latergator116
Mar 20, 08:11 PM
Okay, but your comment was in reply to maticus' one about the opinion that "breaking the law is breaking the law". Who was, in turn, talking about iTMS and related issues. Sorry if I lost track somewhere but I assumed you were talking about the same thing.
That's ok. I was responding to the hypothetical situation of a couple burning music cd's for their wedding and handing them out (thus breaking a copyright) to their guests which I said there was nothing wrong with.
That's ok. I was responding to the hypothetical situation of a couple burning music cd's for their wedding and handing them out (thus breaking a copyright) to their guests which I said there was nothing wrong with.
acslater017
Apr 15, 10:54 AM
encourage[/I] people to be gay/lesbian/whatever. At the end of the day that's basically the underlying message in all these videos: "Go ahead, by gay. It's perfectly fine
...It's a very private journey and I'm not so sure that the media should be offering this type of "GO FOR IT!" message. One should come to accept who he/she is and embrace the inevitable consequences of the lifestyle.
I don't think anyone's saying "go for it!". The basic ideas I got from the video were:
-you're not alone if you're suffering
-life gets better, so stick around
-find help
I didn't really pick up on anyone saying, "You should be homosexual" or anything like that...
...It's a very private journey and I'm not so sure that the media should be offering this type of "GO FOR IT!" message. One should come to accept who he/she is and embrace the inevitable consequences of the lifestyle.
I don't think anyone's saying "go for it!". The basic ideas I got from the video were:
-you're not alone if you're suffering
-life gets better, so stick around
-find help
I didn't really pick up on anyone saying, "You should be homosexual" or anything like that...
Peterkro
Mar 13, 10:27 PM
Can you use nuclear warheads to disperse a tsunami?
With today's high yeild nuclear bombs, given enough time, can you detonate a nuke to vaporize/disperse the ripple of a tsunami? I know one tactic of fleet warfare is like to vaporize the water under the ships to make them "fall" or something like that.
I mean, I don't know how many megatons this will take or how much of the tsunami will be vaporized and sent up into the air, but maybe at some point it will reduce the force and profile of the incomming wave? :)
All you would do is create another Tsunami (as well as considerable fallout problems).Tsunamis in the ocean are by and large only a few centimetres in height but travel at about 500 mph when thy come to the shelfs near land all that energy is compressed going from a few centimetres to 30 metres or so the force of which destroys pretty much everything that isn't rock in it's path.
( I must go to bed I can't believe I posted a reply to that)
With today's high yeild nuclear bombs, given enough time, can you detonate a nuke to vaporize/disperse the ripple of a tsunami? I know one tactic of fleet warfare is like to vaporize the water under the ships to make them "fall" or something like that.
I mean, I don't know how many megatons this will take or how much of the tsunami will be vaporized and sent up into the air, but maybe at some point it will reduce the force and profile of the incomming wave? :)
All you would do is create another Tsunami (as well as considerable fallout problems).Tsunamis in the ocean are by and large only a few centimetres in height but travel at about 500 mph when thy come to the shelfs near land all that energy is compressed going from a few centimetres to 30 metres or so the force of which destroys pretty much everything that isn't rock in it's path.
( I must go to bed I can't believe I posted a reply to that)
flopticalcube
Apr 24, 10:04 AM
Well�we can argue whether Canadians support a real military but we don�t have to go there. :p
All I�m saying is that any respectable military has to prepare for sending a large group of soldiers into known suicide missions. This is what �cannon fodder� is. Sometimes you can�t hide it from the warrior. Sometimes they WILL KNOW that they will die. But this is absolutely necessary to purposely sacrifice their lives in order to achieve a strategic goal�or even victory. It�s much easier if these warriors are imprinted with the idea of �god and heaven�.
Now, in these stupid overwhelmingly �crushing an inferior force� type of wars we�ve been engaged in, perhaps these situations don�t come up as much. Or if they do, you can hand pick a couple of �zealots� to do the job. But if there was a �real war�, like for example, if oil gets scarce and Europe turns on each other� Don�t laugh. If the �middle east� turn on each other all the time for oil, it can happen to �the west� too. You would be real arrogant to think that you are so much �better� than them. And if you ARE that arrogant about being a �sophisticated Westerner� think about China�or Russia.
Hey, maybe our fighting force will be so robotic one day that it doesn�t matter. War will become an ego contest between engineers and no blood will be shed. But until the technology becomes reality, we still need cannon fodder capability for potential tight situations. ;)
I did address the cannon fodder issue in another thread. The military uses psycological tools like ceremony and symbolism to "honor and glorify" it's dead as motivational tools. Religion may have been used in the past but in a military system composed of so many disparate religions, it would be difficult to use religious motivation these days in any meaningful ways. Perhaps since the US military is made up primarily of black (Baptist) and Hispanic (Catholic) soldiers, it's easier to use religious motivation on them. As I said, from my personal experience, religion is not a motivational force in a modern army.
All I�m saying is that any respectable military has to prepare for sending a large group of soldiers into known suicide missions. This is what �cannon fodder� is. Sometimes you can�t hide it from the warrior. Sometimes they WILL KNOW that they will die. But this is absolutely necessary to purposely sacrifice their lives in order to achieve a strategic goal�or even victory. It�s much easier if these warriors are imprinted with the idea of �god and heaven�.
Now, in these stupid overwhelmingly �crushing an inferior force� type of wars we�ve been engaged in, perhaps these situations don�t come up as much. Or if they do, you can hand pick a couple of �zealots� to do the job. But if there was a �real war�, like for example, if oil gets scarce and Europe turns on each other� Don�t laugh. If the �middle east� turn on each other all the time for oil, it can happen to �the west� too. You would be real arrogant to think that you are so much �better� than them. And if you ARE that arrogant about being a �sophisticated Westerner� think about China�or Russia.
Hey, maybe our fighting force will be so robotic one day that it doesn�t matter. War will become an ego contest between engineers and no blood will be shed. But until the technology becomes reality, we still need cannon fodder capability for potential tight situations. ;)
I did address the cannon fodder issue in another thread. The military uses psycological tools like ceremony and symbolism to "honor and glorify" it's dead as motivational tools. Religion may have been used in the past but in a military system composed of so many disparate religions, it would be difficult to use religious motivation these days in any meaningful ways. Perhaps since the US military is made up primarily of black (Baptist) and Hispanic (Catholic) soldiers, it's easier to use religious motivation on them. As I said, from my personal experience, religion is not a motivational force in a modern army.
QCassidy352
Jul 12, 02:52 PM
I can't wait till august so when i get my Conore i can break all your hearts. when u see my Conroe clock up at 3.6ghz and blow that overpriced MacPro trash out of the water. Then please tell me that Core 2 belongs in an iMac. I swear you people deserve to be stuck with IBM/Freescale for another 5yrs.
How is it an insult to conroe to say that a desktop chip should go in a moderately priced desktop? And perhaps more to the point, why exactly are you so worked up about someone insulting conroe... is it your personal creation or something? You do realize that both PCs and Macs will be using both conroes and woodcrests in various configurations, right? It's not like woodcrest is an apple product. So what exactly are you so worked up about?
Do you really think anyone here will care if you overclock your conroe-based PC? Let alone "break our hearts?" Have fun.
Even if you had a point worth making, your attitude is so repulsive that I don't know why anyone would want to listen to you.
How is it an insult to conroe to say that a desktop chip should go in a moderately priced desktop? And perhaps more to the point, why exactly are you so worked up about someone insulting conroe... is it your personal creation or something? You do realize that both PCs and Macs will be using both conroes and woodcrests in various configurations, right? It's not like woodcrest is an apple product. So what exactly are you so worked up about?
Do you really think anyone here will care if you overclock your conroe-based PC? Let alone "break our hearts?" Have fun.
Even if you had a point worth making, your attitude is so repulsive that I don't know why anyone would want to listen to you.
.jpg "Studio Dell XPS Wallpapers")
pdjudd
Oct 7, 04:57 PM
Have you actually READ the link you posted?
Times have changed a bit since then, you know ...
Yes, I have. Several times. Things have changed, but the base premise of the article still applies - Microsoft Got Lucky - there is no way to suggest that Apple can pull that off in this day in age when the world depends too much on Microsoft. The article deals with past actions affecting the present. Its very relevant. Its point is that MS got successful because of how it parlayed successes over time, not because it embraced an "open strategy". They did that years ago. Read the whole thing. Grueber makes a point that still applies today because marketshare in the OS world has changed very little.
Due to Apple's grown popularity (if not ubiquity) it can be safely assumed that quite a few more people would install Mac OS if it were officially supported on non-Mac hardware. A highly significant number of people? Good question. To Apple's benefit? Probably not.
Popularity is irrelevant. Going up against Microsoft is suicide. Period. Their market share is too large and Apple's success is too dependent on hardware sales. Microsoft's objective is to rule the roost. They did that way back in the early 90's and they are too well entrenched to be taken out directly. They are just too big. You are simply conjecturing without any basis in reality. Apple tried the cloning market and it failed because people by in large do not want to undertake the massive pains to go to a completely different platform without somewhat of a safety platform. People want Windows because the stuff they run on depend on it. Thant and competing with Microsoft directly is a folly - going up against MS is going to be very bloody. You have better luck elephant hunting with a pea shooter.
Take a look at any other market that involves hardware and software. The article makes a good point about video games. They are totally incompatible with each other and are very closed systems. They remain successful because they can take one success and transition it to another - like the Mario franchise. MS did the same thing with computers years ago (with the objective of being really lucky thanks to boneheaded decisions by IBM). Apple did not. Of course Apple's objectives were far different back then, but Apple operates differently than MS does.
While Apple could get a few more customers, it just wouldn't last. There is no reason to think that it would or that they could sustain it. Its about making a good choice.
You cannot say that Apple's market strategy would gain them more money from copying MS business strategy, you just can't because they aren't the same. You cannot make a flawed assumption and think that Microsoft got achieved success by doing things the way the market was meant to be. They didn't. Microsoft got real lucky and rode on the coat tails of IBM business mentality and got massive market share because of that - way back in the 80's. That's just how things ended up. Doesn't mean that it works that way all the time and there is no reason to suggest that Apple is gonna want to chance it.
At this point in the game Microsoft has won - Jobs has admitted that years ago. Microsoft makes billions from the business market that by in large has no interest in making a risky and expensive change that going to Mac entails. Microsoft provides a very prediction, safe route that has massive industry support. Apple would have needed this kind of success really early on - but back in that day, they were adopting practices that were fundamentally different.
It doesn't matter that Apple's system is better - the lions share of the market made their choice years ago and that market doesn't tolerate direct competition. In Microsoft's world - they are the only game in town. And I say that the reason is that Apple is still around because they don't encroach into Microsoft's big markets. They don't license their software out to Microsoft's partners, they don't sell office software to PC's. There is a reason - Microsoft is far too big.
Times have changed a bit since then, you know ...
Yes, I have. Several times. Things have changed, but the base premise of the article still applies - Microsoft Got Lucky - there is no way to suggest that Apple can pull that off in this day in age when the world depends too much on Microsoft. The article deals with past actions affecting the present. Its very relevant. Its point is that MS got successful because of how it parlayed successes over time, not because it embraced an "open strategy". They did that years ago. Read the whole thing. Grueber makes a point that still applies today because marketshare in the OS world has changed very little.
Due to Apple's grown popularity (if not ubiquity) it can be safely assumed that quite a few more people would install Mac OS if it were officially supported on non-Mac hardware. A highly significant number of people? Good question. To Apple's benefit? Probably not.
Popularity is irrelevant. Going up against Microsoft is suicide. Period. Their market share is too large and Apple's success is too dependent on hardware sales. Microsoft's objective is to rule the roost. They did that way back in the early 90's and they are too well entrenched to be taken out directly. They are just too big. You are simply conjecturing without any basis in reality. Apple tried the cloning market and it failed because people by in large do not want to undertake the massive pains to go to a completely different platform without somewhat of a safety platform. People want Windows because the stuff they run on depend on it. Thant and competing with Microsoft directly is a folly - going up against MS is going to be very bloody. You have better luck elephant hunting with a pea shooter.
Take a look at any other market that involves hardware and software. The article makes a good point about video games. They are totally incompatible with each other and are very closed systems. They remain successful because they can take one success and transition it to another - like the Mario franchise. MS did the same thing with computers years ago (with the objective of being really lucky thanks to boneheaded decisions by IBM). Apple did not. Of course Apple's objectives were far different back then, but Apple operates differently than MS does.
While Apple could get a few more customers, it just wouldn't last. There is no reason to think that it would or that they could sustain it. Its about making a good choice.
You cannot say that Apple's market strategy would gain them more money from copying MS business strategy, you just can't because they aren't the same. You cannot make a flawed assumption and think that Microsoft got achieved success by doing things the way the market was meant to be. They didn't. Microsoft got real lucky and rode on the coat tails of IBM business mentality and got massive market share because of that - way back in the 80's. That's just how things ended up. Doesn't mean that it works that way all the time and there is no reason to suggest that Apple is gonna want to chance it.
At this point in the game Microsoft has won - Jobs has admitted that years ago. Microsoft makes billions from the business market that by in large has no interest in making a risky and expensive change that going to Mac entails. Microsoft provides a very prediction, safe route that has massive industry support. Apple would have needed this kind of success really early on - but back in that day, they were adopting practices that were fundamentally different.
It doesn't matter that Apple's system is better - the lions share of the market made their choice years ago and that market doesn't tolerate direct competition. In Microsoft's world - they are the only game in town. And I say that the reason is that Apple is still around because they don't encroach into Microsoft's big markets. They don't license their software out to Microsoft's partners, they don't sell office software to PC's. There is a reason - Microsoft is far too big.
Multimedia
Sep 26, 10:43 AM
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2480
I know they're making a PCI Express, DDR2, SATA II version though. Old news to me...Thanks but that looks like it's only of PCs. Do you know it works in Mac G5 Quads and Mac Pros?
I went to the GIGA-BYTE TECHNOLOGY CO website and it looks like they don't even make that i-RAM card any more. The link to the above article is from July 25, 2005 more than a year ago.
I know they're making a PCI Express, DDR2, SATA II version though. Old news to me...Thanks but that looks like it's only of PCs. Do you know it works in Mac G5 Quads and Mac Pros?
I went to the GIGA-BYTE TECHNOLOGY CO website and it looks like they don't even make that i-RAM card any more. The link to the above article is from July 25, 2005 more than a year ago.
.png "Studio Dell XPS Wallpapers")
(L)
May 3, 09:06 PM
No one is forcing you to read or post in any of these threads. You appear to be much more emotionally invested in this than many, including myself. Or maybe your caps lock and question mark keys are stuck.
People sure get emotionally invested about the dumbest things....
Anyone who deliberately uses more than one question mark in English is not properly literate, so let's hope our friend the von Magnum's keyboard is to blame.
People sure get emotionally invested about the dumbest things....
Anyone who deliberately uses more than one question mark in English is not properly literate, so let's hope our friend the von Magnum's keyboard is to blame.
Apple OC
Mar 15, 10:19 PM
Considering that the conditions at the facility appear to be deteriorating, you might need to rethink what you mean by "contained".
So do you figure they might just walk away and abandon this situation?
you might want to rethink what I mean by contained ... certainly, not containing this situation is NOT an option.
So do you figure they might just walk away and abandon this situation?
you might want to rethink what I mean by contained ... certainly, not containing this situation is NOT an option.
KindredMAC
Sep 12, 08:37 PM
Could this actually be the Mac Home or iHome resurrection of the name of the fake product that came out a couple of years ago????
lifeinhd
Apr 12, 10:21 PM
This is what iMovie after iMovie '06 should have been, if only because it has a PROPER FRICKIN' TIMELINE!
Was really hoping for $199, but $299 isn't bad. I might just upgrade from iMovie '06 (I'm not really a 'pro' editor, but I love my timelines!).
Was really hoping for $199, but $299 isn't bad. I might just upgrade from iMovie '06 (I'm not really a 'pro' editor, but I love my timelines!).
mac jones
Mar 12, 04:45 AM
I think that the key is not to get ahead of ourselves.
IMHO, it's best to rely upon information provided from a variety of news sources and government sources and then decide for ourselves. It's too easy to jump the gun right now with regards to the nuclear plants.
Again, just my opinion.
Yes sound advice.
But the problem is, I read that there was a minor explosion, so I thought "Fine ok, no biggie". Then I see the video, and it looks like 9-11. So then, there's now a credibility problem. Fear sets in, and doubt.
You see the pattern.
IMHO, it's best to rely upon information provided from a variety of news sources and government sources and then decide for ourselves. It's too easy to jump the gun right now with regards to the nuclear plants.
Again, just my opinion.
Yes sound advice.
But the problem is, I read that there was a minor explosion, so I thought "Fine ok, no biggie". Then I see the video, and it looks like 9-11. So then, there's now a credibility problem. Fear sets in, and doubt.
You see the pattern.
Peterkro
Mar 12, 08:04 PM
Another 6.2 offshore 180K east from Tokio.
If you'd like more info or just to feed your nuclear paranoia look here:
http://twitter.com/arclight#
If you'd like more info or just to feed your nuclear paranoia look here:
http://twitter.com/arclight#
r0k
Apr 15, 07:30 AM
0. "Get Info"on multiple items. WTF.
1. Crazy mouse acceleration curve. Why there isn't be a simple config option for this under mouse controls I'll never understand.
2. Trackpad acceleration. Why there isn't a simple option for absolute coordinates on the trackpad, so your finger position is mapped 1:1 to your position on screen, I'll also never understand. The trackpads are big enough. A corresponding area of equal size on a wacom digitizer is fine. ...but i need to lug around a wacom just so I don't have to chase my cursor all over the screen? Crazy.
3. Finder. If I delete a file, don't kick me out of the whole folder and make me come back in and go through all the files again to get back to where I was in the file list. It's rude.
4. Finder. Apple has all the pieces, now if they'd just put em together. Cascade thru folders in column view, and when your selection lands on files, display details. Let us see previews in coverflow. Like this:
I really like #4. The whole cover flow thing in Finder seems like it's useless but merging cover flow with another view, now that's awesome. I tend to like one feature in windows explorer better than finder. I like the view where the entire folder structure is in the left pane and the current folder is in the right pane. Finder offers a column view that I never quite got used to. But one thing prevents me from even thinking about liking windows over OS X: Quick View. There is nothing like it on Windows. I know MS tried. They added some sort of thumbnail sort of a thing but they don't offer anything that I could use the word "quick" to describe. Meanwhile quick view on OS X and on iOS knows how to open the majority of files I use and care about. For this reason, even though I like your #4 suggestion, because we have quick view, the merged cover flow view is only a nice to have. Have you brought this suggestion up to the folks that make Pathfinder? I bet they would consider doing it. Of course once somebody is doing it on third party software, Apple is more likely to pick it up as a feature in future versions of OS X.
I'm not sure I've ever noticed #s 1-3. I don't use a trackpad and leave it disabled. In fact, when my BT mouse batteries being replaced, the tired old trackpad on my Macbook misbehaves badly. For deletion I always right-click and pick "move to trash" and I'm not kicked out of finder at all. Every now and then I lose track of the mouse on my two monitor setup. OS X doesn't want to allow the mouse back onto my Macbook screen from the bottom of the external monitor. I have to go up and then right to get my cursor back. It's mildly annoying but I live with it.
1. Crazy mouse acceleration curve. Why there isn't be a simple config option for this under mouse controls I'll never understand.
2. Trackpad acceleration. Why there isn't a simple option for absolute coordinates on the trackpad, so your finger position is mapped 1:1 to your position on screen, I'll also never understand. The trackpads are big enough. A corresponding area of equal size on a wacom digitizer is fine. ...but i need to lug around a wacom just so I don't have to chase my cursor all over the screen? Crazy.
3. Finder. If I delete a file, don't kick me out of the whole folder and make me come back in and go through all the files again to get back to where I was in the file list. It's rude.
4. Finder. Apple has all the pieces, now if they'd just put em together. Cascade thru folders in column view, and when your selection lands on files, display details. Let us see previews in coverflow. Like this:
I really like #4. The whole cover flow thing in Finder seems like it's useless but merging cover flow with another view, now that's awesome. I tend to like one feature in windows explorer better than finder. I like the view where the entire folder structure is in the left pane and the current folder is in the right pane. Finder offers a column view that I never quite got used to. But one thing prevents me from even thinking about liking windows over OS X: Quick View. There is nothing like it on Windows. I know MS tried. They added some sort of thumbnail sort of a thing but they don't offer anything that I could use the word "quick" to describe. Meanwhile quick view on OS X and on iOS knows how to open the majority of files I use and care about. For this reason, even though I like your #4 suggestion, because we have quick view, the merged cover flow view is only a nice to have. Have you brought this suggestion up to the folks that make Pathfinder? I bet they would consider doing it. Of course once somebody is doing it on third party software, Apple is more likely to pick it up as a feature in future versions of OS X.
I'm not sure I've ever noticed #s 1-3. I don't use a trackpad and leave it disabled. In fact, when my BT mouse batteries being replaced, the tired old trackpad on my Macbook misbehaves badly. For deletion I always right-click and pick "move to trash" and I'm not kicked out of finder at all. Every now and then I lose track of the mouse on my two monitor setup. OS X doesn't want to allow the mouse back onto my Macbook screen from the bottom of the external monitor. I have to go up and then right to get my cursor back. It's mildly annoying but I live with it.
Intuit
Apr 21, 06:09 AM
I got to back chrono up I know tons of ways viruses can hide in windows. Here's a few.
Setting visibility to hidden.
Using file names that look like legitimate software.
editing the registry to disable 'show hidden folders'.
Registering the virus as a service.
Software level root kit using api hooks to modify the result of system calls.
Hardware level root kit changing the system itself.
.dll injection to force another process to run your code.
The entire window messaging system is insecure you can delete everything displayed in the process list of Task manager for example.
some of these techniques will make a virus completely invisible so don't bash
Dell Business Laptops and
53 111 dell xps wallpaper
Dell studio xps wallpaper
Dell XPS M1730 (Core2 Extreme
Setting visibility to hidden.
Using file names that look like legitimate software.
editing the registry to disable 'show hidden folders'.
Registering the virus as a service.
Software level root kit using api hooks to modify the result of system calls.
Hardware level root kit changing the system itself.
.dll injection to force another process to run your code.
The entire window messaging system is insecure you can delete everything displayed in the process list of Task manager for example.
some of these techniques will make a virus completely invisible so don't bash
GGJstudios
May 2, 02:51 PM
I love how you all pretend like this is the first piece of intrusive software (Malware) for Macs ...
As already stated, it's not the first. Who's pretending that it is?
... like there's no such thing as a virus for Mac...
For Mac OS X, there isn't.
As already stated, it's not the first. Who's pretending that it is?
... like there's no such thing as a virus for Mac...
For Mac OS X, there isn't.
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 01:33 PM
You make an interesting point. My counter: Why are Apple not releasing the full list of regulated substances? Do they have something to hide?
Because it's not required, and not the law. If Apple was not complying with current EPA regulations, they'd be investigated by the US Government. Greenpeace is asking them to go beyond current laws, which are quite stringent as is.
Because it's not required, and not the law. If Apple was not complying with current EPA regulations, they'd be investigated by the US Government. Greenpeace is asking them to go beyond current laws, which are quite stringent as is.
theheadguy
Aug 29, 02:21 PM
Apple has released a statement regarding the findings and it is just as realiable as Greenpeace's.
Besides, I said that Apple is doing what they can.
Obviously, they aren't.
They don't even release timelines for many things while other companies do. Apple can defend itself, they don't need you or anyone else to stick up for it when you aren't informed on what they are doing. Just as people complain that Greenpeace doesn't know what they are talking about, many people defending Apple are totally clueless also. It's just important to know that if you really care about the situation. :rolleyes:
Besides, I said that Apple is doing what they can.
Obviously, they aren't.
They don't even release timelines for many things while other companies do. Apple can defend itself, they don't need you or anyone else to stick up for it when you aren't informed on what they are doing. Just as people complain that Greenpeace doesn't know what they are talking about, many people defending Apple are totally clueless also. It's just important to know that if you really care about the situation. :rolleyes:
killr_b
Oct 25, 10:48 PM
I can't really decide what to think of an 8 core mac pro.
Right now FCP barely uses all four of mine.
It seriously seems that they a) haven't updated software pending an OS update, ie; leopard, to take advavtage of them or b) more cores really only helps the multi-tasking.
In any case I think my mac pro isn't quite as fast as it could be sighting the activity of my cpus during a render.
HDV render = 60% on every core. WTF?
Right now FCP barely uses all four of mine.
It seriously seems that they a) haven't updated software pending an OS update, ie; leopard, to take advavtage of them or b) more cores really only helps the multi-tasking.
In any case I think my mac pro isn't quite as fast as it could be sighting the activity of my cpus during a render.
HDV render = 60% on every core. WTF?
awmazz
Mar 15, 12:22 AM
Another helpful article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42075628) (MSNBC):
radiation levels detected outside the Japan plant remain within legal limits,
As I suggested earlier, the fear-mongering regarding this issue doesn't appear to be warranted. Unless the situation changes drastically, there's no need for dire claims and accusations.
The problem with your attempts to downplay this situation, like all the other attempts in this thread so far, is that every time you get hammered by actual events on the ground. To wit:
Radiation levels around Fukushima for one hour's exposure rose to eight times the legal limit for exposure in one year, said the plant's operator, the Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco).
So rather than fear-mongering appearing to be unwarranted, it's actually the other way around. The fear-mongers have yet to be proved wrong while the down-players' positive predictions have been proved wrong every step of the way. It's almost like the down-players are having as much difficulty staying on top of this situation as the plant owners/workers themselves. Here's a hint - it's out of control and has been all along. Everything we've been seeing the last three days is simply trying to regain control, not actually control it. To wit:
All workers not drectly involved in the actual pumping have now been evacuated from Fukushima nuclear plant. They're running. So everybody else should too.
EDIT - I just re-read that BBC quote and realized it's even more staggeringly worse than when I first read it as '8 times the legal limit' - where in fact it's 8 TIMES the YEARLY legal limit in just 1 HOUR.
radiation levels detected outside the Japan plant remain within legal limits,
As I suggested earlier, the fear-mongering regarding this issue doesn't appear to be warranted. Unless the situation changes drastically, there's no need for dire claims and accusations.
The problem with your attempts to downplay this situation, like all the other attempts in this thread so far, is that every time you get hammered by actual events on the ground. To wit:
Radiation levels around Fukushima for one hour's exposure rose to eight times the legal limit for exposure in one year, said the plant's operator, the Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco).
So rather than fear-mongering appearing to be unwarranted, it's actually the other way around. The fear-mongers have yet to be proved wrong while the down-players' positive predictions have been proved wrong every step of the way. It's almost like the down-players are having as much difficulty staying on top of this situation as the plant owners/workers themselves. Here's a hint - it's out of control and has been all along. Everything we've been seeing the last three days is simply trying to regain control, not actually control it. To wit:
All workers not drectly involved in the actual pumping have now been evacuated from Fukushima nuclear plant. They're running. So everybody else should too.
EDIT - I just re-read that BBC quote and realized it's even more staggeringly worse than when I first read it as '8 times the legal limit' - where in fact it's 8 TIMES the YEARLY legal limit in just 1 HOUR.
retroneo
Oct 7, 08:29 PM
For example, every phone manufacturer is going to have their own set of features. Some may have cameras, vibration, video playback, etc. With the iPhone, you know exactly what is there and what the device you're targeting can do. You can build better applications to utilize the specific hardware.
Of the 6 iPhone OS devices so far released (still more than Android), each has their own set of features. Some may have cameras, vibration, video playback, etc. There is also an enourmous range of CPU and GPU ability. I think the only consistent thing so far has been the screen size and the fact that apps can only use touch and none of the buttons.
So there is a similar (smaller) problem that exists for developers on iPhone. It's unfortunately why Firemint say they won't release Real Racing 3GS too. Android tries to keep fragmentation to a minimum by running everything in a virtual machine but ultimately it has the same problem.
These aren't game consoles that are released once every 5 years.
Of the 6 iPhone OS devices so far released (still more than Android), each has their own set of features. Some may have cameras, vibration, video playback, etc. There is also an enourmous range of CPU and GPU ability. I think the only consistent thing so far has been the screen size and the fact that apps can only use touch and none of the buttons.
So there is a similar (smaller) problem that exists for developers on iPhone. It's unfortunately why Firemint say they won't release Real Racing 3GS too. Android tries to keep fragmentation to a minimum by running everything in a virtual machine but ultimately it has the same problem.
These aren't game consoles that are released once every 5 years.
jettredmont
May 3, 03:44 PM
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
springscansing
Oct 13, 04:46 AM
This is actually my first post. Yay! Been a machead forever (using a IIgs when I was 4).
ANYWAY, regarding various posts about PCs encoding mp3s faster than macs. I am an audio engineer, and I must say the encoding algorithm is MUCH better sounding in iTunes than in Winamp, and I assume most of you are using iTunes in your comparisons. Different programs encode at vastly different rates. For example, I don't know if you recall an application called Soundjam and another called Audiocatalyst. Soundjam encoded 2.4x faster, but sounded like total junk.
Now.. I'm not part of the "MACS IS FASTR" group, because sadly, they aren't... I just wanted to point out the mp3 encoding tests weren't fair.
- Springs
ANYWAY, regarding various posts about PCs encoding mp3s faster than macs. I am an audio engineer, and I must say the encoding algorithm is MUCH better sounding in iTunes than in Winamp, and I assume most of you are using iTunes in your comparisons. Different programs encode at vastly different rates. For example, I don't know if you recall an application called Soundjam and another called Audiocatalyst. Soundjam encoded 2.4x faster, but sounded like total junk.
Now.. I'm not part of the "MACS IS FASTR" group, because sadly, they aren't... I just wanted to point out the mp3 encoding tests weren't fair.
- Springs
bfar5
Aug 17, 07:30 AM
hahahahahahaha That was a good one.
lmao
lmao
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий