Baerinin - Slashdot User

Apple Patches Massive Holes In OS X 246

Posted by timothy on Wednesday January 20, 2010 @05:23PM from the well-it-wouldn't-be-polite-to-patch-windows dept.

Trailrunner7 writes with this snippet from ThreatPost: "Apple's first Mac OS X security update for 2010 is out, providing cover for at least 12 serious vulnerabilities. The update, rated critical, plugs security holes that could lead to code execution vulnerabilities if a Mac user is tricked into opening audio files or surfing to a rigged Web site." Hit the link for a list of the highlights among these fixes.

Comment Re:Well if you read what I wrote (Score 1) 497

by Baerinin on Sunday November 18, 2007 @02:59PM (#21399295) Attached to: IT's Love-Hate Relationship With Laptops

So now you're telling me that I don't know what my own preferences are? The fact is that you decided to ignore what I was looking for - because for some reason you decided it wasn't as important as what you thought I should be looking for.

First off, I would like to apologize for my earlier comment. I didn't appreciate the "fapping" or fanboi commentary, and my reply was quite bitchy. I usually try to be polite in my discourse, but failed quite spectacularly this time around.

You're right. I did not appropriately address your concerns, and when you pointed that out, I merely made the situation worse by responding in the fashion that I did.

I was not suggesting you purchase a Macintosh. I mentioned the Magsafe because the technology involved seemed to be along the lines of what you were looking for. Clearly that was not the case. I think a person should choose the technology that best serves their needs. Fortunately, there are a wide assortment of technological solutions available, to serve a wide variety of needs.

Hopefully, we can move beyond the disaster that this conversation has been so far, and start anew.

For the record, I have several mini-itx machines. Many lack for power (particularly the VIA ones) although you can get decent power in shuttle which is fairly luggable. Those are great for if you need to drag a small machine from place to place, provided that the keyboard, mouse, LCD, etc are all available. Certainly it's not convenient to lug all of those with you.

True. Wouldn't it be remarkable if such a setup was available in public places? You could bring your mini-itx (or smaller) computer with you, sync it up with available peripherals, and get on with your business. Perhaps in conjunction with something like this.

It would be a great setup for meetings. Ditch the projector and handouts, and collaborate face to face using editable, digital handouts, and a presentation that would be manipulable by both the presenter and audience. By providing your own mini-computer, you have access to all of your content in a highly portable form, along with any programs needed to run it.

For example, if you were having a product design meeting, instead of just gathering suggestions for changes to the current model, your team could open the drawing in Autocad, and then edit the design right there. When you were finished, you could unplug your computer and get on with your day. Such a setup would really improve productivity, and the minicomputer would be much easier to lug around than a laptop.

Feed Techdirt: SoundExchange Caught Lobbying, Despite Strict Rules Against Using Its Money For (techdirt.com)

From feed by techdirtfeed on Monday August 06, 2007 @10:53AM

SoundExchange, which is a "non-profit" spinoff of the RIAA is supposed to be a neutral party, simply in charge of collecting certain royalties and distributing it to the artists. Of course, things aren't always the way they're supposed to be. After all, SoundExchange is famous for having trouble finding many of the musicians it's supposed to pay -- which isn't all that surprising since it gets to keep the money that goes unclaimed. However, part of the law that governs SoundExchange's existence makes very clear that the organization may only use its money for three things: administration of collecting and distributing royalties, settling disputes about the royalties and licensing and enforcement. One thing clearly not on that list is building a PR campaign and lobbying Congress to expand its ability to collect royalties from other sources. However, Eliot Van Buskirk over at Wired has discovered that's exactly what SoundExchange is doing, and it appears to be breaking the law.

You'll recall the recent stories about the music industry claiming that radio stations are getting a free ride in not having to pay musicians' royalties, despite the fact that, for years, the record labels felt they needed to pay the radio stations just to get airtime. This came out as a new lobbying group and PR campaign kicked off -- including the ridiculous assertion that radio makes people buy less music. It turns out that the group behind this lobbying effort, musicFIRST, happens to be funded in part by SoundExchange. It makes sense why SoundExchange would do this. After all, it would be in charge of collecting those royalties. However, the law seems pretty clear that SoundExchange can't use its money for lobbying (especially lobbying to expand its own power). Van Buskirk got the run around from SoundExchange on this, with the executive director ignoring the question and simply repeating the laughable statement that radio stations (who are promoting the music for the record labels) are somehow getting "a free ride." A lawyer for SoundExchange then tries to explain the situation away by saying that the royalty money being used for lobbying was authorized to be used this way by SoundExchange members. That's like saying it's okay that they broke the law, because they gave themselves permission to break the law. Very convincing.

Slashdot Top Deals