of fuel production.
3) The design of LFTR makes it effectively meltdown proof.
4) LFTR reactors don't need big cooling towers or access to a large body of water like uranium-fueled reactors do, substantially cutting construction costs.
5) You can use spent uranium fuel rods as part of the fuel for an LFTR.
6) The radioactive waste from an LFTR generated is a tiny fraction of what you get from a uranium reactor and the half-life of the waste is only a couple of hundred years, not tens of thousands of years. This means waste disposal costs will be a tiny fraction of disposing waste from a uranium reactor (just dump it into a disused salt mine).
So what are we waiting for?
Based on just that list I can assume several things. The biggest the LFTR reactors do not produce as much power for a given size because they use less water. They have less heat out put for a given size.
While good to have them I do not see them being more cost effiective since they more than likely require a fair amount of R&D.
I know we could get a lot more power out of our current Urainuim power ones in terms of heat energy instead of losing as much to cooling. Also I believe part of the reasons for the huge cooling towers is so less thermal pollution happens.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar