macUser2007
Oct 8, 10:00 AM
Flash is what will bring the iPhone down.
I can see the ads:
iPhone: I have touch.
Android: Bleh, I have touch too.
iPhone: I am sleek and I have a 3.5" screen.
Android: Bleh, nowadays I am sleek too, and I have a 4" screen.
Android: Oh, and I can surf ALL of the web, including Flash sites and Hulu.
iPhone (nervously picking a pimple): Bleh, who needs Flash, I hate Flash!!! I hate Flash even more than I hated Copy/Paste. Just wait for HTML5, it'd be here in only 5 years....
Voiceover: Yes you can! But only with Android.
I can see the ads:
iPhone: I have touch.
Android: Bleh, I have touch too.
iPhone: I am sleek and I have a 3.5" screen.
Android: Bleh, nowadays I am sleek too, and I have a 4" screen.
Android: Oh, and I can surf ALL of the web, including Flash sites and Hulu.
iPhone (nervously picking a pimple): Bleh, who needs Flash, I hate Flash!!! I hate Flash even more than I hated Copy/Paste. Just wait for HTML5, it'd be here in only 5 years....
Voiceover: Yes you can! But only with Android.
mpstrex
Aug 30, 11:09 AM
Something just dawned on me. Like when Macrumors (or someone) posted that Rush Limbaugh was selling his broadcasts for MP3 players, people here were divided. And it's the same thing with Greenpeace. We're fighting over idealistic opinions.
Maybe we should focus our attention on fighting for the Apple and all its greatness (and some not-so-great things), instead of against each other.
Maybe we should focus our attention on fighting for the Apple and all its greatness (and some not-so-great things), instead of against each other.
aristobrat
Feb 16, 03:45 PM
The Android Marketplace is still relatively new.
The Android Marketplace "opened for business" roughly 90 days after the iTunes App Store did, no?
07/10/2008 = iTunes App Store launches
10/22/2008 = Android Marketplace launches
The Android Marketplace "opened for business" roughly 90 days after the iTunes App Store did, no?
07/10/2008 = iTunes App Store launches
10/22/2008 = Android Marketplace launches
mcarnes
Sep 20, 02:02 AM
But it sure looks better than it sounds...;)
:p Good one.
:p Good one.
SwiftLives
Mar 13, 11:36 AM
NIMBY. I'm okay with nuclear power as long as it's far far away from where I live. Of course, it's not like my town is prone to natural (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston_earthquake) disasters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Hugo) or anything.
dante@sisna.com
Sep 12, 07:07 PM
Please explain to me, even hypothetically, how this could be a Tivo killer DVR. As a basis for the argument, consider that TiVo (as of today) can record 2 HD channels simulteously, while watching a third previously recorded show. Plus you can pause live TV.
Elgato and Myth and all of the cable & satellite Co. DVRs haven't been able to compete with TiVo to date, what makes you thik they will be able to going forward?
How does Elgato not compete?
Sure it does:
1) I can pause mine.
2) I have a full software based one-click scheduling system
3) I can record high def content.
4) If I use two cards, I can record two streams via a signal splitter.
5) I can certainly watch a prerecorded show while doing all of the above: my Quad Core easily handles this.
Elgato and Myth and all of the cable & satellite Co. DVRs haven't been able to compete with TiVo to date, what makes you thik they will be able to going forward?
How does Elgato not compete?
Sure it does:
1) I can pause mine.
2) I have a full software based one-click scheduling system
3) I can record high def content.
4) If I use two cards, I can record two streams via a signal splitter.
5) I can certainly watch a prerecorded show while doing all of the above: my Quad Core easily handles this.
ThunderSkunk
May 5, 05:51 PM
Well I just came across this in the local paper:
The wedding dress was designed
Wedding Dress For Kate
Kate Middleton#39;s Wedding Dress
Who Will Design Kate
Kate Wedding Dress
for Kate#39;s wedding gown
The designer of Kate#39;s wedding
Graphic - dress designers
kate middleton wedding gown
kate middleton royal wedding
Kate Moss` wedding dress
Kate#39;s wedding dress designer
Phil A.
Aug 29, 04:00 PM
Well that's more to do with Blair being uninformed and making decisions because he likes to sound better than he is. If Blair hadn't been a pillock and stuck to the realistic, achievable timeline that everyone else stuck to, then it would have been achievable. Why he said we'd double those targets is beyond most people except the monkey labour spin doctor that suggested it.
What the Greenpeace report is saying, is that Apple don't even have a strategy (timeline) for restricting material use (bar legal restrictions) and that is a black mark for the company when compared to a company that does. it's doing what it has to do, not what it should be doing if it wants to be considered the best. Dell is similar to this but is further along.
This is also related to Apple's almost nazi-like paranoia about secrecy which is harming its reputation on several fronts.
As has already been asked on this thread, why couldn't Apple release details of all the materials is uses or equivalent detail to other manufacturers? Why couldn't it be pro-active and understand the impact it could have (like putting it up at the top of this report)? perhaps because it's not actually as all conquering/superior and clever as it likes people to think?
I completely agree that a company that has a timeline for implementing change should be marked higher than one that says "we'll do it" but gives no dates. I still maintain, however, that companies should not be given full marks until they've actually delivered on their promises - at the present moment neither company is actually doing anything to protect the environment in those areas
What the Greenpeace report is saying, is that Apple don't even have a strategy (timeline) for restricting material use (bar legal restrictions) and that is a black mark for the company when compared to a company that does. it's doing what it has to do, not what it should be doing if it wants to be considered the best. Dell is similar to this but is further along.
This is also related to Apple's almost nazi-like paranoia about secrecy which is harming its reputation on several fronts.
As has already been asked on this thread, why couldn't Apple release details of all the materials is uses or equivalent detail to other manufacturers? Why couldn't it be pro-active and understand the impact it could have (like putting it up at the top of this report)? perhaps because it's not actually as all conquering/superior and clever as it likes people to think?
I completely agree that a company that has a timeline for implementing change should be marked higher than one that says "we'll do it" but gives no dates. I still maintain, however, that companies should not be given full marks until they've actually delivered on their promises - at the present moment neither company is actually doing anything to protect the environment in those areas
spicyapple
Sep 26, 12:55 AM
8 cores ought to be enough for anybody. true, what would you do with extra cores? simply overkill.
Peace
Sep 12, 05:27 PM
soooo.....milo....:)
Looks like the only thing I had wrong was the hard drive eh? ;)
But it looks like a little of what we were both talking about..
We'll call it even eh? :)
Looks like the only thing I had wrong was the hard drive eh? ;)
But it looks like a little of what we were both talking about..
We'll call it even eh? :)
likemyorbs
Mar 26, 12:17 AM
Matthew 5:10-12
Irrelevant. Don't throw bible verses at us, it's not helping your point, but i can understand that you're using it as a last ditch effort because you realize you have no point.
PS
Matthew can go F himself. Your religion has no place in our laws, we do not live in a christian nation. Get over it.
Irrelevant. Don't throw bible verses at us, it's not helping your point, but i can understand that you're using it as a last ditch effort because you realize you have no point.
PS
Matthew can go F himself. Your religion has no place in our laws, we do not live in a christian nation. Get over it.
appleguy123
Apr 22, 09:11 PM
someone hasn't posted in that thread for 5 months ... why would people all of a sudden want to revive it ... today we have this one.
I would be willing to bet that if given time this thread will be a carbon copy of that one.
That thread should be stickied, because I can't really think of any issue(relevant to this topic) we didn't cover in it.
I would be willing to bet that if given time this thread will be a carbon copy of that one.
That thread should be stickied, because I can't really think of any issue(relevant to this topic) we didn't cover in it.
jbgh
Mar 18, 09:07 AM
Forcibly changing my plan with zero evidence of anything is illegal and they will pay for it. Tme to start blasting them on Facebook, twitter, everywhere possible.
yeah that'll get them...
yeah that'll get them...
thespazz
May 8, 02:46 AM
Hopefully one day I won't drop a call. Happens too often.
nsjoker
Sep 20, 03:45 PM
it won't have any dvr functionality... it'll just be frontrow on your tv, and nothing else. woopdee freaking doo
bryanc
Aug 29, 12:28 PM
I have to say, I am APPALLED by the irresponsible attitude of some people on this forum (and probably the world). Businesses, corporations, governments, AND individuals should all be behaving in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. This is in no way "anti-progress". When did you all gain the right to be so selfish, self-centred, and bigoted in your beliefs?
Hear, hear! What's up with all of you Apple Boosters? I think my Macs are great, and OS X is clearly the best OS on the planet today, but this report is very disappointing.
Rather than turning a blind eye to the irresponsible policies at Apple, and saying the Greenpeace is just anti-technology (they're big supporters of many innovative energy technologies, BTW), why not do what you can, as an Apple customer, to change the way Apple does business.
I've submitted feedback to Apple in the past about their wasteful packaging, and have been pleasantly surprised not only by their considerate replies, but the fact that they've changed their packaging to be less wasteful. Apple listens to their customers. If they know we care about the environment, they'll change their practices to be more sustainable.
I would like to have seen Apple respond to this as a challenge, by saying that they appreciate the constructive criticism and look forward to implementing changes in their practises and achieving top marks in the next Greenpeace analysis. If enough Apple customers make it clear that this should be a priority, it will become one.
Cheers
Hear, hear! What's up with all of you Apple Boosters? I think my Macs are great, and OS X is clearly the best OS on the planet today, but this report is very disappointing.
Rather than turning a blind eye to the irresponsible policies at Apple, and saying the Greenpeace is just anti-technology (they're big supporters of many innovative energy technologies, BTW), why not do what you can, as an Apple customer, to change the way Apple does business.
I've submitted feedback to Apple in the past about their wasteful packaging, and have been pleasantly surprised not only by their considerate replies, but the fact that they've changed their packaging to be less wasteful. Apple listens to their customers. If they know we care about the environment, they'll change their practices to be more sustainable.
I would like to have seen Apple respond to this as a challenge, by saying that they appreciate the constructive criticism and look forward to implementing changes in their practises and achieving top marks in the next Greenpeace analysis. If enough Apple customers make it clear that this should be a priority, it will become one.
Cheers
edifyingGerbil
Apr 26, 12:32 PM
Christianity, especially Catholicism has it's own colorful (blood red) history.
As I said elsewhere there is no moral equivalence. It took Augustine's and Aquinas' great rambling treatises to justify warfare, for instance.
In the Qur'an and the Hadith war is encouraged and its virtues extolled.
I wish people would stop trying to equate the wars of Christianity (and of that mainly Western Christianity) with Islam's modern terrorism and calls for warfare against the infidel.
In Islamic Law non-muslims are considered najiss, that means ritually impure, down to our souls, our essences. Christians are reviled especially because they practice "shirk", a law forbidding the joining of others to allah. Jews are designated as apes and pigs in the Qur'an.
there is no equivalence between Islam and Christianity.
As I said elsewhere there is no moral equivalence. It took Augustine's and Aquinas' great rambling treatises to justify warfare, for instance.
In the Qur'an and the Hadith war is encouraged and its virtues extolled.
I wish people would stop trying to equate the wars of Christianity (and of that mainly Western Christianity) with Islam's modern terrorism and calls for warfare against the infidel.
In Islamic Law non-muslims are considered najiss, that means ritually impure, down to our souls, our essences. Christians are reviled especially because they practice "shirk", a law forbidding the joining of others to allah. Jews are designated as apes and pigs in the Qur'an.
there is no equivalence between Islam and Christianity.
TEG
Aug 29, 12:26 PM
No One cares what Greenpeace thinks. They are nothing but the military wing of the Sierra Club. The only thing I can't stand more than Greenpeace is the ELF.
Seriously.
TEG
Seriously.
TEG
manman
Mar 18, 01:56 PM
But that doesn't make it ok to be dishonest and steal things now does it?
I can maybe get behind the whole 'dishonest' thing, but... seriously. If I have an iphone and an ipad, and I decide to surf some sites or stream music through pandora on my ipad using tethering instead of doing those exact same actions on my phone, I'm now 'stealing' that data even though it would have been the exact same usage?
I realize there are other scenarios you could bring up that would be more like 'taking advantage' of the system, but me personally- if I'm using the data in a way I feel is no different than I would be using with my phone, I don't have any bad conscience about it whether it's allowed or not.
I can maybe get behind the whole 'dishonest' thing, but... seriously. If I have an iphone and an ipad, and I decide to surf some sites or stream music through pandora on my ipad using tethering instead of doing those exact same actions on my phone, I'm now 'stealing' that data even though it would have been the exact same usage?
I realize there are other scenarios you could bring up that would be more like 'taking advantage' of the system, but me personally- if I'm using the data in a way I feel is no different than I would be using with my phone, I don't have any bad conscience about it whether it's allowed or not.
nehunte
Oct 7, 10:52 AM
Every phone that comes out after the iPhone is supposed to surpass the iPhone by 20**. This is getting old. It took how many years for someone to beat up on Nokia? That's right, it'll be a long time before you see a dent in the iPhone's armor.
I'm going to make a new smartphone next week. It's an iPhone-killer. Guaranteed.
I'm going to make a new smartphone next week. It's an iPhone-killer. Guaranteed.
Fiveos22
Jul 11, 10:53 PM
mmm, AppleInsider vs. Thinksecret
Is this a deathmatch? I think both sites should put something on the line, a little wager, to make this face-off more interesting. Perhaps each should wager their URL... that would be cool.
Is this a deathmatch? I think both sites should put something on the line, a little wager, to make this face-off more interesting. Perhaps each should wager their URL... that would be cool.
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.
AppleScruff1
Apr 29, 01:41 AM
Those days of "needing to run Windows" for work are behind us.
Not in many cases, but I'm glad it works for you.
Not in many cases, but I'm glad it works for you.
carmenodie
Apr 9, 09:28 AM
Ummm.... everyone that's into gaming HATES Activision.
So does that means you didn't like Jungle Hunt?
So does that means you didn't like Jungle Hunt?
