jiggie2g
Jul 12, 05:47 PM
those things make no functional difference, you completely missed the point which was totally about motherboard design, which other than the case and sometimes the cpu is always unique on macs no matter if they are ppc or intel
This is no longer the case Hector , same CPU , same stupid Intel Chipset , a custom design Mac Mobo is no different from an Asus / DFI / MSI board , in a sense they are all customized however all derived from the same chipset. So this make no difference other then small tweaks apple might make , just like the other vendors make thiers through bios updates. Apple is not going to get a custom Core 2 /Xenon , aside from the case / mainboard / OSX , there is nothing in a mac i can't buy on newegg.
This is no longer the case Hector , same CPU , same stupid Intel Chipset , a custom design Mac Mobo is no different from an Asus / DFI / MSI board , in a sense they are all customized however all derived from the same chipset. So this make no difference other then small tweaks apple might make , just like the other vendors make thiers through bios updates. Apple is not going to get a custom Core 2 /Xenon , aside from the case / mainboard / OSX , there is nothing in a mac i can't buy on newegg.
DrDomVonDoom
May 3, 01:37 AM
I think a few points of mine should be made.
A.) I am sure at least 50-75% of Mac users today, used to be PC users, and of that 50-75% I believe is a more 'aware' group of users, not exactly what the media and PC fanboys try to paint Mac users as. ( dumb, needing simplicity, old etc)
B.) I firmly believe that as a technologically aware group of people, we understand viruses, malware, how they are put on computers and we can see the difference between spam, popups, malware and the lot.
c.) keeping both point A. and B. in mind, the reason Mac's are less likely to be infected comes down to the users. We know what to look for after years of using PC's by force or by choice, and Mac users know what not to download, what sites not to visit etc. This has mostly to do with the quality of users, not the software. All software, all os's can be compromised, but its the user that allows such things to happen, and it doesn't happen all too often to Mac users. Something can be said about that.
What the PC crowd would like the world to think is the only people who use Macs are uneducated, or old people who don't understand computers. I call BS, I know almost nobody who uses a Mac, a few but all of the older computer users I know, use PC's why? Because they Don't understand technology and they see a 200-400 dollar computer solution just what they need. I am sure to a older less technologically adept person, either pc or mac would seem overwhelming.
That ALL being said. My main point is, infections of computers are %100 user responsible. Why do Mac users get less infections? My belief is that the users may be of higher quality, ONLY because of the computers niche-like nature and most Mac users are dedicated, technologically knowledgable.
A.) I am sure at least 50-75% of Mac users today, used to be PC users, and of that 50-75% I believe is a more 'aware' group of users, not exactly what the media and PC fanboys try to paint Mac users as. ( dumb, needing simplicity, old etc)
B.) I firmly believe that as a technologically aware group of people, we understand viruses, malware, how they are put on computers and we can see the difference between spam, popups, malware and the lot.
c.) keeping both point A. and B. in mind, the reason Mac's are less likely to be infected comes down to the users. We know what to look for after years of using PC's by force or by choice, and Mac users know what not to download, what sites not to visit etc. This has mostly to do with the quality of users, not the software. All software, all os's can be compromised, but its the user that allows such things to happen, and it doesn't happen all too often to Mac users. Something can be said about that.
What the PC crowd would like the world to think is the only people who use Macs are uneducated, or old people who don't understand computers. I call BS, I know almost nobody who uses a Mac, a few but all of the older computer users I know, use PC's why? Because they Don't understand technology and they see a 200-400 dollar computer solution just what they need. I am sure to a older less technologically adept person, either pc or mac would seem overwhelming.
That ALL being said. My main point is, infections of computers are %100 user responsible. Why do Mac users get less infections? My belief is that the users may be of higher quality, ONLY because of the computers niche-like nature and most Mac users are dedicated, technologically knowledgable.
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 02:45 PM
Notice the words "indirectly" and "thousands" in my post, not "directly" and "millions." You are correct that GM foods will not save Africa, and also correct that African goverments are as corrupt as they come.
But you're wrong to think that genetically-altered foods won't help, especially if administed by multi-national organizations, and NOT African governemtns.
It might help starving Africans, but we could also screw up our genetical inheritance royally. Cross breeding is a problem we know too little about.
But you're wrong to think that genetically-altered foods won't help, especially if administed by multi-national organizations, and NOT African governemtns.
It might help starving Africans, but we could also screw up our genetical inheritance royally. Cross breeding is a problem we know too little about.
Charlie Sheen
Mar 13, 10:30 AM
one word: nope.
GGJstudios
May 2, 04:44 PM
trying to stick to facts...
OSX marketshare was just shy of 50 mill
That's Mac OS X installed base, not the installed base of Macs, as I said. Mac OS X is not the only Mac OS out there. Reading comprehension is fun!
lol, sorry........I can't get into this but you are SO wrong its not true.
Which means, of course, that you can't back up your claims with facts.
there are governments around the world employing people to do this kind of thing.
So? That has nothing to do with your baseless claims about hackers.
OSX marketshare was just shy of 50 mill
That's Mac OS X installed base, not the installed base of Macs, as I said. Mac OS X is not the only Mac OS out there. Reading comprehension is fun!
lol, sorry........I can't get into this but you are SO wrong its not true.
Which means, of course, that you can't back up your claims with facts.
there are governments around the world employing people to do this kind of thing.
So? That has nothing to do with your baseless claims about hackers.
WoFat
May 2, 10:23 AM
Is it still the cold & flu season?
Waiting for the 1st complaint here how they got a virus on their Mac by doing absolutely nothing after clicking & downloading and unzipping and installing & entering admin password only to be stumped as to which credit card they should use when a panel pops up to buy MacDefender.
Where are these peoples parents when they�re doing this?
Waiting for the 1st complaint here how they got a virus on their Mac by doing absolutely nothing after clicking & downloading and unzipping and installing & entering admin password only to be stumped as to which credit card they should use when a panel pops up to buy MacDefender.
Where are these peoples parents when they�re doing this?
bobsentell
Mar 18, 08:47 AM
Some of the responses on this thread are really amusing.
The people who are defending AT&T's actions are either astroturfing shills, or dolts.
Here's a newsflash: Just because you put something into a contract doesn't make it legal or make it fair. What if AT&T stipulated that they were allowed to come by your house and give you a wedgie every time you checked your voicemail...? Would you still be screaming about how its "justified" because its written on some lop-sided, legalese-ridden piece of paper?
This is a specious argument because they didn't put that in your contract. Your contract says you have no interest in tethering, yet you use it anyway. So it's not AT&T that's doing anything illegal.
If you think AT&T is doing something illegal, then take your dollars to Verizon.
The people who are defending AT&T's actions are either astroturfing shills, or dolts.
Here's a newsflash: Just because you put something into a contract doesn't make it legal or make it fair. What if AT&T stipulated that they were allowed to come by your house and give you a wedgie every time you checked your voicemail...? Would you still be screaming about how its "justified" because its written on some lop-sided, legalese-ridden piece of paper?
This is a specious argument because they didn't put that in your contract. Your contract says you have no interest in tethering, yet you use it anyway. So it's not AT&T that's doing anything illegal.
If you think AT&T is doing something illegal, then take your dollars to Verizon.
Rt&Dzine
Mar 26, 11:18 AM
Some priests fail, not all. We as people experience moments of weakness, priests are people too. Also you laughing at "lay people" is puerile
Aw, come on, don't be pontifical. You know you liked the pun. ;)
Aw, come on, don't be pontifical. You know you liked the pun. ;)
mattwolfmatt
May 5, 10:43 AM
Every time it happens (I seem to get a string of dropped calls about once a month) I call ATT customer support. They talk as if this is unheard of and "we'll get this fixed right away". So far they have replaced my SIM card for free; they said the next step is a new phone.
I was hoping for a reduction in monthly price. We'll see.
I was hoping for a reduction in monthly price. We'll see.
Th3Crow
Apr 21, 09:13 AM
Interesting and "generic" use by Apple execs. This could be used against them, as compared to saying that our "App Store" is the largest of any of the available applications stores. Subtle, but significant.
Oooooh...quite right. A very astute observation.
Oooooh...quite right. A very astute observation.
Howdr
Mar 18, 08:20 AM
Glad I got the AT&T 3G iPad 2. :D:D:D
I was really considering jailbreaking for theathering but unlike some have a problem with stealing.
And YES I do believe that if I buy 2 GIG of data I should be able to use it as I wish. But just becuase I want it that way does not give me the right to do it.Its stealing because At&t says so? Really? How about At&t stealing from us? They are charging twice for the same Data, that is stealing from the users.
No offense but I think people are brainwashed.
In Europe and even here in the US there are many carriers who do not charge for tethering because honestly I think charging is not ethical.
Just because a thief (At&t) gets away with it does not make it right.
The law does not monitor contracts, it waits for us to complain and bring it to the judge. Maybe its time for a class action.
I was really considering jailbreaking for theathering but unlike some have a problem with stealing.
And YES I do believe that if I buy 2 GIG of data I should be able to use it as I wish. But just becuase I want it that way does not give me the right to do it.Its stealing because At&t says so? Really? How about At&t stealing from us? They are charging twice for the same Data, that is stealing from the users.
No offense but I think people are brainwashed.
In Europe and even here in the US there are many carriers who do not charge for tethering because honestly I think charging is not ethical.
Just because a thief (At&t) gets away with it does not make it right.
The law does not monitor contracts, it waits for us to complain and bring it to the judge. Maybe its time for a class action.
inkswamp
Oct 26, 03:49 AM
If history serves as a template for the future
Honestly, with Apple, history doesn't serve as much of a template for the future when you think about it.
Honestly, with Apple, history doesn't serve as much of a template for the future when you think about it.
ductapesuprhero
Mar 20, 02:12 AM
I've used iTMS before I bought my iPod Shuffle (way cool!) to simply download music and burn to it CDs. Beats the inconvenience of running out to Walmart and buying the CD for even more money. And I get to search and preview. This is the best way to buy music WITH OR WITHOUT a portable music player.
Also, $0.34 is a nice profit per song * 300+ million songs and growing. Not bad business for just pushing bits! :cool:
Off Topic: Any with an iPod Shuffle think the plastic is reminiscent of Lego (R) plastic?
No one has mentioned the bigger picture... Apple sells music to sell iPods for the same reason they make iLife, Safari, and OSX - to sell computers. Sure, Apple has raked in $100milion in profits from iTunes, and as big as that number sounds, it pales in comparison to the rest of their numbers.
Its all about the halo effect.
Plus, what people don't see is that they are not buying music, or a file etc.; they are purchasing the right to play that file/music which carries with it certain terms and conditions. The DRM is there simply to enforce what you've already agreed to. If its so bad, why do you agree to it in the first place? To download the music? That's both illegal and unethical; it is not your music.
[EDIT: Typo]
Also, $0.34 is a nice profit per song * 300+ million songs and growing. Not bad business for just pushing bits! :cool:
Off Topic: Any with an iPod Shuffle think the plastic is reminiscent of Lego (R) plastic?
No one has mentioned the bigger picture... Apple sells music to sell iPods for the same reason they make iLife, Safari, and OSX - to sell computers. Sure, Apple has raked in $100milion in profits from iTunes, and as big as that number sounds, it pales in comparison to the rest of their numbers.
Its all about the halo effect.
Plus, what people don't see is that they are not buying music, or a file etc.; they are purchasing the right to play that file/music which carries with it certain terms and conditions. The DRM is there simply to enforce what you've already agreed to. If its so bad, why do you agree to it in the first place? To download the music? That's both illegal and unethical; it is not your music.
[EDIT: Typo]
techy298
May 2, 08:26 PM
If anyone has information on how to download this file, as well as an apple id, please visit this page (https://discussions.apple.com/message/15116673)
thanks
thanks
Timothy
Mar 19, 01:43 PM
Long post, my apologies.
No apologies needed. It was well-said, and I agree with you completely.
The ongoing justification of bypassing or defeating the DRM, as though this is somehow a "moral" action is pathetic. Period.
No apologies needed. It was well-said, and I agree with you completely.
The ongoing justification of bypassing or defeating the DRM, as though this is somehow a "moral" action is pathetic. Period.
res1233
May 2, 10:28 AM
It is safer to run under an administrator account all the time in OS X than in Windows. On Windows, the administrator is almost the equivalent to the root account on *nixes and as such has unrestricted access to any and all files on the system.
On OS X and other *nix systems, however, the administrator account still can't do all that much without entering the root password. Admin accounts can't touch anything in the System folder. About the worst malware can do, even under an admin account in OS X, is one of the following:
1) Install itself in your user account Library folder
2) Install itself in the system's secondary Library folder (/Library/)
In both cases, the offending executables/libraries/whatever are easily removed - In the case of #1, create a new account and copy your old stuff over. In the case of #2, check the startup folder within, perhaps frameworks in some cases (though I have never seen malware that makes use of the OS X framework system) and delete the malware files. The files and folders contained in the Library folder are all nicely, neatly labeled and any malware should stick out like a sore thumb - it can't hide as something like EXPLORE32.EXE.
Yep. This is what Unix security means. Tight permissions control. Permission checking needs to at some point become a background service though, because the way it is, if some badly written application with root access changes the permissions on a folder for whatever reason, it's possible for malware written to look for these permission problems to take advantage of it. But other than that, yes, there is no way to access files outside of /Library and /Users/[username] without permission.
