NikeTalk
Apr 8, 10:35 PM
Real games aren't played on an iDevice. Say what you want, it's true at the moment. No need to look into the future..........cause you don't know what it holds. And if you do tell me if i'll be at work Monday please! (Gov worker)
Azathoth
May 2, 10:51 AM
It is safer to run under an administrator account all the time in OS X than in Windows. On Windows, the administrator is almost the equivalent to the root account on *nixes and as such has unrestricted access to any and all files on the system.
Windows Vista & 7 have the UAC - meaning that admin accounts are effectively the same as on *nix & OS X.
It works well (on Win7)
Windows Vista & 7 have the UAC - meaning that admin accounts are effectively the same as on *nix & OS X.
It works well (on Win7)
stcanard
Mar 18, 03:52 PM
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?
The DRM has nothing to do with ITMS's business model.
You've been able to strip the DRM out of these for ages (without the burn/rip cycle). All of these songs exist on the various P2P networks. People are still buying from the store.
If you build your business model on the assumption that everybody is a thief, you just become as hated as the RIAA.
Apple understands this. Its worked very well with the software sales (after all there is no copy protection on their consumer apps). It's working with song sales. All you have to do is hit the right price / feature point.
The DRM has nothing to do with ITMS's business model.
You've been able to strip the DRM out of these for ages (without the burn/rip cycle). All of these songs exist on the various P2P networks. People are still buying from the store.
If you build your business model on the assumption that everybody is a thief, you just become as hated as the RIAA.
Apple understands this. Its worked very well with the software sales (after all there is no copy protection on their consumer apps). It's working with song sales. All you have to do is hit the right price / feature point.
citizenzen
Mar 28, 11:49 AM
He wouldn't have to: he wears his dogma on his sleeve.
Is that your dogma, or are you just happy to see me?
Is that your dogma, or are you just happy to see me?
brepublican
Aug 29, 11:07 AM
Boo hoo. its a business, waht do they realistically expect?
Yeah its a business. But you gotta give back to the community. Whats the point in reaping huge profits off consumers then destroying the earth? It's not that drammatic, but if every company were like Apple, it'd definitely not bode well for the environment :mad:
Yeah its a business. But you gotta give back to the community. Whats the point in reaping huge profits off consumers then destroying the earth? It's not that drammatic, but if every company were like Apple, it'd definitely not bode well for the environment :mad:
Aduntu
Apr 22, 08:56 PM
If you want to argue about your religion(or lack there of), it's probably better to you use this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1019714). We've covered a lot of ground there.
This thread is about why there is a higher demographic of Atheists in this particular forum.
My apologies.
This thread is about why there is a higher demographic of Atheists in this particular forum.
My apologies.
ksegel
Nov 10, 12:58 PM
I have the iphone 3gs, and at&t; has never been able to get their act together with the iPhone but with the os upgrades service seems to keep getting worse.
Do you think problems will be resolved when / if verizon has access to the iphone (effectively lowering the burden on at&t;, even thought they probably still wont be able to keep up)
Do you think problems will be resolved when / if verizon has access to the iphone (effectively lowering the burden on at&t;, even thought they probably still wont be able to keep up)
bruinsrme
Oct 7, 02:30 PM
Looking at this from my perspective I can see why.
I do not prefer to have the "Steve Jobs phone" staring at me in the face every time I turn the phne on. I prefer to have the appearance of the icons, background, ringtones and whatever else I feel like changing without having to jump through all the hoops of jailbreaking.
If the Android platforms offer a decent distribution channel for their work, a hassle free user interface, a major carrier (ATT or verizon) and music manager well that is what I am currently looking for.
I think such a platfe available prior to June 2010 when I will be ready to change.
So the Android platform already has at least 3 potential customers
I do not prefer to have the "Steve Jobs phone" staring at me in the face every time I turn the phne on. I prefer to have the appearance of the icons, background, ringtones and whatever else I feel like changing without having to jump through all the hoops of jailbreaking.
If the Android platforms offer a decent distribution channel for their work, a hassle free user interface, a major carrier (ATT or verizon) and music manager well that is what I am currently looking for.
I think such a platfe available prior to June 2010 when I will be ready to change.
So the Android platform already has at least 3 potential customers
Full of Win
Apr 13, 03:45 AM
Please, be more dramatic. :rolleyes:
Is that a request?
This is an amazing update. It's everything FCP has needed for a long time. And you're upset because it looks like iMovie? I swear, it doesn't matter what Apple does, whenever there's an update by Apple there will always be people like you who will NEVER be happy. I'm surprised you aren't complaining that it's not a free download. Stop acting like a victim. No one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to buy it.
I see it as emblematic of the direction that Apple is taking away from the pro market. With that said, I'll likely buy it, since it looks like a nice prosumer-focused package. Three hundred dollar for what they are offering is not a bad deal at all. I just hope it comes on DVD, so I can point my bony finger at the box and tell it how it does not hold a candle to its older brothers.
Is that a request?
This is an amazing update. It's everything FCP has needed for a long time. And you're upset because it looks like iMovie? I swear, it doesn't matter what Apple does, whenever there's an update by Apple there will always be people like you who will NEVER be happy. I'm surprised you aren't complaining that it's not a free download. Stop acting like a victim. No one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to buy it.
I see it as emblematic of the direction that Apple is taking away from the pro market. With that said, I'll likely buy it, since it looks like a nice prosumer-focused package. Three hundred dollar for what they are offering is not a bad deal at all. I just hope it comes on DVD, so I can point my bony finger at the box and tell it how it does not hold a candle to its older brothers.
BRLawyer
May 2, 02:08 PM
They have done nothing to discourage it? Well, they introduced an annoying pop-up asking for confirmation that makes the developers customers frustrated. Any suggestion what other meaningful action they can take?
Also, I can't think of any application I have installed on my Windows PC that behaves like this.
When I first started using a Mac seriously, which was when Vista was out and got criticized for UAC, I was really surprised to discover that OS X has the exact same thing. In Windows 7 you not only have the option to switch it on and off, you can also customize the intrusiveness of it, I find it much more user friendly than in OS X.
I think a lot of people here need to actually try Windows 7 out instead of categorically dismiss it.
To compare Windows' extremely annoying UAC crap with the non-intrusive one-time authorization requests for newly-downloaded files on Mac OS X is ludicrous...not to mention the fact that OS X's user password validity lasts for a while after it is typed.
Conclusion: You've probably never really used OS X.
Also, I can't think of any application I have installed on my Windows PC that behaves like this.
When I first started using a Mac seriously, which was when Vista was out and got criticized for UAC, I was really surprised to discover that OS X has the exact same thing. In Windows 7 you not only have the option to switch it on and off, you can also customize the intrusiveness of it, I find it much more user friendly than in OS X.
I think a lot of people here need to actually try Windows 7 out instead of categorically dismiss it.
To compare Windows' extremely annoying UAC crap with the non-intrusive one-time authorization requests for newly-downloaded files on Mac OS X is ludicrous...not to mention the fact that OS X's user password validity lasts for a while after it is typed.
Conclusion: You've probably never really used OS X.
bruinsrme
Apr 19, 09:27 PM
There is a few things
I miss the start button. The dock is handy but I prefer the start button and quick access tool bar.
remove programs
My network places
scratching my head on how to easily open a new tab on safari when only a single safari window is open
I seem to close a lot of safari windows instead of hitting the back button.
Still learning OSx.
I miss the start button. The dock is handy but I prefer the start button and quick access tool bar.
remove programs
My network places
scratching my head on how to easily open a new tab on safari when only a single safari window is open
I seem to close a lot of safari windows instead of hitting the back button.
Still learning OSx.
charliehustle
Oct 8, 05:03 PM
..and of course more people using Google's services. I think their major issue was that smartphone makers like Apple and Microsoft have a decided interest in leading users to their own, non-Google services, while "old school" mobile phone companies like Nokia or Motorola don't even have many Web services to speak of. Apple may still be using quite a few Google services, but haven't they just bought a Google Maps competitor? And Google, MS and Apple are all competing in the "Docs" department.
Still, I'm not convinced that the Android investment was really necessary. Microsoft, their biggest enemy, is failing in the mobile OS market, whereas Apple isn't really showing any signs they might target Google's core business, the search engine and Web ads, in the future.
I wonder in which way Google sees its "auxiliary" services (Mail, Docs, Maps, Voice, Wave, et bloody cetera) as a future money maker. They must play a key role for the Android stretgy. However, quite a few people (including me) have my doubts about them. Even the highly successful YouTube isn't making any money.
I never doubted that Google as a pure software company may have a better margin, but you would need to compare Apple's iPhone business to Google Android business and see who is making more money in total.
Ya, Don't get me wrong, I own an iPhone, and I can't really see anything coming close to it in the next few years.
And it's not that big of a deal if google takes over when it comes to market share, especially when they're giving android away for free.. (from a phone manufacturer point of view, it's saving them money)
IMO, Google knows that it's gonna be pretty hard for them to increase revenue from anywhere except advertising, and they want to allow people who (for whatever reason) choose not to buy an iphone, still a chance to browse then net easily to click on their adds...
17% of phones sold last year were smartphones, and I think thats going to increase year over year.. and regardless of what hardware you have, all google wants is more and more people on the internet, since they dominate online search.. (Bing is losing market share as we speak, and they're the only company with deep enough pockets to take a stab at google (microsofts operating cashflow is around 20 Billion, apple is only around 10 Billion)
and apple does not look like they will ever try to tackle google when it comes to search..
and personally, if there are over 30 phones running on android, it wouldn't be too hard to believe that for every one person that buys an iphone, there might be two people who purchase a phone that runs on android..
but again, I think people assume that this means apple will be inferior in some way because they will not dominate the market share..and this is not true..
they will continue to make a great product..and at the end of the day, it will inspire other companies to make better products..
and I know I just blabed on, but about the last part of your post.. I think it would be really hard to see who is making more money,
because google does not receive cash for android, but apple gains income from each iphone sale..
but google indirectly makes money off any smartphone that can access the internet (assuming they use google search)
at the end of the day, I like both companies for the service they provide.. I don't have a beef with apple in any way, even though it may sound like it..
Still, I'm not convinced that the Android investment was really necessary. Microsoft, their biggest enemy, is failing in the mobile OS market, whereas Apple isn't really showing any signs they might target Google's core business, the search engine and Web ads, in the future.
I wonder in which way Google sees its "auxiliary" services (Mail, Docs, Maps, Voice, Wave, et bloody cetera) as a future money maker. They must play a key role for the Android stretgy. However, quite a few people (including me) have my doubts about them. Even the highly successful YouTube isn't making any money.
I never doubted that Google as a pure software company may have a better margin, but you would need to compare Apple's iPhone business to Google Android business and see who is making more money in total.
Ya, Don't get me wrong, I own an iPhone, and I can't really see anything coming close to it in the next few years.
And it's not that big of a deal if google takes over when it comes to market share, especially when they're giving android away for free.. (from a phone manufacturer point of view, it's saving them money)
IMO, Google knows that it's gonna be pretty hard for them to increase revenue from anywhere except advertising, and they want to allow people who (for whatever reason) choose not to buy an iphone, still a chance to browse then net easily to click on their adds...
17% of phones sold last year were smartphones, and I think thats going to increase year over year.. and regardless of what hardware you have, all google wants is more and more people on the internet, since they dominate online search.. (Bing is losing market share as we speak, and they're the only company with deep enough pockets to take a stab at google (microsofts operating cashflow is around 20 Billion, apple is only around 10 Billion)
and apple does not look like they will ever try to tackle google when it comes to search..
and personally, if there are over 30 phones running on android, it wouldn't be too hard to believe that for every one person that buys an iphone, there might be two people who purchase a phone that runs on android..
but again, I think people assume that this means apple will be inferior in some way because they will not dominate the market share..and this is not true..
they will continue to make a great product..and at the end of the day, it will inspire other companies to make better products..
and I know I just blabed on, but about the last part of your post.. I think it would be really hard to see who is making more money,
because google does not receive cash for android, but apple gains income from each iphone sale..
but google indirectly makes money off any smartphone that can access the internet (assuming they use google search)
at the end of the day, I like both companies for the service they provide.. I don't have a beef with apple in any way, even though it may sound like it..
ehoui
Apr 27, 05:59 PM
No gods exist. There is not a shred of evidence, ontological or otherwise.
Perhaps we do not possess the mental capacity to observe or understand that he (or they) exist? How can one be sure that we do?
Perhaps we do not possess the mental capacity to observe or understand that he (or they) exist? How can one be sure that we do?
legacyb4
Sep 12, 06:28 PM
Hate to say it, but I agree... I've got an old P4/2.8 running MCE2005 with a TV tuner and while not outputting the highest quality video, it's fulfilling the role of what I want in my living room; namely, a digital recording device for TV content that can also play back DVDs and downloaded content. It'd be a plus if I actually used the computer but I'm a Mac man suffering the Windows solution for something that Apple hasn't fully provided me yet...
When this thing surpasses the capabilities of my Windows media center and Xbox 360 combo then I will be impressed. Until then Apple is playing catch up to MCE and playing it poorly.
When this thing surpasses the capabilities of my Windows media center and Xbox 360 combo then I will be impressed. Until then Apple is playing catch up to MCE and playing it poorly.
Gelfin
Apr 24, 03:03 PM
In answer to the OP's question, I have long harbored the suspicion (without any clear idea how to test it) that human beings have evolved their penchant for accepting nonsense. On the face of it, accepting that which does not correspond with reality is a very costly behavior. Animals that believe they need to sacrifice part of their food supply should be that much less likely to survive than those without that belief.
My hunch, however, is that the willingness to play along with certain kinds of nonsense games, including religion and other ritualized activities, is a social bonding mechanism in humans so deeply ingrained that it is difficult for us to step outside ourselves and recognize it for a game. One's willingness to play along with the rituals of a culture signifies that his need to be a part of the community is stronger than his need for rational justification. Consenting to accept a manufactured truth is an act of submission. It generates social cohesion and establishes shibboleths. In a way it is a constant background radiation of codependence and enablement permeating human existence.
If I go way too far out on this particular limb, I actually suspect that the ability to prioritize rational justification over social submission is a more recent development than we realize, and that this development is still competing with the old instincts for social cohesion. Perhaps this is the reason that atheists and skeptics are typically considered more objectionable than those with differing religious or supernatural beliefs. Playing the game under slightly different rules seems less dangerous than refusing to play at all.
Think of the undertones of the intuitive stereotype many people have of skeptics: many people automatically imagine a sort of bristly, unfriendly loner who isn't really happy and is always trying to make other people unhappy too. There is really no factual basis for this caricature, and yet it is almost universal. On this account, when we become adults we do not stop playing games of make-believe. Instead we just start taking our games of make-believe very seriously, and our intuitive sense is that someone who rejects our games is rejecting us. Such a person feels untrustworthy in a way we would find hard to justify.
Religions are hardly the only source of this sort of game. I suspect they are everywhere, often too subtle to notice, but religions are by far the largest, oldest, most obtrusive example.
My hunch, however, is that the willingness to play along with certain kinds of nonsense games, including religion and other ritualized activities, is a social bonding mechanism in humans so deeply ingrained that it is difficult for us to step outside ourselves and recognize it for a game. One's willingness to play along with the rituals of a culture signifies that his need to be a part of the community is stronger than his need for rational justification. Consenting to accept a manufactured truth is an act of submission. It generates social cohesion and establishes shibboleths. In a way it is a constant background radiation of codependence and enablement permeating human existence.
If I go way too far out on this particular limb, I actually suspect that the ability to prioritize rational justification over social submission is a more recent development than we realize, and that this development is still competing with the old instincts for social cohesion. Perhaps this is the reason that atheists and skeptics are typically considered more objectionable than those with differing religious or supernatural beliefs. Playing the game under slightly different rules seems less dangerous than refusing to play at all.
Think of the undertones of the intuitive stereotype many people have of skeptics: many people automatically imagine a sort of bristly, unfriendly loner who isn't really happy and is always trying to make other people unhappy too. There is really no factual basis for this caricature, and yet it is almost universal. On this account, when we become adults we do not stop playing games of make-believe. Instead we just start taking our games of make-believe very seriously, and our intuitive sense is that someone who rejects our games is rejecting us. Such a person feels untrustworthy in a way we would find hard to justify.
Religions are hardly the only source of this sort of game. I suspect they are everywhere, often too subtle to notice, but religions are by far the largest, oldest, most obtrusive example.
mspman
May 5, 12:45 PM
I've noticed over the past few weeks there have been more issues than normal with AT&T; in Minneapolis. Last week and the week before it I was getting at least 1 dropped call a day, sometimes two. And there are times when I'm in my condo when I don't get 3G, only EDGE. And I live downtown, so this should not be happening. Very frustrating!!
lord patton
Apr 12, 10:32 PM
$300! Makes me think Logic Studio X might be $199.
29point97
Apr 12, 11:55 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Just left. Waiting at the airport with some huge questions as a commercial editor. No talk of motion. If it's an app store download might be a small program no motion presets or content. I honestly wonder if there is a tape capture window. I didn't see a filters tab XML support or any kind os manager. Seems you edit color and export. I'm hoping it was just the sneakest of peeks and that there's a lot more hiding in there. Otherwise I'm holding onto fcp7 for dear life and wait for 11.
Just left. Waiting at the airport with some huge questions as a commercial editor. No talk of motion. If it's an app store download might be a small program no motion presets or content. I honestly wonder if there is a tape capture window. I didn't see a filters tab XML support or any kind os manager. Seems you edit color and export. I'm hoping it was just the sneakest of peeks and that there's a lot more hiding in there. Otherwise I'm holding onto fcp7 for dear life and wait for 11.
CQd44
May 2, 08:56 AM
"Huge" threat.
About as huge as most windows ones!
About as huge as most windows ones!
skunk
Mar 25, 02:51 PM
A license implies the privilege it confers can be revoked at any timeSo how many marriage licences get revoked? :confused:
Please provide 1 (one) example.
Please provide 1 (one) example.
alent1234
Aug 25, 12:24 PM
Another fallout from terrible AT&T; service is that in many shops and restaurants, at least in the San Francisco area, and especially Berkeley, you can't check in using location services like Foursquare or Facebook Places since there isn't adequate coverage- eg: no service, no signal etc.
That's bad for business.
Merchants too should press AT&T; and local authorities for more towers and better connections.
SJ said it takes 2 years to build a cell tower in the bay area. compared to something like 6 months in texas
That's bad for business.
Merchants too should press AT&T; and local authorities for more towers and better connections.
SJ said it takes 2 years to build a cell tower in the bay area. compared to something like 6 months in texas
munkery
May 2, 05:41 PM
What is "an installer" but an executable file and what prevents me from writing "an installer" that does more than just "installing".
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system.
I don't know of any Javascript DOM manipulation that lets you have write/read access to the local filesystem. This is already sandboxed.
The scripting engine in the current Safari is not yet sandboxed.
Here is a list of Javascript vulnerabilities:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+Javascript
The issue is Safari is launching an executable file that sits outside the browser sandbox.
In the current Safari, only some plugins are sandboxed, so this wasn't execution outside the sandbox.
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.
Except this:
Switching off or turning down UAC in Windows also equally impacts the strength of MIC (Windows sandboxing mechanism) because it functions based on inherited permissions. Unix DAC in Mac OS X functions via inherited permissions but MAC (mandatory access controls -> OS X sandbox) does not. Windows does not have a sandbox like OS X.
UAC, by default, does not use a unique identifier (password) so it is more susceptible to attacks the rely on spoofing prompts that appear to be unrelated to UAC to steal authentication. If a password is attached to authentication, these spoofed prompts fail to work.
Unix DAC is turned off in OS X in the root user account.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system.
I don't know of any Javascript DOM manipulation that lets you have write/read access to the local filesystem. This is already sandboxed.
The scripting engine in the current Safari is not yet sandboxed.
Here is a list of Javascript vulnerabilities:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+Javascript
The issue is Safari is launching an executable file that sits outside the browser sandbox.
In the current Safari, only some plugins are sandboxed, so this wasn't execution outside the sandbox.
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.
Except this:
Switching off or turning down UAC in Windows also equally impacts the strength of MIC (Windows sandboxing mechanism) because it functions based on inherited permissions. Unix DAC in Mac OS X functions via inherited permissions but MAC (mandatory access controls -> OS X sandbox) does not. Windows does not have a sandbox like OS X.
UAC, by default, does not use a unique identifier (password) so it is more susceptible to attacks the rely on spoofing prompts that appear to be unrelated to UAC to steal authentication. If a password is attached to authentication, these spoofed prompts fail to work.
Unix DAC is turned off in OS X in the root user account.
Rt&Dzine;
Mar 24, 07:06 PM
"When they express their moral beliefs or beliefs about human nature ... they are stigmatised, and worse -- they are vilified, and prosecuted.
"These attacks are violations of fundamental human rights and cannot be justified under any circumstances," Tomasi said.
As soon as they quit trying to legislate and force their beliefs on the rest of us, the sooner they will be left alone to wallow in their archaic beliefs.
"These attacks are violations of fundamental human rights and cannot be justified under any circumstances," Tomasi said.
As soon as they quit trying to legislate and force their beliefs on the rest of us, the sooner they will be left alone to wallow in their archaic beliefs.
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 03:37 PM
We're both in agreement here....I wasn't implying that we send of bags of GM rice to Africa without making sure it was safe, I was only saying that it's wrong not to research an idea that could (in theory) save so many lives.
For the record, I'm also not a fan of stem cell research if it kills the fetus, but I think it's maddening that GW won't fund research into harvesting stem cells WITHOUT killing the fetus....mind-blowing.
Ok, it looks like we agree. My point was just we should be careful so we don't kill off the planet while trying to save it.
Back to the topic; I think Greenpeace's statement is counterproductive. We have huge problems here on this planet and we just dont have the time to "polish the brass". I am afraid that people think that as long as they do something for the enviroment they are home free. That is just not true.
We dont save the planet by buying "greener" computers. True, it helps. But things are so f***d up right now, that we need to concentrate on the big issues, e.g. rainforest being chopped down, extinction of species, and most of all our consumption of fossile fuel.
Diverting the focus away from these issues, is almost as bad as ********** up the earth in the first place. Greenpeace has developed to something quite different than it started out as.
For the record, I'm also not a fan of stem cell research if it kills the fetus, but I think it's maddening that GW won't fund research into harvesting stem cells WITHOUT killing the fetus....mind-blowing.
Ok, it looks like we agree. My point was just we should be careful so we don't kill off the planet while trying to save it.
Back to the topic; I think Greenpeace's statement is counterproductive. We have huge problems here on this planet and we just dont have the time to "polish the brass". I am afraid that people think that as long as they do something for the enviroment they are home free. That is just not true.
We dont save the planet by buying "greener" computers. True, it helps. But things are so f***d up right now, that we need to concentrate on the big issues, e.g. rainforest being chopped down, extinction of species, and most of all our consumption of fossile fuel.
Diverting the focus away from these issues, is almost as bad as ********** up the earth in the first place. Greenpeace has developed to something quite different than it started out as.
