Aduntu
Apr 15, 09:49 AM
I'm not against the message of encouraging people to reach out for help in a time of need, or helping those under the stress of bullying to realize that it gets better. Though, I am curious why a commercial company is attaching itself to a particular community? If Apple participated in a video that supported a community of people believing that marriage should be between only a man and a woman, the LGBT community would be outraged. Why alienate customers that may have strong opinions on the subject, no matter which side they're on?
shamino
Mar 18, 03:50 PM
The interesting thing here is that this hack doesn't violate the DMCA. It violates the iTunes shrink-wrap license, but that's only enforceable in VA and MD.
The DMCA doesn't allow breaking encryption. So saving a data stream that is sent unencrypted from a legal distributor doesn't violate this law.
Apple's "fix" for this is fairly simple. Send the files in an ecrypted form. In order to maximize caching, use a common key that all iTunes clients have built-in, sort of like DVDs and CES. The client can then decrypt with the common key and re-encrypt with the DRM key.
This doesn't make it any more difficult for a creating programmer to capture the stream and remove the common encryption without applying DRM, but it does mean that he has to decrypt something in the process. Which makes it into a DMCA violation.
Of course, a new iTunes update will be required to make this happen, but this wouldn't be the first time Apple made a change to ITMS requiring an iTunes upgrade.
The DMCA doesn't allow breaking encryption. So saving a data stream that is sent unencrypted from a legal distributor doesn't violate this law.
Apple's "fix" for this is fairly simple. Send the files in an ecrypted form. In order to maximize caching, use a common key that all iTunes clients have built-in, sort of like DVDs and CES. The client can then decrypt with the common key and re-encrypt with the DRM key.
This doesn't make it any more difficult for a creating programmer to capture the stream and remove the common encryption without applying DRM, but it does mean that he has to decrypt something in the process. Which makes it into a DMCA violation.
Of course, a new iTunes update will be required to make this happen, but this wouldn't be the first time Apple made a change to ITMS requiring an iTunes upgrade.
Squire
Sep 20, 07:45 AM
To those that say that Apple won't allow this because it would hit their own TV show revenues from the iTunes store... I disagree. They'll have to give in sooner or later, because EyeTV isn't going to go away. Would iTunes/iPod have been such a success if they'd have made us purchase all our music from iTunes, even the stuff we alread had on CD?
I'm not going to pay �3 (or whatever) for an Episode of Lost if I could have recorded on EyeTV last night... especially when C4 repeat each episode about 6 times per week anyway.
I see your point but maybe you're not seeing the big picture-- the future as Apple, perhaps, sees it. (And you are paying for that "Lost" episode whether you watch it or not, aren't you?)
A few minutes ago, I was thinking, Gee...if Apple got enough content on iTunes, a guy could just buy all the stuff he wanted to see and to hell with the rest. I see this as replacing cable TV in the not-too-distant future. Customized, commercial-free TV delivered to your computer and then sent to your iTV box. Why pay for that afternoon soap opera that you never watch?
This model probably would not make financial sense for people who watch a lot of TV but, for those who only watch a select few shows, it might be a good alternative to cable TV.
-Squire
I'm not going to pay �3 (or whatever) for an Episode of Lost if I could have recorded on EyeTV last night... especially when C4 repeat each episode about 6 times per week anyway.
I see your point but maybe you're not seeing the big picture-- the future as Apple, perhaps, sees it. (And you are paying for that "Lost" episode whether you watch it or not, aren't you?)
A few minutes ago, I was thinking, Gee...if Apple got enough content on iTunes, a guy could just buy all the stuff he wanted to see and to hell with the rest. I see this as replacing cable TV in the not-too-distant future. Customized, commercial-free TV delivered to your computer and then sent to your iTV box. Why pay for that afternoon soap opera that you never watch?
This model probably would not make financial sense for people who watch a lot of TV but, for those who only watch a select few shows, it might be a good alternative to cable TV.
-Squire
dante@sisna.com
Oct 26, 12:03 PM
Thank you for both those posts. I have felt pretty alone on these 8-core threads thus far. Glad to finally see someone else who understands and can explain so well why 8-cores is still not going to be enough joining in on these discussions.
Any of you who don't think a 16-core Mac Pro will be a hit in a year can really only be into word processing. :p
You are welcome.
I have been reading your Mac Rumors posts for a long time and I am amazed at the bashing you take sometimes. I recall the days when people complained of Apple boxes being "too slow."
Now the posts I read on supposed pro sites like Mac Rumors are filled with users chiding one's need for speed -- I get the feeling that many of the users in this forum do simply have the workload to truly push these machines -- there is almost a sense of envy at users who do.
My suggestion to users feeling this envy is as follows: Learn new skills. If you make your living using a Mac as we do, then evolve with your box. Buy new software. Seek out new clients who want higher end multimedia for web and other distribution. Push the market to evolve.
Anyhow, I will contribute as much as my schedule allows.
Best regards to all.
Dante
Any of you who don't think a 16-core Mac Pro will be a hit in a year can really only be into word processing. :p
You are welcome.
I have been reading your Mac Rumors posts for a long time and I am amazed at the bashing you take sometimes. I recall the days when people complained of Apple boxes being "too slow."
Now the posts I read on supposed pro sites like Mac Rumors are filled with users chiding one's need for speed -- I get the feeling that many of the users in this forum do simply have the workload to truly push these machines -- there is almost a sense of envy at users who do.
My suggestion to users feeling this envy is as follows: Learn new skills. If you make your living using a Mac as we do, then evolve with your box. Buy new software. Seek out new clients who want higher end multimedia for web and other distribution. Push the market to evolve.
Anyhow, I will contribute as much as my schedule allows.
Best regards to all.
Dante
aiqw9182
Apr 12, 10:21 PM
This is what iMovie after iMovie '06 should have been, if only because it has a PROPER FRICKIN' TIMELINE!
Was really hoping for $199, but $299 isn't bad. I might just upgrade from iMovie '06 (I'm not really a 'pro' editor, but I love my timelines!).
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/10/22/timeline-tweak-returns-imovie-11-to-old-school/
Was really hoping for $199, but $299 isn't bad. I might just upgrade from iMovie '06 (I'm not really a 'pro' editor, but I love my timelines!).
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/10/22/timeline-tweak-returns-imovie-11-to-old-school/
archipellago
May 2, 04:34 PM
All successful malware includes privilege escalation via exploitation. This does not. That is why malware never has become successful in OS X and is becoming less successful in Windows. The big issue with Windows in the past was the default account in Windows XP (admin) runs with elevated privileges by default so privilege escalation was not required for system level access.
Man in the browser is now the biggest issue for all OS's, malware wise.
All the info. happens via the browser, there is no point attacking anything else.
Man in the browser is now the biggest issue for all OS's, malware wise.
All the info. happens via the browser, there is no point attacking anything else.
OdduWon
Nov 3, 11:23 AM
Someone give multimedia 8 cores please. so he will have more time to bring the know. :D
you rock ;)
you rock ;)
matticus008
Mar 20, 07:28 PM
Which is why copyright is a bunch of bull.
I think you missed the point of that one. h'biki was saying that if someone, let's say someone well-known, like Britney Spears, got a copy of your wedding video and used it to make a music video for her latest song, that it wouldn't hurt anyone. It'd just be infringing on copyright, after all, even though it's your face and your wedding that's now on MTV without your permission.
And to your earlier comment, yes, breaking the law is wrong. If the law is unfair and unjust, you change the law. The exception to this is when the law, again, as I said and you must have skipped, causes you direct personal or meaningful financial harm. Then you might have an argument for breaking the law. Otherwise, the right thing to do is to have the law changed. The digital music situation fits into this category. If you break the law, you don't encourage the law being changed, and there is no immediacy of threat to justify your illegal actions except that it's more convenient for you and that you don't care about the law. You're the reason DRM exists in the first place.
I think you missed the point of that one. h'biki was saying that if someone, let's say someone well-known, like Britney Spears, got a copy of your wedding video and used it to make a music video for her latest song, that it wouldn't hurt anyone. It'd just be infringing on copyright, after all, even though it's your face and your wedding that's now on MTV without your permission.
And to your earlier comment, yes, breaking the law is wrong. If the law is unfair and unjust, you change the law. The exception to this is when the law, again, as I said and you must have skipped, causes you direct personal or meaningful financial harm. Then you might have an argument for breaking the law. Otherwise, the right thing to do is to have the law changed. The digital music situation fits into this category. If you break the law, you don't encourage the law being changed, and there is no immediacy of threat to justify your illegal actions except that it's more convenient for you and that you don't care about the law. You're the reason DRM exists in the first place.
diamond.g
Apr 21, 08:51 AM
So are you going to tell me that paying for tethering ON TOP OF DATA YOU ALREADY PAID FOR is fair? Data is data is data... 4gb is 4gb no matter how I use it. Tethering cost are a joke!:mad: /end rant
You are joking right?
Well, just think of it as paying toll on a road that your taxes had already paid for (probably a bad example).
You are joking right?
Well, just think of it as paying toll on a road that your taxes had already paid for (probably a bad example).
btrav13
Jun 7, 08:37 PM
So, serious question: Why do people put up with ATT?
I hear all the arguments that go back and forth: they suck, it would have happened to anyone, my service is terrible, my service is great, break exclusivity, keep exclusivity.
I own an iPod, iPad and MBP, but no iPhone. I know a lot of us LOVE our Apple products, but seriously, why don't more people talk to ATT with their dollars? If every ATT hater who owned an iPhone did not buy the next one, would that do the trick? Would that send a better message to Apple than an email to Jobs or a post on MacRumors.com? I know there have been efforts at crashing the data network and such, but wouldn't just NOT purchasing the product and NOT putting up with something you don't like be a bigger statement at the end of the day?
I hear all the arguments that go back and forth: they suck, it would have happened to anyone, my service is terrible, my service is great, break exclusivity, keep exclusivity.
I own an iPod, iPad and MBP, but no iPhone. I know a lot of us LOVE our Apple products, but seriously, why don't more people talk to ATT with their dollars? If every ATT hater who owned an iPhone did not buy the next one, would that do the trick? Would that send a better message to Apple than an email to Jobs or a post on MacRumors.com? I know there have been efforts at crashing the data network and such, but wouldn't just NOT purchasing the product and NOT putting up with something you don't like be a bigger statement at the end of the day?
javajedi
Oct 13, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by macwannabe
Saying that the 2.8GHz P4 is no good because it is based on 25 year old architecture is nonsense as far as I'm concerned.
Can I take it then that you don't think that any of the cars on the market at the moment are worth having or have been improved at all on the grounds that they are based on an 80 year old design? "I don't think that BMW is any good as it is based on a Ford model T", hmmmmmmmm dodgy logic methinks.
You are absolutely 110% correct. We've allready dismissed BackToTheMac's outlandish fallacies though :)
I think he gets the picture now....
Saying that the 2.8GHz P4 is no good because it is based on 25 year old architecture is nonsense as far as I'm concerned.
Can I take it then that you don't think that any of the cars on the market at the moment are worth having or have been improved at all on the grounds that they are based on an 80 year old design? "I don't think that BMW is any good as it is based on a Ford model T", hmmmmmmmm dodgy logic methinks.
You are absolutely 110% correct. We've allready dismissed BackToTheMac's outlandish fallacies though :)
I think he gets the picture now....
acslater017
Aug 29, 01:06 PM
This should be a Page 2 story at best. Let's be clear about what this bit of propaganda is... We know Greenpeace is anti-technology, anti-capitalism. They know Apple is not only a huge success story, but also has a big presence in consumer's minds. Everyone knows Apple and iPods. Clearly Greenpeace, like the iPod labor camp story before it, is USING Apple to forward their own agenda of killing technology and thwarting capitalism and innovation.
Greenpeace is not exactly 'agenda-less'. But that seems sort of paranoid to say that they're clearly trying to kill technology, capitalism and innovation. If they wanted to target Apple, or get a lot of publicity, they surely could have done something more dramatic than put them fourth from the bottom of a list.
And honestly, what do we know about Apple's environmental standards (materials used, manufacturing processes, disposal methods, etc.)? I really doubt that most of you (myself included) are industrial engineers, environmental standards auditors or something. Like some previous replies said - some people can't stand the idea that Apple is not great at something, and will lash out at those who criticize it. I mean, I like Apple's stuff, but it's just a company. Keep an open mind...
Greenpeace is not exactly 'agenda-less'. But that seems sort of paranoid to say that they're clearly trying to kill technology, capitalism and innovation. If they wanted to target Apple, or get a lot of publicity, they surely could have done something more dramatic than put them fourth from the bottom of a list.
And honestly, what do we know about Apple's environmental standards (materials used, manufacturing processes, disposal methods, etc.)? I really doubt that most of you (myself included) are industrial engineers, environmental standards auditors or something. Like some previous replies said - some people can't stand the idea that Apple is not great at something, and will lash out at those who criticize it. I mean, I like Apple's stuff, but it's just a company. Keep an open mind...
KnightWRX
May 2, 05:51 PM
Until Vista and Win 7, it was effectively impossible to run a Windows NT system as anything but Administrator. To the point that other than locked-down corporate sites where an IT Professional was required to install the Corporate Approved version of any software you need to do your job, I never knew anyone running XP (or 2k, or for that matter NT 3.x) who in a day-to-day fashion used a Standard user account.
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...
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
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.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
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.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
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.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
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.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
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...
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
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.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
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.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
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.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
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.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
Mattie Num Nums
May 2, 09:26 AM
So make it unsafe, it's not a rocket science, cowboy.
You're awfully sensitive about this issue, chief.
You're awfully sensitive about this issue, chief.
mahonmeister
Sep 26, 02:20 AM
You can buy a 32 core machine today. Sun sells them. They are not cheap. I'm waiting for the day when we see "kilo-cores" and people add them like RAM, a thousand cores at a time.
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.;)
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.;)
iFiend
Apr 21, 09:46 AM
It is this quote right here that separates the fan from the fanboi.
win
win
Mord
Jul 13, 10:24 AM
no, i looked up real numbers and took off ~40% which is the amount apple would get off from retail prices.
+ if the low end mac pro has a single cpu if we are lucky it may have an empty socket ready for an upgrade.
+ if the low end mac pro has a single cpu if we are lucky it may have an empty socket ready for an upgrade.
.jpg "spider bite on lip. spider")
Rend It
Aug 29, 01:59 PM
I see a lot of people in this thread are either blindly making excuses for Apple, or for the industry in general. I am most surprised that there is any Hg (mercury) anywhere in Apple's line. Likely, there's a Hg-vapor lamp for the LCD backlights.
An actual link to Apple's materials usage:
http://www.apple.com/environment/materials/
I'm not really sure what Greenpeace's deal is with the PVC and BFRs. What about the thousands of miles of PVC pipe in use in homes and elsewhere? As for BFRs, it's pretty damn important to make sure an object doesn't catch fire. Again, there are plenty of nasty non-asbestos fire-abatement materials used in building manufacturing. I'm not making excuses for Apple, but I think some perspective is called for here. I assume that Greenpeace's major issue is the toxicological effect these substances have on the environment. However, in terms of the actual amounts used, the electronics industry probably uses much less than the construction industry. True, there are probably companies leading the way in green building materials, but it certainly isn't an industry standard.
Apple is in compliance with RoHS; otherwise it couldn't sell computers in CA or in Europe. That means that they have probably stopped using Pb-based solders (which contained 40% Pb!). I'm dissappointed with the Hg issue, but it is a relatively small amount (less than 3.5 mg per lamp). Hopefully, the industry will soon find a replacement for these lamps, as well as the conventional printed circuit board materials. More importantly for Apple, I hope that they show more of a leadership role in this area than they have in the past. :(
An actual link to Apple's materials usage:
http://www.apple.com/environment/materials/
I'm not really sure what Greenpeace's deal is with the PVC and BFRs. What about the thousands of miles of PVC pipe in use in homes and elsewhere? As for BFRs, it's pretty damn important to make sure an object doesn't catch fire. Again, there are plenty of nasty non-asbestos fire-abatement materials used in building manufacturing. I'm not making excuses for Apple, but I think some perspective is called for here. I assume that Greenpeace's major issue is the toxicological effect these substances have on the environment. However, in terms of the actual amounts used, the electronics industry probably uses much less than the construction industry. True, there are probably companies leading the way in green building materials, but it certainly isn't an industry standard.
Apple is in compliance with RoHS; otherwise it couldn't sell computers in CA or in Europe. That means that they have probably stopped using Pb-based solders (which contained 40% Pb!). I'm dissappointed with the Hg issue, but it is a relatively small amount (less than 3.5 mg per lamp). Hopefully, the industry will soon find a replacement for these lamps, as well as the conventional printed circuit board materials. More importantly for Apple, I hope that they show more of a leadership role in this area than they have in the past. :(
appleguy123
Apr 24, 08:36 AM
And of course atheists will be less trusted. Atheism rejects non-societal Morals (unless you want to pull the "absolute morals exist and god(s) do not" version of atheism). Morality is completely defined by society at that point or at a more direct sense, by us.
Are you as a theist not glad that morals are defined by society and not 4,000 year old books?
Go stone someone for cursing at their parents and come back to me on that.
Once again, atheists have a lower prison rate than Christians, and are likely to be more educated.
Atheists have no de facto reason to discriminate against any people group.
Atheists don't need to feel watched to do the right thing.
Are you as a theist not glad that morals are defined by society and not 4,000 year old books?
Go stone someone for cursing at their parents and come back to me on that.
Once again, atheists have a lower prison rate than Christians, and are likely to be more educated.
Atheists have no de facto reason to discriminate against any people group.
Atheists don't need to feel watched to do the right thing.
Nermal
Oct 7, 06:48 PM
I had a couple apps brick my i730 back when I was on Verizon. I ended up having to hard reset and resync all my contacts.
If you were able to reset and get it working again, then it wasn't bricked. "Bricked" means that the device now has the functionality of a brick. You cannot reset a brick, and certainly can't synch contacts with one :)
If you were able to reset and get it working again, then it wasn't bricked. "Bricked" means that the device now has the functionality of a brick. You cannot reset a brick, and certainly can't synch contacts with one :)
xIGmanIx
Apr 10, 11:06 AM
Epic is garbage and their engine is garbage.
MacRumors
Jul 11, 09:51 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
AppleInsider claims they have confirmation (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1877) that Apple will be using Intel's Xeon 5100 series processors, also known as "Woodcrest" to power their next generation Intel-based Mac Pro Workstations.
Previous claims (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/06/20060609094241.shtml) indicated that the Mac Pro would continue the Quad-core tradition set by the latest batch of PowerMac G5's. However, in order for an Intel-based "Quad" to be developed, a multi-processor machine would be required, which inherently leaves out the use of Core 2 Duo "Conroe" based microprocessors, as they do not support multi-processor configurations.
Of note, ThinkSecret has maintained (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060704122932.shtml) that they believe the Mac Pro will utilize Core 2 Duo (Conroe).
Additionally, AppleInsider speculates that Conroe may be used in a future iMac revision, while Merom will be used in future MacBook Pros and Yonah will remain in the MacBook and Mac Mini.
Digg This (http://digg.com/apple/Mac_Pro_and_Woodcrest_Confirmed)
AppleInsider claims they have confirmation (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1877) that Apple will be using Intel's Xeon 5100 series processors, also known as "Woodcrest" to power their next generation Intel-based Mac Pro Workstations.
Previous claims (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/06/20060609094241.shtml) indicated that the Mac Pro would continue the Quad-core tradition set by the latest batch of PowerMac G5's. However, in order for an Intel-based "Quad" to be developed, a multi-processor machine would be required, which inherently leaves out the use of Core 2 Duo "Conroe" based microprocessors, as they do not support multi-processor configurations.
Of note, ThinkSecret has maintained (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060704122932.shtml) that they believe the Mac Pro will utilize Core 2 Duo (Conroe).
Additionally, AppleInsider speculates that Conroe may be used in a future iMac revision, while Merom will be used in future MacBook Pros and Yonah will remain in the MacBook and Mac Mini.
Digg This (http://digg.com/apple/Mac_Pro_and_Woodcrest_Confirmed)
damnyooneek
Mar 18, 04:26 AM
stop gouging the customer. first we pay for 'unlimited' data thats capped at 5gb then they limit it to 2gb and force you to pay more to tether.
MacCoaster
Oct 10, 04:06 AM
Originally posted by ryme4reson
<EDIT> I am gonna try to run this on my brothers 333 celeron on a 66MHZ bus with 320 RAM, I know my 933 is not the fastest, but maybe it just found its competition. :) </EDIT>
I had a friend run my C# implementation on his 333MHz Celeron o/c'ed to 375MHz. His result was 108085. *GASP!* 375 MHz Celeron BEATS 933MHz PowerPC G4 (no L2/L3). This is interesting.
<EDIT> I am gonna try to run this on my brothers 333 celeron on a 66MHZ bus with 320 RAM, I know my 933 is not the fastest, but maybe it just found its competition. :) </EDIT>
I had a friend run my C# implementation on his 333MHz Celeron o/c'ed to 375MHz. His result was 108085. *GASP!* 375 MHz Celeron BEATS 933MHz PowerPC G4 (no L2/L3). This is interesting.
No comments:
Post a Comment