Re: Possible to extract high resolution b/w from a raw file?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by David Dyer-Bennet, May 20, 2011.

  1. On Thursday, May 19, 2011 2:56:23 PM UTC-5, Mxsmanic wrote:
    > David Dyer-Bennet writes:
    >
    > > Um, no. Solaris supports fully NT-compatible ACLs on ZFS filesystems.

    >
    > Then it's not standard UNIX. There are many non-standard UNIX systems with
    > enhanced security, although it's unusual for it to approach NT-level security.


    Whoa; just what does "standard Unix" mean to you, then? Apparently,
    something completely different than what it means to the rest of us.
    Solaris is the main commercial Unix system in the market.

    > NT applies security ACLs to a lot more than just file systems.


    SELINUX controls a lot of things too; mostly in more detail than I
    care about.

    > Multics did even better. Unfortunately, security doesn't sell.


    The purpose of security is to interfere with doing things. Naturally,
    if the people who are primarily interested in doing things get
    to choose, security isn't a top priority.
    David Dyer-Bennet, May 20, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Sun, 22 May 2011 21:09:39 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:

    > The 'Single Unix Specification' is defines a moving target drawn up by a
    > self-appointed outside group attempting to rationalize what was already
    > there.


    That's how most standards work. Rationalizing what is there works a lot
    better than inventing new stuff with no experience to back it up.

    Cheers,

    --
    Andrew
    Andrew Reilly, May 22, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. David Dyer-Bennet

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> wrote:

    > > Why bother posting such silly statements?

    >
    > Why bother asking questions like this with no refutation or counterpoint?


    where's the proof for the crap you've said?
    nospam, May 23, 2011
    #3
  4. On Sun, 22 May 2011 15:28:43 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

    > Andrew Reilly writes:
    >
    >> That's how most standards work. Rationalizing what is there works a
    >> lot better than inventing new stuff with no experience to back it up.

    >
    > If the founders of UNIX followed that philosophy, there wouldn't be any
    > UNIX.
    >
    > Rationalizing what is there is for people who don't want to change, even
    > when the change would be an improvement.


    Sure: the only point of having a "standard" is so that disparate groups
    can rely on certain (existing) capabilities. If you don't have disparate
    groups, such as when you're starting a new thing, or are the only vendor
    of the thing, then you don't need to be constrained by a standard. Once
    new features or new things have been proven and become popular, and are
    used by large groups, it's time to standardise so that the many users of
    such standardised things can get useful work done. Works the same for
    operating systems, languages, television broadcasts and plain old nuts
    and bolts.

    Of course the nuts and bolts example reinforces Tannenbaum's comment:
    "The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose
    from."

    Cheers,

    --
    Andrew
    Andrew Reilly, May 23, 2011
    #4
  5. David Dyer-Bennet

    DanP Guest

    On May 22, 2:27 pm, Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    > Floyd L. Davidson writes:
    > > Sure, but Windows didn't even exist back in the 1970's... which is what
    > > you are talking about!

    >
    > Yes, but the 1970s were forty years ago. Windows security has evolved, UNIX
    > security has not.


    I would not think for a moment to run my Windows laptop without a
    third party antivirus.
    No need for that for the one running Linux.

    DanP
    DanP, May 23, 2011
    #5
  6. David Dyer-Bennet

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> wrote:

    > > I would not think for a moment to run my Windows laptop without a
    > > third party antivirus.

    >
    > I've done that for as long as Windows has existed. In fact, for most of
    > Windows' history, I've run with no antivirus at all. AV products often cause
    > more problems than they solve.


    bullshit. you're either incredibly lucky or a liar.
    nospam, May 23, 2011
    #6
  7. David Dyer-Bennet

    DanP Guest

    On May 23, 9:56 pm, Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    > DanP writes:
    > > I would not think for a moment to run my Windows laptop without a
    > > third party antivirus.

    >
    > I've done that for as long as Windows has existed. In fact, for most of
    > Windows' history, I've run with no antivirus at all. AV products often cause
    > more problems than they solve.


    You go against MS advice, the company that makes Windows. Windows
    security relies on third party AV.
    And in doing so you have no way of knowing your system is clean.


    DanP
    DanP, May 24, 2011
    #7
  8. David Dyer-Bennet

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <3dad5da1-8929-40c0-99ce-c78c94ca9dc6
    @c1g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, says...
    >
    > On May 23, 9:56 pm, Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    > > DanP writes:
    > > > I would not think for a moment to run my Windows laptop without a
    > > > third party antivirus.

    > >
    > > I've done that for as long as Windows has existed. In fact, for most of
    > > Windows' history, I've run with no antivirus at all. AV products often cause
    > > more problems than they solve.

    >
    > You go against MS advice, the company that makes Windows. Windows
    > security relies on third party AV.
    > And in doing so you have no way of knowing your system is clean.


    Windows security does not rely on _any_ kind of antivirus.

    Lock the system down and the damage that malware can do is very limited.

    However Microsoft provides their own antivirus at no charge if you
    really want to have one.
    J. Clarke, May 24, 2011
    #8
  9. David Dyer-Bennet

    DanP Guest

    On May 24, 3:42 pm, "J. Clarke" <> wrote:
    > In article <3dad5da1-8929-40c0-99ce-c78c94ca9dc6
    > @c1g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, says...
    >
    >
    >
    > > On May 23, 9:56 pm, Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    > > > DanP writes:
    > > > > I would not think for a moment to run my Windows laptop without a
    > > > > third party antivirus.

    >
    > > > I've done that for as long as Windows has existed. In fact, for most of
    > > > Windows' history, I've run with no antivirus at all. AV products often cause
    > > > more problems than they solve.

    >
    > > You go against MS advice, the company that makes Windows. Windows
    > > security relies on third party AV.
    > > And in doing so you have no way of knowing your system is clean.

    >
    > Windows security does not rely on _any_ kind of antivirus.


    So you don't need an antivirus with Windows.

    > Lock the system down and the damage that malware can do is very limited.


    Doh. I want to use my computer online. And wouldn't an AV protect
    against the malware?

    > However Microsoft provides their own antivirus at no charge if you
    > really want to have one.


    Why did MS bother making an AV if you don't need one? And why do they
    recommend having one "to protect your PC"?
    See http://www.microsoft.com/security/pc-security/protect-pc.aspx

    If you don't run an AV on Windows you have no way of knowing you run a
    clean system (unless you say offline but science you re reading this
    that is not the case).


    DanP
    DanP, May 25, 2011
    #9
  10. David Dyer-Bennet

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On May 24, 3:42 pm, "J. Clarke" <> wrote:
    > In article <3dad5da1-8929-40c0-99ce-c78c94ca9dc6
    > @c1g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, says...
    >
    >
    >
    > > On May 23, 9:56 pm, Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    > > > DanP writes:
    > > > > I would not think for a moment to run my Windows laptop without a
    > > > > third party antivirus.

    >
    > > > I've done that for as long as Windows has existed. In fact, for most of
    > > > Windows' history, I've run with no antivirus at all. AV products often cause
    > > > more problems than they solve.

    >
    > > You go against MS advice, the company that makes Windows. Windows
    > > security relies on third party AV.
    > > And in doing so you have no way of knowing your system is clean.

    >
    > Windows security does not rely on _any_ kind of antivirus.


    So why does it throw up a warning saying the system isn't protected
    and suggest you turn on or buy antivirus software ?


    > Lock the system down and the damage that malware can do is very limited.


    Lock it down so you can't use it.....brilliant idea
    Or get updates, or surf the web for camera specs prices, email,
    porn ;-)

    >
    > However Microsoft provides their own antivirus at no charge if you
    > really want to have one.


    Which is why anti-virus companies sell so many anti-virus products.
    They have tried pushing them on Mac users, but mac user know they
    aren't much use
    and using them will most likely cause more problems than they would
    solve.
    Whisky-dave, May 25, 2011
    #10
  11. David Dyer-Bennet

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <911ec499-45cf-4560-b246-
    >, says...
    >
    > On May 24, 3:42 pm, "J. Clarke" <> wrote:
    > > In article <3dad5da1-8929-40c0-99ce-c78c94ca9dc6
    > > @c1g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, says...
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > > On May 23, 9:56 pm, Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    > > > > DanP writes:
    > > > > > I would not think for a moment to run my Windows laptop without a
    > > > > > third party antivirus.

    > >
    > > > > I've done that for as long as Windows has existed. In fact, for most of
    > > > > Windows' history, I've run with no antivirus at all. AV products often cause
    > > > > more problems than they solve.

    > >
    > > > You go against MS advice, the company that makes Windows. Windows
    > > > security relies on third party AV.
    > > > And in doing so you have no way of knowing your system is clean.

    > >
    > > Windows security does not rely on _any_ kind of antivirus.

    >
    > So you don't need an antivirus with Windows.


    Not if you manage the security properly.

    > > Lock the system down and the damage that malware can do is very limited.

    >
    > Doh. I want to use my computer online. And wouldn't an AV protect
    > against the malware?


    Not as well as locking it down properly. Locking the machine down
    doesn't prevent going online any more than locking down a Mac or a Unix
    box prevents going online. The big difference is that Macs and Unix
    boxen generally come locked down. It's an uphill battle getting Windows
    users to accept the notion of running from a user account and only using
    administrator privilege for system maintenance.

    > > However Microsoft provides their own antivirus at no charge if you
    > > really want to have one.

    >
    > Why did MS bother making an AV if you don't need one?


    Because people want one and they get criticized for the lack.

    > And why do they
    > recommend having one "to protect your PC"?
    > See http://www.microsoft.com/security/pc-security/protect-pc.aspx


    You'd have to ask Microsoft. That pages says "how to _boost_ your
    malware defense". And an AV will certainly "boost your malware
    defense". Whether it actually _needs_ boosting is another story.

    The "choose from a list of Microsoft Partners" may be part of the story.

    > If you don't run an AV on Windows you have no way of knowing you run a
    > clean system (unless you say offline but science you re reading this
    > that is not the case).


    If you don't run an AV on OS/X, Linux, or Plan 9 you have no way of )
    _knowing_ you run a clean system either.

    For that matter if you _do_ run an AV you _still_ don't _know_ that your
    system is clean, only that the AV can't detect any problems.

    Personally I've had more problems caused by the AV than I ever did from
    malware, so I quit using it. If I think there is a problem, then I may
    run a scan.
    J. Clarke, May 25, 2011
    #11
  12. David Dyer-Bennet

    DanP Guest

    On May 25, 12:21 pm, "J. Clarke" <> wrote:
    > > > However Microsoft provides their own antivirus at no charge if you
    > > > really want to have one.

    >
    > > Why did MS bother making an AV if you don't need one?

    >
    > Because people want one and they get criticized for the lack.


    I have seen a computer having Windows reinstalled while having an
    internet connection, then one hour later after installing the firewall
    and AV a virus was found.
    After that the person doing the reinstall unplugged the net cable,
    formatted the drive, reinstalled Windows, firewall and AV from the
    same source, system was clean. The system did the update online after
    that and everything was fine.

    > > And why do they
    > > recommend having one "to protect your PC"?
    > > Seehttp://www.microsoft.com/security/pc-security/protect-pc.aspx

    >
    > You'd have to ask Microsoft.  That pages says "how to _boost_ your
    > malware defense".  And an AV will certainly "boost your malware
    > defense".  Whether it actually _needs_ boosting is another story.


    "How to boost your malware defense and protect your PC". I did not
    talk about boosting and my quote is ignored by you while changing the
    subject.

    > The "choose from a list of Microsoft Partners" may be part of the story.  
    >
    > > If you don't run an AV on Windows you have no way of knowing you run a
    > > clean system (unless you say offline but science you re reading this
    > > that is not the case).

    >
    > If you don't run an AV on OS/X, Linux, or Plan 9 you have no way of )
    > _knowing_ you run a clean system either.


    I do, for a Linux virus to take control of the system it needs the
    user to type in the root pwd.
    It never happened to me to be asked to do it while running a program.

    If Windows is so secure how come there are so many viruses/trojans out
    there on Windows boxes?

    I do internet banking on Windows. An AV is a must.


    DanP
    DanP, May 25, 2011
    #12
  13. DanP <> wrote:

    > If you don't run an AV on Windows you have no way of knowing you run a
    > clean system


    You cannot know that even if you have and use AV software.
    See the halting problem.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 25, 2011
    #13
  14. Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    > Andrew Reilly writes:


    >> If you don't have disparate
    >> groups, such as when you're starting a new thing, or are the only vendor
    >> of the thing, then you don't need to be constrained by a standard.


    > It's the other way around: you have a de facto standard, to which everyone
    > already conforms.


    That must be why MS changes it's formats and so on every now
    and then.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 25, 2011
    #14
  15. David Dyer-Bennet

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> wrote:

    > > I have seen a computer having Windows reinstalled while having an
    > > internet connection, then one hour later after installing the firewall
    > > and AV a virus was found.

    >
    > You don't need an Internet connection to install Windows.


    how do you get the updates? mail a self-addressed stamped envelope to
    microsoft?
    nospam, May 26, 2011
    #15
  16. David Dyer-Bennet

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <250520112030443396%>,
    d says...
    >
    > In article <>, Mxsmanic
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > > > I have seen a computer having Windows reinstalled while having an
    > > > internet connection, then one hour later after installing the firewall
    > > > and AV a virus was found.

    > >
    > > You don't need an Internet connection to install Windows.

    >
    > how do you get the updates? mail a self-addressed stamped envelope to
    > microsoft?


    I'm curious as to whether a virus was found or whether a false positive
    was found. I've seen crapware antivirus programs that show CAD drawings
    as containing a virus.

    In any case, one logs in to a user account, downloads updates, then logs
    in as administrator and installs them. And any virus can do little
    damage if it's not run from an administrator account.
    J. Clarke, May 26, 2011
    #16
  17. David Dyer-Bennet

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, J.
    Clarke <> wrote:

    > > > > I have seen a computer having Windows reinstalled while having an
    > > > > internet connection, then one hour later after installing the firewall
    > > > > and AV a virus was found.
    > > >
    > > > You don't need an Internet connection to install Windows.

    > >
    > > how do you get the updates? mail a self-addressed stamped envelope to
    > > microsoft?

    >
    > I'm curious as to whether a virus was found or whether a false positive
    > was found. I've seen crapware antivirus programs that show CAD drawings
    > as containing a virus.
    >
    > In any case, one logs in to a user account, downloads updates, then logs
    > in as administrator and installs them. And any virus can do little
    > damage if it's not run from an administrator account.


    that requires an internet connection.
    nospam, May 26, 2011
    #17
  18. Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    > Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:


    >> That must be why MS changes it's formats and so on every now
    >> and then.


    > Which formats?


    e.g. Office.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 26, 2011
    #18
  19. J. Clarke <> wrote:
    > In article <911ec499-45cf-4560-b246-


    >> So you don't need an antivirus with Windows.


    > Not if you manage the security properly.


    Of course, an embedded Windows (embedded with an axe in the
    mainboard, that is) is secure, but rather unresponsive.

    How do you deal with the very common usage case of downloading
    some program from the internet?

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 26, 2011
    #19
  20. Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    > DanP writes:


    >> And in doing so you have no way of knowing your system is clean.


    > Yes, I do. I use my brain, so I don't need AV.


    Your brain is incapable of deciding if the machine is
    infected. (So is AV software, but it's faster and more
    accurate.)

    BTW, how about Outlook preview? Is it really fixed nowadays?

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 26, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. bob
    Replies:
    66
    Views:
    1,704
    J. Clarke
    Jul 3, 2011
  2. David Dyer-Bennet

    Re: Possible to extract high resolution b/w from a raw file?

    David Dyer-Bennet, May 10, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    243
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    May 21, 2011
  3. David Dyer-Bennet

    Re: Possible to extract high resolution b/w from a raw file?

    David Dyer-Bennet, May 10, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    220
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    May 21, 2011
  4. David Dyer-Bennet

    Re: Possible to extract high resolution b/w from a raw file?

    David Dyer-Bennet, May 10, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    623
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Jun 8, 2011
  5. nospam
    Replies:
    180
    Views:
    2,703
    John Turco
    Jul 15, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page