On OS X and other *nix systems, however, the administrator account still can't do all that much without entering the root password. Admin accounts can't touch anything in the System folder. About the worst malware can do, even under an admin account in OS X, is one of the following:
1) Install itself in your user account Library folder
2) Install itself in the system's secondary Library folder (/Library/)
In both cases, the offending executables/libraries/whatever are easily removed - In the case of #1, create a new account and copy your old stuff over. In the case of #2, check the startup folder within, perhaps frameworks in some cases (though I have never seen malware that makes use of the OS X framework system) and delete the malware files. The files and folders contained in the Library folder are all nicely, neatly labeled and any malware should stick out like a sore thumb - it can't hide as something like EXPLORE32.EXE.
Yep. This is what Unix security means. Tight permissions control. Permission checking needs to at some point become a background service though, because the way it is, if some badly written application with root access changes the permissions on a folder for whatever reason, it's possible for malware written to look for these permission problems to take advantage of it. But other than that, yes, there is no way to access files outside of /Library and /Users/[username] without permission.
capvideo
Mar 20, 01:32 PM
It's not just iTunes, but all copyright law. A CD is a license to use the track, not ownership of the song's music or lyrics. An AAC from iTunes is the same. Same with movies and software, etc. In any situation, you are buying a license to use the song, not to take ownership of the song (unless you're buying the *rights* to a song, then you really do own it).
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
I rant much more about this at my blog:
http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9
Jerry
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
I rant much more about this at my blog:
http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9
Jerry
DeathChill
Apr 20, 09:28 PM
Is that a prerequisite? I have Apple battery charger.
No, of course not. I just find it interesting that someone who clearly dislikes a company and its products so much has so much free time to spend on a board for people who do enjoy said company and products.
No, of course not. I just find it interesting that someone who clearly dislikes a company and its products so much has so much free time to spend on a board for people who do enjoy said company and products.
benpatient
May 2, 09:18 AM
As I understand it, Safari will open the zip file since it's a "safe" download. But that doesn't mean it'll execute the code within that zip file, so how is this malware executing without user permission?
malware doesn't execute without user permission.
it relies on tricking the user into giving it permission to run, striking at what is typically the weakest link in any computer's security: the user.
any argument that XX isn't a threat, because it requires users to take an action in order to be truly dangerous, is a flawed argument, because in general, users are stupid, or at the very least, careless.
malware doesn't execute without user permission.
it relies on tricking the user into giving it permission to run, striking at what is typically the weakest link in any computer's security: the user.
any argument that XX isn't a threat, because it requires users to take an action in order to be truly dangerous, is a flawed argument, because in general, users are stupid, or at the very least, careless.
tigres
Jun 7, 06:05 PM
52 dropped calls today. Full bars of course. AT&T says no problems.
FMP
FMP
darkplanets
Mar 11, 06:38 PM
And this is why we have passive cooling and shutdown systems, so you don't have to rely on mechanical means for core safety. It is my understanding that these reactors should have control rods to pretty much kill the core, however since it's a BWR that doesn't mean the heat will stop. I'll bet money that the safety systems aren't up to par, and since these were constructed in the 80's there certainly isn't any passive control systems.
iJohnHenry
Apr 24, 12:22 PM
Here's Toby (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAGNuZTXONU), he knows all the chords (to be plucked).
Multimedia
Oct 21, 10:03 AM
lmao and just to add, DAMN that is alot of coresNot if you use applications that are Core Hogs. Compressing video with Toast uses up to 4 cores per instance. Compressing video with Handbrake uses up to 3 cores per instance. So, no, it's not a lot of cores at all and I will be buying a 16 core then a 32 core Mac Pro the day they ship as well. :eek:
mtkoren
Apr 9, 07:36 AM
Poaching suggests illegal, secret, stealing or other misadventure that is underhanded and sneaky.
From what I've read so far, and I'd be glad for someone to show me what I've missed, Apple had the job positions already advertised and for all we know these individuals, realizing their companies were sliding, applied to - and were received by - apple which replied with open arms. Does anyone have evidence to the contrary? Would that be poaching? Is this forum, like some others, doing headline greed?
Michael
From what I've read so far, and I'd be glad for someone to show me what I've missed, Apple had the job positions already advertised and for all we know these individuals, realizing their companies were sliding, applied to - and were received by - apple which replied with open arms. Does anyone have evidence to the contrary? Would that be poaching? Is this forum, like some others, doing headline greed?
Michael
