It must just be me, but the Apple users around me are routinely more knowledgable about computers than the average Windows users around me.
In fact, most Apple users around me are developers or otherwise professionals whose main tool is a computer, while most Windows users around me have had their XP box for the last decade and use it to occasionally browse the web and download a virus or two.

I know that I'm probably biased due to my work and people I meet through it, but man, do I hate the generalization that Windows users are somehow the better computer users.

There you go, even better. :)

Oh darn, I'll feed the troll...

OK, please elaborate how installing an application by simply copying the executable into a location where all executables are stored is insecure. Is there an exploit that has been facilitated by this that would have been impossible otherwise? /Applications is not a system folder BTW. The system is in /System, and /Library. /Applications is a location to install applications, nothing more, nothing less.

True. Anybody with half a brain knew this of course. It was merely time for the practical proof.
From here on Apple will have to proof itself in how well it does or doesn't respond to such incidents.
For its first trial by fire, it didn't receive very high marks so far.

This! I wish I had mod points. Apparently long rants are more popular than actually trotting out the real details. Apple's In-App Purchase is really rather carefully designed. There are limited ways in which developers can charge users. These have to be explicitly, individually registered with and approved by Apple. They are displayed in the App Store before you even download the app. The item you are about to buy and its price are clearly displayed before you purchase.

Apple could hardly make it any more explicit you're about to pay money for something short of you needing to fax in an order sheet.

Hint: North Korea and South Korea do not have the same kind of relationship as North Dakota and South Dakota.

If you mean to say that the sun and the earth didn't exist back then and that hence the "year" didn't exist, then that's nonsense. A "year" is a somewhat well defined length of time, which applies just as much now as it did then, regardless of when that length of time was first defined or when the ingredients for defining it came into existence.

Now, if you'd be talking about whether the length of time we define as a "year" nowadays is the same now as it was back then, and whether time is a universal constant at all throughout the universe... you may be onto something.

Who said it's undesirable?

Oh right, this is KeepYourRemoteFingersAwayDot, sorry.

Say what now? Precaution against what?
And browsers cache assets transferred over HTTPS just fine.

Well, you are wrong. At least as a general statement. :)

It prevents caching by proxies, but it works fine with regular client/server HTTP caching.

I actually wouldn't mind typing that in or dictating it.

msblows://microsoft.com

Mmmm, braiiiiiiins...

Sorry, you were saying?

Well, they could have gone with "Hypertext Transfer Protocol 2.0 Speed and Mobility Express Professional Server 2013 Edition for Workgroups" instead, or httpsmepew:// for short. I think "S&M" is already a pretty good try for them.

I really like that SPDY insists on SSL secured connections. This is what we should be moving towards and having it forced upon us in the next HTTP revision is a great step. But of course Microsoft tries to be backwards compatible, as they always are.

I say SPDY for modern devices, HTTP 1.1 for the foreseeable future for low powered devices. It still works fine, you know? And by the time HTTP 1.1 is retired, there will be no more devices so underpowered they can't establish a SPDY connection. For the love of god, drop legacy when you get the chance!

Oui, c'est suoirálih.