You are getting completely wrong, which we all do from time to time, but your smugness just makes you look stupid.
The OPs point is that if something is $50 in the US, it will probably be €50 in the EU. So, they ignore the currency rate, and charge as *if* $1 = €1, when in reality, we are paying more.
In otherwords:
pay more, for the same thing.
Is the OPs point!
The absence of a trim method is not a DOM problem: I should be a method available on String.
As for the lack of this consistency, this is due how Javascript scopes references to methods. Being able to change this behaviour can be handy at times, but often not the expected behaviour.
Read http://www.alistapart.com/articles/getoutbindingsituations/ to see how apply/call can help set-up the correct binding for this and a method.
JavaScript behaves this way to support prototypal inheritance.
Go to Options and change Comment Post Mode to Plain Old Text.
That will take care of the newlines (inserting <br
Oh, I understand. You jumped straight into a thread without understanding what it is about.
You try to discredit me through attacking my character, instead of attacking my premise. I don't think you even understand my premise.
I never suggested there was less malware for Windows than OS X (cause obviously Windows is littered with it). I never suggested to ignore bugs (where did you get this from?). All I suggested was that Windows Vista/7 has many security features built in that Mac OS X does not. And it is of my opinion, for example, a person surfing with IE8 in Vista/7 is more secure than that of a person surfing Safari on OS X. However, I still think you are more likely going to be targeted on a Windows platform than an Apple one - so while the security of product might be better or on par with Mac OS X, it will be more likely of the 2 to have malware.
Being a target does not make a product less secure, but rather makes security problems more likely to arise.
I do think it's a baseless and obviously biased claim when people say Mac OS X security is fantastic, and in the same breath say Windows is so far behind in this department. This people are usually Mac fanboy's or M$ bashers.
You, I think, are just an idiot.
If you read more you'll find that this isn't the default setting, so "out of the box" this doesn't happen. So yeah, you're talking BS once again.
Do you understand what this bug does? It causes an infinite loop. It's a DoS. A silly one to let creep into the system, but not the most critical of problems.
Attacks will be most limited to those within the LAN (as having 139 or 445 accessible outside of the network would be strange).
Is this what your argument has descended too? Point out bugs? Do I have a good refute if I show some silly bugs from Mac OS X.
Here is an infinite loop DoS bug that existed in AFP (Apple Filing Protocol): http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2009-0142
Probably should have been caught a lot earlier. And didn't require fuzzing/analysis to find (because it happened naturally in production).
No doubt it does, but you haven't proven anything. You are trying to debase my character, rather than talk about the facts between the 2 platforms.
ASLR is not exactly new (implementations haven't existed since 2001) and I never suggested that it was the be-all of security. It's another layer - but a good one to have on a system.
ASLR has been enabled by default in the linux kernel for a while, and has been in Windows since Vista.
Mac OS X has a rather broken implementation that is practically useless. They are not the first ones to have a faulty implementation, but instead of addressing it they decided to ignore it.
If you don't see how ASLR is important I can't really convince otherwise. Again, it's not the end-all, but it does create a large stumble block for reliable execution of memory corruption bugs.
I know you know you haven't got much to say due to the lack of anything concrete to say:
If you know what you were talking about you would know IT TAKES A LOT MORE than playing about with memory to make a system secure and the MS systems do not do very well in those areas - thus a very silly lie.
Care to expand on the emphasis? Or are you talking out of your ass. Can you show me how Windows is doing less in these "areas" than Mac OS X, or are you just another fan boy. I have shown where Windows (and other various other operating systems) have a security layer implemented that Mac OS X hasn't. Show me the opposite - where Mac OS X has implemented things that Windows hasn't. I'm guessing you will come back with an unfounded claim about quality (or not come back at all).
Don't get me wrong, there are lot of things I like about OS X (having a decent terminal for one). But I stand by with my disagreement that Mac OS X is inherently more secure platform than new versions of Windows out of the box.
I agree, but that wasn't my point, and that wasn't the OPs point.
To quote the OP:
Now if MS could just shoot for the same level of security that Mac OSX has, out of the box, then we'd be talkin'
Care to expand?
My point is that a remote executable vulnerability on Windows 7/Vista is harder to pull of then on Mac.
I suggest reading about malware and you will understand that there was no point to "debate", just a very silly lie on your part.
Where is my lie?
Your cut and pasted technobabble is relevant in other places but has nothing to do with what you are attempting to make it mean.
Where did I do this. None of what I said was technobabble. It's well documented.
I'd love for you to point out my mistakes, maybe I'll learn something. Be better than condescending reply that really has no substance, and means nothing.
You said that the Mac has no viruses because of low market share. Safari obviously has a correspondintly low market share, thus it must have less vulnerabilities per your own logic. Either that or your logic on this topic is WRONG.
What does that even mean? When did I say anything about the number of vulnerabilities? For all I know IE8 has 10 times that of Safari. What I am saying is that if IE8 get hacked, say buffer overflow, on Windows Vista/7 an attacker is less likely to be able to run shellcode - whether it's return to libc or to their own shellcode - because the locations of these things are randomised (ASLR).
If, however, on Safari I get a buffer overflow I can more easily get the hooks because there is no randomisation of address space layout.
Learn about computer architecture, and common vulnerability types and exploitation techniques.
Second, "these would have allowed worms". NO. You don't get a free pass on this FUD. They either did or did not allow worms. No theoretical "would have".
Okay, many of them did allow worms. The vulnerabilities that allowed for execution of arbitrary code allowed worms.
If you want to learn more, do some reading. I am not addressing you anymore. You didn't even try to debate the point, you just sprouted non-sense.
Yes, no problem.
The fact that OS X has never had a virus or worm (don't know how true this is) doesn't necessary show the platform is secure.
It well know that the scale of market share of Windows VS OS X more than tilts towards Windows. This means, as attacker, Windows is the most profitable to target. Hence we see more exploits.
It's like if I owned one house in Harlem and the other in Luxembourg. The house in Harlem would more than likely being broken into quicker than the on in Luxembourg. This is external to the houses: it's the environment outside of it.
Botnets are not only comprised mostly of Windows machines running IE
Safari has had plenty of bugs (if we are comparing browsers too), and these would have allowed Worms quite easily.
Could you tell me, how many bugs can you find for IE8 that are being *exploited* on Vista or Windows 7? There was one pre-release (in IE8 beta). Keyword is exploited here, because thanks to ASLR, the vulnerabilties that are being found and exploited on XP are notoriously difficult to exploit on Vista/7.
As for the 80% of virues. How about 8 out of 10 tested. And let's not forget this viruses were just put on the system, which usually come by other means (usually browser exploits - which are covered better in Windows Vista/7 with ASLR than Mac).
ASLR, as well as many other security initiatives, go a long way to protect Vista/7 users from vulnerabilties within Windows itself and 3rd party products that support it. Mac OS X is one of the few platforms that haven't implemented this.
What is the origin of the name? “Ogle” would be a good name for a Go debugger.
So, they'd have to come up with a new name for the debugger... and it probably wouldn't be half as clever!
Ummm... Windows Vista and onwards is more secure out of the box. I mean, Mac OS X hasn't even really implemented ASLR yet. That Mac OS X is more secure is a common misconception.
Read this: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/hack-windows-security-snow-leopard,8704.html
Charlier Miller covers why he thinks Windows is more secure than Mac OS X.
Why alt-f-s when command-s will do?
That was only a simplified example. Not a very good one (as everyone can remember Ctrl+S). But some applications on both platforms can potentially have a lot of shortcuts.
Every single command you use frequently has or can be assigned a command-something combination (or control-something). So things like open, close, print, save are always assigned the same command key sequence across all apps.
Which is a good thing, but not a replacement. There are some applications where the amount of shortcuts are massive. I don't want to remember them all. I don't want to have to configure applications all that much either. This means I have to do it on new machines too. Personalisation is handy, but I want something out of the box.
As was said earlier in the discussion, OS X and Windows come from very different philosophies. You speak of how you want to explore the menu. On OS X that's absolutely wrong.
Which works for most applications, but not all. Word processing (like Word) and graphics (like Photoshop) often have many options. Most will be quickly accessible, but others won't be. I think the visual cues given from the Alt system is very handy, and allows jumping into applications much easier. The contextual switch is less of a burden. It might be a small thing, but it annoys me and probably other power-users who like relying on the keyboard (although, I could be alone on this).
A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson
