The DRis
Mar 18, 12:15 PM
I'm going to plug in my phone, and let netflix run for the next 4 hours, as a nice big FU to AT&T, and all you uncle tom's.
Exactly what I was thinking. Screw the next 4 hours, for the next month I'm going to non-stop stream audio and video. I even disabled WiFi so I don't use my works connection I use only AT&T's.
Blow me ATT.
Netflix non-stop for the next month
Exactly what I was thinking. Screw the next 4 hours, for the next month I'm going to non-stop stream audio and video. I even disabled WiFi so I don't use my works connection I use only AT&T's.
Blow me ATT.
Netflix non-stop for the next month
alex_ant
Oct 9, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
I don't understand you guys, you say that Windows XP is now stable and maybe you are right, and you say that PC's are faster and the hardware is the same quality for less money.
I am getting close to replacing my old iMac and I have always been a Mac person, but maybe you are right PC's are better now.
Nope, not better - faster. Nobody is saying Macs suck - they're saying Macs are slow. I paid $2300 for 550MHz of G4 molasses last year when I could have bought a PC notebook that kicked the pants off it performance-wise. But I don't regret my purchase decision. I would buy the same computer again today (well, maybe the iBook instead).
I don't understand you guys, you say that Windows XP is now stable and maybe you are right, and you say that PC's are faster and the hardware is the same quality for less money.
I am getting close to replacing my old iMac and I have always been a Mac person, but maybe you are right PC's are better now.
Nope, not better - faster. Nobody is saying Macs suck - they're saying Macs are slow. I paid $2300 for 550MHz of G4 molasses last year when I could have bought a PC notebook that kicked the pants off it performance-wise. But I don't regret my purchase decision. I would buy the same computer again today (well, maybe the iBook instead).
Stridder44
Sep 20, 03:33 AM
Look at your hard drive usage, Music takes up a significant amount of it. Why does it need to be kept on your local machine if iTV provides a network?
Thats an interesting point. I dont know though, something makes me cringe about not having my prized music library on my own computer (fear of losing it I guess?)
Thats an interesting point. I dont know though, something makes me cringe about not having my prized music library on my own computer (fear of losing it I guess?)
mcmarks
May 2, 12:19 PM
A couple of points:
- No computer for which the user can write or install programs will ever be free of Malware (nor, to my knowledge, has the "malware free" term ever been applied to the Mac OS by anyone actually familiar with computer security). All I have to do is write a script that formats your hard drive, call it ReallyFunGame, thereby deceiving you into downloading it and running it, and poof. Malware at its most basic. (Apple addresses this issue with the App Store reviews for iOS apps, but even there, their review is not sufficient to eliminate all possibility of malware). So, the actual presence of malware is no surprise, nor has it ever been. The defense against these types of attacks are user education and OS design (which will be a compromise between usability and security). Personally, I find the compromises on the Mac less annoying than their counterparts on Windows. Furthermore, the frequent inscrutable dialogs on Windows in general cause a certain level of desensitization to all dialogs for the least savvy users undermining their value on Windows because users get used to just clicking through things they don't understand.
- The far more dangerous computer security problem, as has been mentioned in this thread a bit, is viruses (including worms which are a subset) because they can propagate and cause harm without user knowledge and intervention. This new piece of malware is not one of those (as far as I can tell). To my knowledge, Mac OS X remains a more secure operating system because there are no known viruses that have propagated in the wild that attack it. Now, if the same can be said for Windows 7 (I don't know whether it can or not), then it would be equally secure. Is it?
- No computer for which the user can write or install programs will ever be free of Malware (nor, to my knowledge, has the "malware free" term ever been applied to the Mac OS by anyone actually familiar with computer security). All I have to do is write a script that formats your hard drive, call it ReallyFunGame, thereby deceiving you into downloading it and running it, and poof. Malware at its most basic. (Apple addresses this issue with the App Store reviews for iOS apps, but even there, their review is not sufficient to eliminate all possibility of malware). So, the actual presence of malware is no surprise, nor has it ever been. The defense against these types of attacks are user education and OS design (which will be a compromise between usability and security). Personally, I find the compromises on the Mac less annoying than their counterparts on Windows. Furthermore, the frequent inscrutable dialogs on Windows in general cause a certain level of desensitization to all dialogs for the least savvy users undermining their value on Windows because users get used to just clicking through things they don't understand.
- The far more dangerous computer security problem, as has been mentioned in this thread a bit, is viruses (including worms which are a subset) because they can propagate and cause harm without user knowledge and intervention. This new piece of malware is not one of those (as far as I can tell). To my knowledge, Mac OS X remains a more secure operating system because there are no known viruses that have propagated in the wild that attack it. Now, if the same can be said for Windows 7 (I don't know whether it can or not), then it would be equally secure. Is it?
AppleScruff1
Apr 20, 10:08 PM
Is that a prerequisite? I have Apple battery charger.
LMAO! I have an Apple sticker a friend gave me, does that count? :D
What's wrong with that? I may not own a particular product but like being in X products forums to learn about it.
I find that it's a great way to learn about products that I'm interested in.
LMAO! I have an Apple sticker a friend gave me, does that count? :D
What's wrong with that? I may not own a particular product but like being in X products forums to learn about it.
I find that it's a great way to learn about products that I'm interested in.
samcraig
Mar 18, 10:56 AM
1) Why would I need an extra 2GB when I'm already Unlimited?
2) Why would I need to pay an extra $20 for 1s and 0s going from my laptop thru my phone. If I'm using the laptop, I'm not using my phone and vice versa. It's still single use.
3) Do you pay "Extra" for home internet because you have a wireless router that allows you to connect multiple PCs to the same connection?? How is tethering on a mobile phone any different??? This sets a precedence that could allow for home internet providers to charge on a per PC connect basis.
Actually - for several years - and still in some areas - you DO pay for the ability to network your home via wifi - and there is a way for the cable company to prohibit it. Not that they do/will. - but clearly they can since some areas have this as a "premium"
Next - there are things you cannot do on a phone that you can do on a computer in regards to using up bandwidth. You can't download torrents on your phone (for example). You can on a computer.
There's really little debate here. ATT is now, obviously, recognizing what they have known all along - that people are abusing their data plans. So they are taking action. It's within their right. Get over it.
2) Why would I need to pay an extra $20 for 1s and 0s going from my laptop thru my phone. If I'm using the laptop, I'm not using my phone and vice versa. It's still single use.
3) Do you pay "Extra" for home internet because you have a wireless router that allows you to connect multiple PCs to the same connection?? How is tethering on a mobile phone any different??? This sets a precedence that could allow for home internet providers to charge on a per PC connect basis.
Actually - for several years - and still in some areas - you DO pay for the ability to network your home via wifi - and there is a way for the cable company to prohibit it. Not that they do/will. - but clearly they can since some areas have this as a "premium"
Next - there are things you cannot do on a phone that you can do on a computer in regards to using up bandwidth. You can't download torrents on your phone (for example). You can on a computer.
There's really little debate here. ATT is now, obviously, recognizing what they have known all along - that people are abusing their data plans. So they are taking action. It's within their right. Get over it.
Eastend
Sep 26, 03:31 AM
Thats an interesting concept but I think someone is a bit ahead of themselves.
I've heard that processors have reached some sort of theoretical limit and I'm guessing that multiple cores is getting around this. But why aren't these chips at higher clock speeds? I really don't milti-task that much so I would be more interested in raw power rather then power in numbers. If the prices on the current processors drop I think I'd get the quad 3GHz rather then a 8 core 2.66GHz. But if they had a dual 6GHz that would be even better.;)
Bin+laden+targets+to+print
in laden targets to print bin
in laden targets to print. in
in laden targets - kyela,.
in laden targets to print bin
in laden targets to print in.
in laden targets to print. in
in laden targets to print
in laden targets to print bin
in laden targets to print.
Bin+laden+targets+to+print
osama in laden targets; in laden targets to print bin laden cds. Obama Bin Laden/Osama Obama; Obama Bin Laden/Osama Obama
I've heard that processors have reached some sort of theoretical limit and I'm guessing that multiple cores is getting around this. But why aren't these chips at higher clock speeds? I really don't milti-task that much so I would be more interested in raw power rather then power in numbers. If the prices on the current processors drop I think I'd get the quad 3GHz rather then a 8 core 2.66GHz. But if they had a dual 6GHz that would be even better.;)
CaoCao
Mar 26, 01:04 AM
You are either knowingly full of it or being intentionally insulting. Likely both.
A church is entirely inconsequential to marriage. I know you believe you need the permission of a magic man in the sky to insert your penis into someone, but that is of no practical value to anyone. Including you; you just don't know it.
Marriage in the modern sense is the set of legal policies a society constructs in respect of a voluntary commitment between consenting adults. Homosexuals cannot take part in this status, for no rational reason, in part because people like you have been persuaded by the prejudiced teachings of your fairy tales that you have the right to force even non-Catholics to seek the approval of your magic buddy, to pretend that your religion owns the institution of marriage, and has the right to dictate that governments enforce it on your terms and behalf.
You seem to be going further, openly mocking gay people, compounding the insult of your support for illegitimately depriving them of equal standing in society by suggesting they should be grateful to you for the magnanimity of allowing them an ersatz costume wedding.
"church" is more like wherever-the-Hell-you-want.
The governments job is enforcing the will of the people because it derives its power from consent of the govered
A church is entirely inconsequential to marriage. I know you believe you need the permission of a magic man in the sky to insert your penis into someone, but that is of no practical value to anyone. Including you; you just don't know it.
Marriage in the modern sense is the set of legal policies a society constructs in respect of a voluntary commitment between consenting adults. Homosexuals cannot take part in this status, for no rational reason, in part because people like you have been persuaded by the prejudiced teachings of your fairy tales that you have the right to force even non-Catholics to seek the approval of your magic buddy, to pretend that your religion owns the institution of marriage, and has the right to dictate that governments enforce it on your terms and behalf.
You seem to be going further, openly mocking gay people, compounding the insult of your support for illegitimately depriving them of equal standing in society by suggesting they should be grateful to you for the magnanimity of allowing them an ersatz costume wedding.
"church" is more like wherever-the-Hell-you-want.
The governments job is enforcing the will of the people because it derives its power from consent of the govered
asdf542
Apr 13, 12:00 AM
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. Anyone else notice it's fcp x. No pro mentioned.
...what?
"The new version of Final Cut Pro has been renamed to "Final Cut Pro X" and is described as a complete rewrite of the original application. "
Only thing that's changed in the name is the number. What do you think FCP stands for?
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. Anyone else notice it's fcp x. No pro mentioned.
...what?
"The new version of Final Cut Pro has been renamed to "Final Cut Pro X" and is described as a complete rewrite of the original application. "
Only thing that's changed in the name is the number. What do you think FCP stands for?
r1ch4rd
Apr 22, 11:02 PM
Dawkins might. As I said before, most atheists are agnostic atheists.
I think the definition is a bit tricky to nail down. I don't think that theists know that there is a God. They just believe that there is. I think my belief is just as strong as that. They may argue otherwise.
I think the definition is a bit tricky to nail down. I don't think that theists know that there is a God. They just believe that there is. I think my belief is just as strong as that. They may argue otherwise.
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.
Cromulent
Mar 27, 04:40 PM
And maybe you need to learn that when you reiterate a point that has already been made in the form of a "why not" question, you are viewed to be supporting the point. I have followed the thread, and I saw the point you were quoting.
That the Catholics believe this bit about celibacy has been apparent for a few pages - there was never any need for you to regurgitate the point. But now that you apparently have, and have assigned some sort of logic to it, I'm asking what is that logic. What reasons that apply to a priest being celibate might apply to a gay person?
You seem to be trying to defend everything about your post but the only issue anyone could ever have with it.
You are constantly missing the point. Someone said it was horrible to expect someone to be celibate just because they were gay. I simply stated that if Catholics already expected priests to be celibate then why is it so hard for gay people to remain celibate?
I mean its not like they are saying only homosexuals must be celibate if they also require their own priests to be celibate. That was the only point I was making. It seemed pretty clear given the quoted text in my very first post.
If you are saying that it makes any kind of sense, I'll ask you again, "why?"
I guess you'll have to ask a Catholic why they would require celibacy of a homosexual. I was simply pointing out that celibacy in the Catholic church was an accepted practice and not looked at in quite the same way as non-Catholic people and not as horrible as the person I originally quoted was making out. After all if a priest can cope why can't a homosexual?
Anyway I'm not entirely sure why I let myself get dragged into this after what was obviously a throw away comment simply talking about the logic of a given argument. It has nothing to do with 'why' something should or should not happen simply whether a stance is a logical one or not.
That the Catholics believe this bit about celibacy has been apparent for a few pages - there was never any need for you to regurgitate the point. But now that you apparently have, and have assigned some sort of logic to it, I'm asking what is that logic. What reasons that apply to a priest being celibate might apply to a gay person?
You seem to be trying to defend everything about your post but the only issue anyone could ever have with it.
You are constantly missing the point. Someone said it was horrible to expect someone to be celibate just because they were gay. I simply stated that if Catholics already expected priests to be celibate then why is it so hard for gay people to remain celibate?
I mean its not like they are saying only homosexuals must be celibate if they also require their own priests to be celibate. That was the only point I was making. It seemed pretty clear given the quoted text in my very first post.
If you are saying that it makes any kind of sense, I'll ask you again, "why?"
I guess you'll have to ask a Catholic why they would require celibacy of a homosexual. I was simply pointing out that celibacy in the Catholic church was an accepted practice and not looked at in quite the same way as non-Catholic people and not as horrible as the person I originally quoted was making out. After all if a priest can cope why can't a homosexual?
Anyway I'm not entirely sure why I let myself get dragged into this after what was obviously a throw away comment simply talking about the logic of a given argument. It has nothing to do with 'why' something should or should not happen simply whether a stance is a logical one or not.
RedReplicant
Apr 5, 05:30 PM
One off the top of my head is that everything costs money application wise, there is very little freeware.
*LTD*
Apr 28, 08:12 AM
Right, but how is that not a fad? By definition, it doesn't matter how said fad ends, it simply means that it's overall existence is temporary.
I agree that it it was replaced by newer technology that does more, but it still was a fad in the end.
You don't get it.
I agree that it it was replaced by newer technology that does more, but it still was a fad in the end.
You don't get it.
g.fabian
Apr 9, 09:54 AM
Great news. Bring on more Infinity Blade-esque games! :D
Ehh.. I was pretty geeked out about how stunning the graphics were but to be honest, they need to come out with a peripheral controller or SOMEthing because with the touchscreen, the dynamic of the games are SOOOO limited..
Ehh.. I was pretty geeked out about how stunning the graphics were but to be honest, they need to come out with a peripheral controller or SOMEthing because with the touchscreen, the dynamic of the games are SOOOO limited..
FoxyKaye
Jul 11, 10:57 PM
So, what, this leaves us with:
* Mac Pro - Xeon/Woodcrest
* iMac - Core2 Duo/Conroe
* Mac Mini - Core Duo or Core2 Duo
Would the laptops get updated with the Core2 Duo - Intel's roadmap has some lower watt stuff that IIRC were Conroe varients, can't remember if there's a portable varient of the Woodcrest... Though any lower wattage processor would be nice, since our office's MacBook actually left a red mark on my left leg from where I was resting it during an extended meeting...
It's going to be fun to see what comes out of WWDC!
* Mac Pro - Xeon/Woodcrest
* iMac - Core2 Duo/Conroe
* Mac Mini - Core Duo or Core2 Duo
Would the laptops get updated with the Core2 Duo - Intel's roadmap has some lower watt stuff that IIRC were Conroe varients, can't remember if there's a portable varient of the Woodcrest... Though any lower wattage processor would be nice, since our office's MacBook actually left a red mark on my left leg from where I was resting it during an extended meeting...
It's going to be fun to see what comes out of WWDC!
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.
D4F
Apr 28, 08:13 AM
Some people around here flip-flop on the issue depending on the latest stats.
Don't be fooled.
Next quarter you'll see very, very different numbers. Over the next 3-5 years you'll see the decline of the entire PC market and a shift over to tablets and pad devices as they become more capable and powerful. The ecosystem is already in place. The content distribution model is already in place. Look what you can already do with an iPad. Mirror games onto HDTVs. Photoshop on the iPad. The list goes on. And note how quickly this all happened.
So be it but untill that thing can run a full version of let's say Autodesk Maya and install all the plug-ins in the world I want it will still only be a mobile toy. A PC is something you work with not a fancy looking gadget. I don't see this happening in the next 5-10 years. Pack me a dual quad with HT that can run for 100 days at 100% without breaking a sweat. That's a PC.
Don't be fooled.
Next quarter you'll see very, very different numbers. Over the next 3-5 years you'll see the decline of the entire PC market and a shift over to tablets and pad devices as they become more capable and powerful. The ecosystem is already in place. The content distribution model is already in place. Look what you can already do with an iPad. Mirror games onto HDTVs. Photoshop on the iPad. The list goes on. And note how quickly this all happened.
So be it but untill that thing can run a full version of let's say Autodesk Maya and install all the plug-ins in the world I want it will still only be a mobile toy. A PC is something you work with not a fancy looking gadget. I don't see this happening in the next 5-10 years. Pack me a dual quad with HT that can run for 100 days at 100% without breaking a sweat. That's a PC.
arkitect
Apr 15, 11:52 AM
Erroneous idea to you, but that's just like, your opinion, man.
Demonstrably not true? That's funny, I keep looking in my church bulletin for some fun anti-gay rallies or barbeques but I'm not finding them. I do find that the Catholic high school is going to have a conference on preventing anti-gay bullying, gasp! I bet they're going to pull out that old chestnut from the Catechism, "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity."
SO MUCH HATE!
Not so much hate as intolerance.
Since you insist on not telling the whole story I'll then do it for you.
The CCC (CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH):
Your quote (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12397686&postcount=184) above from paragraph 2358 is bracketed by:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
If the Catholic Church was truly accepting, please tell why only homosexuals are called to chastity?
I am genuinely interested to hear.
Demonstrably not true? That's funny, I keep looking in my church bulletin for some fun anti-gay rallies or barbeques but I'm not finding them. I do find that the Catholic high school is going to have a conference on preventing anti-gay bullying, gasp! I bet they're going to pull out that old chestnut from the Catechism, "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity."
SO MUCH HATE!
Not so much hate as intolerance.
Since you insist on not telling the whole story I'll then do it for you.
The CCC (CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH):
Your quote (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12397686&postcount=184) above from paragraph 2358 is bracketed by:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
If the Catholic Church was truly accepting, please tell why only homosexuals are called to chastity?
I am genuinely interested to hear.
AidenShaw
Oct 26, 07:04 AM
Now we see what Apple saw - why the Mac Pro is strickly BTO.
Just add two more processor options for the X5355 and E5345, and this upgrade is done.
Just like the Dell online store... ;)
Just add two more processor options for the X5355 and E5345, and this upgrade is done.
Just like the Dell online store... ;)
Macsavvytech
May 3, 04:48 PM
Hmmm.
My sister was fooled by this up to the point of it running its "scan". Just had to talk to her about it, seems it targets bootcamp people by seeming to be a message reporting their Windows side is infected (The normal my computer scam screen). Anyway guided her through removing it.
My sister was fooled by this up to the point of it running its "scan". Just had to talk to her about it, seems it targets bootcamp people by seeming to be a message reporting their Windows side is infected (The normal my computer scam screen). Anyway guided her through removing it.
camomac
Jul 14, 02:12 PM
ahhh, why didn't they have dual optical slots in the current G5's..
too much heat from the PPC's and all those fans?
well i am really looking forward to the new look.
too much heat from the PPC's and all those fans?
well i am really looking forward to the new look.
DakotaGuy
Oct 9, 10:21 AM
The funny thing is if I had never read a message board I would have never went and looked at a PC, because I just have always bought Macs, after 4 or 5 years, just went to the dealer and picked up a new one, I never used a PC except at school, which schools stuff is always years out of date anyway, so I just figured that this is what you had to pay for a good, fast, computer that will last 4 or 5 years, I have always been comfortable and pleased with my Macs, but this next when the DV is ready to be replaced, I am going to be smarter then I used to be and not just walk into the Apple dealer and pick up a new one, I am going to shop around and see if I like these all new PC's with XP. If I can save money and end up with a much faster, easier to use computer, then I am dumb to just go Apple like I always have. I don't know a lot about this freaking processor or that floating point, gigaflop, or whatever crap, I just want to buy something that works well and is a good value and I am sorry to say, but I have been blind to PC's and I see they have came so much farther then Macs have and also Microsoft is making some excellent software now. I am sad...because I used to love my Mackie and Booker, but now I get the point how crappy they really are compared to the PC's. ;o(
Evangelion
Jul 13, 08:08 AM
Actually, it looks the same from both perspectives.
Nope, it doesn't. Besides, I already told you in another thread that Intel agrees with my intrepetation on this matter. The see dual-dual systems as 2-way systems, whereas according to you, they are 4-way systems. Are you saying that Intel does not know what they are doing?
Nope, it doesn't. Besides, I already told you in another thread that Intel agrees with my intrepetation on this matter. The see dual-dual systems as 2-way systems, whereas according to you, they are 4-way systems. Are you saying that Intel does not know what they are doing?
