iJohnHenry
Apr 24, 11:13 AM
While this may be apocryphal the fact is that Saladin, remember, that great 7th Day Adventist conueror of the Middle-East) used this example as justification to order the burning of many ancient libraries when he reconquered Egypt.
Thankfully, burning the Internet might pose a problem for Islamic extremists, or the Pope.
Best case scenario, they cut their own people off from the rest of the World.
Thankfully, burning the Internet might pose a problem for Islamic extremists, or the Pope.
Best case scenario, they cut their own people off from the rest of the World.
legacyb4
Sep 12, 06:28 PM
Hate to say it, but I agree... I've got an old P4/2.8 running MCE2005 with a TV tuner and while not outputting the highest quality video, it's fulfilling the role of what I want in my living room; namely, a digital recording device for TV content that can also play back DVDs and downloaded content. It'd be a plus if I actually used the computer but I'm a Mac man suffering the Windows solution for something that Apple hasn't fully provided me yet...
When this thing surpasses the capabilities of my Windows media center and Xbox 360 combo then I will be impressed. Until then Apple is playing catch up to MCE and playing it poorly.
When this thing surpasses the capabilities of my Windows media center and Xbox 360 combo then I will be impressed. Until then Apple is playing catch up to MCE and playing it poorly.
dawindmg08
Apr 13, 02:34 AM
For those of you complaining that this update isn't "Pro" enough, please read through the list of features on this page:
Supermeet Live Blog (http://www.photographybay.com/2011/04/12/final-cut-pro-user-group-supermeet-liveblog/)
There are tons of great ideas here, and I already see a lot of things that will speed up my workflow. There are tools that I have to buy as expensive plugins which are now standard. And simple, common sense approaches to media management that I'm surprised we've worked without them this long (Video and audio LOCKED from ingest? No more sound out of sync? Yes please).
And yet, you all look at the UI and go "eh, it's iMovie Pro". Bitch, please.
And they haven't 'dropped' all the other apps, they just didn't announce (http://www.loopinsight.com/2011/04/12/apple-says-stay-tuned-for-other-final-cut-studio-apps/) anything yet.Hopefully the pricing will be competitive with the other NLE suites and those of us upgrading from the current FCS won't feel ripped off. So just be patient, wait until June and see how it all shakes out...
Supermeet Live Blog (http://www.photographybay.com/2011/04/12/final-cut-pro-user-group-supermeet-liveblog/)
There are tons of great ideas here, and I already see a lot of things that will speed up my workflow. There are tools that I have to buy as expensive plugins which are now standard. And simple, common sense approaches to media management that I'm surprised we've worked without them this long (Video and audio LOCKED from ingest? No more sound out of sync? Yes please).
And yet, you all look at the UI and go "eh, it's iMovie Pro". Bitch, please.
And they haven't 'dropped' all the other apps, they just didn't announce (http://www.loopinsight.com/2011/04/12/apple-says-stay-tuned-for-other-final-cut-studio-apps/) anything yet.Hopefully the pricing will be competitive with the other NLE suites and those of us upgrading from the current FCS won't feel ripped off. So just be patient, wait until June and see how it all shakes out...
HBOC
Mar 11, 01:32 AM
God Bless everyone there. I am watching this live, and saw the surge just overrunning everything inland, including cars on the highway that couldn't move out of the way.
Hawaii is under a tsunami watch, but not the West Coast yet. There is a refinery on fire that is ready to explode and am seeing on the TV that people are on tops of roofs of houses flagging the helicopter for help. 4 million people w/o power. Just incredible, not in a good way.
Hawaii is under a tsunami watch, but not the West Coast yet. There is a refinery on fire that is ready to explode and am seeing on the TV that people are on tops of roofs of houses flagging the helicopter for help. 4 million people w/o power. Just incredible, not in a good way.
Evangelion
Jul 12, 05:05 AM
Er...have you seen the MacBook Pro pricing? The MacBook pricing? The iMac pricing? The Mini pricing? (Which went UP by a fair amount). If you're thinking that x86 processors are cheaper than PPC, you're sadly mistaken. Cheap computers being cheap has just about nothing whatsoever to do with the CPU....
--Eric
Well, the Mini got more expensive, but it's capabilities went WAY up. Optical audio in and out, twice the USB-ports (fixing the two biggest complaints about the old Mini), built-in wireless, about twice as fast CPU (hell, the new low-end is propably over 50% faster than the old hi-end!) and Core Image compliant video.
Comparing price and capabilities, The Mini just got a whole lot cheaper :). The low-end Mini costs the same as the old hi-end Mini, but the new low-end Mini is a lot better than the old hi-end Mini.
--Eric
Well, the Mini got more expensive, but it's capabilities went WAY up. Optical audio in and out, twice the USB-ports (fixing the two biggest complaints about the old Mini), built-in wireless, about twice as fast CPU (hell, the new low-end is propably over 50% faster than the old hi-end!) and Core Image compliant video.
Comparing price and capabilities, The Mini just got a whole lot cheaper :). The low-end Mini costs the same as the old hi-end Mini, but the new low-end Mini is a lot better than the old hi-end Mini.
blahblah100
Apr 28, 01:39 PM
If you don't have a PC, there's nothing that you need to "sync" or "move files" from. And the iPad works perfectly fine on its own.
Really?
So I can take an iPad out of the box and use it without ever involving a "pc?"
If so, I must have a defective iPad since mine was completely useless until I connected it to iTunes ON A PC... :eek:
Really?
So I can take an iPad out of the box and use it without ever involving a "pc?"
If so, I must have a defective iPad since mine was completely useless until I connected it to iTunes ON A PC... :eek:
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 05:18 PM
don't thank me, thank ct2k7 for saying just why islam is a threat to democracy.
So, follow the local law unless a sane muslim man commits apostasy (then sentence him to death as under sharia law).
follow local law unless someone insults the name of muhammad or who is critical of islam.
you say it only applies to muslims yet the victims in blasphemy cases in pakistan, for example, are mostly christians.
I do understand that correlation doesn't equal causation. However, Morocco is thousands of miles away from Pakistan yet both condone honour killing, do you understand the significance of that?
My view may not be shared by ~1.5 billion muslims but it is shared by the many millions of muslims (ten million in africa by some estimates) who leave islam despite the death penalty levelled against them for apostasy.
Lauren Booth isn't a very good advocate to endorse anything, except perhaps anti-psychotic medication.
Lots of intellectuals supported the Nazi party yet many would be hard pressed to not call the Nazi party evil. the Qur'an and Mein Kampf are very similar. Both are chauvinistic, misogynistic and supremacist. Who wouldn't want to join a group that told you you can do whatever you want to your wife/children and that you're "the best of people" and going to heaven for emulating a degenerate warlord from the 7th century, and that all other people who disagree with you are wrong wrong wrong?
The "war" against islam that you speak of is being encouraged by imams, and at saudi funded madrassas in the UK and beyond.
in the US more hate crimes were perpetrated against jews in 2010 than any other group. hate crimes against muslims had gone down in 2010. so, i guess the islamophobia is really poisonous and rampant...
interestingly, as the muslim population increases so too do reported cases of anti-semitic hate crimes.
So, follow the local law unless a sane muslim man commits apostasy (then sentence him to death as under sharia law).
follow local law unless someone insults the name of muhammad or who is critical of islam.
you say it only applies to muslims yet the victims in blasphemy cases in pakistan, for example, are mostly christians.
I do understand that correlation doesn't equal causation. However, Morocco is thousands of miles away from Pakistan yet both condone honour killing, do you understand the significance of that?
My view may not be shared by ~1.5 billion muslims but it is shared by the many millions of muslims (ten million in africa by some estimates) who leave islam despite the death penalty levelled against them for apostasy.
Lauren Booth isn't a very good advocate to endorse anything, except perhaps anti-psychotic medication.
Lots of intellectuals supported the Nazi party yet many would be hard pressed to not call the Nazi party evil. the Qur'an and Mein Kampf are very similar. Both are chauvinistic, misogynistic and supremacist. Who wouldn't want to join a group that told you you can do whatever you want to your wife/children and that you're "the best of people" and going to heaven for emulating a degenerate warlord from the 7th century, and that all other people who disagree with you are wrong wrong wrong?
The "war" against islam that you speak of is being encouraged by imams, and at saudi funded madrassas in the UK and beyond.
in the US more hate crimes were perpetrated against jews in 2010 than any other group. hate crimes against muslims had gone down in 2010. so, i guess the islamophobia is really poisonous and rampant...
interestingly, as the muslim population increases so too do reported cases of anti-semitic hate crimes.
reel2reel
May 2, 09:15 AM
4. Run a Spotlight search for "MACDefender" to check for any associated files that might still be lingering
That's a sure way *not* to find any related files.
That's a sure way *not* to find any related files.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 12:03 PM
Nope; it says that they are required to deny their sexuality; to deny who they really are.
And if the argument goes that they have to deny their sexuality because they aren't married (just as non-married heterosexual people do), well isn't that grand: you've also denied them the right to marry. Why do you do that, pray tell? Because the invisible creator the universe told you that only men and women may marry.
That's a nice little roundabout way of making you feel better for your discrimination, isn't it?
Right, because civil marriage is required for gays to have sex with each other. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. You can have sex with whomever you want to.
We're talking about gay Catholics here, who ostensibly value being Catholic more than they value satisfying their sexual desires in a manner compatible with their sexuality. There is no theocratic regime forcing them to live as Catholics in good standing - it is a personal lifestyle choice, if you will.
And if the argument goes that they have to deny their sexuality because they aren't married (just as non-married heterosexual people do), well isn't that grand: you've also denied them the right to marry. Why do you do that, pray tell? Because the invisible creator the universe told you that only men and women may marry.
That's a nice little roundabout way of making you feel better for your discrimination, isn't it?
Right, because civil marriage is required for gays to have sex with each other. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. You can have sex with whomever you want to.
We're talking about gay Catholics here, who ostensibly value being Catholic more than they value satisfying their sexual desires in a manner compatible with their sexuality. There is no theocratic regime forcing them to live as Catholics in good standing - it is a personal lifestyle choice, if you will.
toddybody
Apr 15, 09:32 AM
These teens are just people who are hurting because of the terrible actions others place on them. That empathy needs to be universal...regardless of your opinion on sexuality.
For all you young guys and gals hurting out there, stay strong because you have so many wonderful things ahead of you. It will get better, there are so many people just like you...and you're loved. God Bless, I cant wait to see what you all accomplish:)
For all you young guys and gals hurting out there, stay strong because you have so many wonderful things ahead of you. It will get better, there are so many people just like you...and you're loved. God Bless, I cant wait to see what you all accomplish:)
capvideo
Mar 21, 01:37 AM
Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy.
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
jettredmont
May 3, 03:44 PM
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 02:54 PM
stem cells is not altering the original genetical code. HUGE difference
The point is that Greenpeace opposes ALL R&D into GM foods, just as G.W. opposes ALL R&D into stem cell research, including research to use stem cells w/o harming the fetus.
The point is that Greenpeace opposes ALL R&D into GM foods, just as G.W. opposes ALL R&D into stem cell research, including research to use stem cells w/o harming the fetus.
Peace
Sep 12, 04:48 PM
who thinks it will be 802.11g or will it be 802.11n?
will that mean that all new macs Q1 07 also come with 802.11n as well?
or will the streaming from a 802.11g mac to the iTV just be crap?
if that's the case what will everyone with a current mac do, dongle it?
Steve should have been more explicit about the 802.11 or at least assured us that 802.11g macs will stream to it just fine.
Does anyone know if 802.11g can handle streaming video at that resolution?
I'd be willing to bet the new iMacs and Mac Pros will only need a firmware update.
will that mean that all new macs Q1 07 also come with 802.11n as well?
or will the streaming from a 802.11g mac to the iTV just be crap?
if that's the case what will everyone with a current mac do, dongle it?
Steve should have been more explicit about the 802.11 or at least assured us that 802.11g macs will stream to it just fine.
Does anyone know if 802.11g can handle streaming video at that resolution?
I'd be willing to bet the new iMacs and Mac Pros will only need a firmware update.
w0by
Aug 23, 12:47 PM
Eh, I just blame AT&T for having the iPhone and not fixing their issues. I pay my ** $120 ** phone bill every month for my iPhone, and I don't even have unlimited calling/texting, so therefore AT&T needs to fix their crap.
Hellhammer
Mar 13, 01:39 PM
I didn't say that they didn't have the need (though I'm betting that they'll turn to green energy, in larger part, when they begin the rebuilding process; solar, wind, etc...).
I just questioned how well thought out the idea was to build these plants in an area that is highly susceptible to volcanic activity.
Roscoe Wind Farm, which is the largest wind farm in the world, provides only 781.5 MW of power while Fukushima I for example, provides 4.7 GW (over six times as much). That wind farm takes 400km^2 so a wind farm that could replace the Fukushima I would take 2400km^2.
The largest solar power plant provides only 97 MW so even worse.
In the end, earthquake like this doesn't happen that often. Hopefully Japan and other countries learn from this and improve their protection against earthquakes.
I just questioned how well thought out the idea was to build these plants in an area that is highly susceptible to volcanic activity.
Roscoe Wind Farm, which is the largest wind farm in the world, provides only 781.5 MW of power while Fukushima I for example, provides 4.7 GW (over six times as much). That wind farm takes 400km^2 so a wind farm that could replace the Fukushima I would take 2400km^2.
The largest solar power plant provides only 97 MW so even worse.
In the end, earthquake like this doesn't happen that often. Hopefully Japan and other countries learn from this and improve their protection against earthquakes.
milo
Jul 13, 09:24 AM
As even AI note, there's not much difference between the two chips. This is about as exciting as finding out that a faucet will have a red handle if it runs hot water, blue if cold. Whee.
There's one big difference. The woodcrest can be used in multilple chip configs, allowing quad while the conroe maxes out at two cores. That's comparable to a cosmetic difference?
I doubt that Apple are able to charge the "normal" Mac premium after the intel transition, since it is much simpler to compare Macs with another PCs. Almost like Apple for Apple. ;)
But the problem is that PC's with these chipsets will be very expensive as well. And if apple goes with two cores of woodcrest on the low end, those machines will be matched at a much lower price point by conroe machines from PC makers (as well as conroe iMacs). Single chip woodcrest makes no sense financially unless intel gives apple woodcrests for the same price as conroes, and I don't see that happening.
I wonder I they put a Xeon in a Mac will it come with Intergrated graphics :confused: ;)
I sure hope Apple don't put intergrated graphics in the Mac Pros as ANY sort of an option......
You know, I'd be perfectly fine with integrated graphics with the work I do. I wouldn't mind having the option of not wasting money on a video card I won't even put to good use and leaving a slot open.
So impressed that I decided to build a core 2 duo desktop from newegg and I did it for Under $900. Now lets see apple top that pricing.
That's just stupid logic, you expect any computer company to match the price of a machine you built? That's like saying a resturant shouldn't charge more for a meal than what you paid for the ingredients at the grocery store.
Different CPU-models in one line of computers? Unlikely. Current PowerMacs have just one type of CPU in 'em, it just happens that one model has two of them.
Why not use different cpu models? It makes a ton of financial sense, and with intel doing most of the mobo work, there's not much reason not to.
You should compare dollars to dollars when you say one is cheaper than another. You buy items with dollars and that's it. You look at the numbers and say that smaller value is cheaper.
Technically, the minis got more expensive, but the new models are a much better value (bang for your buck). I obviously think so, I bought one.
Where's the "Mac OS Rumors" option? (http://macosrumors.com/20060710B1.php)
They are still labouring under the illusion that Woodcrest will be quad core.
AND they have the wrong idea that conroe can be run in dual chip configs. So clueless.
Unless Apple bucks their own trend of charging more for the Intel Mac replacements over the G4/G5 units....
To be fair, the imac and macbook 15 didn't have price increases...in this case it really comes down to their choice of config, if they wanted to they could easily have a base model cheaper than the current dual G5 tower.
There's one big difference. The woodcrest can be used in multilple chip configs, allowing quad while the conroe maxes out at two cores. That's comparable to a cosmetic difference?
I doubt that Apple are able to charge the "normal" Mac premium after the intel transition, since it is much simpler to compare Macs with another PCs. Almost like Apple for Apple. ;)
But the problem is that PC's with these chipsets will be very expensive as well. And if apple goes with two cores of woodcrest on the low end, those machines will be matched at a much lower price point by conroe machines from PC makers (as well as conroe iMacs). Single chip woodcrest makes no sense financially unless intel gives apple woodcrests for the same price as conroes, and I don't see that happening.
I wonder I they put a Xeon in a Mac will it come with Intergrated graphics :confused: ;)
I sure hope Apple don't put intergrated graphics in the Mac Pros as ANY sort of an option......
You know, I'd be perfectly fine with integrated graphics with the work I do. I wouldn't mind having the option of not wasting money on a video card I won't even put to good use and leaving a slot open.
So impressed that I decided to build a core 2 duo desktop from newegg and I did it for Under $900. Now lets see apple top that pricing.
That's just stupid logic, you expect any computer company to match the price of a machine you built? That's like saying a resturant shouldn't charge more for a meal than what you paid for the ingredients at the grocery store.
Different CPU-models in one line of computers? Unlikely. Current PowerMacs have just one type of CPU in 'em, it just happens that one model has two of them.
Why not use different cpu models? It makes a ton of financial sense, and with intel doing most of the mobo work, there's not much reason not to.
You should compare dollars to dollars when you say one is cheaper than another. You buy items with dollars and that's it. You look at the numbers and say that smaller value is cheaper.
Technically, the minis got more expensive, but the new models are a much better value (bang for your buck). I obviously think so, I bought one.
Where's the "Mac OS Rumors" option? (http://macosrumors.com/20060710B1.php)
They are still labouring under the illusion that Woodcrest will be quad core.
AND they have the wrong idea that conroe can be run in dual chip configs. So clueless.
Unless Apple bucks their own trend of charging more for the Intel Mac replacements over the G4/G5 units....
To be fair, the imac and macbook 15 didn't have price increases...in this case it really comes down to their choice of config, if they wanted to they could easily have a base model cheaper than the current dual G5 tower.
Little Giant
Oct 8, 08:42 AM
"The iPhone is limited to 1 device whereas the Android is spanned over many more devices and will continue to branch out."
That is exactly the weakness of the PC platform. It turns into a zoo where the monkeys and lions roam free and the people have to live in cages... :rolleyes:
That is exactly the weakness of the PC platform. It turns into a zoo where the monkeys and lions roam free and the people have to live in cages... :rolleyes:
Lennholm
May 2, 10:30 AM
Is your info from like 1993 ? Because this little known version of Windows dubbed "New Technology" or NT for short brought along something called the NTFS (New Technology File System) that has... *drumroll* ACLs and strict permissions with inheritance...
Unless you're running as administrator on a Windows NT based system, you're as protected as a "Unix/Linux" user. Of course, you can also run as root all the time under Unix, negating this "security".
So again I ask, what about Unix security protects you from these attacks that Windows can't do ?
And I say this as a Unix systems administrator/fanboy. The multi-user paradigm that is "Unix security" came to Windows more than 18 years ago. It came to consumer versions of Windows about 9 years ago if you don't count Windows 2000 as a consumer version.
Wait, knowledge is ignorance ? 1984 much ?
The fact is, understanding the proper terminology and different payloads and impacts of the different types of malware prevents unnecessary panic and promotes a proper security strategy.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
Great post! I think the biggest reason security has been so problematic on Windows, aside from the fact that it's the biggest target, is that the default user type is administrator.
The kind of issue in this case, caused by user ignorance, is really the only threat that exist for Windows since XP SP2. Internet Explorer has had sufficient, but very annoying, security measures against this since version 7 and I'm surprised Safari can let these kind of things slide through so easily.
Security in Windows has been pretty solid for years now, but that hasn't stopped many Linux/Unix/OSX-fanboys from claiming Windows security is like a swizz cheese. They don't even bother to do some research, they just keep shouting the same old mantra.
Unless you're running as administrator on a Windows NT based system, you're as protected as a "Unix/Linux" user. Of course, you can also run as root all the time under Unix, negating this "security".
So again I ask, what about Unix security protects you from these attacks that Windows can't do ?
And I say this as a Unix systems administrator/fanboy. The multi-user paradigm that is "Unix security" came to Windows more than 18 years ago. It came to consumer versions of Windows about 9 years ago if you don't count Windows 2000 as a consumer version.
Wait, knowledge is ignorance ? 1984 much ?
The fact is, understanding the proper terminology and different payloads and impacts of the different types of malware prevents unnecessary panic and promotes a proper security strategy.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
Great post! I think the biggest reason security has been so problematic on Windows, aside from the fact that it's the biggest target, is that the default user type is administrator.
The kind of issue in this case, caused by user ignorance, is really the only threat that exist for Windows since XP SP2. Internet Explorer has had sufficient, but very annoying, security measures against this since version 7 and I'm surprised Safari can let these kind of things slide through so easily.
Security in Windows has been pretty solid for years now, but that hasn't stopped many Linux/Unix/OSX-fanboys from claiming Windows security is like a swizz cheese. They don't even bother to do some research, they just keep shouting the same old mantra.
slinger1968
Nov 3, 04:18 AM
I could not disagree with you more. So let's leave it at that.Then show me the data that backs up your claim that the average consumer is archeiving HD broadcast recordings on their iMac.
liavman
Apr 15, 10:02 AM
You could make the argument that a certain amount of bullying is actually a good thing because it forces kids to develop a thick skin and learn how to deal with aggressive and negative people.
Not the kind of bullying that leads to suicide.
Not the kind of bullying that leads to suicide.
Evangelion
Jul 13, 05:05 AM
After reading your post, I thought I'd join in. I hear what you are saying about Adobe, but truth is, the majority of Mac desktop professional users are people who rely on Adobe for everyday work.
Yep, there propably are lots of Macsters who rely on Adobe. And there are LOADS of Macsters who don't use Adobe-software at all!
Now before you go thinking "so what", keep in mind that disregarding the creative industry means you are losing a big chunk of potential buyers.
I fail to see how Apple is "disregarding" those people who run Adobe-software. Those people could buy PPC-PowerMac if they want to. Should Apple delay the release of Intel-PowerMacs just because Adobe is dragging their feet with universalization? What's the benefit there? The fact that the Adobe-users wouldn't have to look at those new uber-PowerMacs with envy and think "damn, I wish I could buy that...."? if Apple releases the new machines in few weeks time, how does it harm anyone? At least the multitude of people who do NOT rely on Adobe will have new gear to buy. The Adobe-users can just stick to PPC-machines. It's not like Steve Jobs will march in to the Adobe-houses (no pun intended), and replace those PPC-PowerMacs with Intel-PowerMacs.
What should Adobe-users do? Instead of complaining to Apple, they should complain to Adobe. How hard is it REALLY to make Mac-Photoshop run on Intel-Mac? they already have Intel-versions of their software running on Windows, it shouldn't be THAT hard.
Yep, there propably are lots of Macsters who rely on Adobe. And there are LOADS of Macsters who don't use Adobe-software at all!
Now before you go thinking "so what", keep in mind that disregarding the creative industry means you are losing a big chunk of potential buyers.
I fail to see how Apple is "disregarding" those people who run Adobe-software. Those people could buy PPC-PowerMac if they want to. Should Apple delay the release of Intel-PowerMacs just because Adobe is dragging their feet with universalization? What's the benefit there? The fact that the Adobe-users wouldn't have to look at those new uber-PowerMacs with envy and think "damn, I wish I could buy that...."? if Apple releases the new machines in few weeks time, how does it harm anyone? At least the multitude of people who do NOT rely on Adobe will have new gear to buy. The Adobe-users can just stick to PPC-machines. It's not like Steve Jobs will march in to the Adobe-houses (no pun intended), and replace those PPC-PowerMacs with Intel-PowerMacs.
What should Adobe-users do? Instead of complaining to Apple, they should complain to Adobe. How hard is it REALLY to make Mac-Photoshop run on Intel-Mac? they already have Intel-versions of their software running on Windows, it shouldn't be THAT hard.
diamond.g
Apr 9, 06:19 PM
The point is the line between these two camps is being blurred. It's a feature of the post-PC era. Look at what the App Store games section is evolving into - daily, monthly, yearly. It's pretty astounding. Soon, "hardcore gaming" will characterize other devices in addition to consoles. THIS is the real revolution that's going on when it comes to the gaming market. Apple is redefining it.
The only thing I can see Apple redefining is our willingness to buy a game that we cannot resell. I am not seeing anything (game play wise) that couldn't be done on other platforms.
The only thing I can see Apple redefining is our willingness to buy a game that we cannot resell. I am not seeing anything (game play wise) that couldn't be done on other platforms.
G58
Jun 21, 11:50 PM
You obviously have no formal education when it comes to the world of finance, so I'm not sure why you're even making comments about such things.
The simple fact that Apple has to make $23 billion more in revenue compared to Google, just so they can have $2.7 billion more in gross profit is nothing to brag about.
Go do more homework.
That's a really dumb statement. Google don't make anything, and they don't know how to sell things. They shut down the Nexus one web site! It's easy to sell space you own and make more profit.
And you don't 'make' revenue. I can't be bothered to check your dumb figures.
The simple fact that Apple has to make $23 billion more in revenue compared to Google, just so they can have $2.7 billion more in gross profit is nothing to brag about.
Go do more homework.
That's a really dumb statement. Google don't make anything, and they don't know how to sell things. They shut down the Nexus one web site! It's easy to sell space you own and make more profit.
And you don't 'make' revenue. I can't be bothered to check your dumb figures.
No comments:
Post a Comment