TomSmithMacEd
Sep 20, 07:22 PM
I read most of the comments and I cannot believe anyone else talked about the wonderful little program known as handbrake.
Take your dvd's (or ones you rent... I know it's illegal) rip them.. put them on iTunes
Have a server full of dozens/hundreds of dvd's that you can access at anytime through your iTV.
I know it's not the most practicle way of doing this, but it is what I'll be doing if I purchase an iTV.
Take your dvd's (or ones you rent... I know it's illegal) rip them.. put them on iTunes
Have a server full of dozens/hundreds of dvd's that you can access at anytime through your iTV.
I know it's not the most practicle way of doing this, but it is what I'll be doing if I purchase an iTV.
Chucho
May 17, 12:41 AM
I was having ~50% calls dropped with my iPhone. Bought a Nexus One, popped in the AT&T sim card from the iPhone and it has worked flawlessly.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 08:17 PM
I consider myself an atheist who tries to back up my points with facts. I've seen most other posters who are atheists do the same. I hope you are wrong about it being a "trendy" thing to do but I do hope more people see the reasoning behind atheism and join us for the correct reasons. As far as agnostics go, I know the difference between us and I couldn't care less....close enough in my eyes!!!! An atheist and an agnostic arguing to me is like hearing a Catholic and a Protestant argue....such a small difference in something so important.
Nope, most people identify with atheism but when challenged to defend their points they just say "because God doesn't exist" or something along those lines. They don't try to do the simple paradox argument, or the existence of evil argument. It would therefore lead me to conclude that they're atheists because they were exposed to it in pop culture or something.
When someone tries to say there must be a God because the probability of mankind existing is x I counter it with "In a universe that is thought to be forever cycling through big bangs and big crunches eternally probability becomes meaningless. Intelligent life would eventually evolve anyway, without a divine hand to guide it.
There are arguments and counter-arguments to both camps, which is why I choose to be agnostos. In the face of a dearth of evidence it's more rational to withhold judgment than leap to an extreme position.
Nope, most people identify with atheism but when challenged to defend their points they just say "because God doesn't exist" or something along those lines. They don't try to do the simple paradox argument, or the existence of evil argument. It would therefore lead me to conclude that they're atheists because they were exposed to it in pop culture or something.
When someone tries to say there must be a God because the probability of mankind existing is x I counter it with "In a universe that is thought to be forever cycling through big bangs and big crunches eternally probability becomes meaningless. Intelligent life would eventually evolve anyway, without a divine hand to guide it.
There are arguments and counter-arguments to both camps, which is why I choose to be agnostos. In the face of a dearth of evidence it's more rational to withhold judgment than leap to an extreme position.
SimD
Apr 12, 10:39 PM
I'm a full time professional editor who has edited on Avid since 1997 and FCP since 2005.. Does that not count? Almost every 'pro film' editor I have ever met (and I'm talking people who make hollywood films) barely knows how to turn the machine on.
I feel that Apple is marketing to the newer generation coming into the industry. I can't speak for the States, but here in Canada, schools are slowly transitioning from Avid to FCP for this very reason. At my uni, first year is film. Shoot film, cut film, project film. Year 2, we enter digital. Having this basic understanding, we are aware of what each feature does, and why it exists.
Apple is making it easier for filmmakers to jump right in and edit. Which is why their software is scalable. From the simplest Macbook to the highest end Mac Pro.
But these pros you speak of... it doesn't matter.. Being an editor doesn't mean knowing software. It's all about the aesthetics of montage. So whether they can turn on their computer or not, it doesn't matter. That's why productions hire Assistant Editors...
I feel that Apple is marketing to the newer generation coming into the industry. I can't speak for the States, but here in Canada, schools are slowly transitioning from Avid to FCP for this very reason. At my uni, first year is film. Shoot film, cut film, project film. Year 2, we enter digital. Having this basic understanding, we are aware of what each feature does, and why it exists.
Apple is making it easier for filmmakers to jump right in and edit. Which is why their software is scalable. From the simplest Macbook to the highest end Mac Pro.
But these pros you speak of... it doesn't matter.. Being an editor doesn't mean knowing software. It's all about the aesthetics of montage. So whether they can turn on their computer or not, it doesn't matter. That's why productions hire Assistant Editors...
bartelby
Apr 15, 09:25 AM
Why on earth are people marking this as 'negative'?!?
skottichan
Apr 15, 12:12 PM
Right, because civil marriage is required for gays to have sex with each other. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. You can have sex with whomever you want to.
We're talking about gay Catholics here, who ostensibly value being Catholic more than they value satisfying their sexual desires in a manner compatible with their sexuality. There is no theocratic regime forcing them to live as Catholics in good standing - it is a personal lifestyle choice, if you will.
The problem is, I can't get married. I'm not allowed. Adopt? Not allowed (and the Catholic church has fought some very public battles to stop gays from adopting).
Plus, the Church does not recognize gay marriage where it is allowed.
I miss the good old days where I was sent to a parochial girl's boarding school, to "help me come back to God", by my step-father. Probably the best thing he unintentionally did for me. Thankfully, I suffered no bullying in school, since most of the other girls were there for similar reasons.
I am a gay woman in her 30's, and I was devoutly Catholic until about 25 (my grandparents still hold leaving the Church against me).
We're talking about gay Catholics here, who ostensibly value being Catholic more than they value satisfying their sexual desires in a manner compatible with their sexuality. There is no theocratic regime forcing them to live as Catholics in good standing - it is a personal lifestyle choice, if you will.
The problem is, I can't get married. I'm not allowed. Adopt? Not allowed (and the Catholic church has fought some very public battles to stop gays from adopting).
Plus, the Church does not recognize gay marriage where it is allowed.
I miss the good old days where I was sent to a parochial girl's boarding school, to "help me come back to God", by my step-father. Probably the best thing he unintentionally did for me. Thankfully, I suffered no bullying in school, since most of the other girls were there for similar reasons.
I am a gay woman in her 30's, and I was devoutly Catholic until about 25 (my grandparents still hold leaving the Church against me).
Santabean2000
May 2, 08:57 AM
Annoyingly this type of thing will become all too common. Damn Apple and their great products, making themselves popular and that.
I liked the security through obscurity world we've come from...
I liked the security through obscurity world we've come from...
Evangelion
Jul 12, 05:43 AM
...not to mention: non-apple pro apps - waiting.
There are already such apps (Modo from Luxology for example). Just because Photoshop is not universal does not mean that nothing is.
There are already such apps (Modo from Luxology for example). Just because Photoshop is not universal does not mean that nothing is.
mac1984user
Apr 15, 10:17 AM
If the media shouldn't project a positive message about being gay, then they shouldn't project a positive message about being straight. No more kissing on TV, film, etc. Ban all public displays of affection and don't say a word about issues that someone might take 'offence' to. Yeah...that sounds like a great world. Ugh...please.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 13, 08:00 PM
None of the studies I have read proposing this, have suggested the sort of ecological impact you are implying. This is pure, unadulterated, BS.
There is absolutely no need to be insulting. Quote your "studies", first of all, but I find your assertion pretty bizarre as originally stated - mostly because Death Valley is almost entirely subsumed within Death Valley National Park. Unless you something we don't know, there is zero chance that you are going to be installing a 100 square mile solar array in the park. Not to mention the mountainous topography.
Solar panels are a useful supplement to other power sources in certain regions where favorable environmental conditions exist. But no more than that I'm afraid. In fact, it is obvious to me that there is no direct replacement for fossil fuels and nuclear energy - replacing them will require both 1) an increase in global energy efficiency in order to reduce power demands, and 2) aggressive implementation of wind, hydro, geothermal, and solar sources, among others. No single magical technology improvement is going to come along to alleviate our energy crisis.
Finally, there is tremendous social, political, and economic pressure to continue using fossil fuels and nuclear energy rather than the alternatives. Even though alternatives are now more prevalent than before and enjoy increasing popularity, fossil fuel and nuclear energy are going to be used heavily until all the fuel is exhausted.
There is absolutely no need to be insulting. Quote your "studies", first of all, but I find your assertion pretty bizarre as originally stated - mostly because Death Valley is almost entirely subsumed within Death Valley National Park. Unless you something we don't know, there is zero chance that you are going to be installing a 100 square mile solar array in the park. Not to mention the mountainous topography.
Solar panels are a useful supplement to other power sources in certain regions where favorable environmental conditions exist. But no more than that I'm afraid. In fact, it is obvious to me that there is no direct replacement for fossil fuels and nuclear energy - replacing them will require both 1) an increase in global energy efficiency in order to reduce power demands, and 2) aggressive implementation of wind, hydro, geothermal, and solar sources, among others. No single magical technology improvement is going to come along to alleviate our energy crisis.
Finally, there is tremendous social, political, and economic pressure to continue using fossil fuels and nuclear energy rather than the alternatives. Even though alternatives are now more prevalent than before and enjoy increasing popularity, fossil fuel and nuclear energy are going to be used heavily until all the fuel is exhausted.
takao
Mar 15, 06:46 AM
Factor in the Japanese culture where self-sacrifice for the good of their people is looked highly upon. I'd say there's a damn good chance they know their killing themselves, but will continue to work to their ends.
while the situation is very,very serious i think it's still on the level of a controllable risk to health if the operators are rotated enough/monitored and depending on exposure are protected with equipment
especially if radiation leaks are limited to very short time frames
it's still a far cry from the stuff what some firefighters/engineers did in 1986 to prevent worse
Curious. You are suggesting that the control rods are fully seated (we would hope), absorbing the entire natural neutron flux, thus completely dampening the fission process (apart from the normal spontaneous fission of the 235 in the fuel pellets). Yet, the cores are still producing significant heat, sea water is being pumped over them to cool them, a real danger appears to exist. Where is that heat coming from, why, if the fission process has been choked off, are they not simply losing heat (cooling down like a big hunk of metal)? What are we missing?
that is somehow baffling me as well: the heat should be dropping at a logrithmical rate after an emergency shutdown and thus within 24 hours the heat should have dropped very fast
yet today is tuesday and still cooling problems it just doesn't sound correct. might there some design deficits at work ? like control rods not really adequate sized? or is it simply because of partial meltdowns/damages inside the reactor ?
edit: getting really serious now: according to a japanese news outlet a reactor control room has been evacuated because of radiation
while the situation is very,very serious i think it's still on the level of a controllable risk to health if the operators are rotated enough/monitored and depending on exposure are protected with equipment
especially if radiation leaks are limited to very short time frames
it's still a far cry from the stuff what some firefighters/engineers did in 1986 to prevent worse
Curious. You are suggesting that the control rods are fully seated (we would hope), absorbing the entire natural neutron flux, thus completely dampening the fission process (apart from the normal spontaneous fission of the 235 in the fuel pellets). Yet, the cores are still producing significant heat, sea water is being pumped over them to cool them, a real danger appears to exist. Where is that heat coming from, why, if the fission process has been choked off, are they not simply losing heat (cooling down like a big hunk of metal)? What are we missing?
that is somehow baffling me as well: the heat should be dropping at a logrithmical rate after an emergency shutdown and thus within 24 hours the heat should have dropped very fast
yet today is tuesday and still cooling problems it just doesn't sound correct. might there some design deficits at work ? like control rods not really adequate sized? or is it simply because of partial meltdowns/damages inside the reactor ?
edit: getting really serious now: according to a japanese news outlet a reactor control room has been evacuated because of radiation
tigress666
Apr 9, 11:43 AM
Wait? There's no need to wait. You are doing yourself a disservice. Do yourself a favor. Go to one of your friends houses, one with a PS3 or Xbox and at least a 37 inch TV. Play Assassin's Creed or Prince of Persia. Come back and tell us what's the difference.
Yeah, of course there is a difference on a console. I thought we were comparing hand helds. And I'm not claiming the iphone is the best experience for a lot of games (notice that I've pretty much said that PoP and Assassin's Creed would do better with buttons but for my purposes it's still fun on touchscreen).
I'm not claiming I'm some sort of hard core gamer.
But what I am claiming, is that there are *good* games on the iphone that are more than just "timewasters" (Well, honestly, any game is a "timewaster" if you think about it. Do you really think you do anything productive when you game? No. You do it for fun in your free time). But there are games that you can get into and play for more than five minutes (stuff that isn't the Angry Birds type game). Games that have me put down my computer and actually focus on them for long periods of time. I'm really happy to see that happen more on the iphone. I love that Square has started putting games on (if you can't tell, they're one of my favorite game makers ;). But Gameloft has started getting my love too).
That's what I'm saying.
Let me watch you play those on the subway. This is all about portable gaming.
Pretty much. It's kinda stupid to compare the iphone to a PS3 or Xbox. That's apples and oranges. No handheld is going to compare to something like that, if nothing else for having a large screen and a controller that really is designed to be a controller (and not a controller and a screen in one. No handheld can be as easy to use as a controller as a dedicated controller, which btw, I totally prefer the Playstation's/Playstation 2 controller. That was the most ergonomic controller I've experienced but I haven't had a console since the PS2. It's about as much difference in experience as a touch screen vs. buttons really. I always find handheld games are more awkward to control and have my hands cramp up. But the point of them is portability so you do make compromises).
True, some iPad/iPhone games are "casual time wasters" but there are also some FANTASTIC games. Dead Space iOS is fantastic and guess what, ITS WAS 10 DOLLARS. True, its not as good as the console versions, but those sold for 60 DOLLARS.
And this is exactly what I'm trying to say :).
Angel Baby Wallpaper
Cute Babies Wallpaper. Baby
Baby Penguin iPhone Wallpaper
aby
Wallpaper Baby Girl Sleeping
Art Wallpaper, Snow Baby
aby kids wallpaperbaby kids
Yeah, of course there is a difference on a console. I thought we were comparing hand helds. And I'm not claiming the iphone is the best experience for a lot of games (notice that I've pretty much said that PoP and Assassin's Creed would do better with buttons but for my purposes it's still fun on touchscreen).
I'm not claiming I'm some sort of hard core gamer.
But what I am claiming, is that there are *good* games on the iphone that are more than just "timewasters" (Well, honestly, any game is a "timewaster" if you think about it. Do you really think you do anything productive when you game? No. You do it for fun in your free time). But there are games that you can get into and play for more than five minutes (stuff that isn't the Angry Birds type game). Games that have me put down my computer and actually focus on them for long periods of time. I'm really happy to see that happen more on the iphone. I love that Square has started putting games on (if you can't tell, they're one of my favorite game makers ;). But Gameloft has started getting my love too).
That's what I'm saying.
Let me watch you play those on the subway. This is all about portable gaming.
Pretty much. It's kinda stupid to compare the iphone to a PS3 or Xbox. That's apples and oranges. No handheld is going to compare to something like that, if nothing else for having a large screen and a controller that really is designed to be a controller (and not a controller and a screen in one. No handheld can be as easy to use as a controller as a dedicated controller, which btw, I totally prefer the Playstation's/Playstation 2 controller. That was the most ergonomic controller I've experienced but I haven't had a console since the PS2. It's about as much difference in experience as a touch screen vs. buttons really. I always find handheld games are more awkward to control and have my hands cramp up. But the point of them is portability so you do make compromises).
True, some iPad/iPhone games are "casual time wasters" but there are also some FANTASTIC games. Dead Space iOS is fantastic and guess what, ITS WAS 10 DOLLARS. True, its not as good as the console versions, but those sold for 60 DOLLARS.
And this is exactly what I'm trying to say :).
ender land
Apr 23, 09:29 PM
Wow. I see it completely the other way. The religious people look at the atheists as lost souls, sinners, who need to be saved. They want their beliefs to be the basis for our laws. They need to have god thrown in our faces, on our money, in our pledges, in our courtrooms, etc. etc. And this is in the land of the free where separation of church and state is supposed to be one our most basic rights!
Don't believe me, check any poll about who people in the United States trust or who they would vote for. Atheists are always at the bottom of both lists!
How many people became theistic because of atheism? Or have their religious views strengthened as a result of atheism?
How many people became atheist because of religion? Or have their atheistic views strengthened as a result of religion?
This was my point in that statement.
And of course atheists will be less trusted. Atheism rejects non-societal Morals (unless you want to pull the "absolute morals exist and god(s) do not" version of atheism). Morality is completely defined by society at that point or at a more direct sense, by us.
Someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of Morals to abide by. Granted, a lot - if not most - of politicians are the "I'm a once a month Christian so people will vote for me" type but some (like GWB for better or worse) appear to take their faith with them to the office. This is a far more reliable set of beliefs, whether or not you agree with them, than someone who has arbitrary or personally decided morals.
Don't believe me, check any poll about who people in the United States trust or who they would vote for. Atheists are always at the bottom of both lists!
How many people became theistic because of atheism? Or have their religious views strengthened as a result of atheism?
How many people became atheist because of religion? Or have their atheistic views strengthened as a result of religion?
This was my point in that statement.
And of course atheists will be less trusted. Atheism rejects non-societal Morals (unless you want to pull the "absolute morals exist and god(s) do not" version of atheism). Morality is completely defined by society at that point or at a more direct sense, by us.
Someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of Morals to abide by. Granted, a lot - if not most - of politicians are the "I'm a once a month Christian so people will vote for me" type but some (like GWB for better or worse) appear to take their faith with them to the office. This is a far more reliable set of beliefs, whether or not you agree with them, than someone who has arbitrary or personally decided morals.
iindigo
May 2, 01:47 PM
So outdated software or poor programming = Design flaw in Windows?
Don't get me wrong, I have some legacy applications that won't run without elevated permissions, but they're just that, legacy applications. I suppose Microsoft could just take Apples approach and forcibly antiquate software.
That's the thing, though. It's not only old software that behaves this way. There are all kinds of modern software that require administrator access to run. One of the biggest ones I can think are games... typically those with some sort of anti-hack system.
MS has done nothing to discourage developers from writing their software to work this way and it's unfortunate.
Don't get me wrong, I have some legacy applications that won't run without elevated permissions, but they're just that, legacy applications. I suppose Microsoft could just take Apples approach and forcibly antiquate software.
That's the thing, though. It's not only old software that behaves this way. There are all kinds of modern software that require administrator access to run. One of the biggest ones I can think are games... typically those with some sort of anti-hack system.
MS has done nothing to discourage developers from writing their software to work this way and it's unfortunate.
markieg
May 3, 06:34 AM
uninstall Macdefender instructions here http://t.co/9DLsgSU
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 08:17 PM
I consider myself an atheist who tries to back up my points with facts. I've seen most other posters who are atheists do the same. I hope you are wrong about it being a "trendy" thing to do but I do hope more people see the reasoning behind atheism and join us for the correct reasons. As far as agnostics go, I know the difference between us and I couldn't care less....close enough in my eyes!!!! An atheist and an agnostic arguing to me is like hearing a Catholic and a Protestant argue....such a small difference in something so important.
Nope, most people identify with atheism but when challenged to defend their points they just say "because God doesn't exist" or something along those lines. They don't try to do the simple paradox argument, or the existence of evil argument. It would therefore lead me to conclude that they're atheists because they were exposed to it in pop culture or something.
When someone tries to say there must be a God because the probability of mankind existing is x I counter it with "In a universe that is thought to be forever cycling through big bangs and big crunches eternally probability becomes meaningless. Intelligent life would eventually evolve anyway, without a divine hand to guide it.
There are arguments and counter-arguments to both camps, which is why I choose to be agnostos. In the face of a dearth of evidence it's more rational to withhold judgment than leap to an extreme position.
Nope, most people identify with atheism but when challenged to defend their points they just say "because God doesn't exist" or something along those lines. They don't try to do the simple paradox argument, or the existence of evil argument. It would therefore lead me to conclude that they're atheists because they were exposed to it in pop culture or something.
When someone tries to say there must be a God because the probability of mankind existing is x I counter it with "In a universe that is thought to be forever cycling through big bangs and big crunches eternally probability becomes meaningless. Intelligent life would eventually evolve anyway, without a divine hand to guide it.
There are arguments and counter-arguments to both camps, which is why I choose to be agnostos. In the face of a dearth of evidence it's more rational to withhold judgment than leap to an extreme position.
camomac
Jul 14, 02:12 PM
ahhh, why didn't they have dual optical slots in the current G5's..
too much heat from the PPC's and all those fans?
well i am really looking forward to the new look.
too much heat from the PPC's and all those fans?
well i am really looking forward to the new look.
moogleii
Apr 5, 10:16 PM
Can't just hit Delete? Can't move up a level in the directory structure? Yikes.
Ya know what? These may all be little things individually, but collectively as a whole I think they'd drive me nuts.
I'm still on Vista... maybe going to Windows 7 might be the smarter move in my particular case.
Thanks for your help everyone, I sincerely appreciate your input.
Gotta do some serious thinking about this...
You can delete from the keyboard. Command+delete. I prefer it because an accidental delete press won't throw up a prompt that you have to answer if you weren't meaning to delete anything (the little things as you say). On windows, I never delete anything unless I'm sure, so I shift-delete everything anyway (been doing that for years and still no regrets!).
Note, there are two delete keys on a mac keyboard, which is what is probably confusing thatsallfolks.
Also, if you enable "show path bar" in Finder, you can see the entire path you're in, and easily jump around.
It was weird at first, but now I actually prefer having an application's menu separate from the application's windows. You can close all of an applications windows, and now close the app. Sounds kind of pointless, but sometimes I'll accidentally close all the windows of an application under Windows, which is basically a full quit of the app, so now I have to relaunch the app, which is not always a trivial amount of time. Also weird at first was the reversal of the ctrl key with osx's cmd key, but I prefer it now too because doing crazy key combinations is much easier with the thumb than with the pinky.
The biggest gripe I have is the inability to cut and paste. I've gotten used to it, but if it's a huge deal, there's an app that mods Finder I believe that will add a cut operation. I also prefer using keyboard shortcuts whenever possible, and Windows seems to be better in that respect, although I'm always learning about new keyboard shortcuts in OSX.
For what it's worth, I've been a PC user for the past 17 years. I grudgingly bought a mac a few years ago in order to mess around with Xcode. It took about 1 month to become fully used to the differences between osx and windows, but after that, I solely used the Mac for quite some time.
I eventually upgraded my pc to windows 7, and now I spend about 50% on each. Windows 7 is pretty nice, but it still feels a bit less organized than OS X (just look at Win7's control panel, yeesh; I end up just using the run command or ctrl-fing).
Btw, OSX upgrades have traditionally been very cheap. I upgraded from Leopard to Snow Leopard for $25.
Ya know what? These may all be little things individually, but collectively as a whole I think they'd drive me nuts.
I'm still on Vista... maybe going to Windows 7 might be the smarter move in my particular case.
Thanks for your help everyone, I sincerely appreciate your input.
Gotta do some serious thinking about this...
You can delete from the keyboard. Command+delete. I prefer it because an accidental delete press won't throw up a prompt that you have to answer if you weren't meaning to delete anything (the little things as you say). On windows, I never delete anything unless I'm sure, so I shift-delete everything anyway (been doing that for years and still no regrets!).
Note, there are two delete keys on a mac keyboard, which is what is probably confusing thatsallfolks.
Also, if you enable "show path bar" in Finder, you can see the entire path you're in, and easily jump around.
It was weird at first, but now I actually prefer having an application's menu separate from the application's windows. You can close all of an applications windows, and now close the app. Sounds kind of pointless, but sometimes I'll accidentally close all the windows of an application under Windows, which is basically a full quit of the app, so now I have to relaunch the app, which is not always a trivial amount of time. Also weird at first was the reversal of the ctrl key with osx's cmd key, but I prefer it now too because doing crazy key combinations is much easier with the thumb than with the pinky.
The biggest gripe I have is the inability to cut and paste. I've gotten used to it, but if it's a huge deal, there's an app that mods Finder I believe that will add a cut operation. I also prefer using keyboard shortcuts whenever possible, and Windows seems to be better in that respect, although I'm always learning about new keyboard shortcuts in OSX.
For what it's worth, I've been a PC user for the past 17 years. I grudgingly bought a mac a few years ago in order to mess around with Xcode. It took about 1 month to become fully used to the differences between osx and windows, but after that, I solely used the Mac for quite some time.
I eventually upgraded my pc to windows 7, and now I spend about 50% on each. Windows 7 is pretty nice, but it still feels a bit less organized than OS X (just look at Win7's control panel, yeesh; I end up just using the run command or ctrl-fing).
Btw, OSX upgrades have traditionally been very cheap. I upgraded from Leopard to Snow Leopard for $25.
Silentwave
Jul 11, 11:22 PM
there's no way apple's going to use woodcrest in the upcoming powermac rev because there are no motherboards for socket 771 (woodcrest) that support anything above pci express 8x. powermac's are going to be high end workstations for print, graphics, and media shops, 8x pci express won't cut it.
look around at all the motherboard manufacturers (nvidia, ati, asus, msi, etc) none of them have a woodcrest platform available. apple always uses some other motherboard vendor like supermicro.
the only way i see this happening is if apple ships the powermac in 2007 when the socket 771 boards start using 16x pci express.
just wondering, have you not seen my posts on the dell workstation? that has dual woodcrests, and, be still my heart 16X PCI EXPRESS! :) That's how it has the quadro FX 4500 video card. And you can even get a version that has a riser for a 2nd PCI-Express 16X slot so you can have 2x the Quadro 4500!
Also, According to the articles on the appleinsider site, apple has had INTEL doing the logic board.
look around at all the motherboard manufacturers (nvidia, ati, asus, msi, etc) none of them have a woodcrest platform available. apple always uses some other motherboard vendor like supermicro.
the only way i see this happening is if apple ships the powermac in 2007 when the socket 771 boards start using 16x pci express.
just wondering, have you not seen my posts on the dell workstation? that has dual woodcrests, and, be still my heart 16X PCI EXPRESS! :) That's how it has the quadro FX 4500 video card. And you can even get a version that has a riser for a 2nd PCI-Express 16X slot so you can have 2x the Quadro 4500!
Also, According to the articles on the appleinsider site, apple has had INTEL doing the logic board.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 22, 10:40 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?
If there is a god(s), it probably won't be anything like what these manmade religions have concocted. There could be multiple gods, or gods that don't give a crap about you, or who knows what. Also, the existence of a creator doesn't mean that there is an afterlife for any human.
If there is a god(s), it probably won't be anything like what these manmade religions have concocted. There could be multiple gods, or gods that don't give a crap about you, or who knows what. Also, the existence of a creator doesn't mean that there is an afterlife for any human.
shawnce
Oct 25, 11:53 PM
Do either IBM or Motorola have a quad-core chip on the horizon? IBM has been shipping 8 core POWER5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POWER5) in a single MCM with 36 MiBs of L3 cache for a couple of years now. IBM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_POWER) has a long history with these types of things. ...of course they cost far more then what Intel is putting out in the near future.
KnightWRX
May 2, 05:51 PM
Until Vista and Win 7, it was effectively impossible to run a Windows NT system as anything but Administrator. To the point that other than locked-down corporate sites where an IT Professional was required to install the Corporate Approved version of any software you need to do your job, I never knew anyone running XP (or 2k, or for that matter NT 3.x) who in a day-to-day fashion used a Standard user account.
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...
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
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.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
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.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
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.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
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.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
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...
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
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.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
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.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
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.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
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.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
Fredo Viola
Aug 29, 11:14 AM
it's such a progressive issue, you'd think Apple would be all over it. I mean, AMD is making good marketing use of being energy efficient. It seems smart of them and makes them appear more cutting edge. Certainly Apple would do great to embrace this issue and make their products more eco-friendly. But you think about how the shell of your Mac can't really be reused to house new major computer components (such as mb, etc...). This seems wasteful. Think of all the packaging that is just being wasted. It's actually kind of shameful.
richard.mac
Mar 11, 01:54 AM
crap! :( thoughts to the Japanese living there. earth is fierce atm! disastrous earthquakes in cities like there and in New Zealand and that flooding in Australia.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar