dAlen
Apr 13, 08:56 AM
Here are videos of the event... that way you can pretty much 'see' for yourself what it does or doesnt do.
http://www.photographybay.com/2011/04/13/final-cut-pro-x-annoncement-video/
Peace
dAlen
http://www.photographybay.com/2011/04/13/final-cut-pro-x-annoncement-video/
Peace
dAlen
Teddy's
Aug 29, 01:06 PM
Last week I discovered a magazine based in Toronto (www.digitaljournal.com) They base their reports in the old saying that all tulips must grow the same height. They have been hitting "google's related news" (v.gr. the Sweatshop issue) and getting traffic to their websites. So, maybe the same kind of guru is running Greenpeace.
After what I have read about the enviroment friendly policy in Apple's website, I do not trust that Greenpeace report.
They are a lot of really awful companies in the world. Greenpeace: give me a break!
After 3 hours: Still, meh!
After what I have read about the enviroment friendly policy in Apple's website, I do not trust that Greenpeace report.
They are a lot of really awful companies in the world. Greenpeace: give me a break!
After 3 hours: Still, meh!
ehoui
Apr 27, 06:47 PM
That's the line of thought of the type of agnostic who believes that we can't know (rather than someone who is undecided or doesn't know). But the all the speculation is fun, regardless.
It's no more "fun" than arguing that one knows that God exists or does not.
It's no more "fun" than arguing that one knows that God exists or does not.
KnightWRX
May 2, 06:18 PM
Here is a list of privilege escalation (UAC bypass) vulnerabilities just related to Stuxnet (win32k.sys) in Windows in 2011:
Vulnerabilities are found in everything. It's not like sudo, RBAC or any other Unix scheme that's similar to Windows' UAC/RunAs has been vulnerability free all these years. This is besides the point that UAC is not somehow inferior. It's just an implementation of limited privilege escalation, same as you find on Unix systems. "Unix security" is not being any better here.
Provide an example of malware that only includes user level access being used in the wild as per your description that can not be prevented with user knowledge?
Have I claimed such a beasts exists ? No. Why should I then be made to provide an example of it ?
Vulnerabilities are found in everything. It's not like sudo, RBAC or any other Unix scheme that's similar to Windows' UAC/RunAs has been vulnerability free all these years. This is besides the point that UAC is not somehow inferior. It's just an implementation of limited privilege escalation, same as you find on Unix systems. "Unix security" is not being any better here.
Provide an example of malware that only includes user level access being used in the wild as per your description that can not be prevented with user knowledge?
Have I claimed such a beasts exists ? No. Why should I then be made to provide an example of it ?
levitynyc
Apr 8, 10:38 PM
Why doesnt Apple allow you to plug a controller in the 30 pin adaptor? Wouldnt that be the best of both worlds?
KnightWRX
May 2, 05:23 PM
The installer is marked as safe to auto-execute if "open safe files after downloading" is turned on.
This is again just brushing over the issue. You're again not helping. I get all the rest. I even get this part. I want to know more about this part in particular though. What is "an installer" but an executable file and what prevents me from writing "an installer" that does more than just "installing". What is so special about installers that would prevent a malicious payload (without privilege escalation, unless you were to exploit a local privilege escalation bug) from auto-executing ?
This is my point and this is what I'm trying to dissect here. This sentence of yours is the tip of the iceberg. Let's go deeper here. You keep repeating this non-sense that's everywhere on the web and that I've read and told you thousands of times that I understand.
Installers being marked as safe really doesn't increase the likelihood of user level access as the Javascript exploit already provided user level access. I don't understand why you are hung up on this installer being able to auto-execute; it really makes no difference in terms of user level access. The attacker could have deleted your files with just the Javascript exploit.
I don't know of any Javascript DOM manipulation that lets you have write/read access to the local filesystem. This is already sandboxed.
Let's face it, auto-downloads are not a Javascript exploit, they're a feature used on many sites these days : "Your download will auto-start in 5 seconds, click here if it doesn't work". It's not uncommon and quite not the issue here.
The issue is Safari is launching an executable file that sits outside the browser sandbox.
I'm beginning to suspect you don't quite understand what is going on here. I think it's not my technical knowledge that is at issue here, it's your understanding of my point. Again, stop replying to me if all you want to do is discuss the tip of the iceberg covered by the press. I don't care about that, I read that, it raises more questions for me than it answers.
This is again just brushing over the issue. You're again not helping. I get all the rest. I even get this part. I want to know more about this part in particular though. What is "an installer" but an executable file and what prevents me from writing "an installer" that does more than just "installing". What is so special about installers that would prevent a malicious payload (without privilege escalation, unless you were to exploit a local privilege escalation bug) from auto-executing ?
This is my point and this is what I'm trying to dissect here. This sentence of yours is the tip of the iceberg. Let's go deeper here. You keep repeating this non-sense that's everywhere on the web and that I've read and told you thousands of times that I understand.
Installers being marked as safe really doesn't increase the likelihood of user level access as the Javascript exploit already provided user level access. I don't understand why you are hung up on this installer being able to auto-execute; it really makes no difference in terms of user level access. The attacker could have deleted your files with just the Javascript exploit.
I don't know of any Javascript DOM manipulation that lets you have write/read access to the local filesystem. This is already sandboxed.
Let's face it, auto-downloads are not a Javascript exploit, they're a feature used on many sites these days : "Your download will auto-start in 5 seconds, click here if it doesn't work". It's not uncommon and quite not the issue here.
The issue is Safari is launching an executable file that sits outside the browser sandbox.
I'm beginning to suspect you don't quite understand what is going on here. I think it's not my technical knowledge that is at issue here, it's your understanding of my point. Again, stop replying to me if all you want to do is discuss the tip of the iceberg covered by the press. I don't care about that, I read that, it raises more questions for me than it answers.
Don't panic
Mar 15, 10:23 AM
Obviously, it wouln't be "all at once" and these types of things never happen in one single "foreign land". But history is wrought with many resettling of peoples, the Jews is just one example. This actually happens a lot for "unnatural" disasters like war and stuff.
If this situation blows up more and more, heck, humans haven't even dealt with such a potential disaster outcome before. It's actually purely "unnatural" at it's roots. There isn't any natural deposit of refined radioactive uranium/plutonium/whatever that we've encountered on earth before. This is purely man-made and is not supposed to exist. I mean, what is there to do in such a case? I know GM, Microsoft, Motorola et al may have a field day if the Japanese just disapeared, but hey, there's added value elsewhere that many nations would value in having their human and physical assets close.
i can't believe i am even answering this, and i am bewildered by the fact that you might actually be seriously thinking what you are writing.
anyway, even the worst case scenario -a complete meltdown of all four reactors- is not even remotely close to the apocalyptic pictures you have in mind.
'japan' is not going to 'blow up' or to be reduced to a barren wasteland forever.
in the worst case scenario (which is very unlikely to occur), a small area will be heavily contaminated and a larger area will be moderately or lightly contaminated.
tens or hundreds of people will get sick in the short term, and more would be at risk in the long term, a lot of people will have to evacuate to a safer distance from the reactor, and the economic cost of the clean up (and the recostruction in the tsunami-devastated areas) would be tremendous.
but how you go from there to "japan is history" is mindboggling.
If this situation blows up more and more, heck, humans haven't even dealt with such a potential disaster outcome before. It's actually purely "unnatural" at it's roots. There isn't any natural deposit of refined radioactive uranium/plutonium/whatever that we've encountered on earth before. This is purely man-made and is not supposed to exist. I mean, what is there to do in such a case? I know GM, Microsoft, Motorola et al may have a field day if the Japanese just disapeared, but hey, there's added value elsewhere that many nations would value in having their human and physical assets close.
i can't believe i am even answering this, and i am bewildered by the fact that you might actually be seriously thinking what you are writing.
anyway, even the worst case scenario -a complete meltdown of all four reactors- is not even remotely close to the apocalyptic pictures you have in mind.
'japan' is not going to 'blow up' or to be reduced to a barren wasteland forever.
in the worst case scenario (which is very unlikely to occur), a small area will be heavily contaminated and a larger area will be moderately or lightly contaminated.
tens or hundreds of people will get sick in the short term, and more would be at risk in the long term, a lot of people will have to evacuate to a safer distance from the reactor, and the economic cost of the clean up (and the recostruction in the tsunami-devastated areas) would be tremendous.
but how you go from there to "japan is history" is mindboggling.
mrelwood
Apr 20, 06:39 PM
Largest App store.
This is the company who is in court saying that App Store is a registered brand name, and thou shalt have no other App Stores.
Then they themselves say that THEIR App Store is the largest.
Hippoc... hypocr... how was it spelled again?
This is the company who is in court saying that App Store is a registered brand name, and thou shalt have no other App Stores.
Then they themselves say that THEIR App Store is the largest.
Hippoc... hypocr... how was it spelled again?
peharri
Sep 23, 10:25 AM
Perhaps we've just been exposed to different sources of info. I viewed the sept 12 presentation in its entirety, and have read virtually all the reports and comments on macrumors, appleinsider, think secret, engadget, the wall street journal, and maccentral, among others. It was disney chief bob iger who was quoted saying iTV had a hard drive; that was generally interpreted (except by maccentral, which took the statement literally) to mean it had some sort of storage, be it flash or a small HD, and that it would be for buffering/caching to allow streaming of huge files at relatively slow (for the purpose) wireless speeds.
I've read absolutely everything I can too and I have to disagree with you still.
It makes absolutely no sense for Bob Iger to have been told there's "some sort of storage" if this isn't storage in any conventional sense. Storage to a layman means somewhere where you store things, not something transitory used by the machine in a way you can't fathom. So, we have two factors here:
First - Bob's been talking about a hard disk. That absolutely doesn't point at a cache, it's too expensive to be a cache.
Second - Even if Bob got the technology wrong, he's been told the machine has "storage". That's not a term you generally use to mean "transitory storage for temporary objects".
The suggestion Bob's talking about a cache is being made, in my view, because people know it'll need some sort of caching to overcome 802.11/etc temporary bandwidth issues (Hmm. Kind of. You guys do know we're talking about way less bandwidth requirements than a DVD right - and that a DVD-formatted MPEG2 will transmit realtime on an 802.11g link? What's more, for 99% of Internet users, their DSL connection has less bandwidth than their wireless link, even if they're on the other side of the house with someone else's WAN in range and on the same channel. Yes, 802.11 suffers drop-outs, but we're talking about needing seconds worth of video effected, not hours) As such, you're trying to find evidence that it'll deal with caching.
YOU DON'T NEED TO. A few megabytes of RAM is enough to ensure smooth playback will happen. This is a non-problem. Everyone who's going this route is putting way too much thought into designing a solution to something that isn't hard to solve.
Nonetheless, because it's an "issue", everything is being interpreted in that light. If there's "storage", it must be because of caching! Well, in my opinion, if there's storage, it's almost certainly to do with storage. You don't need it for caching.
I'm trying to imagine a conversation with Bob Iger where the issue of flash or hard disk space for caching content to avoid 802.11 issues would come up, and where the word "storage" would be used purely in that context. It's hard. I don't see them talking about caches to Iger. It makes no sense. They might just as well talk about DCT transforms or the Quicktime API.
I'm perfectly willing to be wrong. But i don't think i am. Let's continue reading the reports and revisit this subject here in a day or two.
Sure. I'm perfectly willing to be wrong too. I'm certainly less sure of it than I am of the iPhone rumours being bunk.
Regardless of the truth, I have to say the iTV makes little sense unless, regardless of whether it contains a hard disk or not, it can stream content directly from the iTS. Without the possibility of being used as a computer-less media hub, it becomes an overly expensive and complicated solution for what could more easily be done by making a bolt-on similar to that awful TubePort concept.
I'm 99% sure the machine is intended as an independent hub that can use iTunes libraries on the same network but can also go to the iTS directly and view content straight from there (and possibly other sources, such as Google Video.) I can see why Apple would make that. I can see why it would take a $300 machine to do that and make it practical. I see the importance of the iTS and the potential dangers to it as the cellphone displaces the iPod, and Apple's need to shore it up. I can see studio executives "not getting it" with online movies if those movies can only be seen on laptops, PCs, and iPods.
If Apple does force the thing to need a computer, I think they need to come out with an 'iTunes server' box that can fufill the same role, and it has to be cheap.
I've read absolutely everything I can too and I have to disagree with you still.
It makes absolutely no sense for Bob Iger to have been told there's "some sort of storage" if this isn't storage in any conventional sense. Storage to a layman means somewhere where you store things, not something transitory used by the machine in a way you can't fathom. So, we have two factors here:
First - Bob's been talking about a hard disk. That absolutely doesn't point at a cache, it's too expensive to be a cache.
Second - Even if Bob got the technology wrong, he's been told the machine has "storage". That's not a term you generally use to mean "transitory storage for temporary objects".
The suggestion Bob's talking about a cache is being made, in my view, because people know it'll need some sort of caching to overcome 802.11/etc temporary bandwidth issues (Hmm. Kind of. You guys do know we're talking about way less bandwidth requirements than a DVD right - and that a DVD-formatted MPEG2 will transmit realtime on an 802.11g link? What's more, for 99% of Internet users, their DSL connection has less bandwidth than their wireless link, even if they're on the other side of the house with someone else's WAN in range and on the same channel. Yes, 802.11 suffers drop-outs, but we're talking about needing seconds worth of video effected, not hours) As such, you're trying to find evidence that it'll deal with caching.
YOU DON'T NEED TO. A few megabytes of RAM is enough to ensure smooth playback will happen. This is a non-problem. Everyone who's going this route is putting way too much thought into designing a solution to something that isn't hard to solve.
Nonetheless, because it's an "issue", everything is being interpreted in that light. If there's "storage", it must be because of caching! Well, in my opinion, if there's storage, it's almost certainly to do with storage. You don't need it for caching.
I'm trying to imagine a conversation with Bob Iger where the issue of flash or hard disk space for caching content to avoid 802.11 issues would come up, and where the word "storage" would be used purely in that context. It's hard. I don't see them talking about caches to Iger. It makes no sense. They might just as well talk about DCT transforms or the Quicktime API.
I'm perfectly willing to be wrong. But i don't think i am. Let's continue reading the reports and revisit this subject here in a day or two.
Sure. I'm perfectly willing to be wrong too. I'm certainly less sure of it than I am of the iPhone rumours being bunk.
Regardless of the truth, I have to say the iTV makes little sense unless, regardless of whether it contains a hard disk or not, it can stream content directly from the iTS. Without the possibility of being used as a computer-less media hub, it becomes an overly expensive and complicated solution for what could more easily be done by making a bolt-on similar to that awful TubePort concept.
I'm 99% sure the machine is intended as an independent hub that can use iTunes libraries on the same network but can also go to the iTS directly and view content straight from there (and possibly other sources, such as Google Video.) I can see why Apple would make that. I can see why it would take a $300 machine to do that and make it practical. I see the importance of the iTS and the potential dangers to it as the cellphone displaces the iPod, and Apple's need to shore it up. I can see studio executives "not getting it" with online movies if those movies can only be seen on laptops, PCs, and iPods.
If Apple does force the thing to need a computer, I think they need to come out with an 'iTunes server' box that can fufill the same role, and it has to be cheap.
mdntcallr
Sep 20, 12:36 AM
Sounds like a very cool device.
But to be honest, I am hoping this is just one device of many TV integrated services for apple.
ie,
1- more dvr hdtv functionality
2- hdmi output in 1080p for television of computer and hdtv content
3- blu-ray drive for movies and for data use
4- Apple Televisions/monitors (yes tv's with speakers and hdmi inputs in addition to computer inputs)
5- Itunes movie shop with HDTV Rentals, not have to purchase everything, but instead be able to rent with unlimited views for 1 week. and viewing window can start when user initiates, ie, download lots of movies for a trip, then go view
well i can always hope. :-)
lets hope for a 60" Apple tv/monitor is coming for release soon. this would power a home theater and be usable for much more
But to be honest, I am hoping this is just one device of many TV integrated services for apple.
ie,
1- more dvr hdtv functionality
2- hdmi output in 1080p for television of computer and hdtv content
3- blu-ray drive for movies and for data use
4- Apple Televisions/monitors (yes tv's with speakers and hdmi inputs in addition to computer inputs)
5- Itunes movie shop with HDTV Rentals, not have to purchase everything, but instead be able to rent with unlimited views for 1 week. and viewing window can start when user initiates, ie, download lots of movies for a trip, then go view
well i can always hope. :-)
lets hope for a 60" Apple tv/monitor is coming for release soon. this would power a home theater and be usable for much more
SimD
Apr 12, 10:55 PM
So exactly what "pro" features were removed with this release?
The dull gray colour, the fact that it isn't an elite app costing over $1000 making it unavailable to the mass.. uhmm the huge instruction manual?
(/sarcasm)
The dull gray colour, the fact that it isn't an elite app costing over $1000 making it unavailable to the mass.. uhmm the huge instruction manual?
(/sarcasm)
milozauckerman
Jul 12, 08:21 PM
Yeah mister 6" PeeCee, you must've missed where Steve Jobs said something along the lines of, "BMW and Mercedes have about a 14% market share. What's wrong with being a BMW or a Mercedes?"
This is my philosophy as well. I don't drive a Ford. I don't want XP. I don't want an HP. So suck your PC.
There's some irony about your penis envy reference and the rest of this post.
Just sayin'.
This is my philosophy as well. I don't drive a Ford. I don't want XP. I don't want an HP. So suck your PC.
There's some irony about your penis envy reference and the rest of this post.
Just sayin'.
ddtlm
Oct 12, 06:09 PM
Sheesh, where does the OSX 10.2 developer tools CD install gcc to, or under what name? The older dev tools gave me a compiler. Grumble.
PhantomPumpkin
Apr 21, 08:51 AM
I own 3 macs and 5 advices. I have a PhD in electrical engineering and designed microprocessors for 14 years, including microprocessors used in many PCs. I've written millions of lines of source code in C, assembler, C++, etc.
And most of the folks I know who use Linux or solaris all day at work to design chips use macs at home and carry iPhones. I don't know a single one of them who uses an android phone (many carry blackberries however).
Shhh. Your experiences are obviously the exception, since they don't conform to his viewpoints.
To be honest, the really "tech savy" ones are the ones who can and do use MULTIPLE platforms. Not just Windows, nor Mac, nor Linux, but a combination of many.
I do love his "IT guy" argument though. I just had a friend's father, 20+ years as an IT Professional, convert over to Mac after getting fed up with the Windows Virus/Malware/other random issues train.
He posted the pic of him in the Apple store looking at an iMac with the caption, "You're doing it right."
:D
And most of the folks I know who use Linux or solaris all day at work to design chips use macs at home and carry iPhones. I don't know a single one of them who uses an android phone (many carry blackberries however).
Shhh. Your experiences are obviously the exception, since they don't conform to his viewpoints.
To be honest, the really "tech savy" ones are the ones who can and do use MULTIPLE platforms. Not just Windows, nor Mac, nor Linux, but a combination of many.
I do love his "IT guy" argument though. I just had a friend's father, 20+ years as an IT Professional, convert over to Mac after getting fed up with the Windows Virus/Malware/other random issues train.
He posted the pic of him in the Apple store looking at an iMac with the caption, "You're doing it right."
:D
frogger2020
Apr 5, 11:02 PM
The thing that bugs me the most is that Windows Explorer is so much better than Finder.
skunk
Mar 26, 01:31 PM
relationships built on love in general are less stable, cf. US divorce rate.Do you have a source for this extraordinary claim?
Clive At Five
Sep 20, 05:22 PM
I just wanted to point out that "hard drive" is an extremely generic term when it comes to layman's terms regarding computers. [...] I have users that refer to the entire COMPUTER as the "hard drive". There is a very good chance that Iger knows very little about computers and could simply be miscommunicating what he means.
I whole-heartedly agree.
I find it higly unlikely that there's a physical Hard Drive in the box that amounts to anything more than the UI and/or chache/buffer.
There's absolutely no need and would complicate the equation indefinitely, especially concerning digital rights.
Let's assume Iger is right, though, that there IS a HDD in the TelePort (or as you infidels call it, iTV), and that it can act as a stand-alone media access point. The question remains, how would you be able to get media onto it? Either 1) it comes with some sort of operating system which allowed you to connect it to iTS for content, or 2) it could be detected by a Mac or PC as a computer/HD over the network in order to drag-n-drop media.
Option 1, I think, is too far-fetched and risky. There would be substantial reliability issues using HDs that small to run an OS. We've all heard many nightmare-ish stories about people trying to bring their home computer to work, booting via iPod. Nonetheless, this seems like the most likely option for the use of a HDD.
Option 2, if this is the case, you already have a full-sized (i.e. reliable) HDD in your computer, which is connected to the internet, (i.e. iTS) for content. Why would you even need a HD in the box? Basically, Apple would be spending money on MicroDrives which don't have a reliable life-span and take up valuable space inside the box and for what? So that you can have an identical copy of a 1GB movie on both your Mac and your iTV box? As long as streaming works, there's no need. As long as streaming works, there's no need. As long as streaming works, there's no need!
PLUS, with iTunes DRM, you are limited to the number of copies you can make on devices you own. So an HD in the iTV would eat up one of those copies for any of the media you would choose to load onto it.
I do think, however, it would be likely to allow it to connect to .Mac, although streaming from the net is slower than from within an internal network... and on top of that, I don't know many people who store full-length, full-quality movies in their .Mac storage. In fact, I don't know any.
So, that's why I think there will be no HDD in the TelePort.
-Clive
I whole-heartedly agree.
I find it higly unlikely that there's a physical Hard Drive in the box that amounts to anything more than the UI and/or chache/buffer.
There's absolutely no need and would complicate the equation indefinitely, especially concerning digital rights.
Let's assume Iger is right, though, that there IS a HDD in the TelePort (or as you infidels call it, iTV), and that it can act as a stand-alone media access point. The question remains, how would you be able to get media onto it? Either 1) it comes with some sort of operating system which allowed you to connect it to iTS for content, or 2) it could be detected by a Mac or PC as a computer/HD over the network in order to drag-n-drop media.
Option 1, I think, is too far-fetched and risky. There would be substantial reliability issues using HDs that small to run an OS. We've all heard many nightmare-ish stories about people trying to bring their home computer to work, booting via iPod. Nonetheless, this seems like the most likely option for the use of a HDD.
Option 2, if this is the case, you already have a full-sized (i.e. reliable) HDD in your computer, which is connected to the internet, (i.e. iTS) for content. Why would you even need a HD in the box? Basically, Apple would be spending money on MicroDrives which don't have a reliable life-span and take up valuable space inside the box and for what? So that you can have an identical copy of a 1GB movie on both your Mac and your iTV box? As long as streaming works, there's no need. As long as streaming works, there's no need. As long as streaming works, there's no need!
PLUS, with iTunes DRM, you are limited to the number of copies you can make on devices you own. So an HD in the iTV would eat up one of those copies for any of the media you would choose to load onto it.
I do think, however, it would be likely to allow it to connect to .Mac, although streaming from the net is slower than from within an internal network... and on top of that, I don't know many people who store full-length, full-quality movies in their .Mac storage. In fact, I don't know any.
So, that's why I think there will be no HDD in the TelePort.
-Clive
mward333
Apr 15, 10:26 AM
Everybody deserves love and respect--it seems to me that this project is supportive of this notion. Very cool indeed.
SactoGuy18
Mar 14, 07:55 PM
While good to have them I do not see them being more cost effiective since they more than likely require a fair amount of R&D.
Actually, thorium-based nuclear reactors have been successfully tested since the early 1960's! If you read this article from Wired magazine:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/
The idea of the liquid fluoride thorium reactor has been around since the 1950's. Ever since Alvin Weinberg's pioneering research, improved technology has made it possible for the LFTR to be competitive against light-water uranium reactors, and of course there's all the advantages I mentioned earlier.
Best of all, thorium-232 is many times more available than fuel-quality uranium, and it's estimated the continental USA may have 20% of the world's supply of thorium that can be mined out--not including the 175,000 tons the US military mined and stored as part of the Manhattan Project!
Like I said earlier, what are we waiting for?
Actually, thorium-based nuclear reactors have been successfully tested since the early 1960's! If you read this article from Wired magazine:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/
The idea of the liquid fluoride thorium reactor has been around since the 1950's. Ever since Alvin Weinberg's pioneering research, improved technology has made it possible for the LFTR to be competitive against light-water uranium reactors, and of course there's all the advantages I mentioned earlier.
Best of all, thorium-232 is many times more available than fuel-quality uranium, and it's estimated the continental USA may have 20% of the world's supply of thorium that can be mined out--not including the 175,000 tons the US military mined and stored as part of the Manhattan Project!
Like I said earlier, what are we waiting for?
RawBert
Mar 11, 10:07 AM
the tsunami videos are horrifying. :(
QCassidy352
Mar 18, 11:49 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
I should add that I don't agree with those calling unofficial tethering "stealing." it's not taking anything from AT&T and it's not illegal in the sense of breaking a criminal law (and AT&T isn't saying otherwise). It's a violation of your contract, and AT&T is therefore justified in taking action. I agree that charging more for tethering on a limited data plan doesn't make much sense, but contracts don't have to make perfect sense.
Personally, I don't use unauthorized tethering because I believe in honoring my contracts. But it's not "stealing."
I should add that I don't agree with those calling unofficial tethering "stealing." it's not taking anything from AT&T and it's not illegal in the sense of breaking a criminal law (and AT&T isn't saying otherwise). It's a violation of your contract, and AT&T is therefore justified in taking action. I agree that charging more for tethering on a limited data plan doesn't make much sense, but contracts don't have to make perfect sense.
Personally, I don't use unauthorized tethering because I believe in honoring my contracts. But it's not "stealing."
OllyW
Apr 28, 07:50 AM
And growth is bad?
I don't understand what you are getting at?
The figure from the year before was for Macs only. The iPad has sold very well so pushes Apple's share up when they are included but it isn't a Mac.
Mac sales were at record levels last year but if they had increased their market share by 188% then I would be more than impressed. ;)
I don't understand what you are getting at?
The figure from the year before was for Macs only. The iPad has sold very well so pushes Apple's share up when they are included but it isn't a Mac.
Mac sales were at record levels last year but if they had increased their market share by 188% then I would be more than impressed. ;)
ender78
Sep 26, 03:50 PM
Intel has a prototype CPU with 80 [yes Eighty] cores that they claim will be in production systems in 5 years (eighty cores each at 3.16 GHz)
http://news.com.com/Intel+pledges+80+cores+in+five+years/2100-1006_3-6119618.html?tag=nefd.lede
http://news.com.com/Intel+pledges+80+cores+in+five+years/2100-1006_3-6119618.html?tag=nefd.lede
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
