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.
nixd2001
Oct 8, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by javajedi
3.) You speak of flaws of the "x86 architecture" but do not provide us specifics as to why you say this.
The floating point instruction set architecture of the x86 (silly stack based thing) is/was a naff design decision. I don't even know whether there are alternative routes to accessing FP ops on an x86 these days, as its ages since I've been interested in that level (tad of compiler writing in my history). [Intel did always work pretty hard to get IEEE FP conformance though, which is more than most other CPU mnfs.]
The limited number of GPRs is also a design flaw that has largely been worked around.
Maybe the best way to get an understanding of what Intel privately thinks is good/bad about x86 ISA is to look at what sorts of x86 instructions get translated into what sort of micro-ops internally - the larger the change, the less Intel like their original decisions.
3.) You speak of flaws of the "x86 architecture" but do not provide us specifics as to why you say this.
The floating point instruction set architecture of the x86 (silly stack based thing) is/was a naff design decision. I don't even know whether there are alternative routes to accessing FP ops on an x86 these days, as its ages since I've been interested in that level (tad of compiler writing in my history). [Intel did always work pretty hard to get IEEE FP conformance though, which is more than most other CPU mnfs.]
The limited number of GPRs is also a design flaw that has largely been worked around.
Maybe the best way to get an understanding of what Intel privately thinks is good/bad about x86 ISA is to look at what sorts of x86 instructions get translated into what sort of micro-ops internally - the larger the change, the less Intel like their original decisions.
slffl
Sep 12, 06:29 PM
Isn't it was everyone was expecting? Looks like an Airport Express in a different form factor to accomodate all of the different ports. Basically gives you the ability to stream your videos from your computer.
Abstract
Mar 19, 10:08 AM
aah yes of course.. (slap on forehead). hmm.. then adding DRM on fly before delivering might be the workaround apple does... although as noted in my previous post, that can be defeated too.
No no, I don't think people get it.
If they put DRM on the track before you buy it, then everyone who buys that song will have the same song with the same DRM, which means that any computer can play it, as everyone has the same iTunes and a track with the same DRM.
Adding specific DRM on the fly isn't what Apple has to do, either. Your iTunes still has to know that it IS the computer that you can play a particular track from, and not just any computer.
No no, I don't think people get it.
If they put DRM on the track before you buy it, then everyone who buys that song will have the same song with the same DRM, which means that any computer can play it, as everyone has the same iTunes and a track with the same DRM.
Adding specific DRM on the fly isn't what Apple has to do, either. Your iTunes still has to know that it IS the computer that you can play a particular track from, and not just any computer.
*LTD*
Apr 10, 11:22 AM
Epic is garbage and their engine is garbage.
Six of one, a half dozen of the other.
Big name is big name.
And yeah, really garbage. :rolleyes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games
Pretty impressive, I'd say. But it won't just be Epic. Others are and will follow. Rest assured.
Six of one, a half dozen of the other.
Big name is big name.
And yeah, really garbage. :rolleyes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games
Pretty impressive, I'd say. But it won't just be Epic. Others are and will follow. Rest assured.
sinisterdesign
Jul 11, 11:06 PM
from my source, i can confirm that they will indeed have 2 dual cores.
i've also been told that the case has only minor changes, which kind of sucks. i'm hoping it's still smaller than the big chunk of aluminum under my desk.
i've also been told that the case has only minor changes, which kind of sucks. i'm hoping it's still smaller than the big chunk of aluminum under my desk.
stcanard
Mar 18, 01:04 PM
The problem is, this may not hurt Apple all that much but it will hurt the Music Download industry.
I think at this point you could argut that Apple is the Music Download industry.
With every DRM that is cracked it gives the RIAA more fuel against their "downloading is bad" campaign. Also less labels would be willing to allow iTMS to sell their music.
A year ago I would have agreed with this, but I think the landscape has changed.
Apple has already signed all the major labels, and realistically they don't dare back out. This will come up in contract negotiations only.
The indies don't care nearly as much about DRM, they don't make money through moving huge numbers of tracks, but through raising awareness of the artists leading to concert and merchandising sales.
Overall the cat's out of the bad, its turned into a (dare I say it?) Tiger, and nobody's putting it back in.
I think at this point you could argut that Apple is the Music Download industry.
With every DRM that is cracked it gives the RIAA more fuel against their "downloading is bad" campaign. Also less labels would be willing to allow iTMS to sell their music.
A year ago I would have agreed with this, but I think the landscape has changed.
Apple has already signed all the major labels, and realistically they don't dare back out. This will come up in contract negotiations only.
The indies don't care nearly as much about DRM, they don't make money through moving huge numbers of tracks, but through raising awareness of the artists leading to concert and merchandising sales.
Overall the cat's out of the bad, its turned into a (dare I say it?) Tiger, and nobody's putting it back in.
monster620ie
Apr 13, 05:48 AM
I am upgrading from fcs3 to this.
ezekielrage_99
Aug 30, 07:42 AM
Is 99 for your year of birth? It's not like there's ten of them. You've probably had too many nightmares about Woodstock.
For your information I'm 26 work, I have a Masters, I'm a officer (imagery information analyst) for the defence force. In my line of work I get this inanely useless "hippy crap" 24 hour a day 7 days a week, kind of sick of hearing the same doom and gloom stories.
The majority of the people who put these studies out usually have ZERO idea of how to combat the problems, they say it's bad and when you ask how can we do something about it they have not a clue. Hence influencial people have a problem taking certain groups seriously, and hence my overly cynical response.
For your information I'm 26 work, I have a Masters, I'm a officer (imagery information analyst) for the defence force. In my line of work I get this inanely useless "hippy crap" 24 hour a day 7 days a week, kind of sick of hearing the same doom and gloom stories.
The majority of the people who put these studies out usually have ZERO idea of how to combat the problems, they say it's bad and when you ask how can we do something about it they have not a clue. Hence influencial people have a problem taking certain groups seriously, and hence my overly cynical response.
dethmaShine
May 2, 10:12 AM
To the end user it makes no difference. It's fine if you know, but to a novice quickly correcting them on the difference between a virus, a trojan, or whatever else contributes approximately zero percent towards solving the problem.
I'd say a social engineering attack is worse than a virus, because social engineering attacks succeed far more often than viruses do. Glass is half full.
I have no idea how this is relevant to anything I've brought up. "I agree."
From one of your posts:
The vast majority of users don't differentiate between "virus", "trojan", "phishing e-mail", or any other terminology when they are actually referring to malware as "anything I don't want on my machine.
What I am trying to say that there needs to be awareness and if a person cannot differentiate, then its his/her problem.
I'd say a social engineering attack is worse than a virus, because social engineering attacks succeed far more often than viruses do. Glass is half full.
I have no idea how this is relevant to anything I've brought up. "I agree."
From one of your posts:
The vast majority of users don't differentiate between "virus", "trojan", "phishing e-mail", or any other terminology when they are actually referring to malware as "anything I don't want on my machine.
What I am trying to say that there needs to be awareness and if a person cannot differentiate, then its his/her problem.
milo
Sep 20, 11:39 AM
With FrontRow on the Mini it can act as a hub for the other computers in the network and play the movies via iTunes streaming.
Sure. And you're spending more to have two computers instead of one computer and one cheaper, simpler box.
1) No TV tuner support (eyeTV hybrid no go on iTV). eyeTV on another computer defeats the purpose of pausing live TV.
If they can make it work, I don't see any reason why eyeTV live TV couldn't be paused via the iTV remote. There's no technical reason it wouldn't be possible, they'd just have to implement it. Same with buying iTunes content direct from iTV, they could certainly add the feature if they wanted to.
But nobody will be downloading HD for iTV, so that's a moot point. From what I've seen so far it actually does less than other media streamers.
That's an assumption on your part. How do you know that iTunes won't include HD content in the future? How do you know that people won't be able to stream HD content from other sources?
?? TiVo will provide you a PVR that burns DVDs, has a tuner and hard drive, and wirelessly connects to your macintosh and plays your photo library and itunes for $300 plus you have to buy a usb network reciever for like $25.
So it's basically the same thing except for the videos which of course didn't exist when tivo adopted the technology, and since they'll play your photos they'll probalby adopt the videos too. I think I'll just hold out for my TiVo to do the same thing PLUS be a PVR and DVD burner.
Link? And is the $300 buying the box, or is that a montly fee for some amount of time? Where is the mac support, the tivo site says they don't support it?
Sure. And you're spending more to have two computers instead of one computer and one cheaper, simpler box.
1) No TV tuner support (eyeTV hybrid no go on iTV). eyeTV on another computer defeats the purpose of pausing live TV.
If they can make it work, I don't see any reason why eyeTV live TV couldn't be paused via the iTV remote. There's no technical reason it wouldn't be possible, they'd just have to implement it. Same with buying iTunes content direct from iTV, they could certainly add the feature if they wanted to.
But nobody will be downloading HD for iTV, so that's a moot point. From what I've seen so far it actually does less than other media streamers.
That's an assumption on your part. How do you know that iTunes won't include HD content in the future? How do you know that people won't be able to stream HD content from other sources?
?? TiVo will provide you a PVR that burns DVDs, has a tuner and hard drive, and wirelessly connects to your macintosh and plays your photo library and itunes for $300 plus you have to buy a usb network reciever for like $25.
So it's basically the same thing except for the videos which of course didn't exist when tivo adopted the technology, and since they'll play your photos they'll probalby adopt the videos too. I think I'll just hold out for my TiVo to do the same thing PLUS be a PVR and DVD burner.
Link? And is the $300 buying the box, or is that a montly fee for some amount of time? Where is the mac support, the tivo site says they don't support it?
G5isAlive
Mar 18, 09:51 AM
Sir it is perfect.
You are paying for the same thing.
I have an unlimted plan
and I never have gone over 5gb
if one has a 2gb plan and never goes over and we both surf on the internet
Tethering whats the difference?
I have no idea why you can't understand Data=Data
Water=Water
both are pure
the logic so you understand
I drink water = use Data on the phone
I pour water over my head = Data through tethering
So its valid. Using the same amount of substance, what we pay for, to do things in different ways, what should not matter.
Amount should be the issue not how I used it.
even my 10 year old son LOL when we talked about this, he said he doesn't understand why you would pay twice for the same thing.
Obviously it escapes you.
Sir,
I recommend you go to someone other than your 10 year old son for legal advice as it is clear you have no idea what a contract is. While you may wish the amount is the issue, that is not what you agreed to. Its also clear you don't understand how AT&T comes up with their pricing models and how your selfish actions effect us all.
Again, no one forced you to enter into an agreement with AT&T. There were other phones. And now that Verizon has the iPhone you can even switch carriers.
But you did agree, and now you are operating outside that agreement and crying foul. Sorry, the foul is on you. It doesn't matter if you think they are charging too much etc, any more than you can go in to a store and buy one bottle and steal one bottle of your beloved water because you think their price is too high.
If you feel you are operating under your contract legally, then have the backbone to enter into legal action. I am sure there is a class action hungry lawyer who would love to take on AT&T for some quick bucks, if in fact you do have a case.
But we both know, you don't have a case because you are in fact operating outside the contract.
Just because you can fool a 10 year old into justifying your actions, does not mean you can fool the rest of us.
You are paying for the same thing.
I have an unlimted plan
and I never have gone over 5gb
if one has a 2gb plan and never goes over and we both surf on the internet
Tethering whats the difference?
I have no idea why you can't understand Data=Data
Water=Water
both are pure
the logic so you understand
I drink water = use Data on the phone
I pour water over my head = Data through tethering
So its valid. Using the same amount of substance, what we pay for, to do things in different ways, what should not matter.
Amount should be the issue not how I used it.
even my 10 year old son LOL when we talked about this, he said he doesn't understand why you would pay twice for the same thing.
Obviously it escapes you.
Sir,
I recommend you go to someone other than your 10 year old son for legal advice as it is clear you have no idea what a contract is. While you may wish the amount is the issue, that is not what you agreed to. Its also clear you don't understand how AT&T comes up with their pricing models and how your selfish actions effect us all.
Again, no one forced you to enter into an agreement with AT&T. There were other phones. And now that Verizon has the iPhone you can even switch carriers.
But you did agree, and now you are operating outside that agreement and crying foul. Sorry, the foul is on you. It doesn't matter if you think they are charging too much etc, any more than you can go in to a store and buy one bottle and steal one bottle of your beloved water because you think their price is too high.
If you feel you are operating under your contract legally, then have the backbone to enter into legal action. I am sure there is a class action hungry lawyer who would love to take on AT&T for some quick bucks, if in fact you do have a case.
But we both know, you don't have a case because you are in fact operating outside the contract.
Just because you can fool a 10 year old into justifying your actions, does not mean you can fool the rest of us.
boncellis
Jul 12, 10:50 AM
...So IMO, while this low-end tower would fill a gap in apple's line up and be ideal for many on this board, I'm not sure it's a gap that many consumers fit in to, or that apple particularly cares about filling.
As much as I hate to say it, you're probably right. Apple seems to be doing rather well with their current lineup after all.
What gets me is why Apple wouldn't put Merom in the Mini? A redesigned Mini offering different processors might help close the gap for those who want a more robust solution than the current Mini but can't (or won't) shell out the money for the Mac Pro.
As much as I hate to say it, you're probably right. Apple seems to be doing rather well with their current lineup after all.
What gets me is why Apple wouldn't put Merom in the Mini? A redesigned Mini offering different processors might help close the gap for those who want a more robust solution than the current Mini but can't (or won't) shell out the money for the Mac Pro.
hanpa
Oct 8, 10:52 AM
For one, Objective-C is really a pretty elegant language once you learn it, and if you really care you can write mostly in C/C++ with a few Objective-C hooks.
As for the sdk, That will NEVER happen. Maybe for a hobbyist having to buy a mac may be a (very) slight issue, but if you can't afford $500 for a new mac-mini than you really aren't serious about developing an app are you? Why should Apple be serious about attracting you as a developer?
I remember reading a few weeks ago that apple has 125,000 developers signed up - finding eager devs willing to learn the platform and language is not a problem.
Look, I run an iPhone development business with 8 full time employees. A single iPhone game can cost us upwards of 6 figures (or more) to develop. What's a single one time cost of a few thousand in hardware?
Brian Howard
InMotion Software (http://www.inmotionsoftware.com)
I don't think that the cost of buying a mac is the problem, it's the availability of the initial experience with the SDK. 125,000 developers already signed up - I think that there would be at least twice that if the SDK could be used from Windows.
As for the sdk, That will NEVER happen. Maybe for a hobbyist having to buy a mac may be a (very) slight issue, but if you can't afford $500 for a new mac-mini than you really aren't serious about developing an app are you? Why should Apple be serious about attracting you as a developer?
I remember reading a few weeks ago that apple has 125,000 developers signed up - finding eager devs willing to learn the platform and language is not a problem.
Look, I run an iPhone development business with 8 full time employees. A single iPhone game can cost us upwards of 6 figures (or more) to develop. What's a single one time cost of a few thousand in hardware?
Brian Howard
InMotion Software (http://www.inmotionsoftware.com)
I don't think that the cost of buying a mac is the problem, it's the availability of the initial experience with the SDK. 125,000 developers already signed up - I think that there would be at least twice that if the SDK could be used from Windows.
skellener
Sep 12, 04:25 PM
This is the perfect device for Apple to start selling subscriptions to shows to replace cable. Wouldn't you rather pay for only the shows that you watch?
You are absolutely correct!
Repeat after me...there will NEVER be a DVR from Apple...there will NEVER be a DVR from Apple...there will NEVER be a DVR from Apple...there will NEVER be a DVR from Apple...there will NEVER be a DVR from Apple...there will NEVER be a DVR from Apple...there will NEVER be a DVR from Apple...
Apple does not want you to record television. They want you to purchase shows from iTunes! Case in point iTV.
As fas as wouldn't I rather pay for only the shows I watch? Sure! But Apple's current pricing is much to prohibitive. It's cheaper for me to pay $50 a month for DirecTV with the HD option than to pay $2 a pop per tiny 320x240 (oops, excuse me 640x480) episode. The price needs to come down and the quality needs to go up (again) for me to ditch DirecTV. I would be happy to do it, if the price/quality meets my needs. Maybe by 2008?
You are absolutely correct!
Repeat after me...there will NEVER be a DVR from Apple...there will NEVER be a DVR from Apple...there will NEVER be a DVR from Apple...there will NEVER be a DVR from Apple...there will NEVER be a DVR from Apple...there will NEVER be a DVR from Apple...there will NEVER be a DVR from Apple...
Apple does not want you to record television. They want you to purchase shows from iTunes! Case in point iTV.
As fas as wouldn't I rather pay for only the shows I watch? Sure! But Apple's current pricing is much to prohibitive. It's cheaper for me to pay $50 a month for DirecTV with the HD option than to pay $2 a pop per tiny 320x240 (oops, excuse me 640x480) episode. The price needs to come down and the quality needs to go up (again) for me to ditch DirecTV. I would be happy to do it, if the price/quality meets my needs. Maybe by 2008?
Edge100
Apr 15, 10:14 AM
It's funny how we all want to be heard, accepted, and given a chance to express ourselves and fight for what we believe in, but the minute any group, church, or organization stands behind their beliefs, they're immediately labeled as hateful, homophobes with no hearts. Seriously, WTF? Aren't THEY entitled to fight for what THEY believe in as well? I think respect is a two-way street. We sure cry and moan and whine if we don't get any of it, but I see a lot of my own community acting quick to bad-mouth anyone that doesn't support our agenda. Maybe that's why I'm so "eh" about this whole thing.
The thing is, a lot of these beliefs ARE hateful.
People can believe what they will, but I'm under no obligation to hold my tongue; you may be entitled to your beliefs, but you are not entitled to have those beliefs - no matter where they arise from - go unchallenged.
The thing is, a lot of these beliefs ARE hateful.
People can believe what they will, but I'm under no obligation to hold my tongue; you may be entitled to your beliefs, but you are not entitled to have those beliefs - no matter where they arise from - go unchallenged.
ricgnzlzcr
Oct 25, 11:15 PM
I think price will be the key. These are pricey chips. Apple will have to work their magic.
I wonder how many current Mac Pro owners will just buy the new chips off pricewatch.com and pop them in.
I think price won't be as big of a factor as you'd imagine. These computers are directed towards pros. I'm sure those who need the power will continually purchase at this price. Not too long ago, the stock high-end powermac was about $3500. If they build it, people will buy it:p .
I wonder how many current Mac Pro owners will just buy the new chips off pricewatch.com and pop them in.
I think price won't be as big of a factor as you'd imagine. These computers are directed towards pros. I'm sure those who need the power will continually purchase at this price. Not too long ago, the stock high-end powermac was about $3500. If they build it, people will buy it:p .
ATD
Sep 26, 04:15 PM
2nd Story: Pixar announces that it is increasing its movie release schedule from one movie every two years to a movie every two days :)
I'm sure the studios are drooling for a 80 core model, it would make rendering a lot faster. I heard that Monsters Inc had single frames that took up to 90 hours to render. :eek:
I'm sure the studios are drooling for a 80 core model, it would make rendering a lot faster. I heard that Monsters Inc had single frames that took up to 90 hours to render. :eek:
alfonsog
Mar 18, 10:11 AM
I believe nobody is abusing the system; instead, it's the system -unlimited, 2GB, 4Gb, whatever- that is unable to cope with the different needs. As AT&T can monitor the usage of the databand, just give us a plan where we pay based in usage, for example $5 for each block of 1GB, and be done with it!
That seems like the best and most fair system for users and the company. Pay for what you use. Of course the company makes a lot more profit by overselling plans and hoping people underuse the minutes and/or data.
As for the unlimited plan I'm sure they can phase out the grandfathering, they can choose not to renew your 2-year contract and force you to sign a new one. They just don't want to risk losing a customer for now, but then again where else can you go; Verizon said they will be dropping the unlimited soon as well.
The contracts are technically legal but at the same time probably the whole exclusivity is against some kind of monopoly law that is rarely enforced. Verizon hasn't affected pricing, so there is really no competition if you want an iPhone. Maybe if it was offered with every carrier. If we had some government regulation and oversight and a national based cell phone tower infrastructure we wouldn't be so far behind other advanced countries and be able to offer the iPhone on all carriers. Also I'd rather pay unsubsidized price and do what I want with it.
That seems like the best and most fair system for users and the company. Pay for what you use. Of course the company makes a lot more profit by overselling plans and hoping people underuse the minutes and/or data.
As for the unlimited plan I'm sure they can phase out the grandfathering, they can choose not to renew your 2-year contract and force you to sign a new one. They just don't want to risk losing a customer for now, but then again where else can you go; Verizon said they will be dropping the unlimited soon as well.
The contracts are technically legal but at the same time probably the whole exclusivity is against some kind of monopoly law that is rarely enforced. Verizon hasn't affected pricing, so there is really no competition if you want an iPhone. Maybe if it was offered with every carrier. If we had some government regulation and oversight and a national based cell phone tower infrastructure we wouldn't be so far behind other advanced countries and be able to offer the iPhone on all carriers. Also I'd rather pay unsubsidized price and do what I want with it.
javajedi
Oct 13, 05:48 PM
ddtlm,
I have my theory as to why java took the lead over C in the sqrt example. There is quite a common misconception about Java that it's always slow, and there is a reason for it. Back in the early days prior to 1.2, it wasn't uncommon to see something like we did here run 10,20, or even 30 times slower then C. VM's today (1.4 /w hotspot) are much smarter than they were years ago. IMO, Hotspot makes the conventional "just in time compilers" look like a thing of the past.
Anyways, when you really think about it, Java really has an extra card up it's sleeve. Sure we tell GCC we want max optimizations, (03, etc), but GCC is limited to compile-time optimization. I think since java has adaptive runtime optimizations, specifically hotspot, the runtime optimization is what really makes the difference.
The reason why it's called "HotSpot", is literally because it looks for "hot spots" by profiling on the fly at runtime. Pretty cool, huh? Your first adaptive optimizations kick in second time the loop is ran. Not to mention the conventional JIT optimizations... code will natively compile and so you eliminate the costly overhead of bytecode translations.
Lastly, I am going to do the matrix operation you spoke about, I have to finish up some course work, so I may not get to it tonight, but as soon as I can devote some time to it, I will.
I have my theory as to why java took the lead over C in the sqrt example. There is quite a common misconception about Java that it's always slow, and there is a reason for it. Back in the early days prior to 1.2, it wasn't uncommon to see something like we did here run 10,20, or even 30 times slower then C. VM's today (1.4 /w hotspot) are much smarter than they were years ago. IMO, Hotspot makes the conventional "just in time compilers" look like a thing of the past.
Anyways, when you really think about it, Java really has an extra card up it's sleeve. Sure we tell GCC we want max optimizations, (03, etc), but GCC is limited to compile-time optimization. I think since java has adaptive runtime optimizations, specifically hotspot, the runtime optimization is what really makes the difference.
The reason why it's called "HotSpot", is literally because it looks for "hot spots" by profiling on the fly at runtime. Pretty cool, huh? Your first adaptive optimizations kick in second time the loop is ran. Not to mention the conventional JIT optimizations... code will natively compile and so you eliminate the costly overhead of bytecode translations.
Lastly, I am going to do the matrix operation you spoke about, I have to finish up some course work, so I may not get to it tonight, but as soon as I can devote some time to it, I will.
jaseone
Mar 19, 05:59 PM
I wish people would understand that this program is mainly created so that people who use Linux (don't know if you have heard of it, it has a larger market share than Mac OS X if I remember right :rolleyes: ) can listen to the music which they have purchased.
Uhm why is the program Windows only then???
Uhm why is the program Windows only then???
Cowinacape
Aug 29, 02:45 PM
Boo hoo. its a business, waht do they realistically expect?
Basically I agree with you, who really gves a rats rumpuss what Green Peace has to say about anything any more, where do there ships dump their bilges when they have finished trying to save the world from it's self?
Hard to take opperations like Green Peace seriously, when their primary motive for being in operation is making money. When they no longer spend about 85% of their budgets on administration, for their fancy corporate offices and top end wages, then maybe what they have to say might be worth something.
The Green Peace, that exsists now in mearly a shell of it's former self, that started just up the coast from where I live, and acctually had purpose and meaning when it was founded. Now it is just a machine, like the rest of the corporate world.
Basically I agree with you, who really gves a rats rumpuss what Green Peace has to say about anything any more, where do there ships dump their bilges when they have finished trying to save the world from it's self?
Hard to take opperations like Green Peace seriously, when their primary motive for being in operation is making money. When they no longer spend about 85% of their budgets on administration, for their fancy corporate offices and top end wages, then maybe what they have to say might be worth something.
The Green Peace, that exsists now in mearly a shell of it's former self, that started just up the coast from where I live, and acctually had purpose and meaning when it was founded. Now it is just a machine, like the rest of the corporate world.
bobbleheadbob
Apr 9, 10:28 AM
I'd love for Pokemon to be on iOS devices.
My kids would love that, too. Only problem would be trying to get my iPhone or iPad away from them! ;)
My kids would love that, too. Only problem would be trying to get my iPhone or iPad away from them! ;)
cmaier
Apr 21, 08:25 AM
You must live in a alternate univerise if think that Apple users are tech savy. You average user is very happy to have Apple control thier experience, ie they are techtards. And frankly owning an Apple product is the best thing for them, with a PC etc they will just get themselves into trouble.
If your still under some illusion of how tech savy they are read through the macrumors forums...... and remeber they are the more tech savy ones!
I have moved every family member over to mac who has no idea about computer, they are happy. The people I know who work in IT, develop and are really tech savy, still have a PC (and an android, some have both android and iphone)
I own 3 macs and 5 advices. I have a PhD in electrical engineering and designed microprocessors for 14 years, including microprocessors used in many PCs. I've written millions of lines of source code in C, assembler, C++, etc.
And most of the folks I know who use Linux or solaris all day at work to design chips use macs at home and carry iPhones. I don't know a single one of them who uses an android phone (many carry blackberries however).
If your still under some illusion of how tech savy they are read through the macrumors forums...... and remeber they are the more tech savy ones!
I have moved every family member over to mac who has no idea about computer, they are happy. The people I know who work in IT, develop and are really tech savy, still have a PC (and an android, some have both android and iphone)
I own 3 macs and 5 advices. I have a PhD in electrical engineering and designed microprocessors for 14 years, including microprocessors used in many PCs. I've written millions of lines of source code in C, assembler, C++, etc.
And most of the folks I know who use Linux or solaris all day at work to design chips use macs at home and carry iPhones. I don't know a single one of them who uses an android phone (many carry blackberries however).
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה