d.perel
Mar 18, 03:47 PM
Wish he'd do something useful like cracking WMA.
Nice Women Wavy Short
Short haircuts,hairstyles
short hair cuts of women
Short hair cuts
New Short Hair Cuts 2: Carey
short hair cuts for black
short haircuts and hair styles
Cute short haircuts sexy
short short haircuts for women
Celebrity Short Hair Cuts
short haircuts to become
Trendy Hair Cuts
2010 Messy short hair cuts
Short Sedu Haircuts
http://www.short-hair-styles-
Women Short Haircuts Picture
Funky Short Haircuts for Women
05290 medium short hairstyles
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 10:18 AM
I see no reason why Apple won't have a low cost tablet when competitors drop their prices. They are already very aggressive on pricing, and I think we see in the iPod market their approach to pricing these sorts of devices: You can step up from $49 (in the U.S.) all the way to an iPod touch. Hard to beat Apple on pricing, and this is ten years after the iPod was introduced.
So if Acer or whoever wants to drop the tablet price from $499 to $399 or eventually $299, Apple will be right there with them. After all, Apple gets the best component prices now, so how can anyone undercut them?
Unless you mean the piece-of-junk plastic tablet ripoffs that can sell for $199 or something. Apple won't make junk versions, and those will win on price. But anyone who buys those deserves the same headaches as people who buy stripped-down Dell boxes.
So if Acer or whoever wants to drop the tablet price from $499 to $399 or eventually $299, Apple will be right there with them. After all, Apple gets the best component prices now, so how can anyone undercut them?
Unless you mean the piece-of-junk plastic tablet ripoffs that can sell for $199 or something. Apple won't make junk versions, and those will win on price. But anyone who buys those deserves the same headaches as people who buy stripped-down Dell boxes.
nylon
May 5, 02:25 PM
I'm really surprised about lack of choice in picking your provider in the US for the iPhone. In most other countries where the iPhone is sold it is carried on every major carrier. In Canada all 4 major carriers have the iPhone.
archipellago
May 2, 05:12 PM
Chrome already uses a Sandbox similar to Webkit2 but it is built on top of webkit rather than implemented within webkit. Supposedly, Webkit2's split in the process will be better placed than that of Chrome.
Safari will use Webkit2 as it is based off of Webkit. Safari based on Webkit2 will be released soon, with the release of OS X Lion.
so a very small percentage of the market will be using it (the better tech) then?
if IE or FF don't do something similar then it won't really matter from a cybercrime point of view as 'no one' uses Safari and only the foolish use Chrome.
sad really..
I can't think of anywhere else on the internet where users are so pedantic about whether a piece of malware is a virus or not. It's completely missing the point. The amount of malware out there for Macs is very slowly increasing, which, in itself, is increasing the probability of infecting the user base and Macs can be remotely exploited just like any other operating system.
Instead of rebuffing the emergence of Mac malware with technicalities and pointing the finger at other products, it would be more useful to think about what it means to you, the user. Do you need to run out and buy an antivirus product? No, probably not. If you're someone who keeps on top of software updates and are generally sensible in how you use a computer then you're fine to carry on.
On the other hand, if you're someone who peruses file sharing services and questionable websites for dodgy content and pirated software then it's becoming increasingly more likely that one day you'll get burned. Highly likely? No, not yet, but it would be foolish to assume immunity to computer security issues based solely on the fact that something so far has not met the strict definition of "virus".
A few people need to stop being so short sighted in trying to meticulously defend the idea of "no viruses on Macs". Ultimately it's a rather hollow ideal to uphold because uninitiated users accept it as gospel and it doesn't encourage them to adopt safe computer practices.
sorry, last post...
great post....
all sentiments apply equally to OSX and Windows users..
Safari will use Webkit2 as it is based off of Webkit. Safari based on Webkit2 will be released soon, with the release of OS X Lion.
so a very small percentage of the market will be using it (the better tech) then?
if IE or FF don't do something similar then it won't really matter from a cybercrime point of view as 'no one' uses Safari and only the foolish use Chrome.
sad really..
I can't think of anywhere else on the internet where users are so pedantic about whether a piece of malware is a virus or not. It's completely missing the point. The amount of malware out there for Macs is very slowly increasing, which, in itself, is increasing the probability of infecting the user base and Macs can be remotely exploited just like any other operating system.
Instead of rebuffing the emergence of Mac malware with technicalities and pointing the finger at other products, it would be more useful to think about what it means to you, the user. Do you need to run out and buy an antivirus product? No, probably not. If you're someone who keeps on top of software updates and are generally sensible in how you use a computer then you're fine to carry on.
On the other hand, if you're someone who peruses file sharing services and questionable websites for dodgy content and pirated software then it's becoming increasingly more likely that one day you'll get burned. Highly likely? No, not yet, but it would be foolish to assume immunity to computer security issues based solely on the fact that something so far has not met the strict definition of "virus".
A few people need to stop being so short sighted in trying to meticulously defend the idea of "no viruses on Macs". Ultimately it's a rather hollow ideal to uphold because uninitiated users accept it as gospel and it doesn't encourage them to adopt safe computer practices.
sorry, last post...
great post....
all sentiments apply equally to OSX and Windows users..
Amazing Iceman
May 2, 09:27 AM
How stupid does a user needs to be in order to install, run and then enter credit card information into an application that pops up by itself?
:eek:
:eek:
Mord
Jul 13, 10:12 AM
the price difference between a 2.33/2.4 conroe is going to be like 20 bucks in the volume apple is getting, maybe less, memory has about a 60 buck difference for a pair of 512 sticks so it runs up to about 30 bucks in bulk and the motherboard is going to cost about 50 more to apple, thats a total of 100 bucks which will probably be made back by saveings in overhead and support costs.
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 10:18 AM
I see no reason why Apple won't have a low cost tablet when competitors drop their prices. They are already very aggressive on pricing, and I think we see in the iPod market their approach to pricing these sorts of devices: You can step up from $49 (in the U.S.) all the way to an iPod touch. Hard to beat Apple on pricing, and this is ten years after the iPod was introduced.
So if Acer or whoever wants to drop the tablet price from $499 to $399 or eventually $299, Apple will be right there with them. After all, Apple gets the best component prices now, so how can anyone undercut them?
Unless you mean the piece-of-junk plastic tablet ripoffs that can sell for $199 or something. Apple won't make junk versions, and those will win on price. But anyone who buys those deserves the same headaches as people who buy stripped-down Dell boxes.
So if Acer or whoever wants to drop the tablet price from $499 to $399 or eventually $299, Apple will be right there with them. After all, Apple gets the best component prices now, so how can anyone undercut them?
Unless you mean the piece-of-junk plastic tablet ripoffs that can sell for $199 or something. Apple won't make junk versions, and those will win on price. But anyone who buys those deserves the same headaches as people who buy stripped-down Dell boxes.
Apple OC
Apr 24, 04:53 PM
Many people say this, but they fail at the point where actions are of culture and not representative of the religion itself.
I invite you to demonstrate how Islam is a threat to freedom and democracy.
I guess all this honour killing pretty much explains the original theory how freedom of women has been affected
thanks again edifyingG for presenting some very valid points
I invite you to demonstrate how Islam is a threat to freedom and democracy.
I guess all this honour killing pretty much explains the original theory how freedom of women has been affected
thanks again edifyingG for presenting some very valid points
theheadguy
Aug 29, 02:21 PM
Apple has released a statement regarding the findings and it is just as realiable as Greenpeace's.
Besides, I said that Apple is doing what they can.
Obviously, they aren't.
They don't even release timelines for many things while other companies do. Apple can defend itself, they don't need you or anyone else to stick up for it when you aren't informed on what they are doing. Just as people complain that Greenpeace doesn't know what they are talking about, many people defending Apple are totally clueless also. It's just important to know that if you really care about the situation. :rolleyes:
Besides, I said that Apple is doing what they can.
Obviously, they aren't.
They don't even release timelines for many things while other companies do. Apple can defend itself, they don't need you or anyone else to stick up for it when you aren't informed on what they are doing. Just as people complain that Greenpeace doesn't know what they are talking about, many people defending Apple are totally clueless also. It's just important to know that if you really care about the situation. :rolleyes:
UnixMac
Oct 9, 05:51 PM
Bottom line.......Macs are over priced....we just keep buying them and so why would the accountants want to change that gig?
iRockMan1
Apr 9, 03:38 AM
Apple will buy Nintendo eventually.
It's over for Nintendo.
Get ready for the iwiiI hope you're joking. Nintendo's the strongest it's ever been and is probably the most innovative company in the gaming industry. They'll never go out of business or need to be bought out as long as they keep up their innovation and have must-have franchises such as Mario and Zelda.
It's over for Nintendo.
Get ready for the iwiiI hope you're joking. Nintendo's the strongest it's ever been and is probably the most innovative company in the gaming industry. They'll never go out of business or need to be bought out as long as they keep up their innovation and have must-have franchises such as Mario and Zelda.
Porchland
Mar 18, 03:06 PM
In interviews Steve Jobs has gone on record saying that unbreakable DRM is impossible. What you're seeing from Apple is a "good enough" strategy. After all, they don't really care, it's only there to appease the RIAA.
...
Apple will make another "good enough" fix to block it for another 6 months. But they really don't care. Although externally they "care", I bet internally it doesn't particularly bother them because ITMS is so big that the record companies can't afford to pull out of it.
Suggesting that Apple isn't concerned about DRM any further than needed to appease the record labels is ridiculous. Apple doesn't care about the integrity of its business model unless the RIAA is on on its back?
That's like saying Honda doesn't care whether its airbags deploy correctly unless the airbag contract is on its back. A defective product -- whether it's an iTMS track without DRM or a Honda with bad airbags -- isn't good for the manufacturer. Apple needs for its DRM to be good to protect its OWN future revenues through iTMS -- not just the record labels' profits.
...
Apple will make another "good enough" fix to block it for another 6 months. But they really don't care. Although externally they "care", I bet internally it doesn't particularly bother them because ITMS is so big that the record companies can't afford to pull out of it.
Suggesting that Apple isn't concerned about DRM any further than needed to appease the record labels is ridiculous. Apple doesn't care about the integrity of its business model unless the RIAA is on on its back?
That's like saying Honda doesn't care whether its airbags deploy correctly unless the airbag contract is on its back. A defective product -- whether it's an iTMS track without DRM or a Honda with bad airbags -- isn't good for the manufacturer. Apple needs for its DRM to be good to protect its OWN future revenues through iTMS -- not just the record labels' profits.
jettredmont
May 2, 05:35 PM
Is your info from like 1993 ? Because this little known version of Windows dubbed "New Technology" or NT for short brought along something called the NTFS (New Technology File System) that has... *drumroll* ACLs and strict permissions with inheritance...
Unless you're running as administrator on a Windows NT based system, you're as protected as a "Unix/Linux" user. Of course, you can also run as root all the time under Unix, negating this "security".
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.
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.
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).
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.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
Absolutely. I think it is absolutely critical to discern between a social-engineering attack (ie, one that requires a user to take some action unwittingly) from an automated attack (a classic virus or worm). The latter is certainly less common these days (although the "big boys" wanting to send Iranian nuclear reactors into convulsions seem to be keeping the dark art of worming alive and well), and so a typical user is much more likely to fall victim to a phishing scam than to get something nasty like the Asuza virus which wipes out their hard drive after an incubation period.
From the main "security firms", though, the money is in making all malware seem automated and thus only able to be countered by an automated virus detection/isolation utility. There just isn't much money in telling people to not click "Install" when MACDefender's installer comes up while looking through Google Images.
Unless you're running as administrator on a Windows NT based system, you're as protected as a "Unix/Linux" user. Of course, you can also run as root all the time under Unix, negating this "security".
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.
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.
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).
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.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
Absolutely. I think it is absolutely critical to discern between a social-engineering attack (ie, one that requires a user to take some action unwittingly) from an automated attack (a classic virus or worm). The latter is certainly less common these days (although the "big boys" wanting to send Iranian nuclear reactors into convulsions seem to be keeping the dark art of worming alive and well), and so a typical user is much more likely to fall victim to a phishing scam than to get something nasty like the Asuza virus which wipes out their hard drive after an incubation period.
From the main "security firms", though, the money is in making all malware seem automated and thus only able to be countered by an automated virus detection/isolation utility. There just isn't much money in telling people to not click "Install" when MACDefender's installer comes up while looking through Google Images.
PghLondon
Apr 28, 11:19 AM
But� 3.5% mac market share which includes stupid iPads as computers is pretty dismal (laughable even). As an enterprise user of macs I find that pretty embarrassing and quite telling of where OSX really stands in the grand scheme of things.
<snip>
But a pitiful 3.5%? Absolutely mind-boggling.
Where are you getting 3.5% from? It's higher than that without counting iPad.
<snip>
But a pitiful 3.5%? Absolutely mind-boggling.
Where are you getting 3.5% from? It's higher than that without counting iPad.
MacinDoc
Apr 13, 01:25 AM
I've been in IT for a while. "Professionals" are some of the most set in their ways people I have EVER met. I know guys who were annoyed when motherboards became available that let you adjust things like clock multipliers and such in the BIOS instead of having to use jumpers on the motherboard.
Most "professionals" aren't so much masters of their craft but people who understand how to use certain tools. If those tools become available to anyone the "professionals" feel threatened and lash out.
Mind you, while I love OS X, if the terminal was ever removed from the OS I'd cease using it. Once you know how to use a shell properly there's tons of stuff that's simply easier to do from there. I love ease, just so long as it's not at the cost of Pro grade functionality when I need it.
That's my point, though. Adding a graphic interface to OS X did nothing to reduce the power of the Terminal. As you say, as long as the choice is still available to use the underlying power, we should not object if ease of use is added on top of that. I think most video editors would want the video software equivalent of a DSLR, rather than the equivalent of a point-and-shoot camera. Ease of use for everyday things, but the power of manual controls when needed.
Most "professionals" aren't so much masters of their craft but people who understand how to use certain tools. If those tools become available to anyone the "professionals" feel threatened and lash out.
Mind you, while I love OS X, if the terminal was ever removed from the OS I'd cease using it. Once you know how to use a shell properly there's tons of stuff that's simply easier to do from there. I love ease, just so long as it's not at the cost of Pro grade functionality when I need it.
That's my point, though. Adding a graphic interface to OS X did nothing to reduce the power of the Terminal. As you say, as long as the choice is still available to use the underlying power, we should not object if ease of use is added on top of that. I think most video editors would want the video software equivalent of a DSLR, rather than the equivalent of a point-and-shoot camera. Ease of use for everyday things, but the power of manual controls when needed.
Digital Skunk
Apr 13, 01:49 PM
I thought it was mentioned that all keyboard shortcuts were still there so I don't get what the concern in that post is about
It was mentioned in this thread with nothing to back it up. So far, with all of the video that's now on the web, there's no mention of shortcuts, remapping, etc.
There should always be concern when upgrading to a new app or system. Once you've made the mistake of not having concerns or questions too many times, it'll be second nature.
It was mentioned in this thread with nothing to back it up. So far, with all of the video that's now on the web, there's no mention of shortcuts, remapping, etc.
There should always be concern when upgrading to a new app or system. Once you've made the mistake of not having concerns or questions too many times, it'll be second nature.
firestarter
Mar 13, 02:09 PM
But how do you proponents of nuclear power discount the very real risks it poses to mankind itself? War and terrorism especially. HUGE accident(s) waiting to happen.
If you choose not to have nuclear power, you're choosing to have oil - and all the problems that brings with it.
I can't recall a war fought over nuclear power, but we're living through one driven by our need to access cheap oil (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece).
Do you think that our heavy handed approach to Persian Gulf politics increases or decreases the threat of terrorism? Although we've been keen to see regime change in Egypt and Libya, there's no way we'll assist any sort of change in Saudi - since we need the oil. Yet most of the 9/11 hijackers were disaffected Saudi men! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks)
So I think your argument that nuclear power increases the threat of terrorism and war is naive, given that the only other option is oil - which most definitely does!
If you choose not to have nuclear power, you're choosing to have oil - and all the problems that brings with it.
I can't recall a war fought over nuclear power, but we're living through one driven by our need to access cheap oil (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece).
Do you think that our heavy handed approach to Persian Gulf politics increases or decreases the threat of terrorism? Although we've been keen to see regime change in Egypt and Libya, there's no way we'll assist any sort of change in Saudi - since we need the oil. Yet most of the 9/11 hijackers were disaffected Saudi men! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks)
So I think your argument that nuclear power increases the threat of terrorism and war is naive, given that the only other option is oil - which most definitely does!
OllyW
Apr 28, 11:33 AM
Ahh, good catch! But that's before the iPad was even released... not sure what Al meant by his comment...
The launch of the iPad won't affect Apple's market share without the iPad included, which brings us back to Al's comment. ;)
The launch of the iPad won't affect Apple's market share without the iPad included, which brings us back to Al's comment. ;)
Bill McEnaney
Apr 26, 10:11 PM
And this lady just likely has glossitis or could even be a squamous cell carcinoma of her tongue. These people are mental.
I would have liked to have seen her tongue before the priest put the host on it.
I would have liked to have seen her tongue before the priest put the host on it.
digitalbiker
Sep 24, 05:38 PM
It most certainly is not of some souped up Airport Extreme. That was what was widely rumoured before the Showtime presentation, and it turned out to be completely false. Whatever the debate of the precise capabilities of the iTV may be, the device demo'd couldn't be further from being an Airport Extreme if it tried.
OK, believe what you want but you must be watching a different ShowTime presentation and reading different reviews than I have been reading. Your discription is just not factual.
Everything I have seen describes the iTV as a souped up airport extreme that uses FrontRow to remote control an iTunes streaming device (i.e. computer) on the network. The product fits nicely in the model SJ has of a computer centric universe or digital hub. The use of the hard drive is most likely for cache to buffer the stream on an unstable 80211 connection.
OK, believe what you want but you must be watching a different ShowTime presentation and reading different reviews than I have been reading. Your discription is just not factual.
Everything I have seen describes the iTV as a souped up airport extreme that uses FrontRow to remote control an iTunes streaming device (i.e. computer) on the network. The product fits nicely in the model SJ has of a computer centric universe or digital hub. The use of the hard drive is most likely for cache to buffer the stream on an unstable 80211 connection.
Soculese
Sep 21, 10:58 AM
If it contains a HDD (a fact I am not entirely convinced of), I doubt it would be used for recording TV shows.
Programming such a device with a basic remote like the ones Steve Jobs previewed would be near-to-impossible.
If Apple did introduce the ability to record TV shows (which I also doubt), I believe it would be at the computer, only to be streamed to the iTV later.
OK, the tivo has a remote, but I NEVER use it to pick programs to record. I use the tivo.com website to do this. I would think that since the iTV will connect via wireless to your computer that you could do the same with it.
Programming such a device with a basic remote like the ones Steve Jobs previewed would be near-to-impossible.
If Apple did introduce the ability to record TV shows (which I also doubt), I believe it would be at the computer, only to be streamed to the iTV later.
OK, the tivo has a remote, but I NEVER use it to pick programs to record. I use the tivo.com website to do this. I would think that since the iTV will connect via wireless to your computer that you could do the same with it.
eawmp1
Apr 22, 08:28 PM
Because the concept of earth and life just happening to explode into existence from nothing comes from logic and reason?
Interesting...
You referring to the big bang, or those reported six days?
Interesting...
You referring to the big bang, or those reported six days?
Lord Blackadder
Mar 24, 08:02 PM
Archbishop Silvano Tomasi said the Roman Catholic Church deeply believed that human sexuality was a gift reserved for married heterosexual couples. But those who express these views are faced with "a disturbing trend," he said.
He may find a "disturbing trend", but I would characterize it as "social progress".
He may find a "disturbing trend", but I would characterize it as "social progress".
BillHarrison
Sep 12, 04:28 PM
Which cost what, five times what this will cost? The stuff you have will never go mainstream, it's way too expensive.
Because that would be far more expensive, with little potential to get cheaper. Something based on a full computer would never get cheap enough to really catch on.
Whoa there! Setting up a media center / 360 extender setup is far from 5x the price of the iTV. As a matter of fact, the 360 is the SAME price as the iTV, 299$.
You of course will need a media center pc to make this work, but you need a pc/mac to make the iTV work as well, so thats an added expense on either side.
Oh, did I mention the 360 plays some REALLY fun games? (Dead rising :D)
Actually I could probably do both methods for around the same price, (900 ish) but with the Media Center you get true TIVO capability, all from your couch. Trust me, it works, and it works well.
That said, I applaud apple for trying, but they have a ways to go in this area. One of the things keeping me from the big switch.
Because that would be far more expensive, with little potential to get cheaper. Something based on a full computer would never get cheap enough to really catch on.
Whoa there! Setting up a media center / 360 extender setup is far from 5x the price of the iTV. As a matter of fact, the 360 is the SAME price as the iTV, 299$.
You of course will need a media center pc to make this work, but you need a pc/mac to make the iTV work as well, so thats an added expense on either side.
Oh, did I mention the 360 plays some REALLY fun games? (Dead rising :D)
Actually I could probably do both methods for around the same price, (900 ish) but with the Media Center you get true TIVO capability, all from your couch. Trust me, it works, and it works well.
That said, I applaud apple for trying, but they have a ways to go in this area. One of the things keeping me from the big switch.
