1town
Apr 28, 07:58 AM
Horrible headline.
You do not "slip" upwards.
You do not "slip" upwards.
LegendKillerUK
Mar 18, 09:22 AM
Please point that out in the contract, know it all.
Guess what, it isn't there.
Go look up the word Unlimited in the dictionary. Internalize and understand it. Come back here when you're done. Then come into a court room. Id like to sit back watch you (as I will eventually be watching AT&T) dance around the clear and concise definition of the word.
I've engaged in long, drawn out discussions with my legal pals about this very issue for several years, and they all agree it would completely impossible for AT&T to get out of court unscathed over this word "Unlimited"
Most of you people don't grasp the significance of the word in this case, which is not at all surprising given the crowd. (young and/or naive).
Most also think that because AT&T includes fine print in a contract, they can enforce it however they wish...which of course is a laughable fantasy to anyone who has sat through the first day of contract law.
y so mad?
I look forward to reading about your success against AT&T in the near future. Based on your immature responses I think we all have our answer on that.
Guess what, it isn't there.
Go look up the word Unlimited in the dictionary. Internalize and understand it. Come back here when you're done. Then come into a court room. Id like to sit back watch you (as I will eventually be watching AT&T) dance around the clear and concise definition of the word.
I've engaged in long, drawn out discussions with my legal pals about this very issue for several years, and they all agree it would completely impossible for AT&T to get out of court unscathed over this word "Unlimited"
Most of you people don't grasp the significance of the word in this case, which is not at all surprising given the crowd. (young and/or naive).
Most also think that because AT&T includes fine print in a contract, they can enforce it however they wish...which of course is a laughable fantasy to anyone who has sat through the first day of contract law.
y so mad?
I look forward to reading about your success against AT&T in the near future. Based on your immature responses I think we all have our answer on that.
mostman
Sep 20, 04:06 PM
it won't have any dvr functionality... it'll just be frontrow on your tv, and nothing else. woopdee freaking doo
Its an Airport Express for Video. Simple as that.
And I think you are significantly misunderstanding how much impact on the market a device like this will have. This is the way to marry the television to your digital content. People don't want a PC in the living room - but they do want to see their photos, watch their videos and listen to their music on their couch - using their television as a display.
These things will sell like crazy. Without DVR functionality. Remember, the DVR market is still small. Small enough to call 'fledgling'. Apple is nothing if not smart about taking proven market verticals and cleaning them up for the consumer. Small steps.
-Mike
Its an Airport Express for Video. Simple as that.
And I think you are significantly misunderstanding how much impact on the market a device like this will have. This is the way to marry the television to your digital content. People don't want a PC in the living room - but they do want to see their photos, watch their videos and listen to their music on their couch - using their television as a display.
These things will sell like crazy. Without DVR functionality. Remember, the DVR market is still small. Small enough to call 'fledgling'. Apple is nothing if not smart about taking proven market verticals and cleaning them up for the consumer. Small steps.
-Mike
Lacero
Mar 20, 09:59 PM
Apple will need to add a few extra Xserves to add DRM to the files before it uploads it to the end user. More bandwidth and processing power required to circumvent this hack. Or, iTMS would require post authentication to authorize the purchase or the user account gets suspended.
Chundles
Apr 8, 10:22 PM
Great news. Bring on more Infinity Blade-esque games! :D
Hmmm, swipe, swipe, swipe, next. Swipe, swipe, swipe, next.
Nah, gimme the Infinity Blade graphics but in a game that needs more than just flicking left or right.
Hmmm, swipe, swipe, swipe, next. Swipe, swipe, swipe, next.
Nah, gimme the Infinity Blade graphics but in a game that needs more than just flicking left or right.
jettredmont
May 2, 05:35 PM
Is your info from like 1993 ? Because this little known version of Windows dubbed "New Technology" or NT for short brought along something called the NTFS (New Technology File System) that has... *drumroll* ACLs and strict permissions with inheritance...
Unless you're running as administrator on a Windows NT based system, you're as protected as a "Unix/Linux" user. Of course, you can also run as root all the time under Unix, negating this "security".
Until Vista and Win 7, it was effectively impossible to run a Windows NT system as anything but Administrator. To the point that other than locked-down corporate sites where an IT Professional was required to install the Corporate Approved version of any software you need to do your job, I never knew anyone running XP (or 2k, or for that matter NT 3.x) who in a day-to-day fashion used a Standard user account.
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
Absolutely. I think it is absolutely critical to discern between a social-engineering attack (ie, one that requires a user to take some action unwittingly) from an automated attack (a classic virus or worm). The latter is certainly less common these days (although the "big boys" wanting to send Iranian nuclear reactors into convulsions seem to be keeping the dark art of worming alive and well), and so a typical user is much more likely to fall victim to a phishing scam than to get something nasty like the Asuza virus which wipes out their hard drive after an incubation period.
From the main "security firms", though, the money is in making all malware seem automated and thus only able to be countered by an automated virus detection/isolation utility. There just isn't much money in telling people to not click "Install" when MACDefender's installer comes up while looking through Google Images.
Unless you're running as administrator on a Windows NT based system, you're as protected as a "Unix/Linux" user. Of course, you can also run as root all the time under Unix, negating this "security".
Until Vista and Win 7, it was effectively impossible to run a Windows NT system as anything but Administrator. To the point that other than locked-down corporate sites where an IT Professional was required to install the Corporate Approved version of any software you need to do your job, I never knew anyone running XP (or 2k, or for that matter NT 3.x) who in a day-to-day fashion used a Standard user account.
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
Absolutely. I think it is absolutely critical to discern between a social-engineering attack (ie, one that requires a user to take some action unwittingly) from an automated attack (a classic virus or worm). The latter is certainly less common these days (although the "big boys" wanting to send Iranian nuclear reactors into convulsions seem to be keeping the dark art of worming alive and well), and so a typical user is much more likely to fall victim to a phishing scam than to get something nasty like the Asuza virus which wipes out their hard drive after an incubation period.
From the main "security firms", though, the money is in making all malware seem automated and thus only able to be countered by an automated virus detection/isolation utility. There just isn't much money in telling people to not click "Install" when MACDefender's installer comes up while looking through Google Images.
benixau
Oct 10, 12:07 PM
maybe, anyway I tell my buddies that a mac works. It is great to have all that speed but here is a thought:
I have a PC that is really 5x as fast as a mac
I spend 5x as long setting it up as i do the mac
I am also 5x less productive on it then a mac as it keeps breaking
I may not be a great mathematician but 5x5 = 25. 25x less usable than a mac. Personal experience proves this.
Long Live King Mac!! Long Live King Mac!!
For the dark side to wonder at how easy I get my life done
I have a PC that is really 5x as fast as a mac
I spend 5x as long setting it up as i do the mac
I am also 5x less productive on it then a mac as it keeps breaking
I may not be a great mathematician but 5x5 = 25. 25x less usable than a mac. Personal experience proves this.
Long Live King Mac!! Long Live King Mac!!
For the dark side to wonder at how easy I get my life done
Phil A.
Aug 29, 03:13 PM
That's not true. The UK will miss the targets that Tony Blair committed [us] to. Blair's standards were almost double the standard Kyoto targets. We'll miss the Blair targets (surprise surprise) but we should hit the Kyoto targets. See here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4849672.stm).
Of course, much of Kyoto is rendered moot because the US refuses to ratify the treaty because "it will harm the economy." :rolleyes:
That's kind of my point - the UK committed (or was committed) to unrealistic goals and will fail to meet them. Anyone can commit to anything - actually delivering on those commitments is completely different
Of course, much of Kyoto is rendered moot because the US refuses to ratify the treaty because "it will harm the economy." :rolleyes:
That's kind of my point - the UK committed (or was committed) to unrealistic goals and will fail to meet them. Anyone can commit to anything - actually delivering on those commitments is completely different
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 05:37 PM
If I even dare comment on the last thing, the thread topic will change.
I think it's a bit late to worry about that :D
I think it's a bit late to worry about that :D
Silentwave
Jul 11, 10:39 PM
Sounds like these new Mac Pros are going to be expensive.
but worth it :D. if they get conroe i fully expect that most every G5 will be outclassed by IMACS at many applications. Depends on how much RAM they give it though. I hope they give imac at least 4GB capacity, and 256VRAM.
but worth it :D. if they get conroe i fully expect that most every G5 will be outclassed by IMACS at many applications. Depends on how much RAM they give it though. I hope they give imac at least 4GB capacity, and 256VRAM.
�algiris
May 2, 09:30 AM
How stupid does a user needs to be in order to install, run and then enter credit card information into an application that pops up by itself?
:eek:
Indeed. He (user in general) can be running NASA mainframe, but if he's dumbass nothing will help.
:eek:
Indeed. He (user in general) can be running NASA mainframe, but if he's dumbass nothing will help.
miniroll32
Apr 13, 03:39 AM
Is it any coincidence that the "so-called" Pros in this discussion (who have probably never even used FCP) are complaining about the Interface simply because it looks like iMovie, and so therefore must be "cheap/un-professional"? Its laughable! I'm sure these individuals don't even understand half the new features on offer which, of course, have been long waited.
My argument is simple - Unless you use this software on a regular basis, don't judge a book by its cover. Its no different to Logic Pro 8, for which I recall members were slamming because it had "no new big features", despite the fact it did.
My argument is simple - Unless you use this software on a regular basis, don't judge a book by its cover. Its no different to Logic Pro 8, for which I recall members were slamming because it had "no new big features", despite the fact it did.
D4F
Apr 28, 09:19 AM
Tablets like the iPad, Xoom, G-Slate, heck, even smartphones like the iPhone, Droid, Incredible, etc.. are all lower case "pc"s. As in, they are computers that are personal. They aren't upper case PCs, as in IBM PC compatible.
Servers based on Intel architecture processors like the C7000 chassis blades are not lower case "pc"s, as in, they aren't personal computer systems. They are servers (also why are we talking about servers here ? Is there even any evidence Catalyst is including those in HP's and Dell's numbers ? I doubt they are...). They are however (again, the Intel variant) upper case PCs, as in IBM PC compatible .
PC (Personal Computer) is an architecture defined in the 80s by IBM. pc is a personal computer. Learn the difference boys and girls.
Should the Tablet sales be included in charts like these ? I don't think so, this is just a very pro Apple analyst group trying to make it look like Apple is having more success in a segment they have usually lagged a bit in (though in which they are still showing quite the growth and beating expectations without the iPad).
The hardware components in a server go through much more testing for reliability. They are meant to work 24/7.
Pretty much what you get is same stuff with better components/materials and etc. Does BMW differ any from FORD? Not really but in general what's believed they use better stuff.
Same thing with PCs. Server it's just a nice window for companies like Dell to put a higher $$ tag on it. What consumer gets is better warranty and USUALLY less power simply to prevent overheating issues that arise from long term continous usage.
I use server chips in my home PC for that exact reason. They are no different but "should" last longer and that is why I spend extra $$ on them.
Just a term.
*nice article that points few differences between a xeon and a Core 2 Quad.
http://techreport.com/articles.x/14555
Servers based on Intel architecture processors like the C7000 chassis blades are not lower case "pc"s, as in, they aren't personal computer systems. They are servers (also why are we talking about servers here ? Is there even any evidence Catalyst is including those in HP's and Dell's numbers ? I doubt they are...). They are however (again, the Intel variant) upper case PCs, as in IBM PC compatible .
PC (Personal Computer) is an architecture defined in the 80s by IBM. pc is a personal computer. Learn the difference boys and girls.
Should the Tablet sales be included in charts like these ? I don't think so, this is just a very pro Apple analyst group trying to make it look like Apple is having more success in a segment they have usually lagged a bit in (though in which they are still showing quite the growth and beating expectations without the iPad).
The hardware components in a server go through much more testing for reliability. They are meant to work 24/7.
Pretty much what you get is same stuff with better components/materials and etc. Does BMW differ any from FORD? Not really but in general what's believed they use better stuff.
Same thing with PCs. Server it's just a nice window for companies like Dell to put a higher $$ tag on it. What consumer gets is better warranty and USUALLY less power simply to prevent overheating issues that arise from long term continous usage.
I use server chips in my home PC for that exact reason. They are no different but "should" last longer and that is why I spend extra $$ on them.
Just a term.
*nice article that points few differences between a xeon and a Core 2 Quad.
http://techreport.com/articles.x/14555
.JPG "Go Daddy Danica Patrick")
skunk
Apr 27, 01:51 PM
The Judaeo-Christian God has certain attributes which I listed. Does this Ugaritic God share the same attributes, ie omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence?You can give a god any attributes you want.
ct2k7
Oct 7, 03:27 PM
What are you guys talking about?
Didn't Adobe just show a new Flash IDE that generates native iPhone Apps ?
Go Daddy.com and Danica
danica patrick go daddy video
danica patrick go daddy video.
Didn't Adobe just show a new Flash IDE that generates native iPhone Apps ?
AhmedFaisal
Mar 15, 10:58 PM
I see you still haven't explained what you meant by "contained".
I did.
I did.
roland.g
Sep 20, 10:28 AM
I'm quit sure Steve Jobs demonstrated it to him in his house.Informing him about the hard drive.
I want to get invited to Steve's house for a BBQ. I'll bring the beer if he supplies the Apples. ;)
I want to get invited to Steve's house for a BBQ. I'll bring the beer if he supplies the Apples. ;)
flopticalcube
Apr 24, 12:09 PM
And Fear.
And an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope...
Danica+patrick+go+daddy+
And an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope...
BC2009
Apr 15, 12:00 PM
Sexual orientation is just another excuse for bullying. Its been going on for centuries even before it was about sexual orientation (e.g.: social standing, wealth, ethnicity, religion, body weight, athletic ability, intellectual ability -- pick one).
It has always been wrong and it needs to be prevented, but I don't see it changing any time soon. If it ever becomes "main stream" for teenagers to be homosexual or bisexual, then bullies will just choose something else to differentiate on and then bully people based on that. It's sad.
The best defense is parents, teachers, and school counselors building up the self esteem of children so as to prevent others from tearing it down. The truth of the matter for these kids is that it does "get better". The best quote in their was that bullies are at the "height of their power" at age 15 or 16 -- it's true. Usually, bullies do what they do because they are insecure about some deficiency they perceive in themselves and so they try to feel powerful by tearing others down. That insecurity translates into a higher likelihood for failures later in life and unfortunately the easiest people to bully when they are older is their own spouse and children.
It has always been wrong and it needs to be prevented, but I don't see it changing any time soon. If it ever becomes "main stream" for teenagers to be homosexual or bisexual, then bullies will just choose something else to differentiate on and then bully people based on that. It's sad.
The best defense is parents, teachers, and school counselors building up the self esteem of children so as to prevent others from tearing it down. The truth of the matter for these kids is that it does "get better". The best quote in their was that bullies are at the "height of their power" at age 15 or 16 -- it's true. Usually, bullies do what they do because they are insecure about some deficiency they perceive in themselves and so they try to feel powerful by tearing others down. That insecurity translates into a higher likelihood for failures later in life and unfortunately the easiest people to bully when they are older is their own spouse and children.
SandynJosh
Apr 9, 04:19 AM
Gaming on idevices is for nubes. Live on PS3, Xbox and the future NGP.
Let me watch you play those on the subway. This is all about portable gaming.
Let me watch you play those on the subway. This is all about portable gaming.
blindzero
May 5, 05:49 PM
I'm just outside of DC and don't have any issues with dropped calls or missed voicemails.
I did when I was on Edge, but since 3G it's been great.
Call quality on the other hand wildly variesfrom unbearable to decent sometimes within the same call.
I did when I was on Edge, but since 3G it's been great.
Call quality on the other hand wildly variesfrom unbearable to decent sometimes within the same call.
ncv
Apr 12, 10:15 PM
Great news. Pity I just did the Final Cut Pro training course.
dante@sisna.com
Oct 26, 12:03 PM
Thank you for both those posts. I have felt pretty alone on these 8-core threads thus far. Glad to finally see someone else who understands and can explain so well why 8-cores is still not going to be enough joining in on these discussions.
Any of you who don't think a 16-core Mac Pro will be a hit in a year can really only be into word processing. :p
You are welcome.
I have been reading your Mac Rumors posts for a long time and I am amazed at the bashing you take sometimes. I recall the days when people complained of Apple boxes being "too slow."
Now the posts I read on supposed pro sites like Mac Rumors are filled with users chiding one's need for speed -- I get the feeling that many of the users in this forum do simply have the workload to truly push these machines -- there is almost a sense of envy at users who do.
My suggestion to users feeling this envy is as follows: Learn new skills. If you make your living using a Mac as we do, then evolve with your box. Buy new software. Seek out new clients who want higher end multimedia for web and other distribution. Push the market to evolve.
Anyhow, I will contribute as much as my schedule allows.
Best regards to all.
Dante
Any of you who don't think a 16-core Mac Pro will be a hit in a year can really only be into word processing. :p
You are welcome.
I have been reading your Mac Rumors posts for a long time and I am amazed at the bashing you take sometimes. I recall the days when people complained of Apple boxes being "too slow."
Now the posts I read on supposed pro sites like Mac Rumors are filled with users chiding one's need for speed -- I get the feeling that many of the users in this forum do simply have the workload to truly push these machines -- there is almost a sense of envy at users who do.
My suggestion to users feeling this envy is as follows: Learn new skills. If you make your living using a Mac as we do, then evolve with your box. Buy new software. Seek out new clients who want higher end multimedia for web and other distribution. Push the market to evolve.
Anyhow, I will contribute as much as my schedule allows.
Best regards to all.
Dante
Aduntu
Apr 15, 12:37 PM
My jaw just hit the floor. Did you just make excuses for certain forms of rape? You couldn't have.
Let's get to the bottom of this: is there any circumstance for which the Bible dictates that a woman who is raped should be put to death?
You misunderstood, but maybe I could have worded it better. A person being raped makes an effort to resist, assuming they are conscious and able to resist. A person willfully having sex isn't going to resist. That passage eliminates the possibility of a person having willful sex and then claiming that they were raped in order to avoid the consequences.
One is actually rape, the other isn't.
Let's get to the bottom of this: is there any circumstance for which the Bible dictates that a woman who is raped should be put to death?
You misunderstood, but maybe I could have worded it better. A person being raped makes an effort to resist, assuming they are conscious and able to resist. A person willfully having sex isn't going to resist. That passage eliminates the possibility of a person having willful sex and then claiming that they were raped in order to avoid the consequences.
One is actually rape, the other isn't.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar