MattInOz
Apr 20, 11:54 PM
Outside of Apple's app and music apps, all other applications go into a saved state; i.e. not running in the background.
Yes well sort of they can launch a task to complete background.
They can keep a track of GPS co-ords. Ask to be woken based on events like distance or time, various location criteria, then ask to complete a task based on that wake up or to ask the user to make them key.
For a skilled developer this limilted multi-tasking seems to have opened up lot of function that is useful to me as a user. While being respectful of my battery and more importantly what i want the processor to be doing.
So I'm still confused as to what real world use advantage "Real" multitasking brings. I mean Android has it so there must be examples. What function do i miss out on.
Admitting that the only answer I've ever gotten in the past is to have two apps active on the screen so you can reference one will working in another.
Not sure why that needs the reference app to be active just needs to hold that view so I can scroll or copy and paste plus a UI that lets me pop that view in and out to suit.
Yes well sort of they can launch a task to complete background.
They can keep a track of GPS co-ords. Ask to be woken based on events like distance or time, various location criteria, then ask to complete a task based on that wake up or to ask the user to make them key.
For a skilled developer this limilted multi-tasking seems to have opened up lot of function that is useful to me as a user. While being respectful of my battery and more importantly what i want the processor to be doing.
So I'm still confused as to what real world use advantage "Real" multitasking brings. I mean Android has it so there must be examples. What function do i miss out on.
Admitting that the only answer I've ever gotten in the past is to have two apps active on the screen so you can reference one will working in another.
Not sure why that needs the reference app to be active just needs to hold that view so I can scroll or copy and paste plus a UI that lets me pop that view in and out to suit.
skottichan
Apr 15, 12:12 PM
Right, because civil marriage is required for gays to have sex with each other. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. You can have sex with whomever you want to.
We're talking about gay Catholics here, who ostensibly value being Catholic more than they value satisfying their sexual desires in a manner compatible with their sexuality. There is no theocratic regime forcing them to live as Catholics in good standing - it is a personal lifestyle choice, if you will.
The problem is, I can't get married. I'm not allowed. Adopt? Not allowed (and the Catholic church has fought some very public battles to stop gays from adopting).
Plus, the Church does not recognize gay marriage where it is allowed.
I miss the good old days where I was sent to a parochial girl's boarding school, to "help me come back to God", by my step-father. Probably the best thing he unintentionally did for me. Thankfully, I suffered no bullying in school, since most of the other girls were there for similar reasons.
I am a gay woman in her 30's, and I was devoutly Catholic until about 25 (my grandparents still hold leaving the Church against me).
We're talking about gay Catholics here, who ostensibly value being Catholic more than they value satisfying their sexual desires in a manner compatible with their sexuality. There is no theocratic regime forcing them to live as Catholics in good standing - it is a personal lifestyle choice, if you will.
The problem is, I can't get married. I'm not allowed. Adopt? Not allowed (and the Catholic church has fought some very public battles to stop gays from adopting).
Plus, the Church does not recognize gay marriage where it is allowed.
I miss the good old days where I was sent to a parochial girl's boarding school, to "help me come back to God", by my step-father. Probably the best thing he unintentionally did for me. Thankfully, I suffered no bullying in school, since most of the other girls were there for similar reasons.
I am a gay woman in her 30's, and I was devoutly Catholic until about 25 (my grandparents still hold leaving the Church against me).
chrismacguy
Apr 15, 12:16 PM
Theres also a lovely massive gaping hole in the Catholic "Invisible God who must exist because 1st Century Nomads who couldn't work out keeping toilet and food separate was a smart idea said he did" view of things:
Assume God Exists and isn't okay with homosexuality:
God thus made Humankind. => He invented the way we think => He invented the concept of sexuality (So we could reproduce) => He invented homosexuality as an option within sexuality (Since he invented the concept, he had infinite control over it, thus he could develop it however he wants, including only having men like women etc, as seen in many animal species, which he created under this model, so he must've known he possessed the power to do so) => He must be okay with it, otherwise he wouldn't have come up with homosexuality in the first place. ergo your god either likes homosexuality or doesn't exist. Quite evidently I believe the latter.
Assume God Exists and isn't okay with homosexuality:
God thus made Humankind. => He invented the way we think => He invented the concept of sexuality (So we could reproduce) => He invented homosexuality as an option within sexuality (Since he invented the concept, he had infinite control over it, thus he could develop it however he wants, including only having men like women etc, as seen in many animal species, which he created under this model, so he must've known he possessed the power to do so) => He must be okay with it, otherwise he wouldn't have come up with homosexuality in the first place. ergo your god either likes homosexuality or doesn't exist. Quite evidently I believe the latter.
Edge100
Apr 15, 11:26 AM
Errr. Yes I do. :confused:
That's why I called him out on it.
He supressed the part that really matters.
Sorry, getting tough to keep track of who I'm quoting here. ;)
That's why I called him out on it.
He supressed the part that really matters.
Sorry, getting tough to keep track of who I'm quoting here. ;)
kevin.rivers
Jul 12, 02:14 PM
man, my head is spinning...Yonah, Mermon, Woodcrest, Core Duo 2 (isn't that redundant?)
Don't you just long for the good old days when we'd get one G4 processor for 18 months? ;)
Yonah is Core Duo
Merom and Conroe are Core 2 Duo
Woodcrest is considered a Xeon
Don't you just long for the good old days when we'd get one G4 processor for 18 months? ;)
Yonah is Core Duo
Merom and Conroe are Core 2 Duo
Woodcrest is considered a Xeon
SimD
Apr 12, 10:46 PM
Have you ever even used color? I mean really USED IT? This is not what the program is for. It's not about "fixing your shots" it's about GRADING. This is a souped up version of the existing color correction, along with an autocorrect feature like Avid has had for quite a while (though probably better than that, I'm sure)
Color lets you make absurdly complex adjustments to a scene like a hollywood colorist-- in realtime-- 16 effective secondaries.. This has nothing like that.
Color was a $25,000 app that Apple bought, smacked their logo on it and gave it away essentially for free. Which was great at the time, but the hope was that they'd take that technology and integrate it. What they (and you described) is nothing like what Color does.
This one has me worried, to be fair.
I agree with you 100% here!
I really, really don't want Apple to discontinue Color!
Color lets you make absurdly complex adjustments to a scene like a hollywood colorist-- in realtime-- 16 effective secondaries.. This has nothing like that.
Color was a $25,000 app that Apple bought, smacked their logo on it and gave it away essentially for free. Which was great at the time, but the hope was that they'd take that technology and integrate it. What they (and you described) is nothing like what Color does.
This one has me worried, to be fair.
I agree with you 100% here!
I really, really don't want Apple to discontinue Color!
javajedi
Oct 8, 04:33 PM
I'm actually not a Windows developer (hence my nick :) ) but from what I understand you can do most of your fp stuff using the P4's vector engine. I also wanted to add to my first post that in integer ops, the G4 only achives clock parity. It goes without saying that the massively clocked P4's will well outperform a G4 in integer.
GGJstudios
May 2, 01:00 PM
It's not "helpful." I don't need to be "reminded" the file I downloaded a second ago was downloaded from the internet. I'm sure others find it useful, but for me, it's pointless and annoying..
While you may not need a reminder for an app that you downloaded a second ago, what about an app that might get downloaded without the user's knowledge, perhaps with the name of a well-known app they currently use? The presence of this reminder would alert them to the fact that they're about to launch something other than what they expected. Besides, how often are you downloading and first-launching apps? It's not enough of an annoyance to worry about and the benefit outweighs the inconvenience for most people.
While you may not need a reminder for an app that you downloaded a second ago, what about an app that might get downloaded without the user's knowledge, perhaps with the name of a well-known app they currently use? The presence of this reminder would alert them to the fact that they're about to launch something other than what they expected. Besides, how often are you downloading and first-launching apps? It's not enough of an annoyance to worry about and the benefit outweighs the inconvenience for most people.
DJsteveSD
Mar 18, 11:51 AM
I'm going to plug in my phone, and let netflix run for the next 4 hours, as a nice big FU to AT&T, and all you uncle tom's.
I like that idea, I'm at work and I have a movie running on netflix on my iphone just to use up data, curious to see how much it actually uses as I rarely use 1gb on my unlimited plan...
I like that idea, I'm at work and I have a movie running on netflix on my iphone just to use up data, curious to see how much it actually uses as I rarely use 1gb on my unlimited plan...
Mac'nCheese
Mar 16, 02:04 PM
Naturally we should just hedge our bets on one right? :confused:
Here in reality, its pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that in the interim until renewables are able to take the stage as our top producers we have to go with an "all in" approach. There is no silver bullet at this point in time.
I don't understand the point in subsidizing any of them. I guess the point is, if we don't, power would be too expensive for people to buy but if our taxes are used for the subsidizing, then stop 'em, don't tax us and then we would have that money for the more expensive power. Does that make sense? Here's what I think: oil and gas powered everythings aren't going away in our lifetime. Period. Drill as safely as possible and try to get off of mid-east oil. Meanwhile, learn the lessons of design flaws from past accidents and start building some nuke plants in safe areas of the USA. No new gas/oil/coal plants unless they make a difference in pollution or amount of power generator per fuel used. If they don't, whats the point? Just keep the old ones going. Let the market demands slowly bring us more and more electric cars and better options for charging them (someday: solar powered home/business charging stations). Listen to that crazy oil tycoon in Texas, and stop producing gas powered trucks and vans and the like; make natural-gas powered trucks. Let those who want to invest in true solar and wind power go for it; maybe in fifty/hundred years, that will be the way, who knows? If climate change is truly as dangerous and man-made as some say it is, there's no way we can flip a switch and solve this problem in just a few years. So stop trying. Little by little, new tech will get us to where we want to be.
Here in reality, its pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that in the interim until renewables are able to take the stage as our top producers we have to go with an "all in" approach. There is no silver bullet at this point in time.
I don't understand the point in subsidizing any of them. I guess the point is, if we don't, power would be too expensive for people to buy but if our taxes are used for the subsidizing, then stop 'em, don't tax us and then we would have that money for the more expensive power. Does that make sense? Here's what I think: oil and gas powered everythings aren't going away in our lifetime. Period. Drill as safely as possible and try to get off of mid-east oil. Meanwhile, learn the lessons of design flaws from past accidents and start building some nuke plants in safe areas of the USA. No new gas/oil/coal plants unless they make a difference in pollution or amount of power generator per fuel used. If they don't, whats the point? Just keep the old ones going. Let the market demands slowly bring us more and more electric cars and better options for charging them (someday: solar powered home/business charging stations). Listen to that crazy oil tycoon in Texas, and stop producing gas powered trucks and vans and the like; make natural-gas powered trucks. Let those who want to invest in true solar and wind power go for it; maybe in fifty/hundred years, that will be the way, who knows? If climate change is truly as dangerous and man-made as some say it is, there's no way we can flip a switch and solve this problem in just a few years. So stop trying. Little by little, new tech will get us to where we want to be.
emotion
Sep 20, 09:36 AM
If I have a mini, couldn't I use it as an iTV with frontrow? Why would I get an iTV when I can get a refirb mini for $200 more, when it can do more?
Because that ties the computer to your TV (see my post about teetering keyboards above). This way you can have the computer and still display stuff conveniently on the TV, wirelessly.
Because that ties the computer to your TV (see my post about teetering keyboards above). This way you can have the computer and still display stuff conveniently on the TV, wirelessly.
balamw
Apr 9, 01:36 PM
They just need to adjust their thinking.
They're holding it wrong? :p
I agree with the overall sentiment, but it may still be something a "switcher" may not like. They may like the relative lack of noise that comes with most Macs.
B
They're holding it wrong? :p
I agree with the overall sentiment, but it may still be something a "switcher" may not like. They may like the relative lack of noise that comes with most Macs.
B
alexdrinan
Jul 12, 04:04 PM
Exactly. Numerous people have tried to explain that Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest basically are the same CPU, yet few people seem to have understood it yet. The differences between the parts are almost exclusively external (or atleast not related to the execution core), like socket and FSB frequency. The core architecture has even been said by Intel reps to be the same. The only reason for a Woodcrest CPU to perform better than a Conroe (the non-Extreme edition) would be because of the slightly faster FSB. This advantage could soon be negated by the use of FB-DIMMs.
So, why get so worked up over this?
Even if the internal architecture of the two chips is the same, a Dual 3.0ghz Woodcrest configuration is still going to outperform a Single 2.66ghz Conroe. While Conroe might be very good, it's not the best, which is what pro customer's expect from Apple's highest-end workstation offering.
So, why get so worked up over this?
Even if the internal architecture of the two chips is the same, a Dual 3.0ghz Woodcrest configuration is still going to outperform a Single 2.66ghz Conroe. While Conroe might be very good, it's not the best, which is what pro customer's expect from Apple's highest-end workstation offering.
iMeowbot
Jul 11, 10:25 PM
As even AI note, there's not much difference between the two chips. This is about as exciting as finding out that a faucet will have a red handle if it runs hot water, blue if cold. Whee.
yoak
Apr 13, 07:59 AM
It looks promising in my book, but I�m a DP/cameraman that sometime edits (for broadcast), not a "proper" editor.
I have used FCS enough to know of many of it�s short comings though.
For anyone interested have a look at what Larry Jordan says in his blog from after the event. It�s a very interesting read from someone I know it�s a pro at least.
Leathal has good points (as always) though, but I don�t think they bothered with all the "trivia".
For one, I would almost bet my life that you can still do multiclip editing
http://www.larryjordan.biz/app_bin/wordpress/
I have used FCS enough to know of many of it�s short comings though.
For anyone interested have a look at what Larry Jordan says in his blog from after the event. It�s a very interesting read from someone I know it�s a pro at least.
Leathal has good points (as always) though, but I don�t think they bothered with all the "trivia".
For one, I would almost bet my life that you can still do multiclip editing
http://www.larryjordan.biz/app_bin/wordpress/
NathanMuir
Mar 25, 02:42 PM
No argument except as to the point. This would only be a relevant criticism if I were holding Catholics responsible for an attitude held by some Christian sects, but not by Catholics themselves. On the contrary, the Catholic attitude towards homosexuality in question is common across much of Christendom.
Sigh, got a quote from the article for me?
This thread is about the Catholic Church, so I name the Catholic Church, but the criticism is properly aimed at the attitude they share ecumenically. The consequences of prejudice against homosexuality as rationalized by Christian dogma are shared among all who promote that prejudice. The Catholic Church is neither singled out (except contextually) nor excused on that account.
Again, where is Christendom mentioned in this context in the article?
As I said, you want to reserve to the church the right to disclaim responsibility for those who act on the principles it promotes.
That's like saying all Republicans support the Tea Party. IMO it's extremely ignorant to hold the mainstream accountable for the actions of an extremist minority.
Shall I hold Obama accountable for Thomas Vail's actions and beliefs as he is self described 'to the left of Obama'? :rolleyes:
I doubt you could find a sect who murdered homosexuals for fun. To return to the analogy, the Klan did not murder black people for fun. They murdered those who stepped out of line, who challenged the social status white people of the era carved out for black people.
So we're to the point where we're going to nit pick examples?
If it makes you feel better, it was suppose to be an over-the-top example. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.
The mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic Church espouses the belief that homosexuals must be made to conform to Catholic prejudice regarding their proper place in society, and that Catholic belief grants them the right to do so. The premise is wrong before we even get to the method. The mainstream Catholic Church pursues this agenda in ways which do not currently involve terrorist action, but they do pursue it. The obscure terrorist sect you've hypothesized would be operating based on the same flawed premise as the "mainstream" church, arguably even more consistently, since a common interpretation of the Bible does demand the death penalty for homosexuals.
As I keep saying, the immorality lies in the idea that one's prejudice gives one the right to force other people to live their own lives within the boundaries of that prejudice, whatever form that force may take.
Again, I could care less what they say.
Let me know when they start to act on what they say.
Again, not some extremist minority, the actual mainstream body of Catholicism.
Sigh, got a quote from the article for me?
This thread is about the Catholic Church, so I name the Catholic Church, but the criticism is properly aimed at the attitude they share ecumenically. The consequences of prejudice against homosexuality as rationalized by Christian dogma are shared among all who promote that prejudice. The Catholic Church is neither singled out (except contextually) nor excused on that account.
Again, where is Christendom mentioned in this context in the article?
As I said, you want to reserve to the church the right to disclaim responsibility for those who act on the principles it promotes.
That's like saying all Republicans support the Tea Party. IMO it's extremely ignorant to hold the mainstream accountable for the actions of an extremist minority.
Shall I hold Obama accountable for Thomas Vail's actions and beliefs as he is self described 'to the left of Obama'? :rolleyes:
I doubt you could find a sect who murdered homosexuals for fun. To return to the analogy, the Klan did not murder black people for fun. They murdered those who stepped out of line, who challenged the social status white people of the era carved out for black people.
So we're to the point where we're going to nit pick examples?
If it makes you feel better, it was suppose to be an over-the-top example. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.
The mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic Church espouses the belief that homosexuals must be made to conform to Catholic prejudice regarding their proper place in society, and that Catholic belief grants them the right to do so. The premise is wrong before we even get to the method. The mainstream Catholic Church pursues this agenda in ways which do not currently involve terrorist action, but they do pursue it. The obscure terrorist sect you've hypothesized would be operating based on the same flawed premise as the "mainstream" church, arguably even more consistently, since a common interpretation of the Bible does demand the death penalty for homosexuals.
As I keep saying, the immorality lies in the idea that one's prejudice gives one the right to force other people to live their own lives within the boundaries of that prejudice, whatever form that force may take.
Again, I could care less what they say.
Let me know when they start to act on what they say.
Again, not some extremist minority, the actual mainstream body of Catholicism.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 22, 09:53 PM
Is this a bigger issue in the US, and do atheists abroad feel pressure to at least consider the idea of a God?
In some areas of the US people look down on if you admit that you don't believe in God. People can be very vicious about it and at the work place it's best not to voice your opinion or the Christians will gang up against you. I've seen this happen several times.
In some areas of the US people look down on if you admit that you don't believe in God. People can be very vicious about it and at the work place it's best not to voice your opinion or the Christians will gang up against you. I've seen this happen several times.
diamornte
Apr 13, 04:03 AM
Most people here, will tinker with FCP and never actually make feature films or shows. You all have an opinion, but I think that people that actually do this for a living will be very happy with the results.
I do this for a living and it's the same as it with Avid: everyone thinks they know it better. And in this case and in this thread it's a who is "pro" d!ck contest. Who the eff cares, rite? I will definitely upgrade to fcx no matter what these "pros" say and I consider myself an avid guy. But I just hope that this program is stable, and doesn't have that many bugs as can be expected from a total ground up program rewrite.
I do this for a living and it's the same as it with Avid: everyone thinks they know it better. And in this case and in this thread it's a who is "pro" d!ck contest. Who the eff cares, rite? I will definitely upgrade to fcx no matter what these "pros" say and I consider myself an avid guy. But I just hope that this program is stable, and doesn't have that many bugs as can be expected from a total ground up program rewrite.
UnixMac
Oct 9, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
Alex ant has made some good points on why Macs are a poor buy. They are so much slower and less stable then PC's these days according to everything I read. I still love my Mac, but since reading these message boards over the past year or so I have became more and more negative about Macs. Mac has lost the MHz war and are becoming slower and slower computers and has also lost out to XP for the best operating system, acording to so many people.
I am a consumer user, email, internet, MP3's, MS Word, digital camera photos, etc. I do like the iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie programs for what I do, but it sounds like with XP there is no longer any problems doing these things and they come loaded with programs that are just as easy to use. The sad thing as Apple was working on their switching campaign to switch people to Macs I am now considering switching to my first PC, because they have so much more megahertz and XP sounds so easy to use and stable.
Well I am broke right now so it will be next spring or summer until I buy a new computer, but as Mac has been going backwards on speed and their software is good, but not any better then Microsoft anymore I really should test out a new PC and see how it works for how I use a computer.
Or I have a better Idea: Call / Write Apple and complain about what you get for your hard earned $$$.......if enough people do, they will listen.
I for one am not ready to move on to PC....as I would have to learn Linux and find Linux versions of all my software....Windows XP never!
Alex ant has made some good points on why Macs are a poor buy. They are so much slower and less stable then PC's these days according to everything I read. I still love my Mac, but since reading these message boards over the past year or so I have became more and more negative about Macs. Mac has lost the MHz war and are becoming slower and slower computers and has also lost out to XP for the best operating system, acording to so many people.
I am a consumer user, email, internet, MP3's, MS Word, digital camera photos, etc. I do like the iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie programs for what I do, but it sounds like with XP there is no longer any problems doing these things and they come loaded with programs that are just as easy to use. The sad thing as Apple was working on their switching campaign to switch people to Macs I am now considering switching to my first PC, because they have so much more megahertz and XP sounds so easy to use and stable.
Well I am broke right now so it will be next spring or summer until I buy a new computer, but as Mac has been going backwards on speed and their software is good, but not any better then Microsoft anymore I really should test out a new PC and see how it works for how I use a computer.
Or I have a better Idea: Call / Write Apple and complain about what you get for your hard earned $$$.......if enough people do, they will listen.
I for one am not ready to move on to PC....as I would have to learn Linux and find Linux versions of all my software....Windows XP never!
Lord Blackadder
Mar 24, 08:02 PM
Archbishop Silvano Tomasi said the Roman Catholic Church deeply believed that human sexuality was a gift reserved for married heterosexual couples. But those who express these views are faced with "a disturbing trend," he said.
He may find a "disturbing trend", but I would characterize it as "social progress".
He may find a "disturbing trend", but I would characterize it as "social progress".
Edge100
Apr 15, 01:18 PM
Yeah, I was waiting for that one. It's pretty low-rent as far as fallacies go, I'm not sure why it is trotted out as often as it is. It's always used to argue stupid things like Hitler's religious beliefs represent the truest form of Christianity, and if you don't believe so, you're violating this sacred "No true Scotsman" fallacy.
No TRUE circle is square! Yeah, that one's true. You can't torpedo a well-defined institution by finding an example of someone not living up to its rules.
The point is that you don't get to redefine "Christian" to suit your argument.
Hitler was a Christian. That is a fact. That doesn't mean that Christianity is equivalent to Nazism and fascism. That would, indeed, be a fallacy.
But again, this is obfuscation. You can't explain away bad things done by Christians by redefining "Christian".
No TRUE circle is square! Yeah, that one's true. You can't torpedo a well-defined institution by finding an example of someone not living up to its rules.
The point is that you don't get to redefine "Christian" to suit your argument.
Hitler was a Christian. That is a fact. That doesn't mean that Christianity is equivalent to Nazism and fascism. That would, indeed, be a fallacy.
But again, this is obfuscation. You can't explain away bad things done by Christians by redefining "Christian".
faroZ06
May 2, 06:26 PM
Switching off or turning down UAC in Windows also equally impacts the strength of MIC (Windows sandboxing mechanism) because it functions based on inherited permissions. Unix DAC in Mac OS X functions via inherited permissions but MAC (mandatory access controls -> OS X sandbox) does not. Windows does not have a sandbox like OS X.
UAC, by default, does not use a unique identifier (password) so it is more susceptible to attacks the rely on spoofing prompts that appear to be unrelated to UAC to steal authentication. If a password is attached to authentication, these spoofed prompts fail to work.
Having a password associated with permissions has other benefits as well.
If "Open safe files after downloading" is turned on, it will both unarchive the zip file and launch the installer. Installers are marked as safe to launch because require authentication to complete installation.
No harm can be done from just launching the installer. But, you are correct in that code is being executed in user space.
Code run in user space is used to achieve privilege escalation via exploitation or social engineering (trick user to authenticate -> as in this malware). There is very little that can be done beyond prank style attacks with only user level access. System level access is required for usefully dangerous malware install, such as keyloggers that can log protected passwords. This is why there is little malware for Mac OS X. Achieving system level access to Windows via exploitation is much easier.
Webkit2 will further reduce the possibility of even achieving user level access.
The article suggested that the installer completed itself without authentication. I don't see how that is possible unless you are using the root account or something. It would give sudo access, but even still you'd get SOME dialog box :confused:
UAC, by default, does not use a unique identifier (password) so it is more susceptible to attacks the rely on spoofing prompts that appear to be unrelated to UAC to steal authentication. If a password is attached to authentication, these spoofed prompts fail to work.
Having a password associated with permissions has other benefits as well.
If "Open safe files after downloading" is turned on, it will both unarchive the zip file and launch the installer. Installers are marked as safe to launch because require authentication to complete installation.
No harm can be done from just launching the installer. But, you are correct in that code is being executed in user space.
Code run in user space is used to achieve privilege escalation via exploitation or social engineering (trick user to authenticate -> as in this malware). There is very little that can be done beyond prank style attacks with only user level access. System level access is required for usefully dangerous malware install, such as keyloggers that can log protected passwords. This is why there is little malware for Mac OS X. Achieving system level access to Windows via exploitation is much easier.
Webkit2 will further reduce the possibility of even achieving user level access.
The article suggested that the installer completed itself without authentication. I don't see how that is possible unless you are using the root account or something. It would give sudo access, but even still you'd get SOME dialog box :confused:
dante@sisna.com
Sep 12, 07:01 PM
Ok, if you're SOOOOO thrilled, you've been living in a cave because you could've been doing that for years, there's nothing new here aside for an apple logo on the box... the EyeHome could do that for the last 3 years (no storage, with a remote, streaming from my mac over Wifi - the eyehome physically connected to the router, my Mac on Wifi) (http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyehome ). And you're right, it's great... Too bad you still have to wait 6 months :P
Yes, except the point is the iTunes/Movie interface with EyeHome does not have. What is cool is you can now use BOTH!!!
And the HD capabilities of iTV exceed Eyehome.
Yes, except the point is the iTunes/Movie interface with EyeHome does not have. What is cool is you can now use BOTH!!!
And the HD capabilities of iTV exceed Eyehome.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 01:12 PM
Sorry but I find this patently laughable. True Christian? Does that mean anyone who doesn't believe in the same interpretation of the bible as you do? I bet there are millions who would point the finger at you and say you are not a true Christian. You both, of course, are wrong as there cannot be any truth in a system based on faith.
Ok, replace "True" for "Orthodox". Mainstream Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Greek Orthodox. Pretty much believe the same things. You can even throw some non-orthodox sects in there like the Mormons and still have a huge intersect on beliefs, especially on morality.
Ok, replace "True" for "Orthodox". Mainstream Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Greek Orthodox. Pretty much believe the same things. You can even throw some non-orthodox sects in there like the Mormons and still have a huge intersect on beliefs, especially on morality.
No comments:
Post a Comment