Intuit
Apr 21, 06:09 AM
I got to back chrono up I know tons of ways viruses can hide in windows. Here's a few.
Setting visibility to hidden.
Using file names that look like legitimate software.
editing the registry to disable 'show hidden folders'.
Registering the virus as a service.
Software level root kit using api hooks to modify the result of system calls.
Hardware level root kit changing the system itself.
.dll injection to force another process to run your code.
The entire window messaging system is insecure you can delete everything displayed in the process list of Task manager for example.
some of these techniques will make a virus completely invisible so don't bash
hair styles for women over 50
short hair styles for fine
short hair styles for fine
short hairstyles long hair
short hair styles 2011 for
short hair styles 2011 for women with fine hair. Hairstyles for fine hair help; Hairstyles for fine hair help. Hellhammer. Apr 6, 11:11 AM
mohawk hair styles
short hair styles for fine
short hairstyles for fine hair
short hair styles for women
short hair styles for fine
Haircuts short fine hair
very short hair styles for
short hair styles for women over 50 with fine hair. short hair styles for women; short hair styles for women. DJMastaWes. Aug 27, 06:47 PM
Hairstyles for Fine Short Hair
Thin Hair, Fine Hair Styles
short hair styles for women
short hair styles 2011 for
Setting visibility to hidden.
Using file names that look like legitimate software.
editing the registry to disable 'show hidden folders'.
Registering the virus as a service.
Software level root kit using api hooks to modify the result of system calls.
Hardware level root kit changing the system itself.
.dll injection to force another process to run your code.
The entire window messaging system is insecure you can delete everything displayed in the process list of Task manager for example.
some of these techniques will make a virus completely invisible so don't bash
Bill McEnaney
Mar 26, 01:44 PM
To be fair, I knew what you meant with your comment, but frankly there wasn't any sarcasm in my statement. You were attempting to defend your earlier poorly-constructed post, and I was bemused by it.
I'm sorry I misinterpreted your post, SC. But if you put your mouse cursor on this :rolleyes: smiley, you'll see the word "Sarcastic."
I'm sorry I misinterpreted your post, SC. But if you put your mouse cursor on this :rolleyes: smiley, you'll see the word "Sarcastic."
UnixMac
Oct 11, 09:04 AM
How does it run on an UltraSparc III 900?
How does it run on an Alpha?
Lets get an assortment of score, there could be a code bug for the G4, I am not an expert, but 10-20 times slower sounds like science fiction.
How does it run on an Alpha?
Lets get an assortment of score, there could be a code bug for the G4, I am not an expert, but 10-20 times slower sounds like science fiction.
jettredmont
May 3, 03:44 PM
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...
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
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.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
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.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
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.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
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.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
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.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
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.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
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.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
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.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
ender78
Oct 25, 11:27 PM
What I see Apple doing is milking their pricing agreements with Intel. The only reason that I can see Apple sticking out so long with Core Duo is that after the Core 2 Duo processors were released, Intel cut prices on the older chips. Intel's manufacturing pipelines are short [announce processor , produce, move on]. Apple must have gotten a great deal on the older Duos [I know they are not old processors, just no longer top of the line].
What did Apple have to loose by delaying the introduction of the Core 2 Duo [the sales of 10 machines whose sales went to Dell?]. I suspect that anyone that held out for the Core 2 Duo, bought one in the last two days, and did not go to a competitor. Let's not forget that while every other vendor may have announced a Core 2 Duo notebook in the last two months, Apple likely took more orders in the last two days, than some of those vendors have had in the last two months. Apple now has the x86 pipeline open to them, they will make a move when it benefits them financially, and not before.
I personally expect the the 8 Core machine at Macworld. There is little reason for Apple to release the machine before then. I'm itching for a Quad but can easily wait [especially since I do not expect a price premium on the machine, the next processor will cost little more than the four core version today]. I am also hoping to see Leopard at Macworld.
What did Apple have to loose by delaying the introduction of the Core 2 Duo [the sales of 10 machines whose sales went to Dell?]. I suspect that anyone that held out for the Core 2 Duo, bought one in the last two days, and did not go to a competitor. Let's not forget that while every other vendor may have announced a Core 2 Duo notebook in the last two months, Apple likely took more orders in the last two days, than some of those vendors have had in the last two months. Apple now has the x86 pipeline open to them, they will make a move when it benefits them financially, and not before.
I personally expect the the 8 Core machine at Macworld. There is little reason for Apple to release the machine before then. I'm itching for a Quad but can easily wait [especially since I do not expect a price premium on the machine, the next processor will cost little more than the four core version today]. I am also hoping to see Leopard at Macworld.
flopticalcube
Apr 26, 02:36 PM
Atheism is no more a religion than failing to believe in leprechauns is a religion..:rolleyes:
O'heresy!
But well put.
O'heresy!
But well put.
rasmasyean
Apr 24, 03:56 AM
In my short time serving in the Canadian military, I had not seen this. There was a rather flexible chaplain who served the religious needs of several faiths but most soldiers were left to stew in their own thoughts.
Well…we can argue whether Canadians support a real military but we don’t have to go there. :p
All I’m saying is that any respectable military has to prepare for sending a large group of soldiers into known suicide missions. This is what “cannon fodder” is. Sometimes you can’t hide it from the warrior. Sometimes they WILL KNOW that they will die. But this is absolutely necessary to purposely sacrifice their lives in order to achieve a strategic goal…or even victory. It’s much easier if these warriors are imprinted with the idea of “god and heaven”.
Now, in these stupid overwhelmingly “crushing an inferior force” type of wars we’ve been engaged in, perhaps these situations don’t come up as much. Or if they do, you can hand pick a couple of “zealots” to do the job. But if there was a “real war”, like for example, if oil gets scarce and Europe turns on each other… Don’t laugh. If the “middle east” turn on each other all the time for oil, it can happen to “the west” too. You would be real arrogant to think that you are so much “better” than them. And if you ARE that arrogant about being a “sophisticated Westerner” think about China…or Russia.
Hey, maybe our fighting force will be so robotic one day that it doesn’t matter. War will become an ego contest between engineers and no blood will be shed. But until the technology becomes reality, we still need cannon fodder capability for potential tight situations. ;)
Well…we can argue whether Canadians support a real military but we don’t have to go there. :p
All I’m saying is that any respectable military has to prepare for sending a large group of soldiers into known suicide missions. This is what “cannon fodder” is. Sometimes you can’t hide it from the warrior. Sometimes they WILL KNOW that they will die. But this is absolutely necessary to purposely sacrifice their lives in order to achieve a strategic goal…or even victory. It’s much easier if these warriors are imprinted with the idea of “god and heaven”.
Now, in these stupid overwhelmingly “crushing an inferior force” type of wars we’ve been engaged in, perhaps these situations don’t come up as much. Or if they do, you can hand pick a couple of “zealots” to do the job. But if there was a “real war”, like for example, if oil gets scarce and Europe turns on each other… Don’t laugh. If the “middle east” turn on each other all the time for oil, it can happen to “the west” too. You would be real arrogant to think that you are so much “better” than them. And if you ARE that arrogant about being a “sophisticated Westerner” think about China…or Russia.
Hey, maybe our fighting force will be so robotic one day that it doesn’t matter. War will become an ego contest between engineers and no blood will be shed. But until the technology becomes reality, we still need cannon fodder capability for potential tight situations. ;)
milbournosphere
Apr 15, 09:08 AM
Personally, I think it's great. However, they should be careful. Moves like this have the potential to alienate customers. That said, props to the employees.
BC2009
Mar 18, 11:34 AM
Someone is failing... hard
<soapbox -- move on if you are not interested>
It's you. He's right. I could care less about the whiners who say "I need 10GB per month to tether all my devices to my iPhone." I don't like subsidizing that. If you use that much data on your iPhone directly without tethering then more power to you -- that was AT&T's mistake for offering an unlimited plan.
But the "unlimited plan" they offered did not say "unlimited devices on one plan". It was very specifically restricted to the iPhone. To those who have cheated system, I applaud your brilliance for working around the rules. But when the rule maker starts cracking down on your circumvention crying that it is "unfair" is a bit comical.
Everybody signs a contact with their carriers when they get service. They sure as heck know what they are signing up for -- some of amount of money every month for some sort of access to their network with some set of limitations.
Sure, if you buy an iPhone it is yours. You can do what you want with it. However, your use of the carrier's network is subject to a contract with specific terms. If you don't like the terms then you don't need to agree to them. But if you choose to agree to them and try to cheat the carrier through unfair practices then don't expect others to be happy about subsidizing your practice through increased rates or degraded service.
The carrier is going to make their money one way or the other. They are a corporation driven by profits. Retail stores raise prices to compensate for shoplifting just like carriers raise rates to compensate for network expansion and lost customers due to network overload from those who circumvent the agreement they signed up for.
Any measure by the carrier to crack down on those who cheat the system is a welcome effort to those who choose not to cheat the system. They could be jerks and just decide that its not worth the effort to go after those folks and make everybody pay for it.
Do I believe that AT&T will drop their rates once they crack down on the bandwidth cheaters? Heck no. Do I believe that the network performance will get better for the rest of us without added monthly fees, probably. Either way, what's fair is fair. Nobody is born entitled to an iPhone and mobile data. But the sense of entitlement in this country has gotten so out of hand.
</soapbox>
<soapbox -- move on if you are not interested>
It's you. He's right. I could care less about the whiners who say "I need 10GB per month to tether all my devices to my iPhone." I don't like subsidizing that. If you use that much data on your iPhone directly without tethering then more power to you -- that was AT&T's mistake for offering an unlimited plan.
But the "unlimited plan" they offered did not say "unlimited devices on one plan". It was very specifically restricted to the iPhone. To those who have cheated system, I applaud your brilliance for working around the rules. But when the rule maker starts cracking down on your circumvention crying that it is "unfair" is a bit comical.
Everybody signs a contact with their carriers when they get service. They sure as heck know what they are signing up for -- some of amount of money every month for some sort of access to their network with some set of limitations.
Sure, if you buy an iPhone it is yours. You can do what you want with it. However, your use of the carrier's network is subject to a contract with specific terms. If you don't like the terms then you don't need to agree to them. But if you choose to agree to them and try to cheat the carrier through unfair practices then don't expect others to be happy about subsidizing your practice through increased rates or degraded service.
The carrier is going to make their money one way or the other. They are a corporation driven by profits. Retail stores raise prices to compensate for shoplifting just like carriers raise rates to compensate for network expansion and lost customers due to network overload from those who circumvent the agreement they signed up for.
Any measure by the carrier to crack down on those who cheat the system is a welcome effort to those who choose not to cheat the system. They could be jerks and just decide that its not worth the effort to go after those folks and make everybody pay for it.
Do I believe that AT&T will drop their rates once they crack down on the bandwidth cheaters? Heck no. Do I believe that the network performance will get better for the rest of us without added monthly fees, probably. Either way, what's fair is fair. Nobody is born entitled to an iPhone and mobile data. But the sense of entitlement in this country has gotten so out of hand.
</soapbox>
GGJstudios
Apr 9, 12:52 PM
If we're talking laptops, then depending on the model you buy, some may also have heating issues that other brands will not. If we're talking PC desktops, hopefully you've built your own, but if you didn't you can install more fans, a better heatsink, better thermal paste, etc. without voiding your warranty. Last time I checked, if you open your Mac, it voids your warranty.
The fact that a Mac notebook normally runs high temps is not a flaw, or "issue" or problem. They are designed to run at such temps. The fact that those who are new to Mac are unfamiliar with this doesn't make it a flaw. They just need to adjust their thinking. And no, simply opening a Mac doesn't void the warranty. For example, replacing/updating RAM and hard drives doesn't void the warranty.
The fact that a Mac notebook normally runs high temps is not a flaw, or "issue" or problem. They are designed to run at such temps. The fact that those who are new to Mac are unfamiliar with this doesn't make it a flaw. They just need to adjust their thinking. And no, simply opening a Mac doesn't void the warranty. For example, replacing/updating RAM and hard drives doesn't void the warranty.
Quu
Apr 12, 11:18 PM
Pretty awesome update in my opinion.
Macsavvytech
May 3, 04:48 PM
Hmmm.
My sister was fooled by this up to the point of it running its "scan". Just had to talk to her about it, seems it targets bootcamp people by seeming to be a message reporting their Windows side is infected (The normal my computer scam screen). Anyway guided her through removing it.
My sister was fooled by this up to the point of it running its "scan". Just had to talk to her about it, seems it targets bootcamp people by seeming to be a message reporting their Windows side is infected (The normal my computer scam screen). Anyway guided her through removing it.
Cromulent
Apr 24, 10:13 AM
No matter what logic you use, they can twist the words from their holy books and change the meaning of things to, in their minds, completely back up their point of view.
This is an interesting point I think. I actually find it much easier to respect real religious wackos who state blindly that every work in the Bible is true simply because they are not butchering their own religion.
As soon as you start down the slippery slope of stating that some things in the Bible (I use the Bible as an example but this applies equally to all religions) are not true (i.e the world was created in seven days) or that certain parts are meant to be interpreted by the reader (who's interpretation is correct?) you lose all credibility. If you are so determined to change your religion so that it fits in with modern science what is the point of being religious?
Surely if god is all knowing and all powerful the Bible would have taken all of that into account. I mean just because man didn't know about all of these scientific ideas god surely must have done. I find it surprising that the messages he sent the prophets wouldn't take into account something that someday may invalidate large sections of the Bible as rubbish. So why would you need to adapt your beliefs, unless of course the god doesn't exist and the Bible was just written by a bunch of blokes performing a rather cynical political exercise 2,000 years ago.
This is an interesting point I think. I actually find it much easier to respect real religious wackos who state blindly that every work in the Bible is true simply because they are not butchering their own religion.
As soon as you start down the slippery slope of stating that some things in the Bible (I use the Bible as an example but this applies equally to all religions) are not true (i.e the world was created in seven days) or that certain parts are meant to be interpreted by the reader (who's interpretation is correct?) you lose all credibility. If you are so determined to change your religion so that it fits in with modern science what is the point of being religious?
Surely if god is all knowing and all powerful the Bible would have taken all of that into account. I mean just because man didn't know about all of these scientific ideas god surely must have done. I find it surprising that the messages he sent the prophets wouldn't take into account something that someday may invalidate large sections of the Bible as rubbish. So why would you need to adapt your beliefs, unless of course the god doesn't exist and the Bible was just written by a bunch of blokes performing a rather cynical political exercise 2,000 years ago.
javajedi
Oct 8, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by WanaPBnow
Sadly the lack of a system bus faster than 133/167 and use of leading edge RAM technology is a major downside to Mac hardware. G4 with software optomized for it is still on par with P4, but when Altivec is not in the picture or MultiProcessor awareness, the Mac slips very fart behind. I still have faith that the G5 will make up for this gap.
As for OS X vs Windows 2000, I am not as technically aware as the above poster, however my own experience in a large office environment with heavy networking is that Windows 2000 has failed us. We are switching to Unix and Sun, because we can't afford the down time that windows 2000 is giving us, the cost advantage of windows not withstanding.
I have not come accross many large computer operations people that will tell me that Windows is a replacement for Unix. Not unless dealing with small size and limited budget.
To clarify, I was referring to Windows XP and Mac OS X on the desktop, not server. I have had excellent experiences with both in terms of stability. As far as the Windows platform on the server side, again, the magic is in the software. I work for a modest sized isp, and we recently transitioned all of our production servers to bsd and linux blades. All of our web/dns/mx/mail/mrtg/etc machines are Unix. The result has been they are more reliable, and easier to maintain, not to mention the substantial less total cost of ownership.
Sadly the lack of a system bus faster than 133/167 and use of leading edge RAM technology is a major downside to Mac hardware. G4 with software optomized for it is still on par with P4, but when Altivec is not in the picture or MultiProcessor awareness, the Mac slips very fart behind. I still have faith that the G5 will make up for this gap.
As for OS X vs Windows 2000, I am not as technically aware as the above poster, however my own experience in a large office environment with heavy networking is that Windows 2000 has failed us. We are switching to Unix and Sun, because we can't afford the down time that windows 2000 is giving us, the cost advantage of windows not withstanding.
I have not come accross many large computer operations people that will tell me that Windows is a replacement for Unix. Not unless dealing with small size and limited budget.
To clarify, I was referring to Windows XP and Mac OS X on the desktop, not server. I have had excellent experiences with both in terms of stability. As far as the Windows platform on the server side, again, the magic is in the software. I work for a modest sized isp, and we recently transitioned all of our production servers to bsd and linux blades. All of our web/dns/mx/mail/mrtg/etc machines are Unix. The result has been they are more reliable, and easier to maintain, not to mention the substantial less total cost of ownership.
leekohler
Mar 27, 11:12 AM
It lies at the supposed heart of Joseph Nicolosi's and NARTH's work. It's nonsense.
Of course it is. Gay men don't want to be be women and lesbians don't want to be men. We weren't coddled too much by one parent or another. That NARTH garbage is just that- garbage.
"There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence". Anything outside that, obviously barely qualifies as evidence. Not wishing to get bogged down in a tired to and fro about semantics or anything...
So what? That's exactly what he is. He bilks money from deeply conflicted people who feel ashamed of themselves. When the Surgeon General of the United States releases a report saying that "there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed", then you can be assured that those on the opposite side of the argument have a bill of goods to sell.
Let me ask you an important question. Is there any evidence, testimonial or reasoned argument that would lead you to change your mind?
You know the answer to that. People like Bill will never see us as OK, no matter how much proof they're given. The hate us, and disguise their hate as some twisted form of "love". It's sickening.
Of course it is. Gay men don't want to be be women and lesbians don't want to be men. We weren't coddled too much by one parent or another. That NARTH garbage is just that- garbage.
"There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence". Anything outside that, obviously barely qualifies as evidence. Not wishing to get bogged down in a tired to and fro about semantics or anything...
So what? That's exactly what he is. He bilks money from deeply conflicted people who feel ashamed of themselves. When the Surgeon General of the United States releases a report saying that "there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed", then you can be assured that those on the opposite side of the argument have a bill of goods to sell.
Let me ask you an important question. Is there any evidence, testimonial or reasoned argument that would lead you to change your mind?
You know the answer to that. People like Bill will never see us as OK, no matter how much proof they're given. The hate us, and disguise their hate as some twisted form of "love". It's sickening.
Apple OC
Mar 15, 10:01 PM
I did a little reading and now am a one minute expert... :p
I've read these reactors did auto shut down when the earthquake hit. The problem is that the rods create tremendous persistent heat even after a shutdown, and it is the lack of cooling water that is causing the problem.
Could it be considered a myth that any nuclear reactor can be expected to automatically safely shutdown when power to all safety systems are lost no matter how it is designed?
And who was saying this could not be like Chernobyl??
Chernobyl was 25 years ago and Russia was not very open to outside help ... no matter how bad this escalades ... somehow this will be contained.
I've read these reactors did auto shut down when the earthquake hit. The problem is that the rods create tremendous persistent heat even after a shutdown, and it is the lack of cooling water that is causing the problem.
Could it be considered a myth that any nuclear reactor can be expected to automatically safely shutdown when power to all safety systems are lost no matter how it is designed?
And who was saying this could not be like Chernobyl??
Chernobyl was 25 years ago and Russia was not very open to outside help ... no matter how bad this escalades ... somehow this will be contained.
desdomg
Mar 18, 03:30 PM
This is great news - by removing the DRM I can play my music on any device I like. It is my music after all. The music industry needs to get used to the idea that you should really only sell a track once to each user, not one track for each device the user wants to play that track on.
Apple and the music industry in general will continue to rake in the $$$ regardless of this development - the real threat to the industry was always P2P, not sales.
Apple and the music industry in general will continue to rake in the $$$ regardless of this development - the real threat to the industry was always P2P, not sales.
MagnusVonMagnum
May 3, 06:28 PM
It has nothing to do with being a "fanboy". It has to do with facts.
100% bullcrap. I just waded through this god-awful thread and almost every single post that said anything positive about Windows in any way, shape or form (truth or nonsense alike) got zapped with negative votes. Anything that contradicted the idea that OSX is 100% safe and that there's no possibility of any kind of malware got zapped with negative votes. Any time anyone says anything against Apple or Steve Jobs or any feature that someone doesn't like about either OSX or hardware offerings from Apple (no matter how true), it gets zapped by the usual suspects. You don't need a flipping degree in rocket science to make that observation dude. But then you ARE one of the usual suspects, so I shouldn't be shocked.
Here's a great example of 100% BS from YOU. A claim was made about 100 million Mac users and growing. A guy replied with proof that the number of OSX users is currently 50 million. Here's your reply:
That's Mac OS X installed base, not the installed base of Macs, as I said. Mac OS X is not the only Mac OS out there. Reading comprehension is fun!
You are clearly implying that the 'other' 50 MILLION "Macs" out there are pre-OSX (i.e. OS9 or earlier). And don't tell me you meant "iOS" devices as they are not "Macs" and your reply specifically says Macs.
That is just a laughing crock of BS it's just unbelievable. For god's sake man, you are telling me that there are JUST AS MANY OS9 and earlier Mac users out there as current OSX users?????? REALLY?????????? WTF!? Man, why isn't Chrome offered for OS9 if there's so many OS9 users out there? Firefox and Google alike declined to even offer it for PPC users because their statistics showed only a tiny percentage of active users even show up at their sites using PPC (let alone OS9!) and yet you want me to believe HALF of all current Mac users are using something other than OSX. I can smell that BS from a thousand miles away dude. WTF should anyone believe anything you say ever when you post such obvious BS on here?
If that's not a prime example of fanboy DRIVEL and the total biased slant against everything that isn't Apple/Mac around here, I don't know WTF is. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
The report I read in 2009 stated "OSX" users went from 25 million in 2007 (including a lot of PPC users who have since dumped their machines because they are not terribly useful or have upgraded, which is 1:1, not an increase) to 75 million but the article specifically said it included iPhone and iPod Touch devices, which aren't Macs (iOS is derived from OSX, but it's not quite the same thing and they aren't called Macs). 50 million is a fair estimate, IMO for actual active Macs. It's certainly nowhere near 100 million without iOS devices.
In any case, SOME of us don't give a crap about Apple Vs. Microsoft. I don't like EITHER company. I use whatever computer and OS suits me. Right now I have more OSX computers than Windows/Linux, but I use all three. That could change in the future, particularly IF Apple at some point decides to make OSX closed like iOS. But the point is I hate fanatical BS around here. This is not the Mac Advocate Forums, but some days I'd never guess it. I come here for news and rumors and I wish useful discussion, but I see more arguments over STUPID BS than I'd care to see and it gets OLD.
100% bullcrap. I just waded through this god-awful thread and almost every single post that said anything positive about Windows in any way, shape or form (truth or nonsense alike) got zapped with negative votes. Anything that contradicted the idea that OSX is 100% safe and that there's no possibility of any kind of malware got zapped with negative votes. Any time anyone says anything against Apple or Steve Jobs or any feature that someone doesn't like about either OSX or hardware offerings from Apple (no matter how true), it gets zapped by the usual suspects. You don't need a flipping degree in rocket science to make that observation dude. But then you ARE one of the usual suspects, so I shouldn't be shocked.
Here's a great example of 100% BS from YOU. A claim was made about 100 million Mac users and growing. A guy replied with proof that the number of OSX users is currently 50 million. Here's your reply:
That's Mac OS X installed base, not the installed base of Macs, as I said. Mac OS X is not the only Mac OS out there. Reading comprehension is fun!
You are clearly implying that the 'other' 50 MILLION "Macs" out there are pre-OSX (i.e. OS9 or earlier). And don't tell me you meant "iOS" devices as they are not "Macs" and your reply specifically says Macs.
That is just a laughing crock of BS it's just unbelievable. For god's sake man, you are telling me that there are JUST AS MANY OS9 and earlier Mac users out there as current OSX users?????? REALLY?????????? WTF!? Man, why isn't Chrome offered for OS9 if there's so many OS9 users out there? Firefox and Google alike declined to even offer it for PPC users because their statistics showed only a tiny percentage of active users even show up at their sites using PPC (let alone OS9!) and yet you want me to believe HALF of all current Mac users are using something other than OSX. I can smell that BS from a thousand miles away dude. WTF should anyone believe anything you say ever when you post such obvious BS on here?
If that's not a prime example of fanboy DRIVEL and the total biased slant against everything that isn't Apple/Mac around here, I don't know WTF is. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
The report I read in 2009 stated "OSX" users went from 25 million in 2007 (including a lot of PPC users who have since dumped their machines because they are not terribly useful or have upgraded, which is 1:1, not an increase) to 75 million but the article specifically said it included iPhone and iPod Touch devices, which aren't Macs (iOS is derived from OSX, but it's not quite the same thing and they aren't called Macs). 50 million is a fair estimate, IMO for actual active Macs. It's certainly nowhere near 100 million without iOS devices.
In any case, SOME of us don't give a crap about Apple Vs. Microsoft. I don't like EITHER company. I use whatever computer and OS suits me. Right now I have more OSX computers than Windows/Linux, but I use all three. That could change in the future, particularly IF Apple at some point decides to make OSX closed like iOS. But the point is I hate fanatical BS around here. This is not the Mac Advocate Forums, but some days I'd never guess it. I come here for news and rumors and I wish useful discussion, but I see more arguments over STUPID BS than I'd care to see and it gets OLD.
tigress666
Apr 10, 12:18 PM
Yeah that is why they have the top selling game on console in COD and the top selling game on PC in WOW :rolleyes:
That being said, I would love to see games like the old school RPG FF games or even starcraft type games.
Those would own on the ipads and work pretty well on the iphone/ipods as well
Uh, they have Final Fantasy 1-III on the iPhone :) (III is the most expensive game I've seen on the iphone, 16 bux!). I'm working on II right now (then going to try I and got a few more games so waiting for III to be on sale or for when I finish the other games, whichever comes first).
I'm just hoping they eventually get to VII (that they find porting these over to iOS is worth doing more Final Fantasy's on it). Shoot, maybe if they keep going by number, they can get X on an iphone (maybe by that time the hardware will be able to handle that?).
And I'd love to see Lunar Star Story on the iphone. That would be pretty awesome too. Or Breath of Fire IV. There's a ton of old rpgs that would do great on the iphone. And touch screen wouldn't be too bad of an interface for the old style rpgs either. Actually, for old style rpgs, touch screen would have advantages (no scrolling through lists, just pick it out with your finger).
Personally, I'd just be happy with them porting over the popular games to the iphone that are on other platforms. I honestly think for me the iPhone is the best portable player cause it is with me everywhere (so with the amount of games I am finding on it now even I'd probably not be really tempted to buy the other handhelds. The iphone being so portable gives it a major plus compared to the more dedicated handheld game systems. Now a console, that would be different).
I do think that it does have one issue, that since it is my phone as well, it is kind of annoying I have to worry about keeping some battery life so I still have my phone (For example using it on a plane flight I still need to have a usable phone at the end of the flight).
That being said, I would love to see games like the old school RPG FF games or even starcraft type games.
Those would own on the ipads and work pretty well on the iphone/ipods as well
Uh, they have Final Fantasy 1-III on the iPhone :) (III is the most expensive game I've seen on the iphone, 16 bux!). I'm working on II right now (then going to try I and got a few more games so waiting for III to be on sale or for when I finish the other games, whichever comes first).
I'm just hoping they eventually get to VII (that they find porting these over to iOS is worth doing more Final Fantasy's on it). Shoot, maybe if they keep going by number, they can get X on an iphone (maybe by that time the hardware will be able to handle that?).
And I'd love to see Lunar Star Story on the iphone. That would be pretty awesome too. Or Breath of Fire IV. There's a ton of old rpgs that would do great on the iphone. And touch screen wouldn't be too bad of an interface for the old style rpgs either. Actually, for old style rpgs, touch screen would have advantages (no scrolling through lists, just pick it out with your finger).
Personally, I'd just be happy with them porting over the popular games to the iphone that are on other platforms. I honestly think for me the iPhone is the best portable player cause it is with me everywhere (so with the amount of games I am finding on it now even I'd probably not be really tempted to buy the other handhelds. The iphone being so portable gives it a major plus compared to the more dedicated handheld game systems. Now a console, that would be different).
I do think that it does have one issue, that since it is my phone as well, it is kind of annoying I have to worry about keeping some battery life so I still have my phone (For example using it on a plane flight I still need to have a usable phone at the end of the flight).
firestarter
Mar 15, 07:38 AM
nuclear power hadn't got a long term future in germany before this event though. the discussion is only about the running time of existing nuclear plants (after all 6 reactors were originally destined to be shut down originally in the 2010-2013 time frame)
the politicking here will be that after the elections the reactors will be turned _on_ again .. against the will of the voting population
That's a failure of the German politicians to make a case for nuclear power there (although I imagine that Germany has good potential for hydropower and other renewables).
I think that the opposite could be said for the UK. Over the last few years opinion has turned more pro nuclear. In contrast to Merkel, Cameron turned the Japanese situation into a positive - saying that the UK could 'learn lessons' and make nuclear even safer.
the politicking here will be that after the elections the reactors will be turned _on_ again .. against the will of the voting population
That's a failure of the German politicians to make a case for nuclear power there (although I imagine that Germany has good potential for hydropower and other renewables).
I think that the opposite could be said for the UK. Over the last few years opinion has turned more pro nuclear. In contrast to Merkel, Cameron turned the Japanese situation into a positive - saying that the UK could 'learn lessons' and make nuclear even safer.
CaoCao
Mar 26, 08:37 PM
Poor archbishop Tomasi hasn't been able to accept that the public is increasingly appalled with his church's stance on sex and that the public is increasingly offended by his church's continuing attempts to impose its beliefs on the general public.
We will ride out this storm just as we rode out the last, the one before that etc
We will ride out this storm just as we rode out the last, the one before that etc
Azadre
Apr 20, 08:07 PM
Windows is the castle for Microsoft. Office and everything else for the most part was the moat.
Google's castle is advertising, and everything else including android is the moat.
Android is not Windows.
Google's castle is advertising, and everything else including android is the moat.
Android is not Windows.
benixau
Oct 12, 08:22 AM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
thank god that macs are not seen or built as throwaway consumer electronics
Too right. I had an LC630 up until about 2 months ago. First problem occured on week into use, apple monitor stoped working. 10 yrs later, power supply went. Only problem after the monitor problem and before the power supply porblem was the family needed to use it. That only meant that i couldnt sometimes.
A pc we had was upgraded every 6 months to make sure it would run. 2 months ago, four years into its life, the celeron 333 couldn't handle windows XP (it came with 98) after a serious OS problem. We chucked it, bought an AMD XP 1800+ and got two brand new power macs (MDD model). Cant afford an iBook or Powerbook yet.
Macs last longer, as long as you dont want the latest and greatest app to run, like Office v.X on a performa. If you can live with Office 2001 or 98 then, why get something untested.
A mac cost 2x as mush upfront. They last 4 - 5 times as long. Who saves money???
thank god that macs are not seen or built as throwaway consumer electronics
Too right. I had an LC630 up until about 2 months ago. First problem occured on week into use, apple monitor stoped working. 10 yrs later, power supply went. Only problem after the monitor problem and before the power supply porblem was the family needed to use it. That only meant that i couldnt sometimes.
A pc we had was upgraded every 6 months to make sure it would run. 2 months ago, four years into its life, the celeron 333 couldn't handle windows XP (it came with 98) after a serious OS problem. We chucked it, bought an AMD XP 1800+ and got two brand new power macs (MDD model). Cant afford an iBook or Powerbook yet.
Macs last longer, as long as you dont want the latest and greatest app to run, like Office v.X on a performa. If you can live with Office 2001 or 98 then, why get something untested.
A mac cost 2x as mush upfront. They last 4 - 5 times as long. Who saves money???
jwdsail
Sep 21, 10:34 AM
It has HDMI output.. One way or another, it'll output HD (720p?1080p???)
Now, as to what the source quality will be...
I'd be happy as a pig in... to see true 480p/DVD w/ slightly higher bitrates from the iTS... (Ability to burn to DVD is what I'm holding out for) I think the network requirements to stream HD (hard drive or not) will rule out HD source for the short term/1.0.
Looking at the device, and the price.. I think it will behave much more like a wireless OPPO upconverting/upscaling DVD player...
http://www.oppodigital.com/opdv971h.html
$199 for the highest rated up-converting DVD player...
My gut says that the Apple iPod Video Express will either have the same DCDi by Faroudja chip, or the closest ATI/NVidia/Intel equal inside.
If this device will cleanly up-convert/up-scale any video content on my Mac(s) to the native res of my TV (480, 720p, 1080p, etc) as well as the OPPO, I think it will be well worth the price Apple is talking about.
Just my $0.02US.
jwd
Now, as to what the source quality will be...
I'd be happy as a pig in... to see true 480p/DVD w/ slightly higher bitrates from the iTS... (Ability to burn to DVD is what I'm holding out for) I think the network requirements to stream HD (hard drive or not) will rule out HD source for the short term/1.0.
Looking at the device, and the price.. I think it will behave much more like a wireless OPPO upconverting/upscaling DVD player...
http://www.oppodigital.com/opdv971h.html
$199 for the highest rated up-converting DVD player...
My gut says that the Apple iPod Video Express will either have the same DCDi by Faroudja chip, or the closest ATI/NVidia/Intel equal inside.
If this device will cleanly up-convert/up-scale any video content on my Mac(s) to the native res of my TV (480, 720p, 1080p, etc) as well as the OPPO, I think it will be well worth the price Apple is talking about.
Just my $0.02US.
jwd
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar