Keleko
Apr 20, 06:46 PM
Yeah! My battery lasts for upwards of two days. Definitely not comparable at all to an iPhone.
Inferior interface is subjective, and you've given no reference so that comment is irrelevant.
Name me one app that you have on your iPhone that doesn't have a similar if not identical app on the Android Market.
Camera+. With the new Clarity feature it is easily the best camera app on any phone. And it doesn't come in Android.
Inferior interface is subjective, and you've given no reference so that comment is irrelevant.
Name me one app that you have on your iPhone that doesn't have a similar if not identical app on the Android Market.
Camera+. With the new Clarity feature it is easily the best camera app on any phone. And it doesn't come in Android.
D4F
Apr 28, 08:24 AM
Excellent! I love it when people put these predictions down in black and white for posterity. OK, see you in 2020 when the Tablet Era will be ten years old, the dominant computer format people buy, and containing capabilities that we cannot even imagine now.
But you've put down in writing that it will not be something you work with even then. Noted.
Go and read.
my 5-10 year predictions are actually quite funny.
You obviously have no idea how this works and no matter what stuff those little toys bring they will still be just fillers for masses not real PCs
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/332337/how_do_they_do_it_avatar_special_effects/
4352 servers during the peak of production of the Avatar blockbuster. / 34,816 processor cores, 104,448GB of memory in total. Now you get the idea what is a PC that you work with? They needed warehouses of them to get the job done and you put a little tablet in the same category as those PCs.
But you've put down in writing that it will not be something you work with even then. Noted.
Go and read.
my 5-10 year predictions are actually quite funny.
You obviously have no idea how this works and no matter what stuff those little toys bring they will still be just fillers for masses not real PCs
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/332337/how_do_they_do_it_avatar_special_effects/
4352 servers during the peak of production of the Avatar blockbuster. / 34,816 processor cores, 104,448GB of memory in total. Now you get the idea what is a PC that you work with? They needed warehouses of them to get the job done and you put a little tablet in the same category as those PCs.
appleguy123
Apr 22, 10:33 PM
Would it make a difference if a huge portion of what you've been exposed to, regarding religion/Christianity, was fundamentally incorrect? For example, there's no such place as hellfire; nobody is going to burn forever. Everybody isn't going to heaven; people will live right here on the earth. If you learned that a huge portion of those really crazy doctrines were simply wrong, would it cause you to view Christianity/religion differently?
I would first like to know by what standard you could call those doctrines wrong while verifying your own.
I would first like to know by what standard you could call those doctrines wrong while verifying your own.
matticus008
Mar 21, 02:45 AM
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.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
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.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
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.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
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.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
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.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
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.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
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.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
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?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
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.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
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.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
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.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
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.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
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.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
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.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
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?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
Ericatomars
Oct 7, 12:27 PM
yeah that they were also sure that chicago would get the olympics! It didnt happen...
Once android gets a grip on apple and its actually at the point where they could have that chance Apple will change the game! Thats just how it goes... There is a reason why so many people stand behind Apple's products....
Once android gets a grip on apple and its actually at the point where they could have that chance Apple will change the game! Thats just how it goes... There is a reason why so many people stand behind Apple's products....
mdelvecchio
Apr 21, 02:37 PM
This virus talk is full of ignorance. Mac OSX is not more secure than Windows. Windows is just targeted more, because of the marketshare.
If you think that Apple writes perfect code everytime then you have no idea what you're talking about.
youre citing "security by obscurity", and its been debunked. OS X has much more marketshare than 9 did, yet has no viruses where 9 did have viruses.
UNIX is inherently more secure than windows. its how the OSes are designed that makes windows more vulnerable.
facts.
If you think that Apple writes perfect code everytime then you have no idea what you're talking about.
youre citing "security by obscurity", and its been debunked. OS X has much more marketshare than 9 did, yet has no viruses where 9 did have viruses.
UNIX is inherently more secure than windows. its how the OSes are designed that makes windows more vulnerable.
facts.
Rasta4i
Apr 21, 04:02 AM
Irregardless of whether or not carriers will lock it down, it's available RIGHT NOW. And in the event that they put in measures to stop it, someone will find a way around it eventually.
It was NEVER available for iOS.
Your wariness in downloading apps doesn't negate the fact that there are many apps available, and all you have to do is spend an extra 20 seconds reading reviews to find out if the app is legitimate or not.
I had poor battery life on my Optimus as well. Then I found Data Switch, and my battery lasts forever now. I haven't tested how long it will go, but I imagine I'd easily get 2 days out of it.
I just hate that people have to blindly bash Android products, and this isn't aimed directly at you, just the majority of users on this site in general.
I respect the iPhone, it's a beautiful piece of hardware.
It works, and it works well.
However, with the little bit of knowledge that I have, my Android phone works just as well FOR ME, and I paid nothing for it.
The value in an iPhone just isn't there for me in particular.
The way you speak about tethering is as if apple are charging you for it... I live in the UK where the iphone is on every network now, some allow tethering for free some made you pay. I was with o2, they were the first network to get the iphone over here and they no longer charge extra for tethering. you saying it was never available on iOS confuses me as its clearly not true and based on the carrier
It was NEVER available for iOS.
Your wariness in downloading apps doesn't negate the fact that there are many apps available, and all you have to do is spend an extra 20 seconds reading reviews to find out if the app is legitimate or not.
I had poor battery life on my Optimus as well. Then I found Data Switch, and my battery lasts forever now. I haven't tested how long it will go, but I imagine I'd easily get 2 days out of it.
I just hate that people have to blindly bash Android products, and this isn't aimed directly at you, just the majority of users on this site in general.
I respect the iPhone, it's a beautiful piece of hardware.
It works, and it works well.
However, with the little bit of knowledge that I have, my Android phone works just as well FOR ME, and I paid nothing for it.
The value in an iPhone just isn't there for me in particular.
The way you speak about tethering is as if apple are charging you for it... I live in the UK where the iphone is on every network now, some allow tethering for free some made you pay. I was with o2, they were the first network to get the iphone over here and they no longer charge extra for tethering. you saying it was never available on iOS confuses me as its clearly not true and based on the carrier
woodbine
Apr 13, 02:49 AM
And so is this new version $299 which is a deal compared to the $999 for FCS. Heck MSRP on FCE is $199 so with a student discount this new version is very reasonably priced. Which leads me to think this is probably a stand alone app and it does not include all the goodies of FCS like DVD Studio Pro, Compressor, etc..
Is this correct thinking?
And if so does this mean that FCS will be broke into apps? How much for the other apps?
Hurry up and wait, the apple way.
think you may be right here, my guess is 299 for FCP X and something else for the rest...individual apps, separate prices. Personally, I'd prefer that way, I have no use for DVDSP and Motion, ST are fine for my purposes.
Is this correct thinking?
And if so does this mean that FCS will be broke into apps? How much for the other apps?
Hurry up and wait, the apple way.
think you may be right here, my guess is 299 for FCP X and something else for the rest...individual apps, separate prices. Personally, I'd prefer that way, I have no use for DVDSP and Motion, ST are fine for my purposes.
mcarnes
Sep 20, 02:02 AM
But it sure looks better than it sounds...;)
:p Good one.
:p Good one.
iJohnHenry
Apr 15, 11:40 AM
I feel sad at how many of you are totally distorting the message of Christ.
Well, perhaps if the Bible didn't contain so much self-serving crap by religious 'elders', we might have a better chance picking out Christ's nuggets.
The real blame goes on those who use his name to sully his very purpose.
The real blame goes to those that cover themselves in His name, but only for false purpose.
Those false Christians make me sick.
OK, you got me on that one. Me too.
Well, perhaps if the Bible didn't contain so much self-serving crap by religious 'elders', we might have a better chance picking out Christ's nuggets.
The real blame goes on those who use his name to sully his very purpose.
The real blame goes to those that cover themselves in His name, but only for false purpose.
Those false Christians make me sick.
OK, you got me on that one. Me too.
Macinposh
Oct 26, 04:36 AM
No Way -- We had activity monitor open -- Photoshop used an average of 72% off ALL FOUR PROCESSORS.
Wow. You must be using some uber version of PS.
I havent managed to break 110% whatever I am doing with my MP.
You have the CS 3 or 4?
We did use safari at the same time to download a template for the art book (250 MG) and we had a DVD ripping via Mac the Ripper as well.
Ooooh..
Have you tought that that might be the reason for the high cpu usage? Eh? By any coincidence?
Wow. You must be using some uber version of PS.
I havent managed to break 110% whatever I am doing with my MP.
You have the CS 3 or 4?
We did use safari at the same time to download a template for the art book (250 MG) and we had a DVD ripping via Mac the Ripper as well.
Ooooh..
Have you tought that that might be the reason for the high cpu usage? Eh? By any coincidence?
samcraig
Mar 18, 12:37 PM
I want that text so I can call them up and lambast the eff out of them.
I'm not jailbroken, I don't tether. But it pisses me off that they are wanting to limit data.
I just checked, my data use per month for the last six months is anywhere from 4GB-7GB a month. Mostly because I stream a radio station. Pandora is better at managing data sending it in packets, this app uses straight streaming.
I'll be staying off my wifi at home and at work.
Ok - so you didn't even get the text. You might never get the text - but yet you're still going to have a tantrum and "teach ATT a lesson" ??? Ok - good luck with that.
I never said anything about it being an accident. I also don't think your argument is "clear" unless you have some kind of internal information that the rest of us don't know about.
If it is really that simple to develop "rules and logic engines" to crack down on tethering, why did it take almost a full year (after introducing tethering) to do it? A logical evaluation of network activity (one that can be done by a computer) works in many cases, but there are always instances where it misses things, or triggers a false alert. AT&T is limited in this regard. I also don't see anything special about the mobile hotspot feature that allows AT&T more access to information that it did not have previously. See the rest of my post.
If people aren't being careful about what they are doing online while tethered (for example, they are doing things their iPhones cannot do natively), it's pretty simple for AT&T to see that kind of activity. But someone who is smart about it can probably get by indefinitely.
I think AT&T is starting to panicking about the people who are leaving to go to Verizon. They need to make sure they are milking every dime they can get out of the iPhone users they still have
You missed the point of what I said in my post. For one - I explained why they may have waited. Pretty clearly.
I'm guessing a lot of people here are pissing and moaning about something that hasn't even affected them (yet) and might not ever. Which is even sillier. It sounds like very few (if any) on this thread actually GOT the email/txt.
And to reiterate what I said several posts ago (but so few people read full threads...) that I don't agree with ATT charging twice for people on CAPPED plans. If you pay for 2 gigs - you should get 2 gigs - no matter what. It's finite.
But unlimited data is a different matter. And for those that can't understand or see the difference - there's little use in trying to explain it over and over. You don't get it.
I'm not jailbroken, I don't tether. But it pisses me off that they are wanting to limit data.
I just checked, my data use per month for the last six months is anywhere from 4GB-7GB a month. Mostly because I stream a radio station. Pandora is better at managing data sending it in packets, this app uses straight streaming.
I'll be staying off my wifi at home and at work.
Ok - so you didn't even get the text. You might never get the text - but yet you're still going to have a tantrum and "teach ATT a lesson" ??? Ok - good luck with that.
I never said anything about it being an accident. I also don't think your argument is "clear" unless you have some kind of internal information that the rest of us don't know about.
If it is really that simple to develop "rules and logic engines" to crack down on tethering, why did it take almost a full year (after introducing tethering) to do it? A logical evaluation of network activity (one that can be done by a computer) works in many cases, but there are always instances where it misses things, or triggers a false alert. AT&T is limited in this regard. I also don't see anything special about the mobile hotspot feature that allows AT&T more access to information that it did not have previously. See the rest of my post.
If people aren't being careful about what they are doing online while tethered (for example, they are doing things their iPhones cannot do natively), it's pretty simple for AT&T to see that kind of activity. But someone who is smart about it can probably get by indefinitely.
I think AT&T is starting to panicking about the people who are leaving to go to Verizon. They need to make sure they are milking every dime they can get out of the iPhone users they still have
You missed the point of what I said in my post. For one - I explained why they may have waited. Pretty clearly.
I'm guessing a lot of people here are pissing and moaning about something that hasn't even affected them (yet) and might not ever. Which is even sillier. It sounds like very few (if any) on this thread actually GOT the email/txt.
And to reiterate what I said several posts ago (but so few people read full threads...) that I don't agree with ATT charging twice for people on CAPPED plans. If you pay for 2 gigs - you should get 2 gigs - no matter what. It's finite.
But unlimited data is a different matter. And for those that can't understand or see the difference - there's little use in trying to explain it over and over. You don't get it.
dnedved
Sep 12, 05:04 PM
As an IT consultant, I recommend for anyone who's thinking of using an Airport Express for audio or a Mac Mini for a living room computer (or now this new iTV that will come out next year) to just spend the money on getting a wired connection. Ultimately, wireless will not be at the quality it needs to be to handle this throughput CONSISTENTLY. I still get skips on my Airpot Express when streaming from iTunes.
As an IT consultant you should know about caching. The bandwidth is there, a little bit of caching and the inconsistency caused by an occasional glitch in the throughput won't even be noticed. OS X doesn't do extensive read-ahead caching over network file systems. It's arguable whether a general-purpose OS even should (You and I probably both want it to but how often do you hear other users asking for it?) But with the workload that this device will be doing it's a no-brainer that doing 64-128MB of read-ahead would be a good idea. You can bet that Apple is smart enough to think of that. Hell, if they get the downloads working over the internet connection, the delivery around the LAN is much easier -- wired or wireless. 802.11g is a MUCH fatter pipe than anybody here's internet connection I'm willing to bet.
I agree with you about the current situation. It's just a simple tweak on the client though. Right now I even have occasional glitches streaming video off my NAS over GigE but it's just the lack of caching, it's certainly not a bandwidth issue with GigE!!!
As an IT consultant you should know about caching. The bandwidth is there, a little bit of caching and the inconsistency caused by an occasional glitch in the throughput won't even be noticed. OS X doesn't do extensive read-ahead caching over network file systems. It's arguable whether a general-purpose OS even should (You and I probably both want it to but how often do you hear other users asking for it?) But with the workload that this device will be doing it's a no-brainer that doing 64-128MB of read-ahead would be a good idea. You can bet that Apple is smart enough to think of that. Hell, if they get the downloads working over the internet connection, the delivery around the LAN is much easier -- wired or wireless. 802.11g is a MUCH fatter pipe than anybody here's internet connection I'm willing to bet.
I agree with you about the current situation. It's just a simple tweak on the client though. Right now I even have occasional glitches streaming video off my NAS over GigE but it's just the lack of caching, it's certainly not a bandwidth issue with GigE!!!
Gators Fan
Jun 19, 11:55 AM
It'd be great if we could get an engineer-type on here that actually knows how all this stuff's supposed to work. Not a flack from AT&T, or another pissed-off complaining customer, but someone who can say "It isn't working properly because. . ." in a fashion we can all understand. Just saying.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 13, 03:40 PM
We don't need nuclear, or coal or oil for that matter.
A large (think 100milesx100miles) solar array in death valley for example, could power the entire Continental US.
That would destroy the local ecology (yes, there IS ecology there) as well as a number of historical and archaeological sites, and obliterate native-owned lands that provide subsistence in the form of pine nuts and springs among other things. There is nowhere in the US were a 100x100mi solar array would be acceptable.
A large (think 100milesx100miles) solar array in death valley for example, could power the entire Continental US.
That would destroy the local ecology (yes, there IS ecology there) as well as a number of historical and archaeological sites, and obliterate native-owned lands that provide subsistence in the form of pine nuts and springs among other things. There is nowhere in the US were a 100x100mi solar array would be acceptable.
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.
safarka
Apr 9, 03:40 PM
Can anyone tell me what are the names of 2 games placed on the picture above the article. One is Tony Hawk i guess but the second? Thanks
Sodner
Mar 18, 08:44 AM
Get em AT&T. Bust them all. Hold them to the contracts they signed. Fine them, cancel them, jail them. Do what's in your right per the contract to punish all the theives.
Analog Kid
Oct 26, 01:35 AM
Just convince Apple to buy SGI.
Not a half bad idea really...
Not a half bad idea really...
Multimedia
Jul 12, 04:24 PM
man, my head is spinning...Yonah, Mermon, Woodcrest, Core Duo 2 (isn't that redundant?)
Don't you just long for the good old days when we'd get one G4 processor for 18 months? ;)In A Word NO. There is nothing complicated about understanding Intel's Processor line. Only lazy consumers unwilling to read anything.
All the details have been spoon fed to us for months by generous meembers here. I see no excuse for not know the differences by now and why what belongs where.
Don't you just long for the good old days when we'd get one G4 processor for 18 months? ;)In A Word NO. There is nothing complicated about understanding Intel's Processor line. Only lazy consumers unwilling to read anything.
All the details have been spoon fed to us for months by generous meembers here. I see no excuse for not know the differences by now and why what belongs where.
samcraig
Mar 18, 09:22 AM
Please point that out in the contract, know it all.
Guess what, it isn't there.
Go look up the word Unlimited in the dictionary. Internalize and understand it. Come back here when you're done. Then come into a court room. Id like to sit back watch you (as I will eventually be watching AT&T) dance around the clear and concise definition of the word.
I've engaged in long, drawn out discussions with my legal pals about this very issue for several years, and they all agree it would completely impossible for AT&T to get out of court unscathed over this word "Unlimited"
Most of you people don't grasp the significance of the word in this case, which is not at all surprising given the crowd. (young and/or naive).
Most also think that because AT&T includes fine print in a contract, they can enforce it however they wish...which of course is a laughable fantasy to anyone who has sat through the first day of contract law.
Go look up the words: entitlement, spoiled, ignorance and unfounded :)
Guess what, it isn't there.
Go look up the word Unlimited in the dictionary. Internalize and understand it. Come back here when you're done. Then come into a court room. Id like to sit back watch you (as I will eventually be watching AT&T) dance around the clear and concise definition of the word.
I've engaged in long, drawn out discussions with my legal pals about this very issue for several years, and they all agree it would completely impossible for AT&T to get out of court unscathed over this word "Unlimited"
Most of you people don't grasp the significance of the word in this case, which is not at all surprising given the crowd. (young and/or naive).
Most also think that because AT&T includes fine print in a contract, they can enforce it however they wish...which of course is a laughable fantasy to anyone who has sat through the first day of contract law.
Go look up the words: entitlement, spoiled, ignorance and unfounded :)
adroit
Aug 29, 01:14 PM
Not that this would make a big difference but according to the following Greenpeace's posted report:
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/greener-electronics-guide.pdf
Apple actually scored 8/27 (or round up to 3/10) instead of 2.7/10 as what the website posted. Fujisu-Simens Rankins is also wrong. Their score is 7/27 (or 2.7/10).
I think they got the two scores mixed up. So this would bring apple up one spot to a tie with Toshiba, setting them in the middle of the pack. ;)
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/greener-electronics-guide.pdf
Apple actually scored 8/27 (or round up to 3/10) instead of 2.7/10 as what the website posted. Fujisu-Simens Rankins is also wrong. Their score is 7/27 (or 2.7/10).
I think they got the two scores mixed up. So this would bring apple up one spot to a tie with Toshiba, setting them in the middle of the pack. ;)
Evangelion
Jul 12, 01:02 AM
Sounds like these new Mac Pros are going to be expensive.
In a way, yes. And I think that ThinkSecret is right as well: I bet that we will see a "MacPro Mini" featuring a mini-tower-design (or maybe pizzabox) that will use Conroe. MacPro would be all quad-core. The Mini would cost $1499 - $1999, whereas MacPro would cost $2499 - $3499. iMac would get Merom.
I made this prediction a while ago, and I still stand by it.
In a way, yes. And I think that ThinkSecret is right as well: I bet that we will see a "MacPro Mini" featuring a mini-tower-design (or maybe pizzabox) that will use Conroe. MacPro would be all quad-core. The Mini would cost $1499 - $1999, whereas MacPro would cost $2499 - $3499. iMac would get Merom.
I made this prediction a while ago, and I still stand by it.
MACRUS
Apr 13, 01:43 AM
I think I'm supposed to feel insulted by your ignorance. but I don't. If you want to make a counter argument, you can start by being honest about what I was saying.
you made a mistake. you should have said. "I think I'm supposed to feel insulted by "MY" ignorance. and I would have said. yes you should because no one in their right mind would think to use an application's automatic feature and call the results suitable for delivery.
AHAHA you have me laughing... only an Idiota would think that there is an application with one-click color correction and use such feature in a professional environment. You should change your user name to something else. usually when geeks speak they know what they are talking about. you obviously do not. do not bother to answer I do not have time to read your childish, uneducated or uninformative posts.
you made a mistake. you should have said. "I think I'm supposed to feel insulted by "MY" ignorance. and I would have said. yes you should because no one in their right mind would think to use an application's automatic feature and call the results suitable for delivery.
AHAHA you have me laughing... only an Idiota would think that there is an application with one-click color correction and use such feature in a professional environment. You should change your user name to something else. usually when geeks speak they know what they are talking about. you obviously do not. do not bother to answer I do not have time to read your childish, uneducated or uninformative posts.
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה