LumbermanSVO
Mar 26, 09:45 PM
Situation would never happen, police don't walk the beat here anymore (thought it would be nice). Also police are obligated to stop crimes in action while the government isn't obligated to create new rights because a very small demographic demands it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kris_Kime
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kris_Kime
archipellago
May 2, 05:00 PM
The Javascript exploit injected code into the Safari process to cause the download of a payload. That payload was the installer.
The installer is marked as safe to auto-execute if "open safe files after downloading" is turned on.
An installer is used to trick users to authenticate because the malware does not include privilege escalation via exploitation.
If you had any technical knowledge you could have figured that out yourself via the Intego article.
Installers being marked as safe really doesn't increase the likelihood of user level access as the Javascript exploit already provided user level access. I don't understand why you are hung up on this installer being able to auto-execute; it really makes no difference in terms of user level access. The attacker could have deleted your files with just the Javascript exploit.
Webkit2 will prevent user level access via an exploit, such as a Javascript exploit.
on the desktop/laptop side which browsers will use webkit2?
Chrome and Safari?
in which case its virtually pojntless (for the community) as the 2 biggest browsers won't have it...or will they have something similar??
The installer is marked as safe to auto-execute if "open safe files after downloading" is turned on.
An installer is used to trick users to authenticate because the malware does not include privilege escalation via exploitation.
If you had any technical knowledge you could have figured that out yourself via the Intego article.
Installers being marked as safe really doesn't increase the likelihood of user level access as the Javascript exploit already provided user level access. I don't understand why you are hung up on this installer being able to auto-execute; it really makes no difference in terms of user level access. The attacker could have deleted your files with just the Javascript exploit.
Webkit2 will prevent user level access via an exploit, such as a Javascript exploit.
on the desktop/laptop side which browsers will use webkit2?
Chrome and Safari?
in which case its virtually pojntless (for the community) as the 2 biggest browsers won't have it...or will they have something similar??
AoWolf
Aug 29, 03:25 PM
To be honest I really don't care what green peace thinks. I wonder if you took all advancements that have benefited humanity made on macs versus all the work greenpeace has ever done who would come out on top. We definitely need to watch out for the environment but we need to do it logically not emotionally. Greenpeace is nothing but a group of eco-terriests in my opinion.
puma1552
Mar 14, 01:04 AM
Yea, this is one of the few controversial posts I've made here, I expected some criticism, and likely deserve it as I definitely don't get the whole picture, then again who does.
I'm not saying oil isn't a HUGE problem, or rebutting some of the good points here.
When a nuclear disaster happens hundreds of thousands of people can die, if unleashed in war it could be the end of the world, plus accidents, human error, countries letting power plants age and neglect updates not because they can't afford it but instead because they want the incredible profits from it.
It's not good, I'll never be convinced otherwise. Look at countries like Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia how well they manage their power, the research, alternative (green) energy sources in play and working NOW ... it's incredible and goes unnoticed.
There is better ways.
NO nuclear.
You know, I really don't think a lot of the people in this thread "get it" so-to-speak.
Japan has 130 million people, in a space 10,000 square miles SMALLER than California, and is an archipelago. 85% of that are sparsely populated mountainous regions, so do the math to realize what a premium we have on space here and try to understand that we need the absolute maximum power for the space and resources we have, which is why we get a third of our power from nuclear sources.
What do you think, we have unlimited resources and space to use bogus green energy methods? Everyone talks about green energy this, green energy that, but nobody seems to grasp that green energy methods are horrendously inefficient, unrealistically and unsustainably so; if they were so good, don't you think we'd have our fossil fuel crisis solved?
As an example, solar power's MAXIMUM efficiency is a pathetic 12%, and that's before you even think about it's asinine cost, or the asinine amount of square footage you need to even get a tiny amount of power.
Wind isn't much better, at a maximum of 30% efficiency, and that's when the wind is blowing over 30 mph.
Neither of these are feasible, nor realistic for Japan.
Guys, we have nuclear power here out of necessity. Maybe that's difficult for you guys to grasp, but with 130 million people in a place smaller than California, most of which is mountains, we need power that's efficient. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.
Nuclear is a result of circumstance here, and up until now has had a flawless record.
By the way, lowly natural gas has a 10x higher fatality rate than nuclear, but I don't see anyone fearing natural gas.
edit: I don't mean to harp on you specifically, entlarg, I'm just tired of seeing post after post in this thread from people that don't seem to understand that at least here, we don't have a choice but to use nuclear power.
I'm not saying oil isn't a HUGE problem, or rebutting some of the good points here.
When a nuclear disaster happens hundreds of thousands of people can die, if unleashed in war it could be the end of the world, plus accidents, human error, countries letting power plants age and neglect updates not because they can't afford it but instead because they want the incredible profits from it.
It's not good, I'll never be convinced otherwise. Look at countries like Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia how well they manage their power, the research, alternative (green) energy sources in play and working NOW ... it's incredible and goes unnoticed.
There is better ways.
NO nuclear.
You know, I really don't think a lot of the people in this thread "get it" so-to-speak.
Japan has 130 million people, in a space 10,000 square miles SMALLER than California, and is an archipelago. 85% of that are sparsely populated mountainous regions, so do the math to realize what a premium we have on space here and try to understand that we need the absolute maximum power for the space and resources we have, which is why we get a third of our power from nuclear sources.
What do you think, we have unlimited resources and space to use bogus green energy methods? Everyone talks about green energy this, green energy that, but nobody seems to grasp that green energy methods are horrendously inefficient, unrealistically and unsustainably so; if they were so good, don't you think we'd have our fossil fuel crisis solved?
As an example, solar power's MAXIMUM efficiency is a pathetic 12%, and that's before you even think about it's asinine cost, or the asinine amount of square footage you need to even get a tiny amount of power.
Wind isn't much better, at a maximum of 30% efficiency, and that's when the wind is blowing over 30 mph.
Neither of these are feasible, nor realistic for Japan.
Guys, we have nuclear power here out of necessity. Maybe that's difficult for you guys to grasp, but with 130 million people in a place smaller than California, most of which is mountains, we need power that's efficient. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.
Nuclear is a result of circumstance here, and up until now has had a flawless record.
By the way, lowly natural gas has a 10x higher fatality rate than nuclear, but I don't see anyone fearing natural gas.
edit: I don't mean to harp on you specifically, entlarg, I'm just tired of seeing post after post in this thread from people that don't seem to understand that at least here, we don't have a choice but to use nuclear power.
rdowty
Mar 14, 06:13 PM
Nobody seems to think of abandoning coal when a bunch of miners die. I think there have been more coal related deaths than nuclear ones.
NT1440
Mar 16, 01:39 PM
I'm glad you understand the nuclear is a good solution. You're a bit off base regarding drilling though...
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
First off, the past is the past on this topic. Drilling ten years ago may mean some slight impact on oil prices domestically now, but again, the infrastructure would just be finally settling into place. It's neither here nor there.
Yes this country does have massive amounts of resources...but that doesn't mean they make sense both environmentally and economically (not to mention that we simply could not meet domestic demand with what we have). Much of the natural gas is tough to get to, and we've seen the major issues techniques such as "fracking" lead to.
Our biggest untapped oil is what is called shale oil, and it is extremely energy intensive to make it even remotely usable, so thats a lost cause to begin with.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
First off, the past is the past on this topic. Drilling ten years ago may mean some slight impact on oil prices domestically now, but again, the infrastructure would just be finally settling into place. It's neither here nor there.
Yes this country does have massive amounts of resources...but that doesn't mean they make sense both environmentally and economically (not to mention that we simply could not meet domestic demand with what we have). Much of the natural gas is tough to get to, and we've seen the major issues techniques such as "fracking" lead to.
Our biggest untapped oil is what is called shale oil, and it is extremely energy intensive to make it even remotely usable, so thats a lost cause to begin with.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
dante@sisna.com
Sep 12, 06:34 PM
Except the quality just won't be there yet with this device. As everyone runs out to buy flat screen TVs this year and next, they're going to get home and want to play iTunes movies only to be completely dismayed by the 640x480 content/quality. 4:3 resolution, yuck :confused:
I know it's 802.11 and certainly features an HDMI out, but streaming 720p HD TV takes about 480 Mbps of bandwith, according to Ars:http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060906-7681.html Even 802.11n would have trouble with an uncompressed 720p signal, so quality will most likely be compromised as streaming video is increasingly compressed.
I'm happy to ditch Comcast's 25 shopping channels, in favor of a paid siubscription model, but I'm guessing that the cable & satellite companies are going to do HD a heck of a lot better than Apple.
Actually, HDMI allows the display (TV, monitor,etc) to decrypt and decode the HD content at full resolution. That means the content is still encrypted even after leaving a PC, iTV, etc. so you can't copy it.
Without HDMI, signals are reduced to Standard Def. For copy-protection reasons, HD signals never leave any compliant device - players and monitors alike - meaning no key, no HD.
So, without HDMI, even HD-DVD discs on an xbox, for example, will only look as good as DVDs because the hardware is programmed to reduce the resolution to SD.
I think Apple will have a wireless solution out to handle the streaming content: if not, that is what Gigabit ethernet is for on the device. Home Theatre enthusiasts will gladly string cat 5 cable for this: most homes in the past 8 years are wired for this anyway.
I know it's 802.11 and certainly features an HDMI out, but streaming 720p HD TV takes about 480 Mbps of bandwith, according to Ars:http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060906-7681.html Even 802.11n would have trouble with an uncompressed 720p signal, so quality will most likely be compromised as streaming video is increasingly compressed.
I'm happy to ditch Comcast's 25 shopping channels, in favor of a paid siubscription model, but I'm guessing that the cable & satellite companies are going to do HD a heck of a lot better than Apple.
Actually, HDMI allows the display (TV, monitor,etc) to decrypt and decode the HD content at full resolution. That means the content is still encrypted even after leaving a PC, iTV, etc. so you can't copy it.
Without HDMI, signals are reduced to Standard Def. For copy-protection reasons, HD signals never leave any compliant device - players and monitors alike - meaning no key, no HD.
So, without HDMI, even HD-DVD discs on an xbox, for example, will only look as good as DVDs because the hardware is programmed to reduce the resolution to SD.
I think Apple will have a wireless solution out to handle the streaming content: if not, that is what Gigabit ethernet is for on the device. Home Theatre enthusiasts will gladly string cat 5 cable for this: most homes in the past 8 years are wired for this anyway.
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 09:31 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
I love how people are comparing an iOS device with a PS3 or Xbox..
Classic Chalk or Pen post.
I understand your point, but think the fact that they are says a lot about how gaming has changed over the last 4 years.
I love how people are comparing an iOS device with a PS3 or Xbox..
Classic Chalk or Pen post.
I understand your point, but think the fact that they are says a lot about how gaming has changed over the last 4 years.
latergator116
Mar 20, 07:13 PM
But what if I got hold of that wedding video and decided to, I dunno, turn it into a music video for my own music... and that music video got onto MTV? No one is losing out on any money. No one is being hurt. I'm not stealing. I'm -merely- infringing copyright.
Which is why copyright is a bunch of bull.
Which is why copyright is a bunch of bull.
milo
Sep 12, 05:19 PM
Plus I'm going to have to wait 2+ hours for it to download, plus nothing extra.
You don't have to wait, if you have a fast connection you can watch while it's downloading.
So almost a year later Apple introduces a device that will play *near* (i.e. lower than) DVD-quality when the market is finally warming up to HD quality disks.
Who says it will only do DVD quality? It has HD outputs, and some of the reports said he called up the incredibles (was it the movie or the trailer?) in HD.
Right now we have an upgraded Airport extreme.
Which is exactly what I want. If you want TV tuner, just buy one, they're already available. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple ends up buying Elgato. If Apple announced a TV tuner, wouldn't people be complaining that it would put poor Elgato out of business?
I'll just use a cable to hook my laptop to my TV.
Voila! I just replaced iTV for less than $5.00.
So was your laptop free...or did you find one for under five bucks?
I bought a DVI->S-Video adapter for $15 and an S-Video cable for about $20. Guess what. I can watch TV shows and movies downloaded to my hard drive on my TV. Sooooo.... $35 vs. $300. Let me see.
As above...didn't you have to buy your computer? And isn't it a pain to have to have your computer sitting next to the TV while you're watching (all the time if it's not a laptop, drag it in if it is)? I did that for a while with my mini and got tired of it.
no one could convince us that the 640x480 would be enough for HDTV or which wireless protocol it would use.
Did they say that the iTV only did 640x480, or is that just something you assumed?
wireless is useless for watching movies. I use my mac now to get videos from NAS servers and wireless doesn't cut it. I need to be going 100 or else it gets choppy. Unless they release a new wireless access point.
You mean CURRENT wireless isn't fast enough. There's a new, faster standard on the way, which is probably part of the reason this isn't shipping yet.
You don't have to wait, if you have a fast connection you can watch while it's downloading.
So almost a year later Apple introduces a device that will play *near* (i.e. lower than) DVD-quality when the market is finally warming up to HD quality disks.
Who says it will only do DVD quality? It has HD outputs, and some of the reports said he called up the incredibles (was it the movie or the trailer?) in HD.
Right now we have an upgraded Airport extreme.
Which is exactly what I want. If you want TV tuner, just buy one, they're already available. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple ends up buying Elgato. If Apple announced a TV tuner, wouldn't people be complaining that it would put poor Elgato out of business?
I'll just use a cable to hook my laptop to my TV.
Voila! I just replaced iTV for less than $5.00.
So was your laptop free...or did you find one for under five bucks?
I bought a DVI->S-Video adapter for $15 and an S-Video cable for about $20. Guess what. I can watch TV shows and movies downloaded to my hard drive on my TV. Sooooo.... $35 vs. $300. Let me see.
As above...didn't you have to buy your computer? And isn't it a pain to have to have your computer sitting next to the TV while you're watching (all the time if it's not a laptop, drag it in if it is)? I did that for a while with my mini and got tired of it.
no one could convince us that the 640x480 would be enough for HDTV or which wireless protocol it would use.
Did they say that the iTV only did 640x480, or is that just something you assumed?
wireless is useless for watching movies. I use my mac now to get videos from NAS servers and wireless doesn't cut it. I need to be going 100 or else it gets choppy. Unless they release a new wireless access point.
You mean CURRENT wireless isn't fast enough. There's a new, faster standard on the way, which is probably part of the reason this isn't shipping yet.
I'mAMac
Aug 29, 04:29 PM
My point is that Greenpeace would be far better served educating the public how to help. They get even 10% of the world's population to make some radical changes in their lives and the changes to the planet would be amazing.
I agree corporations need to set examples and do teh best they can. I don't think its where environmentalists should be pointing fingers.
You , me and everyone else are the biggest polluters.
right. why don't they invent something that doesnt pollute so we can all use it. (yeah right)
I agree corporations need to set examples and do teh best they can. I don't think its where environmentalists should be pointing fingers.
You , me and everyone else are the biggest polluters.
right. why don't they invent something that doesnt pollute so we can all use it. (yeah right)
munkery
May 2, 01:02 PM
As with all malware that doesn't achieve privilege escalation via exploitation, this will not be very widespread or successful.
BTW, Windows already has far more privilege escalation vulnerabilities this year alone as Mac OS X over it's lifespan.
This type of malware will no longer work in Safari once Webkit2 is released given the scripting engine will run as a seperate process that is sandboxed (similar to Chrome). The scripting engine does not run as a separate process in IE.
Also, check out the links in my sig for more security tips. Then, PM me your credit card number (obviously, this is a joke).
BTW, Windows already has far more privilege escalation vulnerabilities this year alone as Mac OS X over it's lifespan.
This type of malware will no longer work in Safari once Webkit2 is released given the scripting engine will run as a seperate process that is sandboxed (similar to Chrome). The scripting engine does not run as a separate process in IE.
Also, check out the links in my sig for more security tips. Then, PM me your credit card number (obviously, this is a joke).
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 10:42 AM
Are PR people not supposed to stop everyone hating you?
Hang on. Let me just parse the negatives in that sentence.
"Aren't PR people supposed to make everyone like you"
Right that's better.
Yes they are...
Hang on. Let me just parse the negatives in that sentence.
"Aren't PR people supposed to make everyone like you"
Right that's better.
Yes they are...
Naimfan
Apr 24, 11:25 AM
Well in that case anything could be classed as Christianity. Frankly I find that absurd. What's the point of identifying as a Christian if any interpretation of Christianity is considered OK? You may as well just call yourself a spiritualist as it would be closer to the truth.
I mean that kind of logic just annoys me no end. Either God exists or he does not. If he does exist one must assume that he intends the Bible to be read literally. If he didn't then why did he go through the whole bother of having it written by the disciples in the first place if people were just going to change and reinterpret it willy nilly based on whatever the current political or social ideals of the time are?
Based on what you've written, you have a very narrow view of what you consider to be "Christianity." You should perhaps spell that out--what I would infer from what you've written is that to "Christian" one must interpret the Bible (by which I assume you mean the Old and New Testaments) fairly literally and that any denomination which does not do so cannot be "Christian." Which would be news to many of the major Christian denominations.
Perhaps you should substitute "fundamental Christian" for Christian, since that term seems to be more in line with what you've written.
I mean that kind of logic just annoys me no end. Either God exists or he does not. If he does exist one must assume that he intends the Bible to be read literally. If he didn't then why did he go through the whole bother of having it written by the disciples in the first place if people were just going to change and reinterpret it willy nilly based on whatever the current political or social ideals of the time are?
Based on what you've written, you have a very narrow view of what you consider to be "Christianity." You should perhaps spell that out--what I would infer from what you've written is that to "Christian" one must interpret the Bible (by which I assume you mean the Old and New Testaments) fairly literally and that any denomination which does not do so cannot be "Christian." Which would be news to many of the major Christian denominations.
Perhaps you should substitute "fundamental Christian" for Christian, since that term seems to be more in line with what you've written.
cluthz
Mar 19, 03:41 AM
In the perfect world, this wouldn't be neccecary.
I would rather buy a song without DRM than with DRM,
because you have very few rights with files with DRM.
If you buy tha same CD and encode it it won't have DRM, so why do the internet music stores need to have DRM?
Since this will create big trouble for apple I find this negative.
When then day comes that most cds are copyprotected I might buy something from iTMS, but i'll never buy a DRM file unless I have no other options!
I would rather buy a song without DRM than with DRM,
because you have very few rights with files with DRM.
If you buy tha same CD and encode it it won't have DRM, so why do the internet music stores need to have DRM?
Since this will create big trouble for apple I find this negative.
When then day comes that most cds are copyprotected I might buy something from iTMS, but i'll never buy a DRM file unless I have no other options!
BWhaler
Jul 11, 11:47 PM
I certainly don't know, but in the past I thought Apple would of gone with the Conroe chip.
But Apple is being very aggressive these days, and appears to be going to marketshare now that Microsoft is showing serious signs of aging.
My hope is for the Woodcrest chip. I would buy that in a heart beat since it is 64 bit and more future proof. A conroe system will make me wait out a year (like I did with the MBPros...I've been waiting on the real chip the Core 2 Duo...)
But Apple is being very aggressive these days, and appears to be going to marketshare now that Microsoft is showing serious signs of aging.
My hope is for the Woodcrest chip. I would buy that in a heart beat since it is 64 bit and more future proof. A conroe system will make me wait out a year (like I did with the MBPros...I've been waiting on the real chip the Core 2 Duo...)
citizenzen
Mar 27, 05:27 PM
What rights do you mean ... ?
I see it as a most fundamental natural right. The right to free association.
I like you. You like me. Let's spend some time together.
I love you. You love me. Let's spend our lives together.
It's one of the most natural things we do in our lives: choose who we want to share our time with.
I see it as a most fundamental natural right. The right to free association.
I like you. You like me. Let's spend some time together.
I love you. You love me. Let's spend our lives together.
It's one of the most natural things we do in our lives: choose who we want to share our time with.
dethmaShine
Apr 20, 05:42 PM
Exactly. Android doesn't have the IBM that give them the PC market.
Verizon was Android's IBM but now iPhone is now on vz.
So you are insulting all Apple users as those who "don't know what you're doing with your own devices."
Perhaps you didn't realize MILLIONS of Android users downloaded malware.
I have used an HTC desire. Threw it away; got a Nexus S. Bloody awesome one. But I couldn't use it for much. But...
The application quality literally sucks on android. It's pathetic. Way too reboots and unstable phone. Android is LAGGY on the nexus S. The experience is poor.
I now have a trophy 7 and I love it. :)
Some OR most of the fans are abusive and are too much into google. Don't realize its an iOS ripoff and a fragmented experience. Nuff said.
Verizon was Android's IBM but now iPhone is now on vz.
So you are insulting all Apple users as those who "don't know what you're doing with your own devices."
Perhaps you didn't realize MILLIONS of Android users downloaded malware.
I have used an HTC desire. Threw it away; got a Nexus S. Bloody awesome one. But I couldn't use it for much. But...
The application quality literally sucks on android. It's pathetic. Way too reboots and unstable phone. Android is LAGGY on the nexus S. The experience is poor.
I now have a trophy 7 and I love it. :)
Some OR most of the fans are abusive and are too much into google. Don't realize its an iOS ripoff and a fragmented experience. Nuff said.
superleccy
Sep 20, 06:24 AM
I was hoping that's the purpose of the USB port. I know many are thinking it's for the iPod, but I'm hoping you can plug a tuner in :)
edit: in addition to the plug-in tuner, I hope it streams backwards to the computer harddrive.
I was thinking the EyeTV would plug into the USB port on the Mac (as it does today), but the iTV will let you watch it and control it from your living room.
But actually, I am starting to see your (and dobbin's) point. In some ways it might be more convenient if the EyeTV actually plugged into the iTV, and gave you the option of streaming back to you Mac... at least then your EyeTV Tuner would be near where your Sat/Cable/Ariel socket is. But now it's starting to sound expensive and more like a Mac Mini...
SL
edit: in addition to the plug-in tuner, I hope it streams backwards to the computer harddrive.
I was thinking the EyeTV would plug into the USB port on the Mac (as it does today), but the iTV will let you watch it and control it from your living room.
But actually, I am starting to see your (and dobbin's) point. In some ways it might be more convenient if the EyeTV actually plugged into the iTV, and gave you the option of streaming back to you Mac... at least then your EyeTV Tuner would be near where your Sat/Cable/Ariel socket is. But now it's starting to sound expensive and more like a Mac Mini...
SL
Reach9
Apr 20, 06:22 PM
From the OP. I read a few things..
1. No LTE/4G network for iPhone 5, iPhone 6 hopeful but still not sure
2. iPhone 5 will have other features to make current iPhone 4 customers want to upgrade.
3. Steve Jobs will be back, and might be in WWDC and September event.
1. No LTE/4G network for iPhone 5, iPhone 6 hopeful but still not sure
2. iPhone 5 will have other features to make current iPhone 4 customers want to upgrade.
3. Steve Jobs will be back, and might be in WWDC and September event.
eric_n_dfw
Mar 18, 09:17 PM
This isn't rocket science! iTMS sells DRM'ed songs - period.
If you don't want DRM'ed tunes (and still want to do things legally):
1.) burn 'em to a CD and re-rip as AAC or MP3 (or WAV/AIFF)
2.) (Mac only) use iMovie to export it (essentially the same as #1, but easier).
3.) use another service
4.) go buy the CD, you'll get better quality anyway
My prediction: Apple will release an iTunes patch that implements some kind of public/private key challenge/response message between their server and the client app and require iTMS purchases to be done only from that new client. Old clients will get an error that tells them to upgrade.
If you don't want DRM'ed tunes (and still want to do things legally):
1.) burn 'em to a CD and re-rip as AAC or MP3 (or WAV/AIFF)
2.) (Mac only) use iMovie to export it (essentially the same as #1, but easier).
3.) use another service
4.) go buy the CD, you'll get better quality anyway
My prediction: Apple will release an iTunes patch that implements some kind of public/private key challenge/response message between their server and the client app and require iTMS purchases to be done only from that new client. Old clients will get an error that tells them to upgrade.
AppliedVisual
Oct 26, 10:42 PM
[B][COLOR="DarkOrange"]Noone has mentioned the FSB concerns yet, which is weird.
Well I've mentioned it... In the other 8-cor Mac Pro thread. And I've brought it up more than once.
Yes, this should be a concern and those doing bandwidth-intense operations may find the FSB to be a bottleneck at times. Unless I've missed something along the way, the Mac Pro has an independent bus for each CPU, meaning that each quad core chip will get it's 1333MHz of data flow. I'll have to go check on this... If Apple is indeed stuffing two CPUs onto a single 1333MHz FSB, then there will be a serious problem. Because if I start running into bandwidth issues feeding multiple cores streams of HD video or animation frames, I'm not going to be happy.
Well I've mentioned it... In the other 8-cor Mac Pro thread. And I've brought it up more than once.
Yes, this should be a concern and those doing bandwidth-intense operations may find the FSB to be a bottleneck at times. Unless I've missed something along the way, the Mac Pro has an independent bus for each CPU, meaning that each quad core chip will get it's 1333MHz of data flow. I'll have to go check on this... If Apple is indeed stuffing two CPUs onto a single 1333MHz FSB, then there will be a serious problem. Because if I start running into bandwidth issues feeding multiple cores streams of HD video or animation frames, I'm not going to be happy.
Mikael
Jul 12, 05:35 PM
I find this whole discussion slightly amusing, mostly because of the apparent need to draw a distinction between "professional" and "consumer" based on slight clock frequency differences. To me, a professional platform is defined by its configurability and flexibility. A professional platform is simply one that can be configured to fit the customers every need. Although CPU performance is important, it's hardly what I'd call the defining factor of wether a system is to be regarded as "pro" or not.
I don't see any reason why a cheaper Mac Pro with a single 2.4GHz Conroe couldn't remain a machine aimed at professionals. Or does it have to have an outrageous price tag to qualify?
The whole concept of drawing a line between pro machines and machines for mere mortals seems a little "old". There's nothing really special about a PowerMac or Mac Pro anyway. Put a mid range CPU in the machine and it fits the regular consumer just as well as a professional not demanding the absolute top end CPU performance.
Maybe I've been damaged by the PC worlds lack of "pro-obsession", but I think it's a healthier approach.
Merom will underperform a Conroe under equal high loads because of thermal constraints (in unmodified systems).
It will? Do you have any source for this info? An Intel rep has said that Merom and Conroe are identical, except for a few differences having to do with p-states. This is unlikely to hinder performance at full load, so where did you get this contradicting info?
Also, the largest part of the power savings between Merom and Conroe are likely to come from reduced core voltage. You will probably be able to come very close to Merom power levels by simply reducing the core voltage of a similarly clocked Conroe.
I don't see any reason why a cheaper Mac Pro with a single 2.4GHz Conroe couldn't remain a machine aimed at professionals. Or does it have to have an outrageous price tag to qualify?
The whole concept of drawing a line between pro machines and machines for mere mortals seems a little "old". There's nothing really special about a PowerMac or Mac Pro anyway. Put a mid range CPU in the machine and it fits the regular consumer just as well as a professional not demanding the absolute top end CPU performance.
Maybe I've been damaged by the PC worlds lack of "pro-obsession", but I think it's a healthier approach.
Merom will underperform a Conroe under equal high loads because of thermal constraints (in unmodified systems).
It will? Do you have any source for this info? An Intel rep has said that Merom and Conroe are identical, except for a few differences having to do with p-states. This is unlikely to hinder performance at full load, so where did you get this contradicting info?
Also, the largest part of the power savings between Merom and Conroe are likely to come from reduced core voltage. You will probably be able to come very close to Merom power levels by simply reducing the core voltage of a similarly clocked Conroe.
Edge100
Apr 15, 12:30 PM
I realize this is off topic, but I felt compelled to reply.
You've taken that completely out of context. The point is that a person being raped, while conscious and aware of the situation, would do everything they could to stop it from happening. By not screaming, did she do all she could to keep it from happening? The verse right after that gives an example of a woman in the country, instead of in the city. She is raped, but makes an effort to scream in order to attract help from someone, but there is no one else around to hear her screams. If a person is being raped but doesn't try to resist or call for help, can she really be compared to the one that did call for help?
This is by no means intended to be all inclusive, but demonstrates that there were in fact protections in the law for those who were raped and not those having sex while not married and claiming to be raped.
My jaw just hit the floor. Did you just make excuses for certain forms of rape? You couldn't have.
Let's get to the bottom of this: is there any circumstance for which the Bible dictates that a woman who is raped should be put to death?
You've taken that completely out of context. The point is that a person being raped, while conscious and aware of the situation, would do everything they could to stop it from happening. By not screaming, did she do all she could to keep it from happening? The verse right after that gives an example of a woman in the country, instead of in the city. She is raped, but makes an effort to scream in order to attract help from someone, but there is no one else around to hear her screams. If a person is being raped but doesn't try to resist or call for help, can she really be compared to the one that did call for help?
This is by no means intended to be all inclusive, but demonstrates that there were in fact protections in the law for those who were raped and not those having sex while not married and claiming to be raped.
My jaw just hit the floor. Did you just make excuses for certain forms of rape? You couldn't have.
Let's get to the bottom of this: is there any circumstance for which the Bible dictates that a woman who is raped should be put to death?
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق