WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 12:03 PM
Nope; it says that they are required to deny their sexuality; to deny who they really are.
And if the argument goes that they have to deny their sexuality because they aren't married (just as non-married heterosexual people do), well isn't that grand: you've also denied them the right to marry. Why do you do that, pray tell? Because the invisible creator the universe told you that only men and women may marry.
That's a nice little roundabout way of making you feel better for your discrimination, isn't it?
Right, because civil marriage is required for gays to have sex with each other. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. You can have sex with whomever you want to.
We're talking about gay Catholics here, who ostensibly value being Catholic more than they value satisfying their sexual desires in a manner compatible with their sexuality. There is no theocratic regime forcing them to live as Catholics in good standing - it is a personal lifestyle choice, if you will.
And if the argument goes that they have to deny their sexuality because they aren't married (just as non-married heterosexual people do), well isn't that grand: you've also denied them the right to marry. Why do you do that, pray tell? Because the invisible creator the universe told you that only men and women may marry.
That's a nice little roundabout way of making you feel better for your discrimination, isn't it?
Right, because civil marriage is required for gays to have sex with each other. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. You can have sex with whomever you want to.
We're talking about gay Catholics here, who ostensibly value being Catholic more than they value satisfying their sexual desires in a manner compatible with their sexuality. There is no theocratic regime forcing them to live as Catholics in good standing - it is a personal lifestyle choice, if you will.
aristobrat
Mar 18, 01:18 PM
The amount of data they used by tethering is the issue per the previous articles and statements by At&t in the last 2 years.
It is, however, this thread isn't based on articles and statements made by AT&T over the last two years.
This thread is specifically based on "AT&T Cracking Down on Unauthorized Tethering", not "AT&T limiting iPhone data consumption for iPhones on unlimited data plans".
Maybe I'm reading your point wrong.
But if you advertise unlimited as At&t does and did, it should be unlimited no matter what (Slimey) lawyer drafts a document meant to swindle people is signed.
a Con game is still a con game, if i sign and pay for unlimited, it should be unlimited not what ever At&t decides.
I'm just saying that in regards to the unlimited iPhone data plan, you're still getting unlimited iPhone data. Where's the con?
It is, however, this thread isn't based on articles and statements made by AT&T over the last two years.
This thread is specifically based on "AT&T Cracking Down on Unauthorized Tethering", not "AT&T limiting iPhone data consumption for iPhones on unlimited data plans".
Maybe I'm reading your point wrong.
But if you advertise unlimited as At&t does and did, it should be unlimited no matter what (Slimey) lawyer drafts a document meant to swindle people is signed.
a Con game is still a con game, if i sign and pay for unlimited, it should be unlimited not what ever At&t decides.
I'm just saying that in regards to the unlimited iPhone data plan, you're still getting unlimited iPhone data. Where's the con?
gnasher729
Apr 9, 02:47 AM
You summed it up beautifully. You're not a gamer. You're what is called a time passer, which are what 99 percent of IOS games are, mind numbing time killers.
So what exactly is the difference between a "gamer" and a "time passer"?
So what exactly is the difference between a "gamer" and a "time passer"?
D4F
Apr 28, 08:21 AM
Why not? After all, isn't an iPod Touch just a small iPad?
There's a difference between a PC (machine that gives you the ability to work) and a communication / entertainment device. It's amazing people cant see such obvious things lol.
No wonder when I quote a client on a 3D render they make HUGe eyes and say "i thought a computer does this" lol. Read a bit people. if you can't find basic info about what's going on around you using google then you are just plain stupid.
There's a difference between a PC (machine that gives you the ability to work) and a communication / entertainment device. It's amazing people cant see such obvious things lol.
No wonder when I quote a client on a 3D render they make HUGe eyes and say "i thought a computer does this" lol. Read a bit people. if you can't find basic info about what's going on around you using google then you are just plain stupid.
dudemac
Mar 18, 03:58 PM
To all but a few of the replies so far that seem totally out raged by this,
\
First there is no support for itms on linux as it currently stands and this just allows user of linux to purchase songs from the itms and play them on that platform. It also allows someone like me who has a high speed connection at work to purchase music and take it home with me. Yes I have a couple of mac's and an ipod, so my loyalty hasn't changed.
Secoundly this doesn't hack the DRM that apple supplies, however it does violate the EULA, which I don't know anyone that doesn't violate a EULA at least once a day. But that is really a different argument.
Finally why is there no outrage that DRM is not optional or that there hasn't been a standardized format for music. There are reasons why the mini disc failed and it had nothing to do with quality. But it was a propriotary format that needed to be liscencsed. So when looking at the delima of DRM it should be more of a how do we get everything to play everywhere kind of question then just limiting how the user can play/share the music at home. I really hate being limited for "my own good". or more appropriately for the good of a corporation. If WMA beats apple it will only be because they failed to standardize and work within the industry.
prom updos for long hair 2011.
prom hair updos 2011. modern
on the celebrity. Updo
New Prom Hairstyles Updos 2011
A beautiful “Prom hair style”
2011 prom updo hairstyles
hair updos for prom 2011. prom
Prom hair updos 2011 total
2011 prom updos for long hair.
Carrie Underwood: 2011 Golden
prom hair updos. cute prom
prom updos 2011 long hair.
prom updos 2011 braids. hair
Prom Updo Hairstyles 2011
Reacent Post
\
First there is no support for itms on linux as it currently stands and this just allows user of linux to purchase songs from the itms and play them on that platform. It also allows someone like me who has a high speed connection at work to purchase music and take it home with me. Yes I have a couple of mac's and an ipod, so my loyalty hasn't changed.
Secoundly this doesn't hack the DRM that apple supplies, however it does violate the EULA, which I don't know anyone that doesn't violate a EULA at least once a day. But that is really a different argument.
Finally why is there no outrage that DRM is not optional or that there hasn't been a standardized format for music. There are reasons why the mini disc failed and it had nothing to do with quality. But it was a propriotary format that needed to be liscencsed. So when looking at the delima of DRM it should be more of a how do we get everything to play everywhere kind of question then just limiting how the user can play/share the music at home. I really hate being limited for "my own good". or more appropriately for the good of a corporation. If WMA beats apple it will only be because they failed to standardize and work within the industry.
Trash Can
Jun 19, 02:10 PM
I got the iPhone 3G two years ago after being with Verizon for seven. Love the phone - hate the network! I travel extensively. Some places my 3G is reliable, others not so much.
The iPhone cannot be beat in terms of engineering, user interface, and elegance. iPhone 4 appears to raise the bar even further. However, a phone is only as good as the network that it's on. As much as I love the thing, many times it functions more like an iPod Touch than a phone. With the introduction of the iPad 3G and influx of new iPhone 4 users, I believe AT&T's network issues will get worse before it gets better.
I've decided to leave AT&T, return to Verizon, and get a Droid. Is a Droid my device of choice? No, but at least I'll have reliability, something that I haven't had for the last two years. I've experienced more dropped calls with AT&T in one week than I have with Verizon over several years.
If and when Verizon ever gets the iPhone, I'll be in line with everyone else on launch day. Until then, I'm sure there will be days when I'm somewhat envious of those who purchased iPhone 4 (and possibly subsequent models), but at least I'll know I'll be able to make and receive calls reliably and without interruption.
The iPhone cannot be beat in terms of engineering, user interface, and elegance. iPhone 4 appears to raise the bar even further. However, a phone is only as good as the network that it's on. As much as I love the thing, many times it functions more like an iPod Touch than a phone. With the introduction of the iPad 3G and influx of new iPhone 4 users, I believe AT&T's network issues will get worse before it gets better.
I've decided to leave AT&T, return to Verizon, and get a Droid. Is a Droid my device of choice? No, but at least I'll have reliability, something that I haven't had for the last two years. I've experienced more dropped calls with AT&T in one week than I have with Verizon over several years.
If and when Verizon ever gets the iPhone, I'll be in line with everyone else on launch day. Until then, I'm sure there will be days when I'm somewhat envious of those who purchased iPhone 4 (and possibly subsequent models), but at least I'll know I'll be able to make and receive calls reliably and without interruption.
Multimedia
Jul 13, 06:10 AM
I've been wondering about this too. Surely they have the source code (or most of it) written in a high level language, right? If I'm not totally mistaken, there shouldn't be that much more work involved than a re-compilation for x86. Even if some filters or other stuff are hand coded in assembler, they already have that code in x86-assembler in the Windows version.Adobe made a strategic decision to go Universal with the CS3 Suite next year and meanwhile not to divert work to Universalize the CS2 Suite. If you need Adobe stuff all the time, just get a G5 Quad and you will be happy as a clam. It's still going to be the second fastest Mac after Mac Pros are out. :)
tf23
Sep 12, 08:18 PM
...The think that worries me is that there is no mention of this device being able to play non-iTunes movies. What about if you back up a DVD to your computer. Can you play it on this? We'll have to wait and see.
I am willing to bet if you backup all your DVD's and then run them through handbrake you'll be set. Take all those 500-1.5GB mp4 files and drag and drop 'em into your iTunes. Then the 'iTV' would see them and there's your movie collection easily accessible.
I am willing to bet if you backup all your DVD's and then run them through handbrake you'll be set. Take all those 500-1.5GB mp4 files and drag and drop 'em into your iTunes. Then the 'iTV' would see them and there's your movie collection easily accessible.
Peace
Sep 20, 06:09 PM
Well said. This product will NOT sell (after the initial "craze") if there is no DVR functionality. People (general mass of people not macrumors folk) are not ready to pay for individual TV shows. People love DVRs because they can record, watch later and skip commercials.
In the future when Apple has such a stronghold on the cable industry that companies are forced to move to a pay-per-channel (a-la-carte) system, then sure, but not right now.
DVR is where it is at for the moment. Apple is going to miss the boat. Apple having an iTV does not make me want to buy TV shows. It simply makes me not want to buy an iTV.
And I guess this is why Disney sold 125,000 movies the first week and Apple has sold millions of TV shows right?*
In the future when Apple has such a stronghold on the cable industry that companies are forced to move to a pay-per-channel (a-la-carte) system, then sure, but not right now.
DVR is where it is at for the moment. Apple is going to miss the boat. Apple having an iTV does not make me want to buy TV shows. It simply makes me not want to buy an iTV.
And I guess this is why Disney sold 125,000 movies the first week and Apple has sold millions of TV shows right?*
Huntn
Apr 27, 09:16 PM
Huntn, please show me some evidence for what you're saying. Then I'll tell you what I think of it. Meanwhile, I should admit that the Bible's original manuscripts no longer exist, and there are copyists' mistakes in the existing copies. There are mistranslations in at least some Bible translations. Take Matthew 24:24 in the King James Version. It's ungrammatical (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:24&version=KJV). But I still need you to give us some evidence that, for example, some tendentious ancient people tampered with Bible passages.
I think you misunderstand what I am saying. While translations are very susceptible to being tampered with especially when a church hierarchy with an agenda is involved, that is not my primary focus. The focus is what validity do ancient scripts have as truth just because they exist? I may be able to give a possible example. Jesus is central to the New Testament, but according to a History Channel Show, there are no city records in the Middle East that confirm the existence of Christ. Is this fact or fiction? I don't know, but I have reason to wonder about it.
I saw the Lourdes video and have to ask, has there been verified in any meaningful way? If so, there should be a substantial evidence, maybe a list of those who have been healed, hopefully with some documentation.
As I said elsewhere there is no moral equivalence. It took Augustine's and Aquinas' great rambling treatises to justify warfare, for instance.
In the Qur'an and the Hadith war is encouraged and its virtues extolled.
I wish people would stop trying to equate the wars of Christianity (and of that mainly Western Christianity) with Islam's modern terrorism and calls for warfare against the infidel.
In Islamic Law non-muslims are considered najiss, that means ritually impure, down to our souls, our essences. Christians are reviled especially because they practice "shirk", a law forbidding the joining of others to allah. Jews are designated as apes and pigs in the Qur'an.
there is no equivalence between Islam and Christianity.
I agree that today's radial Islam is dissimilar to modern Christianity, but Christianity has blood on his hands and is still involved in power and control although not to extent of blatantly murdering those with different views.
I think you misunderstand what I am saying. While translations are very susceptible to being tampered with especially when a church hierarchy with an agenda is involved, that is not my primary focus. The focus is what validity do ancient scripts have as truth just because they exist? I may be able to give a possible example. Jesus is central to the New Testament, but according to a History Channel Show, there are no city records in the Middle East that confirm the existence of Christ. Is this fact or fiction? I don't know, but I have reason to wonder about it.
I saw the Lourdes video and have to ask, has there been verified in any meaningful way? If so, there should be a substantial evidence, maybe a list of those who have been healed, hopefully with some documentation.
As I said elsewhere there is no moral equivalence. It took Augustine's and Aquinas' great rambling treatises to justify warfare, for instance.
In the Qur'an and the Hadith war is encouraged and its virtues extolled.
I wish people would stop trying to equate the wars of Christianity (and of that mainly Western Christianity) with Islam's modern terrorism and calls for warfare against the infidel.
In Islamic Law non-muslims are considered najiss, that means ritually impure, down to our souls, our essences. Christians are reviled especially because they practice "shirk", a law forbidding the joining of others to allah. Jews are designated as apes and pigs in the Qur'an.
there is no equivalence between Islam and Christianity.
I agree that today's radial Islam is dissimilar to modern Christianity, but Christianity has blood on his hands and is still involved in power and control although not to extent of blatantly murdering those with different views.
MacCoaster
Oct 12, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by benixau
for crying out load, who cares if a pc can do its sums better than a mac. My brother does maths better than me but i kick him in english.
In other words if i am more productive on my mac then it doesnt matter that it might be a little 'slower' it is a faster machine because i can work faster. End of story. New Thread.
Believe me, a lot of people do. Thanks to my UNIX knowledge, I am so much more productive in Linux/BSD on a PC than a Mac. For beginners to computers, sure Macs could be much more productive.
We were just discussing the G4--it was never intended to be an explict vs war between Mac and PCs. It's not a software thread. It's a frickin' hardware thread where we are discussing the inferiority of the G4.
Research scientists should think twice before using a Mac for research--since the G4 blows so much. That's where it matters. It's faster for them to use PCs than Macs. Gee, by 100 seconds. Think about it... a lot of scientific formulas are a lot more complex than our simplistic benchmark programs--100 minutes is sure much longer than 5 minutes.
for crying out load, who cares if a pc can do its sums better than a mac. My brother does maths better than me but i kick him in english.
In other words if i am more productive on my mac then it doesnt matter that it might be a little 'slower' it is a faster machine because i can work faster. End of story. New Thread.
Believe me, a lot of people do. Thanks to my UNIX knowledge, I am so much more productive in Linux/BSD on a PC than a Mac. For beginners to computers, sure Macs could be much more productive.
We were just discussing the G4--it was never intended to be an explict vs war between Mac and PCs. It's not a software thread. It's a frickin' hardware thread where we are discussing the inferiority of the G4.
Research scientists should think twice before using a Mac for research--since the G4 blows so much. That's where it matters. It's faster for them to use PCs than Macs. Gee, by 100 seconds. Think about it... a lot of scientific formulas are a lot more complex than our simplistic benchmark programs--100 minutes is sure much longer than 5 minutes.
sdunlapa
Oct 7, 09:18 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7C144 Safari/528.16)
Wait a minute, windows mobile is on multiple phones. Why won't they take over iPhone's market share? Everything is always so pie in the sky. I remember when the iPhone was supposed to be a disaster and a sure failure. Something sure went wrong there.
Wait a minute, windows mobile is on multiple phones. Why won't they take over iPhone's market share? Everything is always so pie in the sky. I remember when the iPhone was supposed to be a disaster and a sure failure. Something sure went wrong there.
Peace
Sep 12, 06:26 PM
Not completely accurate... EyeHome has component out - with a pretty decent 1080i Software Upconvert over Component to an HDTV set...
I may be wrong but it has "composite out" not "component"
I may be wrong but it has "composite out" not "component"
pika2000
Mar 18, 03:00 AM
This is why I bought the Nexus One.
Although I'm afraid I might be forced to let go my grand-fathered unlimited data plan in the near future. Does anybody know if adding a line and converting both it and my line into a family plan will kick me out of the grand-fathered unlimited data plan?
Although I'm afraid I might be forced to let go my grand-fathered unlimited data plan in the near future. Does anybody know if adding a line and converting both it and my line into a family plan will kick me out of the grand-fathered unlimited data plan?
AidenShaw
Oct 8, 10:23 AM
Faster at what? I'm too lazy to find the part in the keynote where they showed this. Was it 20% faster at something designed to use all 8 cores?
The task was a multi-threaded matrix multiplication that easily scales to multiple cores.
This is representative of many HPC and rendering apps, but not as realistic for most desktop apps (unless, of course, you're like MultiMedia and run several separate instances of the desktop apps simulataneously).
The sections in the video are at 11:50 to 15:00, and 26:30 to 28:00. (The gap is while the engineer is swapping CPUs and rebooting.)
My earlier numbers were a bit off - rewatching the video the Woodie system was 40% faster than the Opteron, at 17% less power. The Clovertowns were low-voltage parts "about 900MHz" slower than the Woodies. The octo (dual quads) was about 60% faster than the Opteron at 17% less power. (I'd like to have seen them put in faster Clovertowns, and show what the octo Clovertown would do when matching the power draw of the Opteron.)
At about 25:00 minutes in, Gelsinger says that the "two woodies in one socket" is the "right way to do quad-core at 65nm", due to manufacturing and yield issues.
The task was a multi-threaded matrix multiplication that easily scales to multiple cores.
This is representative of many HPC and rendering apps, but not as realistic for most desktop apps (unless, of course, you're like MultiMedia and run several separate instances of the desktop apps simulataneously).
The sections in the video are at 11:50 to 15:00, and 26:30 to 28:00. (The gap is while the engineer is swapping CPUs and rebooting.)
My earlier numbers were a bit off - rewatching the video the Woodie system was 40% faster than the Opteron, at 17% less power. The Clovertowns were low-voltage parts "about 900MHz" slower than the Woodies. The octo (dual quads) was about 60% faster than the Opteron at 17% less power. (I'd like to have seen them put in faster Clovertowns, and show what the octo Clovertown would do when matching the power draw of the Opteron.)
At about 25:00 minutes in, Gelsinger says that the "two woodies in one socket" is the "right way to do quad-core at 65nm", due to manufacturing and yield issues.
michaellinehan
Oct 7, 02:40 PM
"it expects Android to surpass Apple's iPhone to claim the number two spot behind Symbian OS with 14.5% of the global smart phone market"
Simplistic example --- If one company has 95% of the market with a free phone and another company has 5% of the market with a $500 phone, who's better off?
Other articles go on and on about Microsoft's massively greater "market share". But with maybe tens times more market share than Apple, MS's market capitalization (worth) is only about 1.4 times as much as Apple.
Market share, as a bare number, is meaningless.
Simplistic example --- If one company has 95% of the market with a free phone and another company has 5% of the market with a $500 phone, who's better off?
Other articles go on and on about Microsoft's massively greater "market share". But with maybe tens times more market share than Apple, MS's market capitalization (worth) is only about 1.4 times as much as Apple.
Market share, as a bare number, is meaningless.
Rodimus Prime
Mar 12, 01:44 PM
BTW, this Japanese plant was built in 1971, which is *older* than the 30+ years you deride the old Soviet plants for being. So there's more of your 'expert because I've got two degrees' opinion lying in more not so expert after all rubble. Speaking of deriding:
:p
I might like to point out that the Chernobyl plant was designed to produced weapons grade plutonium and produce power. That put some major problems on the design and put safety at risk. Control rods would have to be able to removed WHILE the reactor was running and fairly often. Not something you do unless you plane on making weapons grade plutonium. It also had to be much larger in size because it needed to produce power.
Yet another reason why this is not be Chernobyl.
We can also add unlike Soviet Russia Japan would not of cut huge safety corners to save cost at the time and over the past 30 years they sure as hell would of improved the plants safe.
:p
I might like to point out that the Chernobyl plant was designed to produced weapons grade plutonium and produce power. That put some major problems on the design and put safety at risk. Control rods would have to be able to removed WHILE the reactor was running and fairly often. Not something you do unless you plane on making weapons grade plutonium. It also had to be much larger in size because it needed to produce power.
Yet another reason why this is not be Chernobyl.
We can also add unlike Soviet Russia Japan would not of cut huge safety corners to save cost at the time and over the past 30 years they sure as hell would of improved the plants safe.
matticus008
Mar 20, 10:49 PM
I do agree that it is effectively the break of a promise. Hell, it's the breaking of a contract... which is certainly quite wrong. But what if you believe the original terms and conditions to be morally wrong in themselves?
Yes, yes, I know. Don't use the software, but people do, and people will. In the scheme of things, considering all alternatives, I really can't see such strong objection. For reasons noted in my first post, the software will likely only be picked up by a small number of tech-savvy, yet honest users - and that's the thing. This is a very small market, quite unlikely to be distributing these songs over p2p - which is (correct me if I'm wrong) the main reason for DRM in the first place?
Trying to stay pragmatic here without advocating anarchy. It's not working.
Yours is a noble attempt at being pragmatic. It's very hard to be as liberal as possible and still maintain order :). You're right, people will use the software. It will allow them to play music on devices that don't support FairPlay or the AAC file format without them having to take extra steps to do everything in a compliant manner. It's a pain to have to buy a song, download it, burn it to a CD from iTunes, and reimport it. But each of those steps are allowed by iTunes TOS, whereas this software is specifically not allowed. They probably don't want to put iTunes music on P2P services, since they paid for it. But if Apple allows this software to go on, then it just takes one person to buy the song and redistribute it. At least the current system requires you to take ten minutes of your time and a CD to pirate from iTunes. It's not that big of a roadblock, and for the very small market you suggest, wanting just for their music to work on their other players, it's a small price to ask to prevent sales-damaging (as opposed to personal use only) piracy.
If you believe the terms and conditions to be morally wrong as they were presented to you, you should not have accepted them, so it's still not right to violate them. You weren't forced into accepting them. You chose to, and you chose them knowing the limitations. There's no cause for illegal action. Of course I don't mean "you" as in you particularly, but in the general sense for this post.
Yes, yes, I know. Don't use the software, but people do, and people will. In the scheme of things, considering all alternatives, I really can't see such strong objection. For reasons noted in my first post, the software will likely only be picked up by a small number of tech-savvy, yet honest users - and that's the thing. This is a very small market, quite unlikely to be distributing these songs over p2p - which is (correct me if I'm wrong) the main reason for DRM in the first place?
Trying to stay pragmatic here without advocating anarchy. It's not working.
Yours is a noble attempt at being pragmatic. It's very hard to be as liberal as possible and still maintain order :). You're right, people will use the software. It will allow them to play music on devices that don't support FairPlay or the AAC file format without them having to take extra steps to do everything in a compliant manner. It's a pain to have to buy a song, download it, burn it to a CD from iTunes, and reimport it. But each of those steps are allowed by iTunes TOS, whereas this software is specifically not allowed. They probably don't want to put iTunes music on P2P services, since they paid for it. But if Apple allows this software to go on, then it just takes one person to buy the song and redistribute it. At least the current system requires you to take ten minutes of your time and a CD to pirate from iTunes. It's not that big of a roadblock, and for the very small market you suggest, wanting just for their music to work on their other players, it's a small price to ask to prevent sales-damaging (as opposed to personal use only) piracy.
If you believe the terms and conditions to be morally wrong as they were presented to you, you should not have accepted them, so it's still not right to violate them. You weren't forced into accepting them. You chose to, and you chose them knowing the limitations. There's no cause for illegal action. Of course I don't mean "you" as in you particularly, but in the general sense for this post.
foodog
Apr 13, 06:12 AM
Yeah, I don't know about one click CC either. Color me skeptical. Although a lot of color adjustments are just minor, so theoretically, it could do a decent job.
Anyone doing complicated color work is going to need a dedicated app anyway. I don't think it's realistic to assume FCPX will ever be able to do this.
I really don't think Apple is doing away with Motion or Color. FCP has had Motion funtionality built in for some time, now it will have Color functionality built in. There is still a need for the stand alone apps for the less simple things.
Anyone doing complicated color work is going to need a dedicated app anyway. I don't think it's realistic to assume FCPX will ever be able to do this.
I really don't think Apple is doing away with Motion or Color. FCP has had Motion funtionality built in for some time, now it will have Color functionality built in. There is still a need for the stand alone apps for the less simple things.
aaronsullivan
Sep 20, 09:15 AM
No tv inputs on the iTV. No DVR capability. Please stop "wishing", "hoping", "suggesting."
Perhaps, a SECOND device could perform this, but it's not what the $300 no service fee device is for. It's for conveniently streaming content from the computer to a TV that can be watched from the couch. It fills the desire of many people, but not all. (Nor should it try to be everything to everyone. That's part of what makes it an Apple product, like it or not.)
Personally, I'm tired of unhooking and re-hooking our laptop to do this and a $300 device to keep things casual and instant looks great to me.
Perhaps, a SECOND device could perform this, but it's not what the $300 no service fee device is for. It's for conveniently streaming content from the computer to a TV that can be watched from the couch. It fills the desire of many people, but not all. (Nor should it try to be everything to everyone. That's part of what makes it an Apple product, like it or not.)
Personally, I'm tired of unhooking and re-hooking our laptop to do this and a $300 device to keep things casual and instant looks great to me.
chakraj
Mar 18, 12:30 PM
Dont you all understand, Unlimited is the name of the plan not the discription of the amount of data used.
Much like the Ford LTD, or Limited, they were just named LTD, they were not actually a limited edition vehicle.
ATT REP; Hello sir, would you like to sign up for our unlimited data plan? with that plan you get 5gigs, you can use anyway you want, as long as it is viewing facebook or google only, any other web traffic is not in your unlimited plan. For that you would need our world wide Unlimited web access plan. With that plan you get 5gigs and you also get to look at youtube and Amazon. If you want more there is our unlimited universal time and space plan. With that plan you get everything from the other unlimited plan plus you get access to ebay!. for a limited time..
Much like the Ford LTD, or Limited, they were just named LTD, they were not actually a limited edition vehicle.
ATT REP; Hello sir, would you like to sign up for our unlimited data plan? with that plan you get 5gigs, you can use anyway you want, as long as it is viewing facebook or google only, any other web traffic is not in your unlimited plan. For that you would need our world wide Unlimited web access plan. With that plan you get 5gigs and you also get to look at youtube and Amazon. If you want more there is our unlimited universal time and space plan. With that plan you get everything from the other unlimited plan plus you get access to ebay!. for a limited time..
jettredmont
May 3, 03:44 PM
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
mpstrex
Aug 29, 04:09 PM
Actually, he's on the Al Gore movement. ;)
NO! Al Gore is in it for himself? I thought he was a selfless guy, out for the environment. I mean, his movie DID make over $20 million and the budget was REAL low, and the majority of the crew worked on it for free...
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=inconvenienttruth.htm
NO! Al Gore is in it for himself? I thought he was a selfless guy, out for the environment. I mean, his movie DID make over $20 million and the budget was REAL low, and the majority of the crew worked on it for free...
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=inconvenienttruth.htm
ghost187
Apr 20, 07:35 PM
Yeah! My battery lasts for upwards of two days. Definitely not comparable at all to an iPhone.
Inferior interface is subjective, and you've given no reference so that comment is irrelevant.
Name me one app that you have on your iPhone that doesn't have a similar if not identical app on the Android Market.
Look, I have used several android phones due to changing networks a few times over the last year. And I will say this, an Android phone cannot last 2 days even on sleep mode. U put ur phone on ur desk unplugged at night with 100% battery, and by the morning, it will mysteriously go down to 60-70%. And trust me, I know everything about android from rooting, to roms, to kernals, so I know I am not doing anything dumb like leaving bunch of apps open and running.
Inferior interface is subjective, and you've given no reference so that comment is irrelevant.
Name me one app that you have on your iPhone that doesn't have a similar if not identical app on the Android Market.
Look, I have used several android phones due to changing networks a few times over the last year. And I will say this, an Android phone cannot last 2 days even on sleep mode. U put ur phone on ur desk unplugged at night with 100% battery, and by the morning, it will mysteriously go down to 60-70%. And trust me, I know everything about android from rooting, to roms, to kernals, so I know I am not doing anything dumb like leaving bunch of apps open and running.
0 comments:
Post a Comment