Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #68163 > unrolled thread

SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-01-08 12:44 -0800
    Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-08 15:57 -0500
      Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-01-08 14:31 -0800
        Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-08 23:37 +0000
          Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-01-08 19:05 -0800
        Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-08 21:06 -0500
          Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-01-08 19:11 -0800
            Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-08 23:45 -0500
            Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-09 12:45 +0000
              Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-01-09 09:14 -0800
                Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-01-09 17:18 +0000
                  Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-01-09 09:27 -0800
                    Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-01-09 17:36 +0000
                      Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-01-09 09:49 -0800
                        Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-01-09 18:23 +0000
                          Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-01-09 12:21 -0800
                            Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-01-09 23:22 +0000
                              Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-01-09 15:46 -0800
                                Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-01-09 19:48 -0800
                                  Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-01-09 23:15 -0800
                                    Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2015-01-10 22:37 +1100
                                      Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-01-10 07:29 -0800
                                        Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2015-01-11 07:16 +1100
                                          Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-01-10 13:11 -0800
                                            Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2015-01-11 11:52 +1100
                                              Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-01-10 21:25 -0800
                                                Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2015-01-11 17:49 +1100
                                            Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-01-10 21:20 -0700
                                              Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-01-10 21:25 -0800
                                                Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-01-10 22:36 -0700
                                                  Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-01-11 09:17 -0800
                                                    Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-01-11 12:31 -0500
                                                      Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-01-11 11:32 -0800
                                                    Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2015-01-12 08:01 +1100
                                                      Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-01-11 14:25 -0800
                                  Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-01-10 15:22 +0000
                                    Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2015-01-11 13:06 +0100
                                      Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-01-11 11:28 -0800
                          Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-01-10 13:24 -0500
            Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2015-01-09 08:13 -0800
            Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> - 2015-01-10 11:55 -0500
              Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-01-10 09:21 -0800
                Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> - 2015-01-10 14:26 -0500
                  Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-11 00:10 -0500
                    Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2015-01-11 17:43 +1100
                      Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-11 01:46 -0500
                        Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2015-01-11 17:54 +1100
                          Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-11 01:57 -0500
                    Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> - 2015-01-12 00:28 -0500
                      Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-13 01:40 +0000
                        Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> - 2015-01-14 13:53 -0500
                          Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2015-01-15 07:03 +1100
                            Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> - 2015-01-15 00:33 -0500
                              Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2015-01-16 07:02 +1100
                          Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-17 02:47 +0000
                            Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> - 2015-01-17 00:17 -0500
                  Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked Aldo Raine <apache@scalpem.net> - 2015-01-11 16:31 -0500
                    Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-11 21:51 +0000
                    Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-11 23:12 +0000
              Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked Aldo Raine <apache@scalpem.net> - 2015-01-11 17:06 -0500
            Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2015-01-11 12:55 +0100
              Re: SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-01-15 15:15 -0500

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#68163 — SundayReview - How My Mom Got Hacked

A couple of friends have brought the NYTimes Sunday Review article, How 
My Mom Got Hacked to my attention:

	http://tinyurl.com/km8taol

All these folks are converts to Apple over the last 6 years or so and 
sadly consider me some kinda expert, which I clearly am not.  In any 
case my response to "Mac's are vulnerable too!", regardless the topic 
of conversation, I invariably respond that once I find the boogey man 
among my friends or online cohorts I too will believe it.

Why would this variety of hack, ransomware, Cryptoware 2.0, be any more 
likely to plague Macs than any other virus out there, and by that I 
mean not at all? 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#68164

In article <2015010812444699137-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:

> Why would this variety of hack, ransomware, Cryptoware 2.0, be any more 
> likely to plague Macs than any other virus out there, and by that I 
> mean not at all? 

it's less likely on macs, but regardless, it's nothing more than an
annoyance.

anyone who values their data has backups (likely multiple backups), so
all they need to do is restore from before the encryption occurred and
the problem is solved. time machine makes this exceptionally easy to
do. they might lose a few hours of productivity but that's about the
extent of it.

those without backups do not place a value on their data, so if their
drive is encrypted, nothing of value was lost. reformat and problem
solved there too.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68165

On 2015-01-08 20:57:22 +0000, nospam said:

> In article <2015010812444699137-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> 
>> Why would this variety of hack, ransomware, Cryptoware 2.0, be any more
>> likely to plague Macs than any other virus out there, and by that I
>> mean not at all?
> 
> it's less likely on macs, but regardless, it's nothing more than an
> annoyance.
> 
> ...so all they need to do is restore from before the encryption occurred and
> the problem is solved. time machine makes this exceptionally easy to
> do.

I let Time Machine back up my machine on a daily basis, but doesn't 
this imply that no drive other than the bootdrive is capable of being 
"ransomed"?  Why wouldn't my Time Machine drive be exempt?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68166

On 2015-01-08, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>
> I let Time Machine back up my machine on a daily basis, but doesn't 
> this imply that no drive other than the bootdrive is capable of being 
> "ransomed"?  Why wouldn't my Time Machine drive be exempt?

I haven't seen any reports that Macs are being exploited by cryptowares.
At best, they hijack your web browser through simple Javascript tricks,
which is cleared easily by resetting Safari:

<http://www.networkworld.com/article/2168232/network-security/fbi-ransomware-spotted-on-mac-os-x.html>

Hardly anything worth fretting so much about. As others have suggested,
you're covered by having a good backup plan. Relax.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68168

On 2015-01-08 23:37:02 +0000, Jolly Roger said:

> Hardly anything worth fretting so much about.

"So much"?  I'm not fretting in the least.

> As others have suggested, you're covered by having a good backup plan. Relax.

I am relaxed.  Back to topic...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68167

In article <2015010814315028394-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:

> >> Why would this variety of hack, ransomware, Cryptoware 2.0, be any more
> >> likely to plague Macs than any other virus out there, and by that I
> >> mean not at all?
> > 
> > it's less likely on macs, but regardless, it's nothing more than an
> > annoyance.
> > 
> > ...so all they need to do is restore from before the encryption occurred and
> > the problem is solved. time machine makes this exceptionally easy to
> > do.
> 
> I let Time Machine back up my machine on a daily basis, but doesn't 
> this imply that no drive other than the bootdrive is capable of being 
> "ransomed"?  Why wouldn't my Time Machine drive be exempt?

if you use time machine over the network, the drive is not connected
except when backing up. otherwise, there's a risk. you can also use
multiple time machine drives and/or clone the time machine drive
itself.

the point is that if you have a good backup strategy, including offsite
backups, you won't have an issue no matter what happens, whether it's
cryptolocker or your house burns down destroying everything.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68169

On 2015-01-09 02:06:53 +0000, nospam said:

>> I let Time Machine back up my machine on a daily basis, but doesn't
>> this imply that no drive other than the bootdrive is capable of being
>> "ransomed"?  Why wouldn't my Time Machine drive be exempt?
> 
> if you use time machine over the network, the drive is not connected
> except when backing up. otherwise, there's a risk.

Good point.

> you can also use multiple time machine drives and/or clone the time 
> machine drive
> itself.
> 
> the point is that if you have a good backup strategy, including offsite
> backups, you won't have an issue no matter what happens, whether it's
> cryptolocker or your house burns down destroying everything.

I havfe no offsite backup.  I wonder how many Mac users do.

The article (in the godamighty NYTimes, afterall) states that Macs are 
vulnerable.  I have yet to see any argument to validate that.  I 
suppose it's just a knee-jerk reaction to appease Windows users that 
some folk feel continuously obliged to add to any such story "in theory 
this could eventually apply to the Mac as well," as long as we are only 
making theoretical assumptions".  This theory assumes that the security 
crew at Apple decide to take a few years off from work, I guess.

I like the element in the article indicating that when ransomware 
assaults happen on the Mac they'll be asking for more money that they 
ask for Windows ransom. That's taking "theory" and assumptions a bit 
too far, it seems.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68170

In article <2015010819111827641-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:

> > the point is that if you have a good backup strategy, including offsite
> > backups, you won't have an issue no matter what happens, whether it's
> > cryptolocker or your house burns down destroying everything.
> 
> I havfe no offsite backup.  I wonder how many Mac users do.

sadly, not many, because maintaining an up to date offsite backup is a
pain.

the various cloud backup services help, but upload speeds greatly limit
just how much can be uploaded in a reasonable amount of time. some can
be seeded with a hard drive but few users actually do that. still, it's
better than nothing.

offsite protects against fire, flood, theft, etc. if all you're worried
about is cryptolocker, a local backup is fine. 

> The article (in the godamighty NYTimes, afterall) states that Macs are 
> vulnerable.  I have yet to see any argument to validate that.  I 
> suppose it's just a knee-jerk reaction to appease Windows users that 
> some folk feel continuously obliged to add to any such story "in theory 
> this could eventually apply to the Mac as well," as long as we are only 
> making theoretical assumptions".  This theory assumes that the security 
> crew at Apple decide to take a few years off from work, I guess.

there is no reason why it can't happen on a mac, but again, if you have
a backup it's a non-issue. reformat and restore and you're back in
business. it will take a while and certainly is a hassle, but it's not
the end of the world and no reason to pay whatever ransom they're
asking.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68171

Okay, so one time? In band camp? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> was all, like:
> On 2015-01-09 02:06:53 +0000, nospam said:

>>> I let Time Machine back up my machine on a daily basis, but doesn't
>>> this imply that no drive other than the bootdrive is capable of being
>>> "ransomed"?  Why wouldn't my Time Machine drive be exempt?
>> 
>> if you use time machine over the network, the drive is not connected
>> except when backing up. otherwise, there's a risk.

> Good point.

>> you can also use multiple time machine drives and/or clone the time 
>> machine drive
>> itself.
>> 
>> the point is that if you have a good backup strategy, including offsite
>> backups, you won't have an issue no matter what happens, whether it's
>> cryptolocker or your house burns down destroying everything.

> I havfe no offsite backup.  I wonder how many Mac users do.

100% of the ones that care about their data.

> The article (in the godamighty NYTimes, afterall) states that Macs are 
> vulnerable. 

Sadly, the NYT has been a rag for at least a decade.

-- 
I WILL NOT CARVE GODS Bart chalkboard Ep. 8F11

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68173

On 2015-01-09 12:45:13 +0000, Lewis said:

>> The article (in the godamighty NYTimes, afterall) states that Macs are
>> vulnerable.
> 
> Sadly, the NYT has been a rag for at least a decade.

Oh yeah, I read it every morning just to be sure. Too bad there's no 
alternative.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68174

In article <2015010909145949767-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:

>On 2015-01-09 12:45:13 +0000, Lewis said:
>
>>> The article (in the godamighty NYTimes, afterall) states that Macs are
>>> vulnerable.
>> 
>> Sadly, the NYT has been a rag for at least a decade.
>
>Oh yeah, I read it every morning just to be sure. Too bad there's no 
>alternative.

What do you mean "no alternative"?

-- 
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English
is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion,
English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious 
and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."            -- James Nicoll, rasfw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68175

On 2015-01-09 17:18:33 +0000, Tim Streater said:

> In article <2015010909145949767-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-01-09 12:45:13 +0000, Lewis said:
>> 
>>>> The article (in the godamighty NYTimes, afterall) states that Macs are
>>>> vulnerable.
>>> 
>>> Sadly, the NYT has been a rag for at least a decade.
>> 
>> Oh yeah, I read it every morning just to be sure. Too bad there's no 
>> alternative.
> 
> What do you mean "no alternative"?

What do you mean "What do you mean 'no alternative'?"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68176

In article <2015010909270959938-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:

>On 2015-01-09 17:18:33 +0000, Tim Streater said:
>
>> In article <2015010909145949767-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2015-01-09 12:45:13 +0000, Lewis said:
>>> 
>>>>> The article (in the godamighty NYTimes, afterall) states that Macs are
>>>>> vulnerable.
>>>> 
>>>> Sadly, the NYT has been a rag for at least a decade.
>>> 
>>> Oh yeah, I read it every morning just to be sure. Too bad there's no 
>>> alternative.
>> 
>> What do you mean "no alternative"?
>
>What do you mean "What do you mean 'no alternative'?"

Well I can think of eight.

-- 
"People don't buy Microsoft for quality, they buy it for compatibility
with what Bob in accounting bought last year. Trace it back - they buy
Microsoft because the IBM Selectric didn't suck much" - P Seebach, afc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68177

On 2015-01-09 17:36:16 +0000, Tim Streater said:

>>>>> Sadly, the NYT has been a rag for at least a decade.
>>>> 
>>>> Oh yeah, I read it every morning just to be sure. Too bad there's no 
>>>> alternative.
>>> 
>>> What do you mean "no alternative"?
>> 
>> What do you mean "What do you mean 'no alternative'?"
> 
> Well I can think of eight.

I'd be interested to hear what you would consider an alternative for 
your needs.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68178

In article <2015010909490963203-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:

>On 2015-01-09 17:36:16 +0000, Tim Streater said:
>
>>>>>> Sadly, the NYT has been a rag for at least a decade.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Oh yeah, I read it every morning just to be sure. Too bad there's no 
>>>>> alternative.
>>>> 
>>>> What do you mean "no alternative"?
>>> 
>>> What do you mean "What do you mean 'no alternative'?"
>> 
>> Well I can think of eight.
>
>I'd be interested to hear what you would consider an alternative for 
>your needs.

What, to the NYT?

Try:

The Times
The Financial Times
The Independent
The Guardian
The Daily Telegraph

and downmarket:

The Daily Mail
The Daily Express
The Sun
The Daily Mirror

Hmmm, guess I lied: that's nine.

-- 
"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68181

On 2015-01-09 18:23:38 +0000, Tim Streater said:

> In article <2015010909490963203-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-01-09 17:36:16 +0000, Tim Streater said:
>> 
>>>>>>> Sadly, the NYT has been a rag for at least a decade.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Oh yeah, I read it every morning just to be sure. Too bad there's no 
>>>>>> alternative.
>>>>> 
>>>>> What do you mean "no alternative"?
>>>> 
>>>> What do you mean "What do you mean 'no alternative'?"
>>> 
>>> Well I can think of eight.
>> 
>> I'd be interested to hear what you would consider an alternative for 
>> your needs.
> 
> What, to the NYT?
> 
> Try:
> 
> The Times
> The Financial Times
> The Independent
> The Guardian
> The Daily Telegraph
> 
> and downmarket:
> 
> The Daily Mail
> The Daily Express
> The Sun
> The Daily Mirror
> 
> Hmmm, guess I lied: that's nine.

You might have added Christian Science Monitor to get to 10, but it's 
an American publication.

It's a fine list for general news.  By "The Times" I assume you mean 
the LA Times ;-) which I read too for local info that others would 
never provide.  I certainly prefer international from the NYTimes, as 
well as the arts and city sections, weekly book review and magazine. 
British News is not important to me/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68184

In article <2015010912213672730-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:

>On 2015-01-09 18:23:38 +0000, Tim Streater said:
>
>> In article <2015010909490963203-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2015-01-09 17:36:16 +0000, Tim Streater said:
>>> 
>>>>>>>> Sadly, the NYT has been a rag for at least a decade.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Oh yeah, I read it every morning just to be sure. Too bad there's no 
>>>>>>> alternative.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> What do you mean "no alternative"?
>>>>> 
>>>>> What do you mean "What do you mean 'no alternative'?"
>>>> 
>>>> Well I can think of eight.
>>> 
>>> I'd be interested to hear what you would consider an alternative for 
>>> your needs.
>> 
>> What, to the NYT?
>> 
>> Try:
>> 
>> The Times
>> The Financial Times
>> The Independent
>> The Guardian
>> The Daily Telegraph
>> 
>> and downmarket:
>> 
>> The Daily Mail
>> The Daily Express
>> The Sun
>> The Daily Mirror
>> 
>> Hmmm, guess I lied: that's nine.
>
>You might have added Christian Science Monitor to get to 10, but it's 
>an American publication.
>
>It's a fine list for general news.  By "The Times" I assume you mean 
>the LA Times ;-) ...

No, I mean The Times, which has been with us since 1785.

  http://www.thetimes.co.uk

-- 
"Once you adopt the unix paradigm, the variants cease to be a problem - you
bitch, of course, but that's because bitching is fun, unlike M$ OS's, where 
bitching is required to keep your head from exploding." - S Stremler in afc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68185

On 2015-01-09 23:22:41 +0000, Tim Streater said:

> In article <2015010912213672730-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-01-09 18:23:38 +0000, Tim Streater said:
>> 
>>> In article <2015010909490963203-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 2015-01-09 17:36:16 +0000, Tim Streater said:
>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Sadly, the NYT has been a rag for at least a decade.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Oh yeah, I read it every morning just to be sure. Too bad there's no 
>>>>>>>> alternative.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> What do you mean "no alternative"?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> What do you mean "What do you mean 'no alternative'?"
>>>>> 
>>>>> Well I can think of eight.
>>>> 
>>>> I'd be interested to hear what you would consider an alternative for 
>>>> your needs.
>>> 
>>> What, to the NYT?
>>> 
>>> Try:
>>> 
>>> The Times
>>> The Financial Times
>>> The Independent
>>> The Guardian
>>> The Daily Telegraph
>>> 
>>> and downmarket:
>>> 
>>> The Daily Mail
>>> The Daily Express
>>> The Sun
>>> The Daily Mirror
>>> 
>>> Hmmm, guess I lied: that's nine.
>> 
>> You might have added Christian Science Monitor to get to 10, but it's 
>> an American publication.
>> 
>> It's a fine list for general news.  By "The Times" I assume you mean 
>> the LA Times ;-) ...
> 
> No, I mean The Times, which has been with us since 1785.
> 
>   http://www.thetimes.co.uk

I guess you didn't see the my icon.  Nevertheless, the non-winky aspect 
is that having local/regional news from the LA area is vastly more 
useful to me than British news.  For me there is no alternative 
newspaper to the New York Times.  I can't imagine that fans of the 
British press, or Fox news for that matter wouldn't disagree with me.  
Hell, the use of "New Yawk Times" as a knee-jerk slogan or political 
battering ram is a part of American life.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68188

On 2015-01-09 23:46:51 +0000, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> said:

> On 2015-01-09 23:22:41 +0000, Tim Streater said:
> 
>> In article <2015010912213672730-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2015-01-09 18:23:38 +0000, Tim Streater said:
>>> 
>>>> In article <2015010909490963203-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 2015-01-09 17:36:16 +0000, Tim Streater said:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Sadly, the NYT has been a rag for at least a decade.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Oh yeah, I read it every morning just to be sure. Too bad there's no 
>>>>>>>>> alternative.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> What do you mean "no alternative"?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> What do you mean "What do you mean 'no alternative'?"
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Well I can think of eight.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'd be interested to hear what you would consider an alternative for 
>>>>> your needs.
>>>> 
>>>> What, to the NYT?
>>>> 
>>>> Try:
>>>> 
>>>> The Times
>>>> The Financial Times
>>>> The Independent
>>>> The Guardian
>>>> The Daily Telegraph
>>>> 
>>>> and downmarket:
>>>> 
>>>> The Daily Mail
>>>> The Daily Express
>>>> The Sun
>>>> The Daily Mirror
>>>> 
>>>> Hmmm, guess I lied: that's nine.
>>> 
>>> You might have added Christian Science Monitor to get to 10, but it's 
>>> an American publication.
>>> 
>>> It's a fine list for general news.  By "The Times" I assume you mean 
>>> the LA Times ;-) ...
>> 
>> No, I mean The Times, which has been with us since 1785.
>> 
>>   http://www.thetimes.co.uk
> 
> I guess you didn't see the my icon.  Nevertheless, the non-winky aspect 
> is that having local/regional news from the LA area is vastly more 
> useful to me than British news.  For me there is no alternative 
> newspaper to the New York Times.  I can't imagine that fans of the 
> British press, or Fox news for that matter wouldn't disagree with me.  
> Hell, the use of "New Yawk Times" as a knee-jerk slogan or political 
> battering ram is a part of American life.

There is the Washington Post.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com>

The Chicago Tribune.
<http://www.chicagotribune.com>

...then UPI and Reuters are always worth checking:
<http://www.upi.com>
<http://www.reuters.com>

The Northern California online media are very regional and can 
sometimes seem lost in themselves and local issues. Here I am referring 
to the Sacramento Bee, and SF Gate. Some reports are good and others 
seem to never have made it out of journalism school.
<http://www.sfgate.com>
<http://www.sacbee.com>

-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68190

On 2015-01-10 03:48:00 +0000, Savageduck said:

> On 2015-01-09 23:46:51 +0000, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> said:
> 
>> On 2015-01-09 23:22:41 +0000, Tim Streater said:
>> 
>>> In article <2015010912213672730-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 2015-01-09 18:23:38 +0000, Tim Streater said:
>>>> 
>>>>> In article <2015010909490963203-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 2015-01-09 17:36:16 +0000, Tim Streater said:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Sadly, the NYT has been a rag for at least a decade.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Oh yeah, I read it every morning just to be sure. Too bad there's no 
>>>>>>>>>> alternative.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> What do you mean "no alternative"?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> What do you mean "What do you mean 'no alternative'?"
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Well I can think of eight.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'd be interested to hear what you would consider an alternative for 
>>>>>> your needs.
>>>>> 
>>>>> What, to the NYT?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Try:
>>>>> 
>>>>> The Times
>>>>> The Financial Times
>>>>> The Independent
>>>>> The Guardian
>>>>> The Daily Telegraph
>>>>> 
>>>>> and downmarket:
>>>>> 
>>>>> The Daily Mail
>>>>> The Daily Express
>>>>> The Sun
>>>>> The Daily Mirror
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hmmm, guess I lied: that's nine.
>>>> 
>>>> You might have added Christian Science Monitor to get to 10, but it's 
>>>> an American publication.
>>>> 
>>>> It's a fine list for general news.  By "The Times" I assume you mean 
>>>> the LA Times ;-) ...
>>> 
>>> No, I mean The Times, which has been with us since 1785.
>>> 
>>> http://www.thetimes.co.uk
>> 
>> I guess you didn't see the my icon.  Nevertheless, the non-winky aspect 
>> is that having local/regional news from the LA area is vastly more 
>> useful to me than British news.  For me there is no alternative 
>> newspaper to the New York Times.  I can't imagine that fans of the 
>> British press, or Fox news for that matter wouldn't disagree with me.  
>> Hell, the use of "New Yawk Times" as a knee-jerk slogan or political 
>> battering ram is a part of American life.
> 
> There is the Washington Post.
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com>
> 
> The Chicago Tribune.
> <http://www.chicagotribune.com>
> 
> ...then UPI and Reuters are always worth checking:
> <http://www.upi.com>
> <http://www.reuters.com>
> 
> The Northern California online media are very regional and can 
> sometimes seem lost in themselves and local issues. Here I am referring 
> to the Sacramento Bee, and SF Gate. Some reports are good and others 
> seem to never have made it out of journalism school.
> <http://www.sfgate.com>
> <http://www.sacbee.com>

Sure--all good ways to gets scraps of information when you want to 
cruise the internet.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web