Apple OC
Apr 23, 05:42 PM
exactly ^^^ you either believe or you don't
Mord
Jul 13, 10:36 AM
every vendor, dell, HP, gateway ect offer workstations with single xeons, it's a very common practice because it makes business sense.
KPOM
Mar 11, 08:59 PM
I pray that this will not turn into another Chernobyl situation.
Building standards in Japan are far higher than they were in the old USSR. If anything, it would be more like a 3 Mile Island than a Chernobyl. I just saw a nuclear power expert on the news who said that the odds of a Chernobyl, while certainly not 0%, are low. He's more worried about disposal of nuclear waste if the plant needs to be decommissioned.
That said, it is an old plant (from the 1960s) where they are most concerned about a possible meltdown. It doesn't have a modern containment dome.
Building standards in Japan are far higher than they were in the old USSR. If anything, it would be more like a 3 Mile Island than a Chernobyl. I just saw a nuclear power expert on the news who said that the odds of a Chernobyl, while certainly not 0%, are low. He's more worried about disposal of nuclear waste if the plant needs to be decommissioned.
That said, it is an old plant (from the 1960s) where they are most concerned about a possible meltdown. It doesn't have a modern containment dome.
Blackcat
Sep 20, 11:09 AM
eyeHome does not support HD and it never will. I got this in an email directly from Elgato. That is the biggest difference. Also, the general consensus is that eyeHome is not in the same league of robustness/intuitiveness as other elgato products or Apple products. eyeHome cannot even play back eyeTV 500 , eyeTV Hybrid recordings.
But nobody will be downloading HD for iTV, so that's a moot point. From what I've seen so far it actually does less than other media streamers.
But nobody will be downloading HD for iTV, so that's a moot point. From what I've seen so far it actually does less than other media streamers.
CalBoy
Apr 23, 05:45 PM
I don't think many people say they're Catholic to fit in or be trendy... Maybe Jewish, but definitely not Catholic.
How do people make atheism "trendy?"
The very notion of making critical thinking subject to blind fanaticism is contradictory.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
Have you spoken to people born into an atheist household? What evidence do you have to back up this claim? It certainly isn't what I've seen, and it runs counter to who atheists (and more specifically atheist parents) are.
Europeans, moreover, consistently out-perform Americans in scientific literacy. Even if Europeans are being born into atheism, it doesn't seem to have negatively affected their knowledge of the relevant facts (quite the contrary, in fact).
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
I should have put it better: it isn't possible to use pure reason to prove a deity without committing a host of logical fallacies and/or relying on false presumptions.
If you think you can do this, post your argument and let it be put to the test.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
It isn't really logic if you're building faith into your reasoning structure. The "framework" is really just one opinion on the matter. I could conceive of a god that uses a different framework entirely, and it would be just as valid as any existing religion's. All religion ultimately boils down to one consistent rule: Trust us.
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
First of all, photons do not communicate. Humans manipulate them for the purposes of communication. It's no more accurate to say that photons communicate than it is to say that paper does.
Secondly, moving the goal posts is precisely the problem with religion. It's very easy to be "right" if you always mean something different when your prior statement is proved categorically false.
The point really is that after debunking supernatural beliefs for so long, we shouldn't really stand by any one of them without some evidence. God is no different. Without evidence, the idea is just as absurd as believing that killing a young virgin every spring will result in a bountiful harvest. Religion gets a free pass because the indoctrination occurs early, often, and with a very large bankroll.
How do people make atheism "trendy?"
The very notion of making critical thinking subject to blind fanaticism is contradictory.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
Have you spoken to people born into an atheist household? What evidence do you have to back up this claim? It certainly isn't what I've seen, and it runs counter to who atheists (and more specifically atheist parents) are.
Europeans, moreover, consistently out-perform Americans in scientific literacy. Even if Europeans are being born into atheism, it doesn't seem to have negatively affected their knowledge of the relevant facts (quite the contrary, in fact).
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
I should have put it better: it isn't possible to use pure reason to prove a deity without committing a host of logical fallacies and/or relying on false presumptions.
If you think you can do this, post your argument and let it be put to the test.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
It isn't really logic if you're building faith into your reasoning structure. The "framework" is really just one opinion on the matter. I could conceive of a god that uses a different framework entirely, and it would be just as valid as any existing religion's. All religion ultimately boils down to one consistent rule: Trust us.
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
First of all, photons do not communicate. Humans manipulate them for the purposes of communication. It's no more accurate to say that photons communicate than it is to say that paper does.
Secondly, moving the goal posts is precisely the problem with religion. It's very easy to be "right" if you always mean something different when your prior statement is proved categorically false.
The point really is that after debunking supernatural beliefs for so long, we shouldn't really stand by any one of them without some evidence. God is no different. Without evidence, the idea is just as absurd as believing that killing a young virgin every spring will result in a bountiful harvest. Religion gets a free pass because the indoctrination occurs early, often, and with a very large bankroll.
eXan
Sep 26, 01:55 AM
Thanks. That's not particularly encouraging... I'm not in the habit of 'doing stuff in the background' when I'm working, unless it's disk-burning. :(
And exporting videos to iPod format :D
And exporting videos to iPod format :D
nsjoker
Sep 20, 06:51 PM
either i'm missing the point of this iTV thing or people in america have ridiculous amounts of money to throw away and are willing to pay for tv shows which are free so they can stream them to their iTV box and watch them that way. it's a super efficient way to burn money, but not to watch tv shows. dvr please.
i mean.. i do understand people want frontrow on their tv's, but it seems like an inital craze thing. i'm not going to completely knock this product though, because if anything it's a starting point for apple to infiltrate your living room, and then releasing dvr functionality in the future. we'll see.
i mean.. i do understand people want frontrow on their tv's, but it seems like an inital craze thing. i'm not going to completely knock this product though, because if anything it's a starting point for apple to infiltrate your living room, and then releasing dvr functionality in the future. we'll see.
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 12:37 PM
Let's not forget that these are the same people championing the reduction of C02 emissions under the banner of "stopping climate change," when a) nature is producing three times the C02 than humans are, and b) C02 is itself responsible for about 3-9% of the greenhouse effect (global warming).
The other 90%+ of the greenhouse effect (the REAL reason the Earth's climate is warming) is caused by....drum roll....naturally occuring water vapor! Does anybody see Greenpeace protesting steam?
Let's also not forget that 30 years ago (when manmade pollution was FAR worse than it is today) these same people were warning us of a coming Ice Age.
I'll stop short of mentioning their (admittedly unproven) ties to the ALF....
The other 90%+ of the greenhouse effect (the REAL reason the Earth's climate is warming) is caused by....drum roll....naturally occuring water vapor! Does anybody see Greenpeace protesting steam?
Let's also not forget that 30 years ago (when manmade pollution was FAR worse than it is today) these same people were warning us of a coming Ice Age.
I'll stop short of mentioning their (admittedly unproven) ties to the ALF....
CTYankee
Oct 26, 03:02 AM
That is ridiculous. More proof, if any more was needed, that Apple made a big mistake in changing over to Intel.
No more proof is needed. The stock is up, sales are great, performance is continually climbing...what were they thinking....
No more proof is needed. The stock is up, sales are great, performance is continually climbing...what were they thinking....
gopher
Oct 9, 07:28 AM
If Windows XP didn't have so much spyware attached to it, and required registration, and the insecurity that Microsoft is so famous for on its systems (yes there are still as many bugs and holes in XP for hackers to get through as in Windows 2000 and before), and the fact remains none of the source code is open, where at least some of Mac OS X is open and free for development purposes, I would have gone to Microsoft. Speed doesn't matter a hill of beans if your machine is so insecure you can't trust your bank numbers to it. Macs are faster in some cases than Windows XP, while slower in others and they maintain a level of security that doesn't require a firewall or anti-virus program anywhere near as much as Windows XP does.
I'd rather fly an airplane than a space shuttle with o-rings that leak.
What's more, who really wants to be forced to support Microsoft?
With a Mac you can avoid Microsoft altogether.
I'd rather fly an airplane than a space shuttle with o-rings that leak.
What's more, who really wants to be forced to support Microsoft?
With a Mac you can avoid Microsoft altogether.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 23, 03:42 PM
The word translated "day" can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period.
I think ancient Jews thought each day began at dawn and ended at sunset. If I'm right, they would have thought summer days were longer than winter ones.
Our Lord died died on Good Friday and rose on Easter, but does anyone know exactly what time he rose? The Bible says he rose on the third day. Say he died at 3:00 PM. on Friday. Then a 24-hour day from his death would end at 3:00 PM on Saturday, and another 24-hour day would end at 3:00 PM on Sunday. That's only two 24-hour days. We say it's daytime when the sun is shining and that it's nighttime when it's dark outdoors. Even we talk as though the word "day" stands sometimes stands for less than 24 hours.
Many of the Bible's atheistic critics oversimplify because the ignore the Bible's literary genres, the meanings of ancient expressions, cultural details, and other details. If you say something, your sentence, the string of words, differs from what it means. That's why you can translate a sentence from one language to another. When you translate a sentence from English to French, the French sentence needs to mean what the English one means, or there's something wrong with the translation.
To know what, say, Genesis 1:1 means, you need to know what its author meant by the words it consists of. If you impose a 21st-century meaning on a sentence that meant something else when the author wrote it, you're misinterpreting what he said.
You and I see three colored objects and three people. You tell me, "Bill, Green is the third one from the left." You're talking about the third person, a man named "Joe Green," when I think you're talking about the third colored object. Green is the color of the third object from the left. The word "Green" is the last name of the man who's third from the left. The proposition "Green is the third one from the left" is true in both cases, but the string of words means one thing when you talk about the man. It means something else when you're talking about the green object. To find out which truth you're telling me, I need you to tell me that you're talking about the colored object.
You wake at 7:00 AM on Friday. The next calendar day begins at midnight, but there's only 17 hours between 7 AM and midnight. Truth is objective, but the meanings of words, phrases, and sentences depend on context. So do the referents of the words, the people, places, or things that words, phrases, and sentences denote.
I think ancient Jews thought each day began at dawn and ended at sunset. If I'm right, they would have thought summer days were longer than winter ones.
Our Lord died died on Good Friday and rose on Easter, but does anyone know exactly what time he rose? The Bible says he rose on the third day. Say he died at 3:00 PM. on Friday. Then a 24-hour day from his death would end at 3:00 PM on Saturday, and another 24-hour day would end at 3:00 PM on Sunday. That's only two 24-hour days. We say it's daytime when the sun is shining and that it's nighttime when it's dark outdoors. Even we talk as though the word "day" stands sometimes stands for less than 24 hours.
Many of the Bible's atheistic critics oversimplify because the ignore the Bible's literary genres, the meanings of ancient expressions, cultural details, and other details. If you say something, your sentence, the string of words, differs from what it means. That's why you can translate a sentence from one language to another. When you translate a sentence from English to French, the French sentence needs to mean what the English one means, or there's something wrong with the translation.
To know what, say, Genesis 1:1 means, you need to know what its author meant by the words it consists of. If you impose a 21st-century meaning on a sentence that meant something else when the author wrote it, you're misinterpreting what he said.
You and I see three colored objects and three people. You tell me, "Bill, Green is the third one from the left." You're talking about the third person, a man named "Joe Green," when I think you're talking about the third colored object. Green is the color of the third object from the left. The word "Green" is the last name of the man who's third from the left. The proposition "Green is the third one from the left" is true in both cases, but the string of words means one thing when you talk about the man. It means something else when you're talking about the green object. To find out which truth you're telling me, I need you to tell me that you're talking about the colored object.
You wake at 7:00 AM on Friday. The next calendar day begins at midnight, but there's only 17 hours between 7 AM and midnight. Truth is objective, but the meanings of words, phrases, and sentences depend on context. So do the referents of the words, the people, places, or things that words, phrases, and sentences denote.
jiggie2g
Jul 12, 12:51 PM
Smallish mid-tower case
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM
I want it at or less than $1199.00
Now gimmie
Oh, and P.S. - Don't make me put a Dell 24" LCD on it - Drop the 23" cinema display to $999 and the 20" to $599 - that still leaves you with a nice premium.
Sure u can buy a Tower with those specs(save 4 FW800) I'd rather have eSATA 2(faster). at less $1199.00 except that PC will have a Gateway/HP/Dell logo on it , instead of that cute little Apple. Would u like that Order Supersized... keep dreaming.
I am now convinced that many people who post in these forums are stupid(not refering to u sbarton) , If half these dumb comments went up on Xtremesystems/THG/Anandtech Forums people would get laughed at right out of the forums. Please if you do not have any sort of technical knowledge please do not post ignorant comments about how conroe deserves to go into an iMac and MacPro is too good for it.
I find it very disturbing that while many of the forums I just mentioned are salivating for conroe chips to hit retail , the mac snobs in this forum act like it's some bastardized step child to woodcrest. Lets me tell you noob's something after seeing Coolaler hit 4ghz on a Kentsfield nothing impresses me anymore. lets see your MacPro score 2000 in Cinebench and render in 11secs.
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.
because the price difference is not that much and it saves apple more on design/engineering/testing/support ect. it makes great financial sense to consolidate your product line into one platform.
I am very disappointed in you Hector , you of all people should know better then to post something like this. Do u not realise that the Intel deal ment apple dosen't have to do it's own R&D anymore when it came to chip sets.
APPLE IS USING INTEL STOCK PARTS incase you didn't know , so mixing the MacPro with Conroe/Woody would not cost a dime more. they will use a basic P965 chipset for Conroe and 5000X Chipset for Woody.
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM
I want it at or less than $1199.00
Now gimmie
Oh, and P.S. - Don't make me put a Dell 24" LCD on it - Drop the 23" cinema display to $999 and the 20" to $599 - that still leaves you with a nice premium.
Sure u can buy a Tower with those specs(save 4 FW800) I'd rather have eSATA 2(faster). at less $1199.00 except that PC will have a Gateway/HP/Dell logo on it , instead of that cute little Apple. Would u like that Order Supersized... keep dreaming.
I am now convinced that many people who post in these forums are stupid(not refering to u sbarton) , If half these dumb comments went up on Xtremesystems/THG/Anandtech Forums people would get laughed at right out of the forums. Please if you do not have any sort of technical knowledge please do not post ignorant comments about how conroe deserves to go into an iMac and MacPro is too good for it.
I find it very disturbing that while many of the forums I just mentioned are salivating for conroe chips to hit retail , the mac snobs in this forum act like it's some bastardized step child to woodcrest. Lets me tell you noob's something after seeing Coolaler hit 4ghz on a Kentsfield nothing impresses me anymore. lets see your MacPro score 2000 in Cinebench and render in 11secs.
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.
because the price difference is not that much and it saves apple more on design/engineering/testing/support ect. it makes great financial sense to consolidate your product line into one platform.
I am very disappointed in you Hector , you of all people should know better then to post something like this. Do u not realise that the Intel deal ment apple dosen't have to do it's own R&D anymore when it came to chip sets.
APPLE IS USING INTEL STOCK PARTS incase you didn't know , so mixing the MacPro with Conroe/Woody would not cost a dime more. they will use a basic P965 chipset for Conroe and 5000X Chipset for Woody.
kingtj
Sep 26, 11:23 AM
I think he was probably just trying to say the same thing I've been saying about my new Mac Pro too. The OS and apps need to do some catching-up so we can fully utilize what we paid for!
Right now, the hardware is *way* ahead of the software in most respects. (We're still waiting another year for major apps like MS Office and Adobe Photoshop to go universal binary - much less see them coded for optimal use of a 4 or 8-core machine!)
You could argue that "I should have just bought an iMac." I suppose, but show me an iMac with a graphics card like the ATI X1900XT 512MB in it, or the ability to hold multiple internal hard drives. These are features I expect from any desktop system I use as my primary computer. I also already owned a perfectly good Dell 24" LCD panel, so didn't really want to buy a machine with the display built-in.
Are you trying to say that you spent to much for a computer and should have bought an iMac? What do you do with your computer. Web and email or editing HD video?
Right now, the hardware is *way* ahead of the software in most respects. (We're still waiting another year for major apps like MS Office and Adobe Photoshop to go universal binary - much less see them coded for optimal use of a 4 or 8-core machine!)
You could argue that "I should have just bought an iMac." I suppose, but show me an iMac with a graphics card like the ATI X1900XT 512MB in it, or the ability to hold multiple internal hard drives. These are features I expect from any desktop system I use as my primary computer. I also already owned a perfectly good Dell 24" LCD panel, so didn't really want to buy a machine with the display built-in.
Are you trying to say that you spent to much for a computer and should have bought an iMac? What do you do with your computer. Web and email or editing HD video?
AppliedVisual
Oct 6, 11:50 PM
And what would be your choice of graphic cards, considering that money doesn't grow on trees and price would be a factor?:)
At this moment, an nVidia 7950GX2oc would be just dandy. Or the ATI X1950XTI. I'd also take the current FX4500 if they would get with the program and knock $500 off the price tag. I can buy the PNY FX4500 for a PC right now in oem whitebox packaging for $1349. Apple wants $1650 as an upgrade price. Ouch... And while it has extra features like stencil buffers and multiple overlay planes, it's stuff that isn't really used except by very specialized visualization software. Even my 3D apps - Lightwave, Maya, Modo don't use those features. So, not worth the money since it barely outperforms the X1900XT option for most everything else.
Ultimately, I'd like to see some support for multiple cards working in parallel like SLI. Dual 7950GX2s would be great and I'd buy in an instant. ...Dell has that very config as an option and it's cheaper than what Apple wants for that FX4500, c'mon Apple, let's go!
At this moment, an nVidia 7950GX2oc would be just dandy. Or the ATI X1950XTI. I'd also take the current FX4500 if they would get with the program and knock $500 off the price tag. I can buy the PNY FX4500 for a PC right now in oem whitebox packaging for $1349. Apple wants $1650 as an upgrade price. Ouch... And while it has extra features like stencil buffers and multiple overlay planes, it's stuff that isn't really used except by very specialized visualization software. Even my 3D apps - Lightwave, Maya, Modo don't use those features. So, not worth the money since it barely outperforms the X1900XT option for most everything else.
Ultimately, I'd like to see some support for multiple cards working in parallel like SLI. Dual 7950GX2s would be great and I'd buy in an instant. ...Dell has that very config as an option and it's cheaper than what Apple wants for that FX4500, c'mon Apple, let's go!
needthephone
Oct 8, 07:00 AM
No, sorry.
In three years time my new phone os will be number 1.
And Zunes will be the number 1 MP3 player
England will win the World Cup
Cars will run on water and out of the exhaust will pour a stream of pure molten gold. Fluffy white bunny rabbits will follow the cars collect the gold and post the driver back ingots to store in their garages.
Everyone will be paid a minimum wage of a million of pound.
Finally they will admit that Swine Flu was the biggest over reaction ever made by the WHO and the world's governments.
Wars will end and man will live in harmony for ever more
The end, and we all lived happily ever after.
oh yes the iphone is still the number one smart phone....
In three years time my new phone os will be number 1.
And Zunes will be the number 1 MP3 player
England will win the World Cup
Cars will run on water and out of the exhaust will pour a stream of pure molten gold. Fluffy white bunny rabbits will follow the cars collect the gold and post the driver back ingots to store in their garages.
Everyone will be paid a minimum wage of a million of pound.
Finally they will admit that Swine Flu was the biggest over reaction ever made by the WHO and the world's governments.
Wars will end and man will live in harmony for ever more
The end, and we all lived happily ever after.
oh yes the iphone is still the number one smart phone....
LethalWolfe
Apr 13, 12:59 AM
The people complaining about Color going away are going to be happy with the integrated color correction and color grading, especially if it's on the level of Aperture.
From what I've read tonight was just for FCP X and info on the other apps will be released down the road. Isn't it a bit presumptuous to say that people who use Color on a daily basis won't miss it when no one has actually used FCP X yet? Maybe it will, maybe it won't be can we at least let the app get out the door before we put a crown on it's head?
I really see the new update as a perfect complement to dSLR-based video workflows. A dSLR with FCP X and its built-in color grading and correction basically means the end of all other production workflows.
Are you really suggesting that a dSLR and a product that we've only seen a brief preview of can replace everything else out there?
Lethal
From what I've read tonight was just for FCP X and info on the other apps will be released down the road. Isn't it a bit presumptuous to say that people who use Color on a daily basis won't miss it when no one has actually used FCP X yet? Maybe it will, maybe it won't be can we at least let the app get out the door before we put a crown on it's head?
I really see the new update as a perfect complement to dSLR-based video workflows. A dSLR with FCP X and its built-in color grading and correction basically means the end of all other production workflows.
Are you really suggesting that a dSLR and a product that we've only seen a brief preview of can replace everything else out there?
Lethal
dragonsbane
Mar 21, 08:06 AM
My world holds together quite well when people disagree, actually. Better than yours must, especially since history has proven my argument and disproven your morally relativistic approach. That society exists is a testament to you being wrong.
Ho ho, the fact that this program and discussion exist proves the fallacy of your argument. People will always T-H-I-N-K for themselves and make their own minds up about what is moral. That is all I ever said. That is all we are doing here - thinking. You are putting forward the argument that BECAUSE there is a law being broken it is wrong to break it. While I may agree with you on this particular case (I don't), my argument is simply that laws being broken do not define morality. If you would stop winding yourself up I do not think you would disagree with this.
Furthermore, if you lose the argument that breaking a law does not make you, by definition, immoral, then it follows quite easily that folks who want to use this app should and those that don't, should not - on moral grounds alone.
Everyone (except the rich and powerful) is bound by the same laws - there is no disputing that. So if you, or anyone else wants to kill me or break a copyright, you are subject to the laws of the land. I will always support your desire to reason what you will do out for yourself. Follow the laws if you WANT to. But do not follow them just because they are the law.
Can you really disagree with my desire to live my life that way? You yourself said that you speed. How is using this app any different from you deciding to speed or not. Are you going to teach your child that speeding is immoral?
Ho ho, the fact that this program and discussion exist proves the fallacy of your argument. People will always T-H-I-N-K for themselves and make their own minds up about what is moral. That is all I ever said. That is all we are doing here - thinking. You are putting forward the argument that BECAUSE there is a law being broken it is wrong to break it. While I may agree with you on this particular case (I don't), my argument is simply that laws being broken do not define morality. If you would stop winding yourself up I do not think you would disagree with this.
Furthermore, if you lose the argument that breaking a law does not make you, by definition, immoral, then it follows quite easily that folks who want to use this app should and those that don't, should not - on moral grounds alone.
Everyone (except the rich and powerful) is bound by the same laws - there is no disputing that. So if you, or anyone else wants to kill me or break a copyright, you are subject to the laws of the land. I will always support your desire to reason what you will do out for yourself. Follow the laws if you WANT to. But do not follow them just because they are the law.
Can you really disagree with my desire to live my life that way? You yourself said that you speed. How is using this app any different from you deciding to speed or not. Are you going to teach your child that speeding is immoral?
iekozz
Apr 28, 07:28 AM
However the iPad is not a pc, so this report is a bit on the Apple side here.
NT1440
Mar 16, 01:48 PM
I was talking about the invention of hydro?
Regarding nuclear subsidization, I'm quite aware of this fact. We subsidize ethanol, we subsidize oil, we subsidize nuclear, we subsidize wind, we subsidize solar. Seems kind of pointless, doesn't it? It's like playing roulette and putting a chip on every single number.
Naturally we should just hedge our bets on one right? :confused:
Here in reality, its pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that in the interim until renewables are able to take the stage as our top producers we have to go with an "all in" approach. There is no silver bullet at this point in time.
Regarding nuclear subsidization, I'm quite aware of this fact. We subsidize ethanol, we subsidize oil, we subsidize nuclear, we subsidize wind, we subsidize solar. Seems kind of pointless, doesn't it? It's like playing roulette and putting a chip on every single number.
Naturally we should just hedge our bets on one right? :confused:
Here in reality, its pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that in the interim until renewables are able to take the stage as our top producers we have to go with an "all in" approach. There is no silver bullet at this point in time.
AppliedVisual
Oct 26, 10:15 AM
I don't believe you. I use applications that want 3-4 cores EACH. And I need to run 2-4 of them simultaneously. No way is Apple going to ship dual Clovertowns if they provide no benefit. I think AppliedVisual also does not believe you. In other words:
You may be mistaken.
Looks like others have addressed it, but OSX along with the Tiger kernel updates, scales pretty good. Every bit as good as any Linux implementation and probably as good or better than WinXP.
They will ship Clovertowns as soon as they can... As I've said, it's a software issue, so know your software before you choose 8-core vs. 4-core. But there's plenty of software out their that can benefit from the 8-core system. Like I've said, Photoshop itself isn't multithreaded/multi-core capable directly, but various plug-ins are. It's also possible to spread multiple batch instances across CPU cores, so even though much of our current software is limited (or just plain multi-core ignorant), there's still ways to utilize the multiple cores within just about any production workflow.
You may be mistaken.
Looks like others have addressed it, but OSX along with the Tiger kernel updates, scales pretty good. Every bit as good as any Linux implementation and probably as good or better than WinXP.
They will ship Clovertowns as soon as they can... As I've said, it's a software issue, so know your software before you choose 8-core vs. 4-core. But there's plenty of software out their that can benefit from the 8-core system. Like I've said, Photoshop itself isn't multithreaded/multi-core capable directly, but various plug-ins are. It's also possible to spread multiple batch instances across CPU cores, so even though much of our current software is limited (or just plain multi-core ignorant), there's still ways to utilize the multiple cores within just about any production workflow.
sunfast
Sep 20, 03:46 AM
If Iger is correct and iTV has a hard drive.. then I beleive iTV could serve as an external iTunes Library server/device. Authorized computers can access and manage it using iTunes (running as a client). iTS downloads, podcasts, imported physical CDs, etc would all be stored on iTV.
Look at your hard drive usage, Music takes up a significant amount of it. Why does it need to be kept on your local machine if iTV provides a network?
That would be sweet. I hate having to keep plugging and unplugging an external HDD into my MacBook.
Look at your hard drive usage, Music takes up a significant amount of it. Why does it need to be kept on your local machine if iTV provides a network?
That would be sweet. I hate having to keep plugging and unplugging an external HDD into my MacBook.
ZilogZ80
Apr 14, 05:48 AM
screen maximizing is an annoyance on mac
RightZoom
RightZoom
KnightWRX
May 2, 05:51 PM
Until Vista and Win 7, it was effectively impossible to run a Windows NT system as anything but Administrator. To the point that other than locked-down corporate sites where an IT Professional was required to install the Corporate Approved version of any software you need to do your job, I never knew anyone running XP (or 2k, or for that matter NT 3.x) who in a day-to-day fashion used a Standard user account.
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
SuperCachetes
Mar 26, 08:05 PM
I didn't say in the street
Examine the benefits of heterosexual marriage, examine why they are given and then compare with homosexual couples
Marriages don't need to be about love, they need to be a permanent commitment.
Fine, you said "in public," but it's irrelevant given the explanation that was, as I said, already furnished. It's not an arbitrary rule based on any morality.
I can examine the benefits of a heterosexual marriage from within one. They have nothing to do with the sex life of my wife and I.
And I don't really know how you got off on the tangent of love and commitment. In either case, these are things that gays are just as capable of as any straight couple.
Nothing other than they are both expected to practice abstinence according to one of our Catholic posters here. I thought that point was pretty clear in my post.
It wasn't clear in the least. Your post:
I'm not condoning the belief but priests are expected to do it, so why not gay people?
...seems to be asking the absurd question, so I guess I'm asking not "why are condoning the belief or not condoning it," but rather "what possible sense could it make from a practical perspective." Being gay and being a priest have absolutely nothing in common.
Examine the benefits of heterosexual marriage, examine why they are given and then compare with homosexual couples
Marriages don't need to be about love, they need to be a permanent commitment.
Fine, you said "in public," but it's irrelevant given the explanation that was, as I said, already furnished. It's not an arbitrary rule based on any morality.
I can examine the benefits of a heterosexual marriage from within one. They have nothing to do with the sex life of my wife and I.
And I don't really know how you got off on the tangent of love and commitment. In either case, these are things that gays are just as capable of as any straight couple.
Nothing other than they are both expected to practice abstinence according to one of our Catholic posters here. I thought that point was pretty clear in my post.
It wasn't clear in the least. Your post:
I'm not condoning the belief but priests are expected to do it, so why not gay people?
...seems to be asking the absurd question, so I guess I'm asking not "why are condoning the belief or not condoning it," but rather "what possible sense could it make from a practical perspective." Being gay and being a priest have absolutely nothing in common.
No comments:
Post a Comment