iJohnHenry
Apr 26, 06:08 PM
Munchies aside, miracle cures of old are likely misdiagnosis.
Leaches were used back then, right.
(Bad example, leaches, fly larva, etc, are valued assets in today's medicine.)
Leaches were used back then, right.
(Bad example, leaches, fly larva, etc, are valued assets in today's medicine.)
Caliber26
Apr 15, 10:21 AM
*Sigh* Think what you will about me. But I am not the one saying it is wrong for the media to project a positive message about being gay.
In case you have forgotten, re-read your post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12397061&postcount=41) which I responded to .
You have no business alleging that I hate myself. Got that?? I hope you do.
What the hell makes you think that because I'm gay I have to be 100% supportive of every little part and piece of the lifestyle? I've learned to reconcile with myself and accept the good AND the bad. What's so difficult for you to accept about that?
Why do you have to jump at me -- like 99% of the other gays I know -- just because I had the audacity to speak my mind, and state that there are parts I disagree with? Get real!
In case you have forgotten, re-read your post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12397061&postcount=41) which I responded to .
You have no business alleging that I hate myself. Got that?? I hope you do.
What the hell makes you think that because I'm gay I have to be 100% supportive of every little part and piece of the lifestyle? I've learned to reconcile with myself and accept the good AND the bad. What's so difficult for you to accept about that?
Why do you have to jump at me -- like 99% of the other gays I know -- just because I had the audacity to speak my mind, and state that there are parts I disagree with? Get real!
nixd2001
Oct 8, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by WanaPBnow
now back to Apple. Apple is only gonna make machines that are faster than Intel (i.e. G5, G6 etc...) if we DEMAND it. If we are content with 800MHz note books, while IBM makes 2.0GHz and Alienware makes 2.6GHz ones that smoke us, then we are doing ourselves a disservice.
-cinco-de-mayo-games-for-
Celebrate Cinco de Mayo and
Tags: Cinco de Mayo
Cinco de Mayo Special:
Cinco de Mayo is now only a
The “Kids-a-dillas” option is
cinco de mayo history facts.
Cinco de Mayo is a great
Cinco de Mayo 5k
Cinco de Mayo. The kids
Cinco De Mayo kids bracelet
The kids, moms, and dads had a blast @ our Cinco de Mayo Potluck! Good food, conversation, and entertainment!
Kids enjoy the Cinco de Mayo
CafePress gt; Kids Baseball Jerseys gt; Cinco de Mayo Emblem Tee. Cinco de Mayo Emblem Tee
Happy Cinco De Mayo!
Cinco de Mayo Tee
now back to Apple. Apple is only gonna make machines that are faster than Intel (i.e. G5, G6 etc...) if we DEMAND it. If we are content with 800MHz note books, while IBM makes 2.0GHz and Alienware makes 2.6GHz ones that smoke us, then we are doing ourselves a disservice.
Red-red
Apr 9, 07:57 PM
And it still won't work.
Can't you understand?
You can't look at a screen and hold a controller to play a game well, when there is nothing for your fingers to feel on the thing (sheet of smooth glass) you are holding as a controller.
I understand completely the limitations of the approach but you're the one who doesn't understand or more precisely doesn't seem to accept the possibilities.
Apple isn't going to release a controller or a controller add on. Get that into your head. It isn't happening.
I'm not asking you to understand or like the approach just so we're clear. I couldn't care less but that is what they're doing. No two ways about it.
Brilliant! then a family of five can all play scrabble or monopoly for the low low cost of $1,495*
Apple are all about building integration and eco systems. Their visions of the future of consumer electronics... or post PC devices is iOS. If a family of five buys into that ecosystem they already have iPhone's, they already have iPads, they already have iPods and if they don't... they're probably going to buy one.
If you approach it with a closed mind you won't understand it. You clearly don't which is why you've reeled off the predictable reply about current cost/usage.
Can't you understand?
You can't look at a screen and hold a controller to play a game well, when there is nothing for your fingers to feel on the thing (sheet of smooth glass) you are holding as a controller.
I understand completely the limitations of the approach but you're the one who doesn't understand or more precisely doesn't seem to accept the possibilities.
Apple isn't going to release a controller or a controller add on. Get that into your head. It isn't happening.
I'm not asking you to understand or like the approach just so we're clear. I couldn't care less but that is what they're doing. No two ways about it.
Brilliant! then a family of five can all play scrabble or monopoly for the low low cost of $1,495*
Apple are all about building integration and eco systems. Their visions of the future of consumer electronics... or post PC devices is iOS. If a family of five buys into that ecosystem they already have iPhone's, they already have iPads, they already have iPods and if they don't... they're probably going to buy one.
If you approach it with a closed mind you won't understand it. You clearly don't which is why you've reeled off the predictable reply about current cost/usage.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 27, 10:49 AM
Yes. What part of it is a result of a scientific study?
I guess none of it resulted from a scientific study, but at least tests show that the relic contained human blood.
I guess none of it resulted from a scientific study, but at least tests show that the relic contained human blood.
radio893fm
Aug 29, 12:29 PM
I have to say, I am APPALLED by the irresponsible attitude of some people on this forum (and probably the world). Businesses, corporations, governments, AND individuals should all be behaving in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. This is in no way "anti-progress". When did you all gain the right to be so selfish, self-centred, and bigoted in your beliefs?
Are you really surprised? The Apple FAN BOYS won't ever see the light. Whatever Apple does is simply RIGHT for them, even if it means killing the world.
Sad...
Are you really surprised? The Apple FAN BOYS won't ever see the light. Whatever Apple does is simply RIGHT for them, even if it means killing the world.
Sad...
Sayer
Apr 15, 09:28 AM
Maybe the parents and teachers could be more effective then ephemeral videos by "concerned celebrities" and tech ppl most didn't know even existed?
And its not just LGBT kids that get bullied, as was seen in that epic take down video from Australia.
THAT video shows how one should handle bullying IMHO. I bet that scrawny lil Jersey Shore wannabe won't mess with that kid anymore.
Weakness attracts aggression, because the aggressors look for weaker targets, because otherwise they get beat down.
And its not just LGBT kids that get bullied, as was seen in that epic take down video from Australia.
THAT video shows how one should handle bullying IMHO. I bet that scrawny lil Jersey Shore wannabe won't mess with that kid anymore.
Weakness attracts aggression, because the aggressors look for weaker targets, because otherwise they get beat down.
Cougarcat
May 2, 09:47 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Users are of course reminded that day-to-day system usage with standard accounts rather than administrator ones, as well as unchecking the Safari option for automatically opening "safe" files, are two of the simplest ways users can enhance their online security, adding extra layers of confirmation and passwords in the way of anything being installed on their systems.
um, NO THANKS. why in the world would i add "extra layers of confirmation" to my OS X experience?!?! If I wanted nag windows, I'd use Windows!
I despise the "X is a file downloaded from the Internet" dialog introduced in SL. Really wish you could disable it.
Users are of course reminded that day-to-day system usage with standard accounts rather than administrator ones, as well as unchecking the Safari option for automatically opening "safe" files, are two of the simplest ways users can enhance their online security, adding extra layers of confirmation and passwords in the way of anything being installed on their systems.
um, NO THANKS. why in the world would i add "extra layers of confirmation" to my OS X experience?!?! If I wanted nag windows, I'd use Windows!
I despise the "X is a file downloaded from the Internet" dialog introduced in SL. Really wish you could disable it.
sawah
Mar 18, 08:49 AM
Some of the responses on this thread are really amusing.
The people who are defending AT&T's actions are either astroturfing shills, or dolts.
Here's a newsflash: Just because you put something into a contract doesn't make it legal or make it fair. What if AT&T stipulated that they were allowed to come by your house and give you a wedgie every time you checked your voicemail...? Would you still be screaming about how its "justified" because its written on some lop-sided, legalese-ridden piece of paper?
The way that the current data plans are priced and more importantly *marketed* to customers, charging for tethering is double charging for data.
The correct thing to do would be to have multiple (at least 3) tiers of data and stop differentiating between tethered service. If the tetherers are using too much data then charge them appropriately. What AT&T is currently doing is telling you that you can use up to 2GB of data, and then trying to charge you extra when they see that you might actually use that much (due to tethering).
I don't agree with some of at&t's policies such as this. BUT I signed their contract and I abide by them. If you didn't like what you were signing and weren't planning on following it, you shouldn't have signed it.
They are NOT charging you extra to use the 2 gigs of data, they are charging you extra to use the data on a different device. I'm not sure how you feel like you are entitled to use it wherever you want. They are a cell phone company. If you want home internet, call a internet company.
The people who are defending AT&T's actions are either astroturfing shills, or dolts.
Here's a newsflash: Just because you put something into a contract doesn't make it legal or make it fair. What if AT&T stipulated that they were allowed to come by your house and give you a wedgie every time you checked your voicemail...? Would you still be screaming about how its "justified" because its written on some lop-sided, legalese-ridden piece of paper?
The way that the current data plans are priced and more importantly *marketed* to customers, charging for tethering is double charging for data.
The correct thing to do would be to have multiple (at least 3) tiers of data and stop differentiating between tethered service. If the tetherers are using too much data then charge them appropriately. What AT&T is currently doing is telling you that you can use up to 2GB of data, and then trying to charge you extra when they see that you might actually use that much (due to tethering).
I don't agree with some of at&t's policies such as this. BUT I signed their contract and I abide by them. If you didn't like what you were signing and weren't planning on following it, you shouldn't have signed it.
They are NOT charging you extra to use the 2 gigs of data, they are charging you extra to use the data on a different device. I'm not sure how you feel like you are entitled to use it wherever you want. They are a cell phone company. If you want home internet, call a internet company.
Machead III
Aug 29, 11:44 AM
Just look at peopel today, even in this forum. Just 5 years ago there would be far less worried faces around, we left that to the lab coats and their crackpot theories.
I guess it was the recent natural disasters and the heatwaves that did it.
Well, if that's what's got you worried, then good. I hate to say it, but you need to be very, very worried. You thought this summer was hot? Think what it will be like in 10, 20, 50 years.
Think what it will be like in a 100.
Life on Earth is notoriously sensitive to temperatures. We were sweating like pigs with the increase of only a fractions of a degree.
By 2100 if we don't implement vast changes, and this is even if we maintain the rate we're at now, the Earth will have warmed by about 4 degrees C.
At this point human life expectancies will have probably halved. Give it another 100 years or so and that's it, game over, we're done, another species added to the no doubt vast list of intelligent species throughout the universe that have destroyed themselves in the pursuit of wealth.
I guess it was the recent natural disasters and the heatwaves that did it.
Well, if that's what's got you worried, then good. I hate to say it, but you need to be very, very worried. You thought this summer was hot? Think what it will be like in 10, 20, 50 years.
Think what it will be like in a 100.
Life on Earth is notoriously sensitive to temperatures. We were sweating like pigs with the increase of only a fractions of a degree.
By 2100 if we don't implement vast changes, and this is even if we maintain the rate we're at now, the Earth will have warmed by about 4 degrees C.
At this point human life expectancies will have probably halved. Give it another 100 years or so and that's it, game over, we're done, another species added to the no doubt vast list of intelligent species throughout the universe that have destroyed themselves in the pursuit of wealth.
Rt&Dzine
Mar 13, 06:21 PM
Your anecdotal evidence, though saddening, proves nothing. Expert estimates place the figure at around 4000 and anything other than that is just playing fantasy conspiracy theory. Playing on people's fears of what is not known is just poor science.
Perhaps the true figure is an unknown but even if we underestimate the figure by 10 times, it's still small compared to other risks and given that nuclear power is still in it's infancy, that risk can only go down with time as it did in other industries and technologies like cars. I would think the biggest risk from nuclear power at the moment belongs to the uranium ore miners.
People have the same irrational fear about flying. Every time there is a horrific plane crash, many people become afraid of flying for a short period of time afterwards, ignoring the excellent all-round safety record. Personally, I think it's because with flying or nuclear power, the risk lies outside of one's personal control. Walking or driving appears much safer because you are the one in control, even if statistics prove otherwise.
I'm not against nuclear power, but the estimates don't always take a lot of long term effects into account and the experts can't even agree. Some think radiation is good for you, and some say the Chernobyl estimate is 140,000 deaths in Ukraine and Belarus alone.
What's more, the long-term effects of the one instance of a severe radioactive meltdown and leak at a nuclear power plant—at Chernobyl in 1986—has also caused disagreement. The UN's World Health Organization and the International Atomic Energy Agency claim that only 56 people died as a direct result of the radiation released at Chernobyl and that about 4,000 will die from it eventually. But the International Agency for Research on Cancer, another UN agency, predicts 16,000 deaths from Chernobyl; an assessment by the Russian academy of sciences says there have been 60,000 deaths so far in Russia and an estimated 140,000 in Ukraine and Belarus. http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/03/13/japan-nuclear-emergency-how-much-radiation-is-safe/
Perhaps the true figure is an unknown but even if we underestimate the figure by 10 times, it's still small compared to other risks and given that nuclear power is still in it's infancy, that risk can only go down with time as it did in other industries and technologies like cars. I would think the biggest risk from nuclear power at the moment belongs to the uranium ore miners.
People have the same irrational fear about flying. Every time there is a horrific plane crash, many people become afraid of flying for a short period of time afterwards, ignoring the excellent all-round safety record. Personally, I think it's because with flying or nuclear power, the risk lies outside of one's personal control. Walking or driving appears much safer because you are the one in control, even if statistics prove otherwise.
I'm not against nuclear power, but the estimates don't always take a lot of long term effects into account and the experts can't even agree. Some think radiation is good for you, and some say the Chernobyl estimate is 140,000 deaths in Ukraine and Belarus alone.
What's more, the long-term effects of the one instance of a severe radioactive meltdown and leak at a nuclear power plant—at Chernobyl in 1986—has also caused disagreement. The UN's World Health Organization and the International Atomic Energy Agency claim that only 56 people died as a direct result of the radiation released at Chernobyl and that about 4,000 will die from it eventually. But the International Agency for Research on Cancer, another UN agency, predicts 16,000 deaths from Chernobyl; an assessment by the Russian academy of sciences says there have been 60,000 deaths so far in Russia and an estimated 140,000 in Ukraine and Belarus. http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/03/13/japan-nuclear-emergency-how-much-radiation-is-safe/
milo
Sep 20, 11:21 AM
This must be a US-centric view. Here (UK) PVRs with twin Freeview (DTT) tuners and 80GB HDs are everywhere. And they are very cheap now (120 quid upwards).
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
Looks like a cool box, but still pretty expensive, $525 USD. And I assume not available in the USA. Anyone know what the cheapest PVR you can buy in the states is?
The only differences between a Mini and iTV are the connections on the back, better wireless speed and no DVD. Its pure the price and software that makes it a media device and not a computer.
And the fact that you can't use the iTV as a computer! The iPod can play audio and video like a mini can, does that make the iPod "a cut down mini" too?
If I have a mini, couldn't I use it as an iTV with frontrow? Why would I get an iTV when I can get a refirb mini for $200 more, when it can do more?
Because it's $200 more. And this is just the initial pricing, as time goes on the iTV will get cheaper faster than computers do.
I'm wondering why they couldn't/wouldn't just combine the mini and the iTV into a single unit. The mini's size could allow for a DVD slot/player/burner and maybe even allow for the Mac OS in the box, so you don't need another computer to stream your media from. In fact, I assumed that was what the Mini was ultimately destined for anyway.
Because it would be way more expensive than $200, with little chance of prices dropping much.
Since iTV most likely wont be a DVR device, I coughed up $700 today for a Sony DVR instead.
I am sure Apple has a brilliant plan for the iTV, but I fail to see it.
Well, the first step of the plan is to cost less than $700. :eek: At that price, the technology will never be anything more than a niche.
because everything on cable is available at itunes. your analogy is wrong.
He was talking about the future of iTunes/iTV. Who's to say that someday everything on cable won't be on iTunes?
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
Looks like a cool box, but still pretty expensive, $525 USD. And I assume not available in the USA. Anyone know what the cheapest PVR you can buy in the states is?
The only differences between a Mini and iTV are the connections on the back, better wireless speed and no DVD. Its pure the price and software that makes it a media device and not a computer.
And the fact that you can't use the iTV as a computer! The iPod can play audio and video like a mini can, does that make the iPod "a cut down mini" too?
If I have a mini, couldn't I use it as an iTV with frontrow? Why would I get an iTV when I can get a refirb mini for $200 more, when it can do more?
Because it's $200 more. And this is just the initial pricing, as time goes on the iTV will get cheaper faster than computers do.
I'm wondering why they couldn't/wouldn't just combine the mini and the iTV into a single unit. The mini's size could allow for a DVD slot/player/burner and maybe even allow for the Mac OS in the box, so you don't need another computer to stream your media from. In fact, I assumed that was what the Mini was ultimately destined for anyway.
Because it would be way more expensive than $200, with little chance of prices dropping much.
Since iTV most likely wont be a DVR device, I coughed up $700 today for a Sony DVR instead.
I am sure Apple has a brilliant plan for the iTV, but I fail to see it.
Well, the first step of the plan is to cost less than $700. :eek: At that price, the technology will never be anything more than a niche.
because everything on cable is available at itunes. your analogy is wrong.
He was talking about the future of iTunes/iTV. Who's to say that someday everything on cable won't be on iTunes?
dethmaShine
May 2, 09:17 AM
And it begins...
I'z scared :(
lol
That's the same FUD every time we hear about a new malware attack on OS X.
I'z scared :(
lol
That's the same FUD every time we hear about a new malware attack on OS X.
peharri
Sep 22, 02:33 PM
i think you misunderstood the recent reports: the consensus interpretation is that iTV does require a computer, and that the hard drive is just for buffering.
I'm not seeing any consensus interpretation that suggests anything of the sort. I can also say with some certainty that the hard drive is "not just for buffering". At the kinds of data volumes streaming media generally runs at, you can store a couple of hours of video in a gig of RAM. This is considerably cheaper, lower power, and smaller, than a hard disk drive. Why would you put a hard disk drive in a device solely for "buffering"?
What I'm seeing, according to the reports so far, is a machine that can make use of local iTunes libraries, but can also show media streamed directly from the iTS.
It makes no sense for Apple to sell an STB that requires a computer. They can make a much more limited device for that purpose, and such a device would not bring the concept of streamed media "to the masses". We don't have all the information at this point, but there's absolutely nothing about the iTV that suggests it's some pricy bolt-on for an existing multimedia computer installation. There'd have been no point in pre-announcing it if it was, and it'd be a complete disaster if it were.
I'm not seeing any consensus interpretation that suggests anything of the sort. I can also say with some certainty that the hard drive is "not just for buffering". At the kinds of data volumes streaming media generally runs at, you can store a couple of hours of video in a gig of RAM. This is considerably cheaper, lower power, and smaller, than a hard disk drive. Why would you put a hard disk drive in a device solely for "buffering"?
What I'm seeing, according to the reports so far, is a machine that can make use of local iTunes libraries, but can also show media streamed directly from the iTS.
It makes no sense for Apple to sell an STB that requires a computer. They can make a much more limited device for that purpose, and such a device would not bring the concept of streamed media "to the masses". We don't have all the information at this point, but there's absolutely nothing about the iTV that suggests it's some pricy bolt-on for an existing multimedia computer installation. There'd have been no point in pre-announcing it if it was, and it'd be a complete disaster if it were.
cmaier
Apr 21, 04:58 PM
"Blame the user." It's the Microsoft way.
You're holding it wrong.
Come on, you were just asking for that :)
You're holding it wrong.
Come on, you were just asking for that :)
bartzilla
Apr 20, 08:17 AM
One thing I would say, as someone who didn't "switch" but who uses both quite comfortably, is that you need to appreciate how the system works and try and work with it rather than against it, so rather than saying "This is how I used to do things in Windows, now what can I do on a Mac that's similar to the way I used to do it in Windows" you need to think about what you're trying to achieve and find out what neat ways the mac has of getting that done.
This goes both ways, trying to use Windows as if it was Mac OSX isn't much fun, either.
This goes both ways, trying to use Windows as if it was Mac OSX isn't much fun, either.
FoxyKaye
Jul 11, 10:57 PM
So, what, this leaves us with:
* Mac Pro - Xeon/Woodcrest
* iMac - Core2 Duo/Conroe
* Mac Mini - Core Duo or Core2 Duo
Would the laptops get updated with the Core2 Duo - Intel's roadmap has some lower watt stuff that IIRC were Conroe varients, can't remember if there's a portable varient of the Woodcrest... Though any lower wattage processor would be nice, since our office's MacBook actually left a red mark on my left leg from where I was resting it during an extended meeting...
It's going to be fun to see what comes out of WWDC!
* Mac Pro - Xeon/Woodcrest
* iMac - Core2 Duo/Conroe
* Mac Mini - Core Duo or Core2 Duo
Would the laptops get updated with the Core2 Duo - Intel's roadmap has some lower watt stuff that IIRC were Conroe varients, can't remember if there's a portable varient of the Woodcrest... Though any lower wattage processor would be nice, since our office's MacBook actually left a red mark on my left leg from where I was resting it during an extended meeting...
It's going to be fun to see what comes out of WWDC!
dobbin
Sep 20, 03:45 AM
I don't want to have to put yet another box on the shelf under my TV and have yet another remote control kicking around my living room.
I already have a DVD, a VCR, and a Sky+ box (DVR). I know that in theory I should choose just one or two of these, but that doesn't work in practice. What happens when my mum records something on a video for me - I still need a VCR, and until Sky bring out a Sky+ box with a *much* larger hard disk then I'll need a DVD for keeping things long term.
If Apple could include at least a DVD burner and ideally a DVR hard disk as well, then I could actually start replacing the other machines I have rather than just adding to them and cluttering up my living room.
Its probably a moot point anyway as I doubt iTV will be launched in the UK for a long while anyway.
I already have a DVD, a VCR, and a Sky+ box (DVR). I know that in theory I should choose just one or two of these, but that doesn't work in practice. What happens when my mum records something on a video for me - I still need a VCR, and until Sky bring out a Sky+ box with a *much* larger hard disk then I'll need a DVD for keeping things long term.
If Apple could include at least a DVD burner and ideally a DVR hard disk as well, then I could actually start replacing the other machines I have rather than just adding to them and cluttering up my living room.
Its probably a moot point anyway as I doubt iTV will be launched in the UK for a long while anyway.
mcmarks
May 2, 12:19 PM
A couple of points:
- No computer for which the user can write or install programs will ever be free of Malware (nor, to my knowledge, has the "malware free" term ever been applied to the Mac OS by anyone actually familiar with computer security). All I have to do is write a script that formats your hard drive, call it ReallyFunGame, thereby deceiving you into downloading it and running it, and poof. Malware at its most basic. (Apple addresses this issue with the App Store reviews for iOS apps, but even there, their review is not sufficient to eliminate all possibility of malware). So, the actual presence of malware is no surprise, nor has it ever been. The defense against these types of attacks are user education and OS design (which will be a compromise between usability and security). Personally, I find the compromises on the Mac less annoying than their counterparts on Windows. Furthermore, the frequent inscrutable dialogs on Windows in general cause a certain level of desensitization to all dialogs for the least savvy users undermining their value on Windows because users get used to just clicking through things they don't understand.
- The far more dangerous computer security problem, as has been mentioned in this thread a bit, is viruses (including worms which are a subset) because they can propagate and cause harm without user knowledge and intervention. This new piece of malware is not one of those (as far as I can tell). To my knowledge, Mac OS X remains a more secure operating system because there are no known viruses that have propagated in the wild that attack it. Now, if the same can be said for Windows 7 (I don't know whether it can or not), then it would be equally secure. Is it?
- No computer for which the user can write or install programs will ever be free of Malware (nor, to my knowledge, has the "malware free" term ever been applied to the Mac OS by anyone actually familiar with computer security). All I have to do is write a script that formats your hard drive, call it ReallyFunGame, thereby deceiving you into downloading it and running it, and poof. Malware at its most basic. (Apple addresses this issue with the App Store reviews for iOS apps, but even there, their review is not sufficient to eliminate all possibility of malware). So, the actual presence of malware is no surprise, nor has it ever been. The defense against these types of attacks are user education and OS design (which will be a compromise between usability and security). Personally, I find the compromises on the Mac less annoying than their counterparts on Windows. Furthermore, the frequent inscrutable dialogs on Windows in general cause a certain level of desensitization to all dialogs for the least savvy users undermining their value on Windows because users get used to just clicking through things they don't understand.
- The far more dangerous computer security problem, as has been mentioned in this thread a bit, is viruses (including worms which are a subset) because they can propagate and cause harm without user knowledge and intervention. This new piece of malware is not one of those (as far as I can tell). To my knowledge, Mac OS X remains a more secure operating system because there are no known viruses that have propagated in the wild that attack it. Now, if the same can be said for Windows 7 (I don't know whether it can or not), then it would be equally secure. Is it?
Habakuk
Apr 15, 10:10 AM
So basically, fat kids deserve to be bullied! Crying themselves to sleep every night is sure to burn extra calories. We should give the bullies a medal for helping reduce our public health care costs.
But hands off the gays!
No. What I wanted to say is that fat persons CAN do something against their condition, but homosexuals can't. Obviously. So they deserve such actions like It Gets Better more than fat people. In my honest opinion.
But hands off the gays!
No. What I wanted to say is that fat persons CAN do something against their condition, but homosexuals can't. Obviously. So they deserve such actions like It Gets Better more than fat people. In my honest opinion.
Rt&Dzine
Mar 14, 07:58 PM
I think part of the problem may have to do with the fact that the plants are designed by engineers. Engineers' focus is elegance: accomplishing the most in the most minimalist way. Nuclear power plants need much less minimalism and elegance than just about anything else humans can make, but costs and other limitations tend to guide the design toward what engineers are best at. Redundancy and over-building are desirable, I believe we end up with too much elegance instead.
I was paraphrasing something a nuclear physicist once told me. I didn't get the sense that he thought it mattered what type of human was involved.
I was paraphrasing something a nuclear physicist once told me. I didn't get the sense that he thought it mattered what type of human was involved.
TEG
Sep 20, 12:19 PM
ya, seems unlikely the hard drive is for DVR functionality [as someone pointed out, there are no video inputs ont the device]... but the hard drive could prove useful in other ways.
It brings an interesting thoughts though how it complements the DVR. Wonder if Apple has thought about licensing the streaming componenet of it to Tivo, for example. It seems like it might be nice if Tivo could play protected itunes content on your home network.
Or on the flip side, Apple could license Tivo in a box of their own.
arn
That is an awesome Idea. Hopefully the iTV will be able to be integrated with the TiVo. Maybe being an external HD if needed. I just don't want Apple to go into the DVR business, because TiVo already did it right, and I don't think anyone could improve on it. I would like to see a software update for the TiVo that changes the encoding from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4 so when they launch TiVo to Go for Mac, you are 90% closer to being able to use the video in other places, plus it could improve video quality with smaller file sizes.
TEG
It brings an interesting thoughts though how it complements the DVR. Wonder if Apple has thought about licensing the streaming componenet of it to Tivo, for example. It seems like it might be nice if Tivo could play protected itunes content on your home network.
Or on the flip side, Apple could license Tivo in a box of their own.
arn
That is an awesome Idea. Hopefully the iTV will be able to be integrated with the TiVo. Maybe being an external HD if needed. I just don't want Apple to go into the DVR business, because TiVo already did it right, and I don't think anyone could improve on it. I would like to see a software update for the TiVo that changes the encoding from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4 so when they launch TiVo to Go for Mac, you are 90% closer to being able to use the video in other places, plus it could improve video quality with smaller file sizes.
TEG
UnixMac
Oct 8, 10:41 AM
OS X being 25 years old (actually, UNIX is much older) is a GOOD thing, Software (Read OS) can evolve much more easily than hardware. Unix is a work in progress to this day, and this is why it is years (literally years) ahead of windows.
As for X86 being great. I think that sure, the top X86 at 2.8Ghz is faster than the top G4 at 1.25Ghz, but not 2.2 times faster, as the clock would have you think. And when you add Altivec coded software like Photoship, then you actually get more IPC's than the P4. So the archtecture of the G4 is superior, However the P4 is faster by a small margin due to the significant speed advantage and its long pipeline.
I think a G5 with multicore process and a bump in clock will eclips the X86 entirely. AMD is the best bet against the G5 and when that day comes, as it will, this arguement will be moot.
I for one am still waiting on Apple to make a PB worth my $3500 investment. That I think is long overdue.
As for X86 being great. I think that sure, the top X86 at 2.8Ghz is faster than the top G4 at 1.25Ghz, but not 2.2 times faster, as the clock would have you think. And when you add Altivec coded software like Photoship, then you actually get more IPC's than the P4. So the archtecture of the G4 is superior, However the P4 is faster by a small margin due to the significant speed advantage and its long pipeline.
I think a G5 with multicore process and a bump in clock will eclips the X86 entirely. AMD is the best bet against the G5 and when that day comes, as it will, this arguement will be moot.
I for one am still waiting on Apple to make a PB worth my $3500 investment. That I think is long overdue.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 24, 11:19 AM
Originally Posted by ender land
I have personally thought through my beliefs extensively (likely more and more frequently than most of you have thought through your respective beliefs).
What a condescending statement. :rolleyes:
But it's common to assume that you experience more self-examination than others do. Most people don't verbalize it.
I have personally thought through my beliefs extensively (likely more and more frequently than most of you have thought through your respective beliefs).
What a condescending statement. :rolleyes:
But it's common to assume that you experience more self-examination than others do. Most people don't verbalize it.
No comments:
Post a Comment