Arcady
May 2, 09:32 AM
Any software for a Mac that says "MAC" in the title or in any documentation would already be suspect to me. Pretty much every person I have run across that thinks it is spelled in all caps as "MAC" has been a moron.
miloblithe
Aug 29, 10:56 AM
Boo hoo. its a business, waht do they realistically expect?
Corporate Social Responsibility
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility
Corporate Social Responsibility
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility
bastiangatten
Oct 7, 02:49 PM
Ya if apple didn't further the iPhone OS anymore between now and then maybe. But you know they will come up with something great soon anyways. And I don't think apple is seaking to have the most sold product. They just want to have the best product. Look at the Mac Computer. It isn't the most. It's the best!
sbarton
Sep 20, 09:40 AM
Someone help me out here. Why do some of you insist on "tuners" in this type of device. What good are they for Cable and Satelite users? I mean, at best you could tune in the analog signals on a basic cable subscription, but most cable companies are all digital now and you can't tune in *hit without one of thier set-top cable boxes. Same goes for satelite.
Eraserhead
Mar 16, 01:37 PM
That that was created out of pure invention, not a government subsidy.
I don't wish to piss on your bonfire too much, but I don't believe there are any nuclear plants anywhere in the world which have been built without government subsidy.
I don't wish to piss on your bonfire too much, but I don't believe there are any nuclear plants anywhere in the world which have been built without government subsidy.
matticus008
Mar 20, 06:33 PM
Is there anybody here who has ever changed their mind about digital rights management, i.e., accepted and then rejected it or rejected it and then accepted it over time? We've heard many members trying to convince others and I wonder if everybody has their mind permanently made up.
Has anybody ever "switched" on this issue?
Actually, I have. I'd been vehemently opposed to both the DMCA and DRM for the past several years (what's a good liberal to do?). I always held the opinion that it wasn't really doing anyone any real harm. I buy music, and the music I downloaded was probably not music I'd buy anyway, so I didn't see it harming sales. But then I came across more people like many in this thread, who believe that they are entitled to more than they agreed to or paid for, and who justify and rationalize their piracy to the point where it's just absolutely ridiculous, and now I see why DRM exists--because people don't actually want "fair use" or a way to preview music before buying it and supporting the artists they like. All they want is free music that they can pretend they own and control in a manner to which they've never been allowed by law.
Before digital files, no one would have argued that copying a CD and giving it away was wrong. But now the scale is much larger and it's much easier, and there are people pretending that it's legal or that it's now okay because the RIAA is somehow more corrupt than it was 10 years ago when filesharing was a niche activity for technophiles.
Has anybody ever "switched" on this issue?
Actually, I have. I'd been vehemently opposed to both the DMCA and DRM for the past several years (what's a good liberal to do?). I always held the opinion that it wasn't really doing anyone any real harm. I buy music, and the music I downloaded was probably not music I'd buy anyway, so I didn't see it harming sales. But then I came across more people like many in this thread, who believe that they are entitled to more than they agreed to or paid for, and who justify and rationalize their piracy to the point where it's just absolutely ridiculous, and now I see why DRM exists--because people don't actually want "fair use" or a way to preview music before buying it and supporting the artists they like. All they want is free music that they can pretend they own and control in a manner to which they've never been allowed by law.
Before digital files, no one would have argued that copying a CD and giving it away was wrong. But now the scale is much larger and it's much easier, and there are people pretending that it's legal or that it's now okay because the RIAA is somehow more corrupt than it was 10 years ago when filesharing was a niche activity for technophiles.
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.
gatekpr
Jun 8, 09:35 AM
I jailbroke my iPhone 3GS and switched to T-mobile. I haven't had ONE dropped call since I did that in November. The edge network is a little slower, but well worth the switch. I could never use the 3G in Houston anyway. Sad, the 4th largest city in the nation and I would get 5-10 dropped calls a day. It was worse with the Blackberry Bold--you can't turn off the 3G, so it would drop incessantly.
I'm excited about the iPhone 4, my sources tell me they already have a jailbreak for it. I'm excited!
I'm excited about the iPhone 4, my sources tell me they already have a jailbreak for it. I'm excited!
Multimedia
Oct 26, 09:38 AM
Many of the applications that graphics, audio, and video producers use do take advantage of the extra power. It just happens differently than one might think -- it has via better multitasking. It is up to the user to learn how to use quad and eight core boxes to improve production.
We've been learning this technique for the past year with PowerMac Quad Core and are blown away by how much more work we accomplish.
DJOOn the video front, crushing video down to mp4 files is a two stage process which each use 3-4 cores. Hosing an 8-core Mac Pro will be no problem. Those of you who think that 8-cores is a lot and crazy have no experience with multi-core applications and the idea of running multiple instances of even single core applications simultaneously. You are going to have to begin to RETHINK how you execute your workflow - i.e. the ORDER in which you initiate processes - to get the most bang out of an 8-core Mac Pro and to begin learning how to get more work done in far less time than you do today.
I could not disagree with you more. Our G5 and Mac Pro Quads give us an extra production hour, at least, per day, using many of the apps you mentioned above. It is up to the user the know how to push these boxes.
Just today, we processed 8.7 Gig of Photoshop documents (high res art scans from a lambda flatbed of 4x8 foot originals at 300 dpi -- i know the artist was crazy, but it is what we GOT.) -- We open all this data over 20 docs, changed RGB to CMYK, adjusted color, resized to a normal size, sharpened, added masks and saved. We did all this in 40 minutes -- that is 2 minutes per average size doc of 600MB.
Are you really going to tell me that my G5 Dual 2.7 could hang like this.
No Way -- We had activity monitor open -- Photoshop used an average of 72% off ALL FOUR PROCESSORS.
We did use safari at the same time to download a template for the art book (250 MG) and we had a DVD ripping via Mac the Ripper as well.
Quad Core Rules. Soon to be OCTO.Thank you for both those posts. I have felt pretty alone on these 8-core threads thus far. Glad to finally see someone else who understands and can explain so well why 8-cores is still not going to be enough joining in on these discussions.
Any of you who don't think a 16-core Mac Pro will be a hit in a year can really only be into word processing. :p
We've been learning this technique for the past year with PowerMac Quad Core and are blown away by how much more work we accomplish.
DJOOn the video front, crushing video down to mp4 files is a two stage process which each use 3-4 cores. Hosing an 8-core Mac Pro will be no problem. Those of you who think that 8-cores is a lot and crazy have no experience with multi-core applications and the idea of running multiple instances of even single core applications simultaneously. You are going to have to begin to RETHINK how you execute your workflow - i.e. the ORDER in which you initiate processes - to get the most bang out of an 8-core Mac Pro and to begin learning how to get more work done in far less time than you do today.
I could not disagree with you more. Our G5 and Mac Pro Quads give us an extra production hour, at least, per day, using many of the apps you mentioned above. It is up to the user the know how to push these boxes.
Just today, we processed 8.7 Gig of Photoshop documents (high res art scans from a lambda flatbed of 4x8 foot originals at 300 dpi -- i know the artist was crazy, but it is what we GOT.) -- We open all this data over 20 docs, changed RGB to CMYK, adjusted color, resized to a normal size, sharpened, added masks and saved. We did all this in 40 minutes -- that is 2 minutes per average size doc of 600MB.
Are you really going to tell me that my G5 Dual 2.7 could hang like this.
No Way -- We had activity monitor open -- Photoshop used an average of 72% off ALL FOUR PROCESSORS.
We did use safari at the same time to download a template for the art book (250 MG) and we had a DVD ripping via Mac the Ripper as well.
Quad Core Rules. Soon to be OCTO.Thank you for both those posts. I have felt pretty alone on these 8-core threads thus far. Glad to finally see someone else who understands and can explain so well why 8-cores is still not going to be enough joining in on these discussions.
Any of you who don't think a 16-core Mac Pro will be a hit in a year can really only be into word processing. :p
Satori
Apr 20, 05:12 PM
No big surprises there
BoyBach
Aug 29, 04:08 PM
Greenpeace are terrorists.
:eek:
Why the vitriol against Greenpeace? It appears that a lot of people on this forum HATE them. What have they done to deserve this?
:eek:
Why the vitriol against Greenpeace? It appears that a lot of people on this forum HATE them. What have they done to deserve this?
rasmasyean
Mar 13, 08:51 PM
Is it possible to like build a "Great Wall of China" arround Japan's tsunami areas?
It seems that a lot of the buildings that actually remained standing looks like some brick / concrete buildings. One even supported some huge ship on top of it!
What if like you had this wall arround Japan and a highway on top instead of a walkway. Of course, you don't need to block barbarians so you can have ramps and tunnel-ramps up to the highway. I don't think this would increase trade costs that much because it doesn't take that much time and gas to go up a ramp and go to the next exit to go back down.
I mean, imagine what kind of destruction that would save. I mean, if it was a major city or something instead of what appears to be "suburbs", that would be a really big blow to Japan.
The largest geothermal country by output is the U.S. Twenty four countries use geothermal to some extent and five produce 10% or more of the countries needs.The problem with Nuclear is not just safety,toxic waste,decommissioning etc but that it locks us all into highly centralised societies which in my opinion is a bad thing.In spite of the nuke industries huge PR job it is not an acceptable alternative to fossils a much better solution is a whole range of alternative green sources with much more local control,micro hydro being just one example..Obviously the real problem is that especially the west uses huge amounts of energy unnecessarily and that needs to be stopped.
(this is not to say geothermal is without problems,it isn't)
Let's put it this way. Japan's economy is nothing to scoff at. It contains prolly the most concentrated world economic influence footprint. So whatever "nuclear damage" had happened will most likely be considered "worth it" for what they have accomplished. Think about this next time you go to buy electronics, a car, play video games, the movies...amoung many other things.
The "better solution" would involve learning from this and design BETTER nucler power plants. Maybe they didn't think this type of tsunami would even hit them, but now they know. And now the US knows too and can upgrade those 23 plants or whatever. I mean, one idea I can think of is having some form of barren/mountainous areas house nuclear plants and have superconduction deliver electricity to far places and such. I mean, you can't expect to dig holes everywhere and expect reliable geothermal energy. Nuclear is the MOST powerful and versatile fuel we know of, and you can even in on a boat for christs sakes. How much eveidence do the "environmentalists" need to see this? :rolleyes:
It seems that a lot of the buildings that actually remained standing looks like some brick / concrete buildings. One even supported some huge ship on top of it!
What if like you had this wall arround Japan and a highway on top instead of a walkway. Of course, you don't need to block barbarians so you can have ramps and tunnel-ramps up to the highway. I don't think this would increase trade costs that much because it doesn't take that much time and gas to go up a ramp and go to the next exit to go back down.
I mean, imagine what kind of destruction that would save. I mean, if it was a major city or something instead of what appears to be "suburbs", that would be a really big blow to Japan.
The largest geothermal country by output is the U.S. Twenty four countries use geothermal to some extent and five produce 10% or more of the countries needs.The problem with Nuclear is not just safety,toxic waste,decommissioning etc but that it locks us all into highly centralised societies which in my opinion is a bad thing.In spite of the nuke industries huge PR job it is not an acceptable alternative to fossils a much better solution is a whole range of alternative green sources with much more local control,micro hydro being just one example..Obviously the real problem is that especially the west uses huge amounts of energy unnecessarily and that needs to be stopped.
(this is not to say geothermal is without problems,it isn't)
Let's put it this way. Japan's economy is nothing to scoff at. It contains prolly the most concentrated world economic influence footprint. So whatever "nuclear damage" had happened will most likely be considered "worth it" for what they have accomplished. Think about this next time you go to buy electronics, a car, play video games, the movies...amoung many other things.
The "better solution" would involve learning from this and design BETTER nucler power plants. Maybe they didn't think this type of tsunami would even hit them, but now they know. And now the US knows too and can upgrade those 23 plants or whatever. I mean, one idea I can think of is having some form of barren/mountainous areas house nuclear plants and have superconduction deliver electricity to far places and such. I mean, you can't expect to dig holes everywhere and expect reliable geothermal energy. Nuclear is the MOST powerful and versatile fuel we know of, and you can even in on a boat for christs sakes. How much eveidence do the "environmentalists" need to see this? :rolleyes:
neilp4453
Feb 12, 03:14 AM
All I'm going to say is that Apple isn't doing enough to keep iPhone users...well, iPhone users!
Two of my cousins now own droids. One had an iPhone and got a Droid once he started working at a Verizon store. The damn phone is jampacked with features that Apple refuses to include.
In order for Apple to improve their device, they must first be beaten. Otherwise, they will sit on their asses just watching the cash come in. They do it with their current line of computers and they are doing it now.
I love my iPhone but I think it is just that time. Hopefully they can come back. It is time to loosen their grip on the App Store, let Google do their "thang" and add numerous features that are available NATIVELY!
Two of my cousins now own droids. One had an iPhone and got a Droid once he started working at a Verizon store. The damn phone is jampacked with features that Apple refuses to include.
In order for Apple to improve their device, they must first be beaten. Otherwise, they will sit on their asses just watching the cash come in. They do it with their current line of computers and they are doing it now.
I love my iPhone but I think it is just that time. Hopefully they can come back. It is time to loosen their grip on the App Store, let Google do their "thang" and add numerous features that are available NATIVELY!
paradox00
Oct 7, 05:26 PM
Yes, I have. Several times. Things have changed, but the base premise of the article still applies - Microsoft Got Lucky - there is no way to suggest that Apple can pull that off in this day in age when the world depends too much on Microsoft. The article deals with past actions affecting the present. Its very relevant. Its point is that MS got successful because of how it parlayed successes over time, not because it embraced an "open strategy". They did that years ago. Read the whole thing. Grueber makes a point that still applies today because marketshare in the OS world has changed very little.
I'm sorry OSX market share would most definitely go up. From a business perspective though it would would be a terrible move, you are right about that. Profits would drop as Apple would get next to nothing from the sale of software only. The market share of OSX would drop once Apple went bankrupt.
Allowing greater access to your product almost always leads to larger sales volumes, but it isn't always in your best interest.
I'm sorry OSX market share would most definitely go up. From a business perspective though it would would be a terrible move, you are right about that. Profits would drop as Apple would get next to nothing from the sale of software only. The market share of OSX would drop once Apple went bankrupt.
Allowing greater access to your product almost always leads to larger sales volumes, but it isn't always in your best interest.
�algiris
May 2, 09:34 AM
Any software for a Mac that says "MAC" in the title or in any documentation would already be suspect to me. Pretty much every person I have run across that thinks it is spelled in all caps as "MAC" has been a moron.
And just simply in general anti-virus software is useless on Mac, so why would anyone download and install any anti-virus, defender or scanner is above me.
And just simply in general anti-virus software is useless on Mac, so why would anyone download and install any anti-virus, defender or scanner is above me.
milo
Sep 20, 05:58 PM
In essence, the mac mini can do ALL OF THAT, plus more, minus the ability to go out via HDMI. If apple just upgraded FRONT ROW to the quality of the iTV user interface, you have an iTV right there on the mac mini!
And it will cost twice what the iTV costs.
People aren't willing to pay that much for a settop box. Game over. Product dead.
it won't have any dvr functionality... it'll just be frontrow on your tv, and nothing else.
And that's exactly what I want. I don't want to pay for extra crap that I don't need.
And it will cost twice what the iTV costs.
People aren't willing to pay that much for a settop box. Game over. Product dead.
it won't have any dvr functionality... it'll just be frontrow on your tv, and nothing else.
And that's exactly what I want. I don't want to pay for extra crap that I don't need.
WiiDSmoker
Apr 20, 06:38 PM
This virus talk is full of ignorance. Mac OSX is not more secure than Windows. Windows is just targeted more, because of the marketshare.
If you think that Apple writes perfect code everytime then you have no idea what you're talking about.
If you think that Apple writes perfect code everytime then you have no idea what you're talking about.
PghLondon
Apr 28, 11:38 AM
The launch of the iPad won't affect Apple's market share without the iPad included, which brings us back to Al's comment. ;)
"But� 3.5% mac market share which includes stupid iPads as computers is pretty dismal (laughable even). "
That was his original comment.
"But� 3.5% mac market share which includes stupid iPads as computers is pretty dismal (laughable even). "
That was his original comment.
chrono1081
Apr 20, 09:31 PM
I honestly have no idea how you have the job that you do, because you fail tremendously in this aspect.
I have the job that I do because I know MUCH more about Windows than you do obviously. If you think what I posted above is a bunch of fud then you really don't know anything about Windows OS or manual malware removal. There is all kinds of ways malware can hide and on Windows many times the only way you know its on the system is by finding altered registry keys, but removing the key doesn't remove the malware so you have to manually dig for files. Most of the time you can find them by looking but some malware uses the feature to hide folders completely even if you tell the system to show all files. If you want a prime example of a virus that does this look up and infect your system with Oboma (yes its spelled incorrectly). It went around our workplace all the time and most of the time it used the file hiding technique mentioned above. Another is WD32Silly (or something close to that). Thats another one that always did it. With over 6,000 users to support I see this stuff all the time.
EDIT: This is why tools that access files outside the OS are popular, like BartPE and various other packages. You can see these files if Windows is not booted up and your not plugging the drive into another machine.
Why do they allow the files to be hidden?
Of course if you used Norton you wouldn't have this problem. :D:D:D
Actually....we use Symantec which is the the first scanner we use which doesn't find anything ;) Or, to its credit it will find something, but not remove it (hence how we find out the names half of the time). Honestly though you really want multi-layered scanning. If the program on the computer doesn't catch anything it goes to IT and we scan it with other tools, as a last resort we will manually remove it but if it doesn't work or ends up being to "messy" the machine gets re-imaged.
I have the job that I do because I know MUCH more about Windows than you do obviously. If you think what I posted above is a bunch of fud then you really don't know anything about Windows OS or manual malware removal. There is all kinds of ways malware can hide and on Windows many times the only way you know its on the system is by finding altered registry keys, but removing the key doesn't remove the malware so you have to manually dig for files. Most of the time you can find them by looking but some malware uses the feature to hide folders completely even if you tell the system to show all files. If you want a prime example of a virus that does this look up and infect your system with Oboma (yes its spelled incorrectly). It went around our workplace all the time and most of the time it used the file hiding technique mentioned above. Another is WD32Silly (or something close to that). Thats another one that always did it. With over 6,000 users to support I see this stuff all the time.
EDIT: This is why tools that access files outside the OS are popular, like BartPE and various other packages. You can see these files if Windows is not booted up and your not plugging the drive into another machine.
Why do they allow the files to be hidden?
Of course if you used Norton you wouldn't have this problem. :D:D:D
Actually....we use Symantec which is the the first scanner we use which doesn't find anything ;) Or, to its credit it will find something, but not remove it (hence how we find out the names half of the time). Honestly though you really want multi-layered scanning. If the program on the computer doesn't catch anything it goes to IT and we scan it with other tools, as a last resort we will manually remove it but if it doesn't work or ends up being to "messy" the machine gets re-imaged.
spipenge
Jun 27, 02:31 AM
I have never had a single call dropped. Here in Orlando I get full service and data speeds of about 450Kb p/s!
Haha
See my post later on about this subject. Again, what a shame that we Americans actually think this is acceptable. That speed is pitiful for a 3G network. I will say it here, as I've said a million times other places, the speeds are just too slow and don't measure up. My partner lives in Ottawa, Canada. On June 24, during mid morning, he received download speed of 6 Mbps. During the evening, he receives speeds in the 7-9 Mbps range.
Haha
See my post later on about this subject. Again, what a shame that we Americans actually think this is acceptable. That speed is pitiful for a 3G network. I will say it here, as I've said a million times other places, the speeds are just too slow and don't measure up. My partner lives in Ottawa, Canada. On June 24, during mid morning, he received download speed of 6 Mbps. During the evening, he receives speeds in the 7-9 Mbps range.
Alpinism
Oct 26, 09:07 AM
I am waiting for a quad core MP and a copy of FCS. I hope they make it before Xmas. THen, it would indeed be a glorious Xmas.
The move to intel shifts Apple paradigm for good. Expect your Apple computers and gadgets to be absolete much2 sooner
The move to intel shifts Apple paradigm for good. Expect your Apple computers and gadgets to be absolete much2 sooner
AppliedVisual
Oct 26, 10:42 PM
[B][COLOR="DarkOrange"]Noone has mentioned the FSB concerns yet, which is weird.
Well I've mentioned it... In the other 8-cor Mac Pro thread. And I've brought it up more than once.
Yes, this should be a concern and those doing bandwidth-intense operations may find the FSB to be a bottleneck at times. Unless I've missed something along the way, the Mac Pro has an independent bus for each CPU, meaning that each quad core chip will get it's 1333MHz of data flow. I'll have to go check on this... If Apple is indeed stuffing two CPUs onto a single 1333MHz FSB, then there will be a serious problem. Because if I start running into bandwidth issues feeding multiple cores streams of HD video or animation frames, I'm not going to be happy.
Well I've mentioned it... In the other 8-cor Mac Pro thread. And I've brought it up more than once.
Yes, this should be a concern and those doing bandwidth-intense operations may find the FSB to be a bottleneck at times. Unless I've missed something along the way, the Mac Pro has an independent bus for each CPU, meaning that each quad core chip will get it's 1333MHz of data flow. I'll have to go check on this... If Apple is indeed stuffing two CPUs onto a single 1333MHz FSB, then there will be a serious problem. Because if I start running into bandwidth issues feeding multiple cores streams of HD video or animation frames, I'm not going to be happy.
SPUY767
Mar 19, 08:31 PM
You are one of the few moral and sane individuals who I see on this server. People who see beyond this robin hood mentality that permeates the computer world like a plague. People don't seem to feel as though they have done anything wrong when they have stolen something that is not physical.
Now I won't sit here and claim that I have never ever stolen music or software. I have downloaded my fair share of warez in my day, we all have. To deny that is to deny the very thing that makes us human. Ok, maybe not, but I'm not going to play holier than thou. Software companies, however get it, where movie companies don't. Software companies understand that they aren't Losing money by having software pirated (with the exception of game publishers, and office style software.) The fact is, that five to ten years ago, when i warezed it up, and stole a copy of say, Photoshop, and FinalCutPro 1, the software company was not losing money. Why? Because there is no way that I would have purchased the software did I not steal it. It was a zero sum game then. Now, that I use Photoshop, FCP, DVD SP, and a load of other expensive apps, (My computer is worth a third of what the software installed on it is,) for business purposes, I purchase them legally. Most businesses do the same thing.
Recording companies should realize the same thing. I have never downloaded a song that i would have purchased could I not have downloaded it. If I like something enough to buy it, the I buy it. Recodring companies don't lose that much to file sharing for that very reason. People download music as a preview a majority of the time. Give the rate faeces that the recording companies want to release, thank god for that ability too. My rant is over, I'm getting bored.
Peace
Now I won't sit here and claim that I have never ever stolen music or software. I have downloaded my fair share of warez in my day, we all have. To deny that is to deny the very thing that makes us human. Ok, maybe not, but I'm not going to play holier than thou. Software companies, however get it, where movie companies don't. Software companies understand that they aren't Losing money by having software pirated (with the exception of game publishers, and office style software.) The fact is, that five to ten years ago, when i warezed it up, and stole a copy of say, Photoshop, and FinalCutPro 1, the software company was not losing money. Why? Because there is no way that I would have purchased the software did I not steal it. It was a zero sum game then. Now, that I use Photoshop, FCP, DVD SP, and a load of other expensive apps, (My computer is worth a third of what the software installed on it is,) for business purposes, I purchase them legally. Most businesses do the same thing.
Recording companies should realize the same thing. I have never downloaded a song that i would have purchased could I not have downloaded it. If I like something enough to buy it, the I buy it. Recodring companies don't lose that much to file sharing for that very reason. People download music as a preview a majority of the time. Give the rate faeces that the recording companies want to release, thank god for that ability too. My rant is over, I'm getting bored.
Peace
goobot
May 5, 05:38 PM
and obviously have either never made any calls or do not live in a major metropolitan city like NY.
i live in one of att's top 3 markets and havent dropped a call for a year. and both me and my dad (who also doesnt drop calls) are on the phone a lot.
for all the people saying they have a bad signal just in your house its your own fault. not att's.
also to this chart thing i bet most of the people on that chart are att haters just cause the iphone is att only. FYI dont get a phone if its service doesnt work near you. you have no right to complain if there are other carriers to choice.
i live in one of att's top 3 markets and havent dropped a call for a year. and both me and my dad (who also doesnt drop calls) are on the phone a lot.
for all the people saying they have a bad signal just in your house its your own fault. not att's.
also to this chart thing i bet most of the people on that chart are att haters just cause the iphone is att only. FYI dont get a phone if its service doesnt work near you. you have no right to complain if there are other carriers to choice.
No comments:
Post a Comment