einmusiker
Mar 18, 01:16 PM
I'd like to see some kind of evidence that they can prove people are doing unauthorized tethering. You won't be seeing it so they really have nothing to charge you for. All we've heard so far is speculation and nothing more
matticus008
Mar 20, 08:41 PM
@eric_n_dfw
Perhaps you should read what you quote:
legal/illegal and right/wrong do not have to line up with each other in the real world.
I know this isn't directed at me, but you're right. Right/wrong and legal/illegal aren't matching binaries. However, all things that are illegal are wrong. Whether they are simultaneously right (that is, morally justified) depends on the issue. Some things that are legal can be wrong while being right as well. In extreme cases, the morally right thing can be in direct conflict with the law, warranting illegal action. In the overwhelming majority of cases, however, something that is "right" while simultaneously against the law is an issue that needs to be dealt with through legitimate change within the system.
That's why democracies exist--to give the people the ability to change the law and prevent the law from infringing on individual or group rights. The law, in this case, is not one of the extreme situations and there is not legitimate harm/reason to break the law except that it's easier and more convenient. There is no moral offense being committed by the law, and undermining the rule of law is not a justifiable offense over something as trivial as music use rights. In other words, it might be morally okay to use songs in your wedding video, but it's not morally okay to break the law in order to put them there when you have legal means of either doing so (which is the case--buy the CD) or to change the law to allow it (unnecessary here).
Perhaps you should read what you quote:
legal/illegal and right/wrong do not have to line up with each other in the real world.
I know this isn't directed at me, but you're right. Right/wrong and legal/illegal aren't matching binaries. However, all things that are illegal are wrong. Whether they are simultaneously right (that is, morally justified) depends on the issue. Some things that are legal can be wrong while being right as well. In extreme cases, the morally right thing can be in direct conflict with the law, warranting illegal action. In the overwhelming majority of cases, however, something that is "right" while simultaneously against the law is an issue that needs to be dealt with through legitimate change within the system.
That's why democracies exist--to give the people the ability to change the law and prevent the law from infringing on individual or group rights. The law, in this case, is not one of the extreme situations and there is not legitimate harm/reason to break the law except that it's easier and more convenient. There is no moral offense being committed by the law, and undermining the rule of law is not a justifiable offense over something as trivial as music use rights. In other words, it might be morally okay to use songs in your wedding video, but it's not morally okay to break the law in order to put them there when you have legal means of either doing so (which is the case--buy the CD) or to change the law to allow it (unnecessary here).
leekohler
Mar 25, 02:54 PM
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
(emphasis added)
Skunk already quoted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 16, so I don't think I need to quote that again.
People also have to get gun licenses, but that is clearly a right under the Constitution.
Licenses do more than extend a privilege; they can also be helpful in administering the rights that we have.
Actually, you might depending on when and where you wanted to speak. Parades need permits and most large protests have to be cleared beforehand so that traffic can be allowed to flow around it. All of these are handled by licenses.
That isn't what's at issue in same-sex marriage. The issue is whether the criteria themselves are a violation of equal protection (which they unequivocally are).
It could, for example, be a requirement that in order to drive a Class C vehicle, one must be Buddhist. This requirement would deny others with the same ability to drive a license to drive and it would deny everyone who wasn't Buddhist equal protection under the law.
Similarly, a gay or lesbian couple is just as capable of producing a loving household with shared duties and responsibilities, and yet they are excluded from the rights of marriage based on nothing more than old fashioned prejudices.
Funny how they always run when proven wrong. Just once, I would like to see someone admit they were wrong in here. It sure would be nice. I've done it before, that's for sure.
(emphasis added)
Skunk already quoted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 16, so I don't think I need to quote that again.
People also have to get gun licenses, but that is clearly a right under the Constitution.
Licenses do more than extend a privilege; they can also be helpful in administering the rights that we have.
Actually, you might depending on when and where you wanted to speak. Parades need permits and most large protests have to be cleared beforehand so that traffic can be allowed to flow around it. All of these are handled by licenses.
That isn't what's at issue in same-sex marriage. The issue is whether the criteria themselves are a violation of equal protection (which they unequivocally are).
It could, for example, be a requirement that in order to drive a Class C vehicle, one must be Buddhist. This requirement would deny others with the same ability to drive a license to drive and it would deny everyone who wasn't Buddhist equal protection under the law.
Similarly, a gay or lesbian couple is just as capable of producing a loving household with shared duties and responsibilities, and yet they are excluded from the rights of marriage based on nothing more than old fashioned prejudices.
Funny how they always run when proven wrong. Just once, I would like to see someone admit they were wrong in here. It sure would be nice. I've done it before, that's for sure.
iJohnHenry
Mar 13, 04:56 PM
You all seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room.
The spiralling demand for still more energy.
Someone mentioned California, and their inordinate requirement for 'more power' <ugh, ugh ... thank you Tim>.
How about we stop with the over-population, and working everyone 24-7?
Farmers used to get up with the Sun, and went to bed when it set.
If there is a lost tribe still somewhere that is flourishing, I hope that they never get "discovered".
The spiralling demand for still more energy.
Someone mentioned California, and their inordinate requirement for 'more power' <ugh, ugh ... thank you Tim>.
How about we stop with the over-population, and working everyone 24-7?
Farmers used to get up with the Sun, and went to bed when it set.
If there is a lost tribe still somewhere that is flourishing, I hope that they never get "discovered".
Rodimus Prime
Oct 7, 06:06 PM
Valid points, except you're looking at a micro-niche of power-users, while the iPhone's massive growth comes from a much broader market than that. Android will (and does) take some power-user market share, and I look forward to seeing where it goes.
The big thing though is DEVELOPER share. Apps. Android will run--in different flavors--on a number of different phones, offering choice in screen size, features, hard vs. virtual keys, etc. That sounds great--but will the same APP run on all those flavors? No. The app market will be fragmented among incompatible models. There's no good way out of that--it's one advantage Apple's model will hang on to.
I was thinking about it and come to think about it the different flavors of phones still comes down to the OS being the same. Just look at OSX and Windows, people test it on the OS but do not test it on all the hardware configurations. Hell if you just go with Macs you have an insane number which is small compared to windows.
You test it on the OS and call it good you might test it on 2-3 types of hardware if you are being very careful but most of the time if it works on one it is going to work on them all.. Android will be the same.
The big thing though is DEVELOPER share. Apps. Android will run--in different flavors--on a number of different phones, offering choice in screen size, features, hard vs. virtual keys, etc. That sounds great--but will the same APP run on all those flavors? No. The app market will be fragmented among incompatible models. There's no good way out of that--it's one advantage Apple's model will hang on to.
I was thinking about it and come to think about it the different flavors of phones still comes down to the OS being the same. Just look at OSX and Windows, people test it on the OS but do not test it on all the hardware configurations. Hell if you just go with Macs you have an insane number which is small compared to windows.
You test it on the OS and call it good you might test it on 2-3 types of hardware if you are being very careful but most of the time if it works on one it is going to work on them all.. Android will be the same.
archipellago
May 2, 05:12 PM
Chrome already uses a Sandbox similar to Webkit2 but it is built on top of webkit rather than implemented within webkit. Supposedly, Webkit2's split in the process will be better placed than that of Chrome.
Safari will use Webkit2 as it is based off of Webkit. Safari based on Webkit2 will be released soon, with the release of OS X Lion.
so a very small percentage of the market will be using it (the better tech) then?
if IE or FF don't do something similar then it won't really matter from a cybercrime point of view as 'no one' uses Safari and only the foolish use Chrome.
sad really..
I can't think of anywhere else on the internet where users are so pedantic about whether a piece of malware is a virus or not. It's completely missing the point. The amount of malware out there for Macs is very slowly increasing, which, in itself, is increasing the probability of infecting the user base and Macs can be remotely exploited just like any other operating system.
Instead of rebuffing the emergence of Mac malware with technicalities and pointing the finger at other products, it would be more useful to think about what it means to you, the user. Do you need to run out and buy an antivirus product? No, probably not. If you're someone who keeps on top of software updates and are generally sensible in how you use a computer then you're fine to carry on.
On the other hand, if you're someone who peruses file sharing services and questionable websites for dodgy content and pirated software then it's becoming increasingly more likely that one day you'll get burned. Highly likely? No, not yet, but it would be foolish to assume immunity to computer security issues based solely on the fact that something so far has not met the strict definition of "virus".
A few people need to stop being so short sighted in trying to meticulously defend the idea of "no viruses on Macs". Ultimately it's a rather hollow ideal to uphold because uninitiated users accept it as gospel and it doesn't encourage them to adopt safe computer practices.
sorry, last post...
great post....
all sentiments apply equally to OSX and Windows users..
Safari will use Webkit2 as it is based off of Webkit. Safari based on Webkit2 will be released soon, with the release of OS X Lion.
so a very small percentage of the market will be using it (the better tech) then?
if IE or FF don't do something similar then it won't really matter from a cybercrime point of view as 'no one' uses Safari and only the foolish use Chrome.
sad really..
I can't think of anywhere else on the internet where users are so pedantic about whether a piece of malware is a virus or not. It's completely missing the point. The amount of malware out there for Macs is very slowly increasing, which, in itself, is increasing the probability of infecting the user base and Macs can be remotely exploited just like any other operating system.
Instead of rebuffing the emergence of Mac malware with technicalities and pointing the finger at other products, it would be more useful to think about what it means to you, the user. Do you need to run out and buy an antivirus product? No, probably not. If you're someone who keeps on top of software updates and are generally sensible in how you use a computer then you're fine to carry on.
On the other hand, if you're someone who peruses file sharing services and questionable websites for dodgy content and pirated software then it's becoming increasingly more likely that one day you'll get burned. Highly likely? No, not yet, but it would be foolish to assume immunity to computer security issues based solely on the fact that something so far has not met the strict definition of "virus".
A few people need to stop being so short sighted in trying to meticulously defend the idea of "no viruses on Macs". Ultimately it's a rather hollow ideal to uphold because uninitiated users accept it as gospel and it doesn't encourage them to adopt safe computer practices.
sorry, last post...
great post....
all sentiments apply equally to OSX and Windows users..
javajedi
Oct 8, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by WanaPBnow
Sadly the lack of a system bus faster than 133/167 and use of leading edge RAM technology is a major downside to Mac hardware. G4 with software optomized for it is still on par with P4, but when Altivec is not in the picture or MultiProcessor awareness, the Mac slips very fart behind. I still have faith that the G5 will make up for this gap.
As for OS X vs Windows 2000, I am not as technically aware as the above poster, however my own experience in a large office environment with heavy networking is that Windows 2000 has failed us. We are switching to Unix and Sun, because we can't afford the down time that windows 2000 is giving us, the cost advantage of windows not withstanding.
I have not come accross many large computer operations people that will tell me that Windows is a replacement for Unix. Not unless dealing with small size and limited budget.
To clarify, I was referring to Windows XP and Mac OS X on the desktop, not server. I have had excellent experiences with both in terms of stability. As far as the Windows platform on the server side, again, the magic is in the software. I work for a modest sized isp, and we recently transitioned all of our production servers to bsd and linux blades. All of our web/dns/mx/mail/mrtg/etc machines are Unix. The result has been they are more reliable, and easier to maintain, not to mention the substantial less total cost of ownership.
Sadly the lack of a system bus faster than 133/167 and use of leading edge RAM technology is a major downside to Mac hardware. G4 with software optomized for it is still on par with P4, but when Altivec is not in the picture or MultiProcessor awareness, the Mac slips very fart behind. I still have faith that the G5 will make up for this gap.
As for OS X vs Windows 2000, I am not as technically aware as the above poster, however my own experience in a large office environment with heavy networking is that Windows 2000 has failed us. We are switching to Unix and Sun, because we can't afford the down time that windows 2000 is giving us, the cost advantage of windows not withstanding.
I have not come accross many large computer operations people that will tell me that Windows is a replacement for Unix. Not unless dealing with small size and limited budget.
To clarify, I was referring to Windows XP and Mac OS X on the desktop, not server. I have had excellent experiences with both in terms of stability. As far as the Windows platform on the server side, again, the magic is in the software. I work for a modest sized isp, and we recently transitioned all of our production servers to bsd and linux blades. All of our web/dns/mx/mail/mrtg/etc machines are Unix. The result has been they are more reliable, and easier to maintain, not to mention the substantial less total cost of ownership.
AppliedVisual
Oct 30, 06:17 PM
Of course it will probably be slightly more expensive but with any luck less than it currently is to go from 1 to 2. Or for that matter 1 to 4. I find it hard to believe Apple will leave it's premiere flagship workstation shipping with less ram by default than it's laptop range. The RAM thing is confusing, I don't know whether I'm better off buying it with 1 gig then buying 4 1G sticks afterwards or whether that will affect performance and I'm better off just buying 4G straight from Apple.
Apple leaves the default RAM configuration small so that people can customize it to their needs - even with aftermarket RAM. If they boosted the base RAM to 2GB (or even 4GB), that would be great, but only if the price was still competitive. Apple's current RAM prices are not competitive, nowhere near close. Several vendors are now selling FB-DIMM memory with Apple-compliant heatsinks for half of what Apple is charging. But it has also been a few months since Apple has adjusted their prices on RAM... I guess we'll just see what happens when the updated Mac Pro offerings are announced.
I am also of the opinion that Apple should not sell the 512MB FB-DIMM modules since they only run at half-bandwidth of the 1 and 2 GB modules. Or they should offer the ability to buy the Mac Pro with no RAM. That would be interesting. I'm not sure if they'd go for selling a system config that would require a third-party purchase just to make it work.
Apple leaves the default RAM configuration small so that people can customize it to their needs - even with aftermarket RAM. If they boosted the base RAM to 2GB (or even 4GB), that would be great, but only if the price was still competitive. Apple's current RAM prices are not competitive, nowhere near close. Several vendors are now selling FB-DIMM memory with Apple-compliant heatsinks for half of what Apple is charging. But it has also been a few months since Apple has adjusted their prices on RAM... I guess we'll just see what happens when the updated Mac Pro offerings are announced.
I am also of the opinion that Apple should not sell the 512MB FB-DIMM modules since they only run at half-bandwidth of the 1 and 2 GB modules. Or they should offer the ability to buy the Mac Pro with no RAM. That would be interesting. I'm not sure if they'd go for selling a system config that would require a third-party purchase just to make it work.
iindigo
May 2, 12:11 PM
Uh huh. And OSX doesn't ask you to manually enter a password every time you install or change something? Windows only asks you to authorize...which is technically more "annoying"?
I don't know about you, but once I have my Mac set up (apps and updates installed) about the only thing I enter my password for is to unlock the screen saver. Maybe for the occasional random app I install or when I need to change an otherwise permissions-locked file. It's not a super common thing and if a password dialog pops up for seemingly no reason it sends up a red flag.
As for which is more obnoxious, I'd have to say UAC by far. As noted previously, the user is prompted with UAC for many things you'd never see a password dialog in OS X or Linux for. This is partially because due to a design flaw in Windows, many third-party applications won't even run unless they have administrator access (silly, no?).
I actually don't know anyone who has ever disabled UAC.
Our experiences differ, then. A good half or more of the students at my college have theirs disabled. The reason always cited is, "because it was annoying".
I don't know about you, but once I have my Mac set up (apps and updates installed) about the only thing I enter my password for is to unlock the screen saver. Maybe for the occasional random app I install or when I need to change an otherwise permissions-locked file. It's not a super common thing and if a password dialog pops up for seemingly no reason it sends up a red flag.
As for which is more obnoxious, I'd have to say UAC by far. As noted previously, the user is prompted with UAC for many things you'd never see a password dialog in OS X or Linux for. This is partially because due to a design flaw in Windows, many third-party applications won't even run unless they have administrator access (silly, no?).
I actually don't know anyone who has ever disabled UAC.
Our experiences differ, then. A good half or more of the students at my college have theirs disabled. The reason always cited is, "because it was annoying".
dethmaShine
May 2, 04:51 PM
unbiased as opposed to a Mac site.... yeah right!
Mac users tend to be a better target for old fashioned phishing/vishing because...well, 'nothing bad happens on a Mac..' right?
Now from google pointing 'sources', you are consistently jumping on to mac users, eh?
Good going.
Yup nothing happens to my mac except for what I do it. It's that simple. Why don't you just ask Google why they decided to abandon Windows?
Mac users tend to be a better target for old fashioned phishing/vishing because...well, 'nothing bad happens on a Mac..' right?
Now from google pointing 'sources', you are consistently jumping on to mac users, eh?
Good going.
Yup nothing happens to my mac except for what I do it. It's that simple. Why don't you just ask Google why they decided to abandon Windows?
samcraig
Mar 18, 12:10 PM
Perhaps, but it took them long enough to figure it out, or at least to take any action on it.
It's one thing to have that information, its another thing to access it and get a report on usage patterns that reliably determines that it us tethering usage. Internet usage can vary widely depending on the user. So it almost requires a human eye to look at it and make that determination. Even then, it can be a hard call.
There are a dozen and one ways they can use rules/logic engines - they don't need a human eye.
And the timing of this new policy isn't by accident nor has it taken ATT "long enough". It's strategic.
With 4.3 - mobile hotspots are now enabled on their network and there is a clear billing system set up within their infrastructure. Remember - prior to 4.3 - ANY tethering via the iPhone was against TOS.
Now that they have a specific plan they can switch you to and/or illustrate that you have LEGAL ways of tethering - they are in a much better position to win any of these so called "arguments."
It's no accident. They clearly have been poised to take action and waited until everything fell into place with the enabling of hotspots.
It's one thing to have that information, its another thing to access it and get a report on usage patterns that reliably determines that it us tethering usage. Internet usage can vary widely depending on the user. So it almost requires a human eye to look at it and make that determination. Even then, it can be a hard call.
There are a dozen and one ways they can use rules/logic engines - they don't need a human eye.
And the timing of this new policy isn't by accident nor has it taken ATT "long enough". It's strategic.
With 4.3 - mobile hotspots are now enabled on their network and there is a clear billing system set up within their infrastructure. Remember - prior to 4.3 - ANY tethering via the iPhone was against TOS.
Now that they have a specific plan they can switch you to and/or illustrate that you have LEGAL ways of tethering - they are in a much better position to win any of these so called "arguments."
It's no accident. They clearly have been poised to take action and waited until everything fell into place with the enabling of hotspots.
macfan1977
Mar 18, 08:52 PM
So sorry if I missed any thread on DVD Jon's involvement in this.
I have to admit that I am cynical he was the brains behind DeCSS. I always figured he played the patsy for some adult he knew. Like maybe the true owner of that Timex/Sinclair Spectrum thingy PC you see on his home page. I am however grateful for the program. I just think it was a matter of time before *someone* leaked or discovered the algorithm.
So getting to my point, it would seem like this guy is spending a lot of energy trying to piss off media corporations. The only conclusion I can see is that he wants the attention. Flirting with lawsuits sounds as crazy as publishing trade secrets on your website. :D There's also this pro-Real Networks thing I think I am getting from his site, but that's for another thread...
If I'm wrong and he's truely genius (and can repeat it), then maybe he ought to create something of his own with all that talent. If he knows so much about DRM and coding, there should be a whole lot more money in making the next generation DRM. Sometimes the best thieves make the best security experts. He'd still get the fame, and wouldn't have to worry about legal issues.
The line that "information wants to be free" won't buy a Porsche!
I have to admit that I am cynical he was the brains behind DeCSS. I always figured he played the patsy for some adult he knew. Like maybe the true owner of that Timex/Sinclair Spectrum thingy PC you see on his home page. I am however grateful for the program. I just think it was a matter of time before *someone* leaked or discovered the algorithm.
So getting to my point, it would seem like this guy is spending a lot of energy trying to piss off media corporations. The only conclusion I can see is that he wants the attention. Flirting with lawsuits sounds as crazy as publishing trade secrets on your website. :D There's also this pro-Real Networks thing I think I am getting from his site, but that's for another thread...
If I'm wrong and he's truely genius (and can repeat it), then maybe he ought to create something of his own with all that talent. If he knows so much about DRM and coding, there should be a whole lot more money in making the next generation DRM. Sometimes the best thieves make the best security experts. He'd still get the fame, and wouldn't have to worry about legal issues.
The line that "information wants to be free" won't buy a Porsche!
rtdunham
Sep 22, 01:56 PM
I agree that it'd be unwieldy if it required use of a computer. Which is one reason why I think, given none of the facts so far suggest use of a computer is necessary, it doesn't need one.
i think you misunderstood the recent reports: the consensus interpretation is that iTV does require a computer, and that the hard drive is just for buffering.
i think you misunderstood the recent reports: the consensus interpretation is that iTV does require a computer, and that the hard drive is just for buffering.
Liquorpuki
Mar 14, 08:27 PM
I think part of the problem may have to do with the fact that the plants are designed by engineers. Engineers' focus is elegance: accomplishing the most in the most minimalist way. Nuclear power plants need much less minimalism and elegance than just about anything else humans can make, but costs and other limitations tend to guide the design toward what engineers are best at. Redundancy and over-building are desirable, I believe we end up with too much elegance instead.
No it's not. That would be architects, and only some of them. And maybe Steve Jobs, if you wanted to call him an engineer.
Engineering - everything is quantified down to tedium. Every single variable in a design has a reason for being a specific value.
I also have to ask, if not engineers, who would you rather have design an ECCS for a nuclear power plant? Who else would be qualified to design such a thing?
No it's not. That would be architects, and only some of them. And maybe Steve Jobs, if you wanted to call him an engineer.
Engineering - everything is quantified down to tedium. Every single variable in a design has a reason for being a specific value.
I also have to ask, if not engineers, who would you rather have design an ECCS for a nuclear power plant? Who else would be qualified to design such a thing?
samcraig
Mar 18, 08:38 AM
OMG you still done get it:
No no, as long as you abide by the amount of data in the plan it should not matter how you use it.
You can't steal what you paid for, you buy 100 cable channels that is what you get and use
You buy 2gb and use 1gb you have used 1gb no matter if its on the phone or laptop. 1gb= 1gb
Ok? the tethering give you 2gb for the money I see that and I have read the tethering and Data pro are added to total 4gb for the charge. So you and At&t prove my point thank you! Data=Data, they add it together and it is the same.
LOL no its the same use of Data as on the phone.
Tethering does not do something different to AT&t, its just using Data
you may not understand how Data is used from the source but I assure you there is no difference to AT&t when you tether and when you surf YOUTUBE on the phone.
To At&t Data=Data and its been their words not mine every time its printed by them.
So far I have not seen an argument that proves otherwise.:rolleyes:
Data is Data. And a contract is a contract. If you don't like the terms of a contract - don't sign. Or break it and deal with the consequences. ATT starting to bill for a service outside the contract is a consequence of breaking your original deal.
Again - for those with capped data plans - this makes no sense and I agree it's stupid. For those on unlimited plans - it makes 100 percent perfect sense.
No no, as long as you abide by the amount of data in the plan it should not matter how you use it.
You can't steal what you paid for, you buy 100 cable channels that is what you get and use
You buy 2gb and use 1gb you have used 1gb no matter if its on the phone or laptop. 1gb= 1gb
Ok? the tethering give you 2gb for the money I see that and I have read the tethering and Data pro are added to total 4gb for the charge. So you and At&t prove my point thank you! Data=Data, they add it together and it is the same.
LOL no its the same use of Data as on the phone.
Tethering does not do something different to AT&t, its just using Data
you may not understand how Data is used from the source but I assure you there is no difference to AT&t when you tether and when you surf YOUTUBE on the phone.
To At&t Data=Data and its been their words not mine every time its printed by them.
So far I have not seen an argument that proves otherwise.:rolleyes:
Data is Data. And a contract is a contract. If you don't like the terms of a contract - don't sign. Or break it and deal with the consequences. ATT starting to bill for a service outside the contract is a consequence of breaking your original deal.
Again - for those with capped data plans - this makes no sense and I agree it's stupid. For those on unlimited plans - it makes 100 percent perfect sense.
Edge100
Apr 15, 11:25 AM
That "one ignorant post" also didn't realize that those passages were from a translation that is extremely anti gay. Other translations that match much closer to the original text don't mention anything about being gay at all.
Yes, the Bible is one big hug fest, full of fuzzy kittens and balloons.
If you're going to be a Christian, then for Zeus's sake, own it. Your Bible is full of hate, end of story.
Yes, the Bible is one big hug fest, full of fuzzy kittens and balloons.
If you're going to be a Christian, then for Zeus's sake, own it. Your Bible is full of hate, end of story.
iMikeT
Aug 29, 11:01 AM
Why do these "tree-huggers" have to interfere with business?
Apple does what they can to have more "enviornmentally-friendly" ways of processing their products. But 4th worst?
Apple does what they can to have more "enviornmentally-friendly" ways of processing their products. But 4th worst?
xStep
Apr 13, 03:40 AM
You can find some (not great) video of the event here: http://www.youtube.com/user/selfsponsored05
DrGruv1
Sep 26, 02:37 PM
Quad-core Clovertown server CPUs to appear on November 16
Intel will announce two-way quad-core server Clovertown processors, which will be marketed under the Xeon 5300-series name, on November 16, according to Taiwan-based motherboard makers. The quad-core Clovertown processors contain two dual-core Woodcrest chips housed in a single package.
The Xeon 5300 CPU family will debut with the Xeon X5355 (2.66GHz/1333MHz FSB/8MB L2 cache), E5345 (2.33GHz/1333MHz FSB/8MB L2 cache), E5320 (1.86GHz/1066MHz FSB/8MB L2 cache) and E5310 (1.60GHz/1066MHz FSB/8MB L2 cache), with unit prices ranging from US$455 to US$1,172, indicated the sources.
In addition, Intel is scheduled to launch one-way quad-core Kentsfield processors under the Xeon 3200 lineup in January the makers said. By the third quarter of next year, Intel will launch its four-way quad-core Tigerton CPUs, the makers added.
Rival AMD will announce its first dual-core server processors manufactured using 65-nanometer (65nm) process technology by the first quarter of according to the makers.
http://www.digitimes.com/mobos/a20060925A5022.html
Intel will announce two-way quad-core server Clovertown processors, which will be marketed under the Xeon 5300-series name, on November 16, according to Taiwan-based motherboard makers. The quad-core Clovertown processors contain two dual-core Woodcrest chips housed in a single package.
The Xeon 5300 CPU family will debut with the Xeon X5355 (2.66GHz/1333MHz FSB/8MB L2 cache), E5345 (2.33GHz/1333MHz FSB/8MB L2 cache), E5320 (1.86GHz/1066MHz FSB/8MB L2 cache) and E5310 (1.60GHz/1066MHz FSB/8MB L2 cache), with unit prices ranging from US$455 to US$1,172, indicated the sources.
In addition, Intel is scheduled to launch one-way quad-core Kentsfield processors under the Xeon 3200 lineup in January the makers said. By the third quarter of next year, Intel will launch its four-way quad-core Tigerton CPUs, the makers added.
Rival AMD will announce its first dual-core server processors manufactured using 65-nanometer (65nm) process technology by the first quarter of according to the makers.
http://www.digitimes.com/mobos/a20060925A5022.html
Trash Can
Jun 19, 06:44 PM
panzer06,
I'm not here to bash AT&T - just sharing my perspective. You may be right - the problem may be within the phone itself. You also make a good point about many people overlooking dropped calls because of texting and such. All I know is that the phone should work in many places that it doesn't - full bars or not. And the problem is not limited to voice.
I had AT&T prior to Verizon and my experience back then was less than stellar. I took a chance with the iPhone 3G hoping things improved. IMO, it hasn't. FWIW, my sister (non-iPhone user) had AT&T while living in Atlanta and it worked great. However, she encountered a myriad of connection problems when she moved to LA. I'm sure that for every person who says they have problems with ABC in XYZ, there will be someone else who says just the opposite.
The beauty of all this is that everyone has the ability to choose what works for them.
I'm not here to bash AT&T - just sharing my perspective. You may be right - the problem may be within the phone itself. You also make a good point about many people overlooking dropped calls because of texting and such. All I know is that the phone should work in many places that it doesn't - full bars or not. And the problem is not limited to voice.
I had AT&T prior to Verizon and my experience back then was less than stellar. I took a chance with the iPhone 3G hoping things improved. IMO, it hasn't. FWIW, my sister (non-iPhone user) had AT&T while living in Atlanta and it worked great. However, she encountered a myriad of connection problems when she moved to LA. I'm sure that for every person who says they have problems with ABC in XYZ, there will be someone else who says just the opposite.
The beauty of all this is that everyone has the ability to choose what works for them.
samcraig
Mar 18, 09:20 AM
Quite simply, you're wrong, and worse you're creating fantasy. You claim tethering was not agreed upon. What was, exactly? Using safari? What about Opera?
I think not. Get your frigging facts straight before opening your mouth. AT&T screwed up when they offered unlimited data, and they're content to break the law in order to fix their mistake.
FAIL
6.2 What Are The Intended Purposes Of The Wireless Data Service?
Print this section | Print this page
Except as may otherwise be specifically permitted or prohibited for select data plans, data sessions may be conducted only for the following purposes: (i) Internet browsing; (ii) email; and (iii) intranet access (including access to corporate intranets, email, and individual productivity applications like customer relationship management, sales force, and field service automation). While most common uses for Internet browsing, email and intranet access are permitted by your data plan, there are certain uses that cause extreme network capacity issues and interference with the network and are therefore prohibited. Examples of prohibited uses include, without limitation, the following: (i) server devices or host computer applications, including, but not limited to, Web camera posts or broadcasts, automatic data feeds, automated machine-to-machine connections or peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing; (ii) as a substitute or backup for private lines, wireline s or full-time or dedicated data connections; (iii) "auto-responders," "cancel-bots," or similar automated or manual routines which generate excessive amounts of net traffic, or which disrupt net user groups or email use by others; (iv) "spam" or unsolicited commercial or bulk email (or activities that have the effect of facilitating unsolicited commercial email or unsolicited bulk email); (v) any activity that adversely affects the ability of other people or systems to use either AT&T's wireless services or other parties' Internet-based resources, including "denial of service" (DoS) attacks against another network host or individual user; (vi) accessing, or attempting to access without authority, the accounts of others, or to penetrate, or attempt to penetrate, security measures of AT&T's wireless network or another entity's network or systems; (vii) software or other devices that maintain continuous active Internet connections when a computer's connection would otherwise be idle or any "keep alive" functions, unless they adhere to AT&T's data retry requirements, which may be changed from time to time. This means, by way of example only, that checking email, surfing the Internet, downloading legally acquired songs, and/or visiting corporate intranets is permitted, but downloading movies using P2P file sharing services, redirecting television signals for viewing on Personal Computers, web broadcasting, and/or for the operation of servers, telemetry devices and/or Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition devices is prohibited. Furthermore, plans (unless specifically designated for tethering usage) cannot be used for any applications that tether the device (through use of, including without limitation, connection kits, other phone/smartphone to computer accessories, BLUETOOTH� or any other wireless technology) to Personal Computers (including without limitation, laptops), or other equipment for any purpose. Accordingly, AT&T reserves the right to (i) deny, disconnect, modify and/or terminate Service, without notice, to anyone it believes is using the Service in any manner prohibited or whose usage adversely impacts its wireless network or service levels or hinders access to its wireless network, including without limitation, after a significant period of inactivity or after sessions of excessive usage and (ii) otherwise protect its wireless network from harm, compromised capacity or degradation in performance, which may impact legitimate data flows. You may not send solicitations to AT&T's wireless subscribers without their consent. You may not use the Services other than as intended by AT&T and applicable law. Plans are for individual, non-commercial use only and are not for resale. AT&T may, but is not required to, monitor your compliance, or the compliance of other subscribers, with AT&T's terms, conditions, or policies.
I think not. Get your frigging facts straight before opening your mouth. AT&T screwed up when they offered unlimited data, and they're content to break the law in order to fix their mistake.
FAIL
6.2 What Are The Intended Purposes Of The Wireless Data Service?
Print this section | Print this page
Except as may otherwise be specifically permitted or prohibited for select data plans, data sessions may be conducted only for the following purposes: (i) Internet browsing; (ii) email; and (iii) intranet access (including access to corporate intranets, email, and individual productivity applications like customer relationship management, sales force, and field service automation). While most common uses for Internet browsing, email and intranet access are permitted by your data plan, there are certain uses that cause extreme network capacity issues and interference with the network and are therefore prohibited. Examples of prohibited uses include, without limitation, the following: (i) server devices or host computer applications, including, but not limited to, Web camera posts or broadcasts, automatic data feeds, automated machine-to-machine connections or peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing; (ii) as a substitute or backup for private lines, wireline s or full-time or dedicated data connections; (iii) "auto-responders," "cancel-bots," or similar automated or manual routines which generate excessive amounts of net traffic, or which disrupt net user groups or email use by others; (iv) "spam" or unsolicited commercial or bulk email (or activities that have the effect of facilitating unsolicited commercial email or unsolicited bulk email); (v) any activity that adversely affects the ability of other people or systems to use either AT&T's wireless services or other parties' Internet-based resources, including "denial of service" (DoS) attacks against another network host or individual user; (vi) accessing, or attempting to access without authority, the accounts of others, or to penetrate, or attempt to penetrate, security measures of AT&T's wireless network or another entity's network or systems; (vii) software or other devices that maintain continuous active Internet connections when a computer's connection would otherwise be idle or any "keep alive" functions, unless they adhere to AT&T's data retry requirements, which may be changed from time to time. This means, by way of example only, that checking email, surfing the Internet, downloading legally acquired songs, and/or visiting corporate intranets is permitted, but downloading movies using P2P file sharing services, redirecting television signals for viewing on Personal Computers, web broadcasting, and/or for the operation of servers, telemetry devices and/or Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition devices is prohibited. Furthermore, plans (unless specifically designated for tethering usage) cannot be used for any applications that tether the device (through use of, including without limitation, connection kits, other phone/smartphone to computer accessories, BLUETOOTH� or any other wireless technology) to Personal Computers (including without limitation, laptops), or other equipment for any purpose. Accordingly, AT&T reserves the right to (i) deny, disconnect, modify and/or terminate Service, without notice, to anyone it believes is using the Service in any manner prohibited or whose usage adversely impacts its wireless network or service levels or hinders access to its wireless network, including without limitation, after a significant period of inactivity or after sessions of excessive usage and (ii) otherwise protect its wireless network from harm, compromised capacity or degradation in performance, which may impact legitimate data flows. You may not send solicitations to AT&T's wireless subscribers without their consent. You may not use the Services other than as intended by AT&T and applicable law. Plans are for individual, non-commercial use only and are not for resale. AT&T may, but is not required to, monitor your compliance, or the compliance of other subscribers, with AT&T's terms, conditions, or policies.
cwelsh
Apr 21, 08:57 AM
So are you going to tell me that paying for tethering ON TOP OF DATA YOU ALREADY PAID FOR is fair? Data is data is data... 4gb is 4gb no matter how I use it. Tethering cost are a joke!:mad: /end rant
You are joking right?
Nope. Whether it is fair or not is a completely different topic (I personally feel it is not) but that is what you agreed to in your contract, which specifically states the normal data plans data does not apply to tethering.
I liken this to numerous DLC that appears in videogames today. Often the additonal content is stored on the disk so when you buy the game (data) you technically have bought the DLC already but in order to access it (much like tethering) you need to pay a fee.
I'm not looking to get into a philosophical war over the fairness of tethering, i'm just offering my opinions based on the contract and agreement i've signed.
You are joking right?
Nope. Whether it is fair or not is a completely different topic (I personally feel it is not) but that is what you agreed to in your contract, which specifically states the normal data plans data does not apply to tethering.
I liken this to numerous DLC that appears in videogames today. Often the additonal content is stored on the disk so when you buy the game (data) you technically have bought the DLC already but in order to access it (much like tethering) you need to pay a fee.
I'm not looking to get into a philosophical war over the fairness of tethering, i'm just offering my opinions based on the contract and agreement i've signed.
MacQuest
Jul 12, 05:55 AM
Haven't read through all the posts, but I've always believed and said [since Intel's unveiling of it's Core line-up roadmap a few months ago, even before re-naming it Core 2] that Woodcrest would be used in Mac Pros.
CONROE WILL BE USED IN A NEW LINE OF CONSUMER TARGETED [gamers and people who like the option of being able to upgrade, even if they probably won't] MAC TOWERS. Go ahead, let the "this is just another headless iMac rumor again" flame-fest start :rolleyes:. IF IT DOESN'T HAVE A SCREEN BUILT IN TO AN ALL IN ONE DESIGN, IT'S NOT AN IMAC DAMNIT!!! :mad:
"Mac [whatever]", or maybe just "Mac", will probably have 1-2 models in the $1000 - $1500 range. If there's 3 models, which I doubt because they'll probably want to keep a $500 price difference between this and the lowest Mac Pro model @ $2000 [assuming Apple keeps the current pricing of the PowerMac line-up], it'll be a $1000 - $1700 range. These might sport the same aluminim alloy enclosure as the Mac Pro, but I'm betting that they'll use a different material, and possibly form-factor all-together to further distinguish this consumer tower line from the Mac Pro line.
I would really like to see a consumer priced, Conroe powered Mac tower [maybe it'll be a mini tower] with the same black finish as the current black MacBook.
That would be cool because then we would have 3 consumer Macs [not including the MacBooks]; 2 in white, the Mac mini [yes, I'm aware that it has a silver trim :rolleyes:] and the iMac, and 1 in black [this new Mac consumer tower]. Maybe they'll offer it in white too... as long as the white doesn't turn yellow as reported with the white MacBooks [which has already been resolved], that would be cool too, but I doubt this option... but maybe. :p
Oh the possibilities!!! :D
EDIT:
Just read the AppleInsider article and saw this:
"The new systems, which will succeed the Power Mac G5 at the forefront of the company's product matrix, will also be available in a single processor configuration for a substantially reduced cost..."
The key part of that statement is "available in a single processor configuration for a substantially reduced cost". I'll bet that THAT will be the consumer priced, Conroe powered tower that I'm talking about, will NOT be Woodcrest powered, and won't be called Mac Pro [possibly Mac Pro mini, but I don't quite think so], as they won't be "Pro" class workstations powered by Intel's server class chips.
Just my 2 cents... ;)
CONROE WILL BE USED IN A NEW LINE OF CONSUMER TARGETED [gamers and people who like the option of being able to upgrade, even if they probably won't] MAC TOWERS. Go ahead, let the "this is just another headless iMac rumor again" flame-fest start :rolleyes:. IF IT DOESN'T HAVE A SCREEN BUILT IN TO AN ALL IN ONE DESIGN, IT'S NOT AN IMAC DAMNIT!!! :mad:
"Mac [whatever]", or maybe just "Mac", will probably have 1-2 models in the $1000 - $1500 range. If there's 3 models, which I doubt because they'll probably want to keep a $500 price difference between this and the lowest Mac Pro model @ $2000 [assuming Apple keeps the current pricing of the PowerMac line-up], it'll be a $1000 - $1700 range. These might sport the same aluminim alloy enclosure as the Mac Pro, but I'm betting that they'll use a different material, and possibly form-factor all-together to further distinguish this consumer tower line from the Mac Pro line.
I would really like to see a consumer priced, Conroe powered Mac tower [maybe it'll be a mini tower] with the same black finish as the current black MacBook.
That would be cool because then we would have 3 consumer Macs [not including the MacBooks]; 2 in white, the Mac mini [yes, I'm aware that it has a silver trim :rolleyes:] and the iMac, and 1 in black [this new Mac consumer tower]. Maybe they'll offer it in white too... as long as the white doesn't turn yellow as reported with the white MacBooks [which has already been resolved], that would be cool too, but I doubt this option... but maybe. :p
Oh the possibilities!!! :D
EDIT:
Just read the AppleInsider article and saw this:
"The new systems, which will succeed the Power Mac G5 at the forefront of the company's product matrix, will also be available in a single processor configuration for a substantially reduced cost..."
The key part of that statement is "available in a single processor configuration for a substantially reduced cost". I'll bet that THAT will be the consumer priced, Conroe powered tower that I'm talking about, will NOT be Woodcrest powered, and won't be called Mac Pro [possibly Mac Pro mini, but I don't quite think so], as they won't be "Pro" class workstations powered by Intel's server class chips.
Just my 2 cents... ;)
Clive At Five
Sep 21, 04:12 PM
p.s. as for a name, how about the "Apple Jack"? Rhymes with Apple Mac, and implies "jacking" all your content into your TV? Whaddya think?
(I've posted this before but since you brought it up, I thought I'd share my theory again...)
There's a MUCH more systematic way that Apple could name this product.
"AirPort" is derrived from "Air" (being the medium through which the device works) and "Port" (gateway/portal to aforementioned medium)
So this iTV box:
The medium through which the device works is Television and the device is a gateway/portal to the Television so add "port" to the end. Thus...
"TelePort."
-Clive
(I've posted this before but since you brought it up, I thought I'd share my theory again...)
There's a MUCH more systematic way that Apple could name this product.
"AirPort" is derrived from "Air" (being the medium through which the device works) and "Port" (gateway/portal to aforementioned medium)
So this iTV box:
The medium through which the device works is Television and the device is a gateway/portal to the Television so add "port" to the end. Thus...
"TelePort."
-Clive
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar