skunk
Mar 27, 08:51 AM
That's obviously ad hominem.Sometimes it's the homo that's the problem.
Sydde
Mar 14, 12:56 PM
Silly boy, the Earth's magma would swallow that 'little' pill with no problem.
And gravity has yet to go up. :p LOL
So who was it posting the map?
And gravity has yet to go up. :p LOL
So who was it posting the map?
GGJstudios
Apr 14, 03:03 PM
Stompy, a few posts back somebody mentioned that the OP was later banned. That might explain why he hasn't come back.
The OP was not banned. Just check the 1st post of this thread to see the OP is still around.
The OP was not banned. Just check the 1st post of this thread to see the OP is still around.
gkarris
Oct 7, 10:20 PM
1 iPhone Model (3 capacities) on AT&T vs many different Android Phones on all the other providers...
Seems possible to me...
(I can see a FREE Android Touchscreen phone with unlimited voice, data, and text for $70/month from someone out there to try to beat AT&T's offering - which isn't very hard to do...:eek:)
Seems possible to me...
(I can see a FREE Android Touchscreen phone with unlimited voice, data, and text for $70/month from someone out there to try to beat AT&T's offering - which isn't very hard to do...:eek:)
AppliedVisual
Oct 26, 10:07 AM
Just convince Apple to buy SGI.
At the rate SGI is going, I could probably buy SGI myself for whatever is in my pocket within the next year. Talk about a company that failed to follow the industry and adapt with the times... No point in anyone buying them, the only thing keeping them afloat is the few tidbits of technology they've licensed over the years, which is all just about obsolete now anyway. SGI hasn't had a new, innovative product in over 10 years. I think the first sign of the end was when SGI released their attempt at Windows workstations back in '98 and they were 1/3 the price and more than twice as powerful as any of their desktop Irix workstations. I ran a quad-CPU SGI540 for several years as a development server and render box with a dual-CPU SGI 340 as a workstation. Picked both of them up second-hand for a steal... Very nice systems, too bad SGI never followed through with support for them.
Sad too because I essentially started doing commercial 3D graphics work on an SGI Indigo. Owned various SGIs over the years - Indy, a few Indigo2 models, O2 (crap), Octane... 1 Origin 200 server. Never considered buying Fuel or Tezro (their last two workstation attempts) -- way too expensive and very much underpowered compared to PC/Mac.
At the rate SGI is going, I could probably buy SGI myself for whatever is in my pocket within the next year. Talk about a company that failed to follow the industry and adapt with the times... No point in anyone buying them, the only thing keeping them afloat is the few tidbits of technology they've licensed over the years, which is all just about obsolete now anyway. SGI hasn't had a new, innovative product in over 10 years. I think the first sign of the end was when SGI released their attempt at Windows workstations back in '98 and they were 1/3 the price and more than twice as powerful as any of their desktop Irix workstations. I ran a quad-CPU SGI540 for several years as a development server and render box with a dual-CPU SGI 340 as a workstation. Picked both of them up second-hand for a steal... Very nice systems, too bad SGI never followed through with support for them.
Sad too because I essentially started doing commercial 3D graphics work on an SGI Indigo. Owned various SGIs over the years - Indy, a few Indigo2 models, O2 (crap), Octane... 1 Origin 200 server. Never considered buying Fuel or Tezro (their last two workstation attempts) -- way too expensive and very much underpowered compared to PC/Mac.
Spectrum
Aug 29, 01:01 PM
Funny, I thought all people had "the right" to believe anything they liked. When did you gain the right to be so imperious and condescending towards others just because their opinion doesn't agree with their own?
People with selfish views harm ALL other people and the planet. By contrast, people with selfless views only harm those with selfish views. Thus, the fewer are the selfish, the better the world will become for the majority of the people.
People with selfish views harm ALL other people and the planet. By contrast, people with selfless views only harm those with selfish views. Thus, the fewer are the selfish, the better the world will become for the majority of the people.
killr_b
Jul 12, 03:56 PM
And finally... you have a black macbook pro? I'm impressed. :P So did you use Krylon?
Dude, check it out... http://www.colorwarepc.com/products/select_MacBookPro.aspx
A black Macbook Pro looks cool, right. :cool:
Dude, check it out... http://www.colorwarepc.com/products/select_MacBookPro.aspx
A black Macbook Pro looks cool, right. :cool:
KnightWRX
May 2, 06:55 PM
Bugs are flaws in the overall security model.
Bugs are flaws in the implementation, not the model, at least for those you are referring to. Unless you have a model flaw to demonstrate (like the SSL protocol of 2009 bug) you're being completely besides the point.
Part of an OSs security model includes the implementation of exploit mitigations. The best exploit mitigation is to have as few bugs as possible. Obviously, in relation to privilege escalation, OS X has far fewer bugs.
Again, this has nothing to do with the "Unix security model", only to less known bugs.
At this point, I doubt you're even interested in having a serious discussion on this issue... I think I'll just stop replying to you.
Bugs are flaws in the implementation, not the model, at least for those you are referring to. Unless you have a model flaw to demonstrate (like the SSL protocol of 2009 bug) you're being completely besides the point.
Part of an OSs security model includes the implementation of exploit mitigations. The best exploit mitigation is to have as few bugs as possible. Obviously, in relation to privilege escalation, OS X has far fewer bugs.
Again, this has nothing to do with the "Unix security model", only to less known bugs.
At this point, I doubt you're even interested in having a serious discussion on this issue... I think I'll just stop replying to you.
snoopy
Oct 11, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by javajedi
%IMG_DESC_10%
%IMG_DESC_11%
%IMG_DESC_12%
%IMG_DESC_13%
%IMG_DESC_14%
%IMG_DESC_15%
%IMG_DESC_16%
%IMG_DESC_17%
%IMG_DESC_18%
%IMG_DESC_19%
supmango
Mar 18, 10:34 AM
The thing that I don't like about this is that data is data. Whether it's coming from a PC thru my iPhone, or directly from my iPhone.....it's still DATA. I can't stand that they charge an extra $20 for using data that I already pay for. It's double dipping, and therefore I will refuse to use the feature. I would absolutely love to tether. There's been times where I needed it, and even though I'm jailbroken, haven't used it. I seriously think this is an area for a class action.
They actually give you an extra 2gb of data now with the tethering plan. I suspect you argument is one of the main reasons that was implemented.
They actually give you an extra 2gb of data now with the tethering plan. I suspect you argument is one of the main reasons that was implemented.
Mord
Jul 12, 05:00 PM
This thread is getting too funny. Apple has been so far behind on power these past few years and now we get the chance to use Conroe, and suddenly that's not good enough for the Mac snobs. Conroe is an extremely fast chip (especially compared to G5), so I don't get why some people think it's a bad choice for the pro-line up. Sure, it can't do smp, but not everyone needs or want to pay for quad processing.
So, aside from the ability to do multiple processing, what advantages does Woodcrest have that make it mandatory to go in the pro-line? How much "faster" is it going to be over the Conroe? It's my understanding that they are identical in that respect.
if you don't need all the power you can get the mac pro is not for you, apple does not do a consumer tower and most likely never will, they simply must have a quad settup and if they have two configs of them (a 3GHz and a 2.66) they may as well keep the low end option on the same platform, this has been said again and again and again, conroe is not bad it just does not make sense for apple to use it in the mac pro, conroe goes in the imac.
So, aside from the ability to do multiple processing, what advantages does Woodcrest have that make it mandatory to go in the pro-line? How much "faster" is it going to be over the Conroe? It's my understanding that they are identical in that respect.
if you don't need all the power you can get the mac pro is not for you, apple does not do a consumer tower and most likely never will, they simply must have a quad settup and if they have two configs of them (a 3GHz and a 2.66) they may as well keep the low end option on the same platform, this has been said again and again and again, conroe is not bad it just does not make sense for apple to use it in the mac pro, conroe goes in the imac.
iAlan
Jul 11, 10:42 PM
I guess time will tell, but Apple needs to get something kickass out the door around WWDC. I think we have all been waiting for hte final piece in the puzzle: pro laptops - covered, consumer laptops - covered, consumer desktop - covered, pro desktops - waiting...
slu
Sep 12, 03:32 PM
Could you please provide a link to the coverage? I never heard of this.
Are you serious? Check the front page much? :rolleyes:
Are you serious? Check the front page much? :rolleyes:
maxspivak
Sep 12, 04:00 PM
This device eliminates the need to burn discs for video and makes it easier to view content - however acquired - that's already on your computer. Bravo. Simple.
But at what quality??? Q1 2007 is as late as end of March. HD-DVD came out in April and BluRay in -- what -- May? So almost a year later Apple introduces a device that will play *near* (i.e. lower than) DVD-quality when the market is finally warming up to HD quality disks.
Regular DVD is 480i. Say that near-dvd quality is 420i. It will look like crap on that "big screen plasma" Jobs talked about.
He's marketing it to someone who will plug it into a $5K+ TV. At that price point, give us HD playback, both optical and streaming/downloaded, legally. I'd be happy to pay double or triple for a box that does it smoothly.
But at what quality??? Q1 2007 is as late as end of March. HD-DVD came out in April and BluRay in -- what -- May? So almost a year later Apple introduces a device that will play *near* (i.e. lower than) DVD-quality when the market is finally warming up to HD quality disks.
Regular DVD is 480i. Say that near-dvd quality is 420i. It will look like crap on that "big screen plasma" Jobs talked about.
He's marketing it to someone who will plug it into a $5K+ TV. At that price point, give us HD playback, both optical and streaming/downloaded, legally. I'd be happy to pay double or triple for a box that does it smoothly.
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:
skunk
Mar 14, 05:41 PM
that could be one way to go, another would be having sun/wind farms in the middle of the ocean, to be moved out of the way when weather comes along.Haven't we screwed with the oceans long enough?
one problem with this off-site approaches is that you still have to transfer the energy long distanceDC power lines. Edison would approve.
one problem with this off-site approaches is that you still have to transfer the energy long distanceDC power lines. Edison would approve.
miles01110
May 2, 09:34 AM
Mac OS X fanboys really need to stop clinging to the mentality that "viruses" don't exist for OS X and that "malware" is a Windows-only problem. Who cares if viruses don't exist for OS X? News flash: viruses aren't all that common on Windows anymore. They just aren't. Phishing, Spear Phishing, trojans, and social engineering are much more cost- and time-effective ways to breach a computer's security.
So no matter what you call "MACDefender," it's a problem. One that's not likely to be caught by a user who has been fed the Koolaid that malware is a Windows problem and that they don't need to be aware.
So no matter what you call "MACDefender," it's a problem. One that's not likely to be caught by a user who has been fed the Koolaid that malware is a Windows problem and that they don't need to be aware.
myamid
Sep 12, 06:52 PM
Wow, a TON OF YOU totally miss the iTV purpose, to stream content FROM YOUR MAC! That's why no tuner, no storage, no anything!! Does Airport Express have storage, an antenna, etc?!? NO!!!
I love this! I want one today! I'm going to get a huge HD, maybe two of them and start my stored media collection on my G5 that I can wirelessly access in my HT room from the iTV's wireless remote!! I love it!! Music, Family photos in a slide show, eyegato to record HD programs!! Awesome!!!
This so rocks and will make a ton of money for Apple! I can't wait, this is truly what I've been looking for as there's no HDMI out on my G5!!
Ok, if you're SOOOOO thrilled, you've been living in a cave because you could've been doing that for years, there's nothing new here aside for an apple logo on the box... the EyeHome could do that for the last 3 years (no storage, with a remote, streaming from my mac over Wifi - the eyehome physically connected to the router, my Mac on Wifi) (http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyehome ). And you're right, it's great... Too bad you still have to wait 6 months :P
I love this! I want one today! I'm going to get a huge HD, maybe two of them and start my stored media collection on my G5 that I can wirelessly access in my HT room from the iTV's wireless remote!! I love it!! Music, Family photos in a slide show, eyegato to record HD programs!! Awesome!!!
This so rocks and will make a ton of money for Apple! I can't wait, this is truly what I've been looking for as there's no HDMI out on my G5!!
Ok, if you're SOOOOO thrilled, you've been living in a cave because you could've been doing that for years, there's nothing new here aside for an apple logo on the box... the EyeHome could do that for the last 3 years (no storage, with a remote, streaming from my mac over Wifi - the eyehome physically connected to the router, my Mac on Wifi) (http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyehome ). And you're right, it's great... Too bad you still have to wait 6 months :P
LQYoshi
Apr 11, 10:54 AM
I think you'll love your Mac mini, I'm a big fan of the form factor.
As far as you father, I expect he'll be impressed with it if he's not a tech person. I know people always seemed impressed the Mac mini was a full computer, and OS X makes it even cool.
If he is a tech person, he might insist that PCs are cheaper, but not in the same form factor(its rather hard to find a simiar PC with Intel chip...Dell makes the Zino HD, but it runs on AMD) And you can always run XP/Windows 7 to make him happy.
True true. It seems like a lot of money but it should be worth it. I've wanted this a long time.
Would it be possible/legal to create a Virtual machine on my mac mini running OSX Lion (when it's released) if I don't want to upgrade from Snow Leopard to Lion on my mini (when I get it/lion is out)?
As far as you father, I expect he'll be impressed with it if he's not a tech person. I know people always seemed impressed the Mac mini was a full computer, and OS X makes it even cool.
If he is a tech person, he might insist that PCs are cheaper, but not in the same form factor(its rather hard to find a simiar PC with Intel chip...Dell makes the Zino HD, but it runs on AMD) And you can always run XP/Windows 7 to make him happy.
True true. It seems like a lot of money but it should be worth it. I've wanted this a long time.
Would it be possible/legal to create a Virtual machine on my mac mini running OSX Lion (when it's released) if I don't want to upgrade from Snow Leopard to Lion on my mini (when I get it/lion is out)?
UnixMac
Oct 7, 07:27 PM
No....you did no such thing, and no offense was taken. I didn't join this thread till the last post. I only used Hitler as an example becasue it rang true of the same kind of "head in the sand" attitude we in the Mac community take at times.
Piggie
Apr 28, 02:06 PM
Well, in the future I'm talking about involving cloud computing, the link will be there but it will be over the air. But it seems you are talking about not having any link to iTunes. But then what do you want to link it to? The Android app market? Cydia? I mean, you need to have some place to link it to in order to hook into the world of apps (plus backups, etc.) Even our PCs are not standalone by that definition, basically needing a Net connection to get much done.
So what is an independent device to you? Independent of what?
I want it to be like a PC, a Mac or a Laptop.
I don't want to have to "Link" it to anything to do anything. I want a tablet to do everything itself without needing any linking to add functionality.
I don't want to "Link" it to any market, I want to download programs onto it, in the same way you can download apps onto a PC or a Mac without using any market if I so wish.
Backup?
You only do "Backups" like this to mobile temp devices, like phones and PDA's.
Sure, I can "COPY" my data onto a storage device if I wish, or perhaps another computer. Just like you do a PC or a Mac.
I don't take a full image of my PC and sync it to an even bigger computer. As my PC "IS" my bigger computer.
I want to be able to download data from my Tablet onto Any PC or MAC in the world by connecting a USB lead between the two and moving my data across, and perhaps upload some data from that PC or Mac also. Just like we can between Laptops, Macbooks, PC's and iMac's.
That's what I want. A Free and independent Tablet, not linked or synced or docked to any "larger" computer.
You don't do this with your Macbook as it's an independent computer in it's own right. All I want is the same from a Tablet.
So what is an independent device to you? Independent of what?
I want it to be like a PC, a Mac or a Laptop.
I don't want to have to "Link" it to anything to do anything. I want a tablet to do everything itself without needing any linking to add functionality.
I don't want to "Link" it to any market, I want to download programs onto it, in the same way you can download apps onto a PC or a Mac without using any market if I so wish.
Backup?
You only do "Backups" like this to mobile temp devices, like phones and PDA's.
Sure, I can "COPY" my data onto a storage device if I wish, or perhaps another computer. Just like you do a PC or a Mac.
I don't take a full image of my PC and sync it to an even bigger computer. As my PC "IS" my bigger computer.
I want to be able to download data from my Tablet onto Any PC or MAC in the world by connecting a USB lead between the two and moving my data across, and perhaps upload some data from that PC or Mac also. Just like we can between Laptops, Macbooks, PC's and iMac's.
That's what I want. A Free and independent Tablet, not linked or synced or docked to any "larger" computer.
You don't do this with your Macbook as it's an independent computer in it's own right. All I want is the same from a Tablet.
capvideo
Mar 20, 01:32 PM
It's not just iTunes, but all copyright law. A CD is a license to use the track, not ownership of the song's music or lyrics. An AAC from iTunes is the same. Same with movies and software, etc. In any situation, you are buying a license to use the song, not to take ownership of the song (unless you're buying the *rights* to a song, then you really do own it).
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
I rant much more about this at my blog:
http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9
Jerry
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
I rant much more about this at my blog:
http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9
Jerry
Ludeman
Sep 22, 11:09 AM
think they've sold it to me! currently got a g4 tower which does'nt play hidef to well and was thinking about either upgrading���, or getting a mini���. but now they've announced iTV(�200bargin!!!). soon i will hopefully be able serve my iTV all the media off my terrabyte hd plus the hundreds of dvd's. thanks to the ever useful "toppy"! and play it all when i want on my big hidef lcd tv and great surrond sound hi-fi in the living room thanks to iTV! personally i think apple are on to a winner, why is everbody wanting more?
shawnce
Jul 12, 05:07 PM
So, aside from the ability to do multiple processing, what advantages does Woodcrest have that make it mandatory to go in the pro-line? How much "faster" is it going to be over the Conroe? It's my understanding that they are identical in that respect.
All of the Core / Core 2 based processors support SMP (they have two cores after all) but only the Xeon class chips and related chipset supports the ability to have more then a single CPU socket.
All of the Core / Core 2 based processors support SMP (they have two cores after all) but only the Xeon class chips and related chipset supports the ability to have more then a single CPU socket.
No comments:
Post a Comment