KnightWRX
Mar 30, 01:34 PM
An .exe is an executable, not an application. Some people may have called them applications, but not MS. Never. Until now.
See the screenshot posted all over this thread. Application has been used to described the filetype associated with .EXE in Windows Explorer for quite a while.
The fact is, Application has been in use in the Windows world forever. Win16 and Win32 are APIs and API means Application Programming Interface.
This is all besides the point, Apple is not trying to trademark Application or App. They are trying to trademark Grocery Store to sell their Groceries.
as I type this reply, using Safari, I open and close different "windows" on my iMac.
It's a good thing then that Microsoft's trademark on "Windows" does not apply to the graphical squares you see on screen but to Operating Systems then.
See the screenshot posted all over this thread. Application has been used to described the filetype associated with .EXE in Windows Explorer for quite a while.
The fact is, Application has been in use in the Windows world forever. Win16 and Win32 are APIs and API means Application Programming Interface.
This is all besides the point, Apple is not trying to trademark Application or App. They are trying to trademark Grocery Store to sell their Groceries.
as I type this reply, using Safari, I open and close different "windows" on my iMac.
It's a good thing then that Microsoft's trademark on "Windows" does not apply to the graphical squares you see on screen but to Operating Systems then.
Vegasman
Mar 30, 01:38 PM
But MS never consistently used the term App to describe any part of their business. Sure it pops up occasionally here and there, almost at random, but that's about it. Historically they've always used 'Programs'. So to use your example, why couldn't they say: "We have this thing called Marketplace. What is it? Well, it's a place where you can buy programs.....". Why are they not happy with that? It will line up so much better with their software genealogy.
I suspect the truth of the matter is they now want to start using 'App' for everything (instead of Programs), because Apple has popularized the term. Its on everybody's tongue now. And MS wants in on it. They want their stuff to be associated with the buzz that Apple created. That's borderline parasitic to me.
Because apps and applications have been used interchangeably for over a decade. Why only allow Apple to use it?
I suspect the truth of the matter is they now want to start using 'App' for everything (instead of Programs), because Apple has popularized the term. Its on everybody's tongue now. And MS wants in on it. They want their stuff to be associated with the buzz that Apple created. That's borderline parasitic to me.
Because apps and applications have been used interchangeably for over a decade. Why only allow Apple to use it?
rtkane
Apr 4, 12:17 PM
I'm as pro gun rights as anyone, but this sounds like a problem for the security guard. Unless that guard's life was in danger, there was no reason to shoot anyone, especially in the head. The placement of that shot was no accident.
That being said, I'm sure there are a lot of facts we don't know. Innocent until proven guilty, of course.
Unfortunately justified shooting or not it's always a problem for the shooter. I highly doubt the headshot was intentional. Unless he's an ex-special forces guy, he probably was just shooting wildly and got a lucky shot (well, lucky might not be the right word). When bullets started flying, he was probably terrified without enough composure to aim for the head. And if he came upon armed people, identified himself and they pointed guns at him, he has a very valid reason to shoot them. The mere presence of weapons puts the guard's life in danger.
It's odd that you judge his actions in the first part of your post, but then say that there's not enough facts in the second. :confused:
That being said, I'm sure there are a lot of facts we don't know. Innocent until proven guilty, of course.
Unfortunately justified shooting or not it's always a problem for the shooter. I highly doubt the headshot was intentional. Unless he's an ex-special forces guy, he probably was just shooting wildly and got a lucky shot (well, lucky might not be the right word). When bullets started flying, he was probably terrified without enough composure to aim for the head. And if he came upon armed people, identified himself and they pointed guns at him, he has a very valid reason to shoot them. The mere presence of weapons puts the guard's life in danger.
It's odd that you judge his actions in the first part of your post, but then say that there's not enough facts in the second. :confused:
revfife
Sep 12, 02:53 PM
OH WELL. thank you for pointing out my rudeness...
as a matter of fact, i have been quite sensitive now that i've seen the new one coming out right after my recent purchase of the OLD one, DAMMIT
that aside.....
didn't i clarify that i've been to apple store to check out its spec as well? or maybe i didn't but that's not the problem here
yes, i did go to that freaking apple store and looked for the spec, but only the maximum battery life was specified, and max for video play for only 80 gig was mentioned there, not for 30g, dammit
or maybe i couldn't find it? i was being too lazy? well then go look for it yourself, gosh
Off Apple's website that he pointed you to:
Playback time (30GB model)
by Arnold Schwarzenegger,
Arnold Schwarzenegger was
Arnold Schwarzenegger
r7308342357035447 Arnold
Schwarzenegger remainsthe most
Featuring arnold , essential
Arnold Schwarzenegger#39;s
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Schwarzenegger was pictured
Bodybuilding muscle physique
Arnold Pictures,
odybuilding, arnold
Schwarzenegger is considered
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER/muscle
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER/muscle
as a matter of fact, i have been quite sensitive now that i've seen the new one coming out right after my recent purchase of the OLD one, DAMMIT
that aside.....
didn't i clarify that i've been to apple store to check out its spec as well? or maybe i didn't but that's not the problem here
yes, i did go to that freaking apple store and looked for the spec, but only the maximum battery life was specified, and max for video play for only 80 gig was mentioned there, not for 30g, dammit
or maybe i couldn't find it? i was being too lazy? well then go look for it yourself, gosh
Off Apple's website that he pointed you to:
Playback time (30GB model)
cmaier
Nov 23, 01:09 PM
http://www.rogueamoeba.com/utm/2009/11/23/airfoil-speakers-touch-1-0-2-is-now-available/
Looks like Apple admitted it was in the wrong.
But the posters here who were defending apple won't admit they were wrong.
Looks like Apple admitted it was in the wrong.
But the posters here who were defending apple won't admit they were wrong.
cere
Apr 14, 01:06 PM
Uh... who cares? You missed my point.
The "world" isn't going to support ThunderPants as Intel now embraces USB3. You're left with basically only Apple to beat the TB drum.
Hence, TB dies or at best fades away slowly. It will never sweep the land aka "firewire" style.
Wait, you mean you didn't literally mean the ThunderBolt would be exclusively Macs only forever and ever and ever?
Dammit man, not everyone on these boards understands subtlety and context. If you are going to say something, don't be subtle. Spell it out so everyone can understand you. Otherwise we end up with some short-bus kids thinking everyone is picking a fight with them and posting worthless links with irrelevant info.
The "world" isn't going to support ThunderPants as Intel now embraces USB3. You're left with basically only Apple to beat the TB drum.
Hence, TB dies or at best fades away slowly. It will never sweep the land aka "firewire" style.
Wait, you mean you didn't literally mean the ThunderBolt would be exclusively Macs only forever and ever and ever?
Dammit man, not everyone on these boards understands subtlety and context. If you are going to say something, don't be subtle. Spell it out so everyone can understand you. Otherwise we end up with some short-bus kids thinking everyone is picking a fight with them and posting worthless links with irrelevant info.
Hellhammer
Apr 23, 02:47 AM
I'd disagree based on the last demo by intel.
Thunderbolt uses DisplayPort 1.1a which is not as good as DisplayPort 1.2 already found in some GPUs.
Thunderbolt uses DisplayPort 1.1a which is not as good as DisplayPort 1.2 already found in some GPUs.
arkitect
Mar 30, 11:25 AM
I still do not see how or why Apple should be awarded App Store™.
He will need to be a 'cunning linguist' to assist Microsoft.
Ah well someone had to go there I guess. ;)
He will need to be a 'cunning linguist' to assist Microsoft.
Ah well someone had to go there I guess. ;)
vitaboy
Aug 24, 04:52 AM
The cost of litigation would not even remotely approached 100 million. The cost of losing (ie, having a judgement against apple), now that would have probably exceeded 100 million. When a company is not sure about it's position, the best thing is to settle. You don't see IBM settling their Linux suit, do you?. And SCOunix hasn't even paid close to 100 mil in lawyers fees yet and they are fighting a losing battle..
I think you are seriously underestimating how expensive these type of patent battles can be. Check out the following story:
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3402321
Regarding its ongoing legal battles with IBM (Quote, Chart) and Novell over Linux code claims, SCO announced an agreement with its legal firm that would cap its legal costs at $31 million. As part of the deal, SCO's legal firm Boies, Schiller & Flexner could be awarded between 20 and 33 percent of any potential settlement that may arise from SCO's claims.
So SCO obviously expected its legal costs to spiral beyond $31 million to make a special deal with its law firm to cap costs. The fact they are willing to give as much as 33% of any potential winnings with the legal firm indicates that the final tally could easily approach $100 million if not for the cap.
It is quite clear that Apple would have made life very, very expensive and excruciating for Creative's legal team. $100 million in legal costs is not unrealistic considering that you not only had the original suit, but countersuits by Apple involving 4 bonafide patents.
I think you are seriously underestimating how expensive these type of patent battles can be. Check out the following story:
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3402321
Regarding its ongoing legal battles with IBM (Quote, Chart) and Novell over Linux code claims, SCO announced an agreement with its legal firm that would cap its legal costs at $31 million. As part of the deal, SCO's legal firm Boies, Schiller & Flexner could be awarded between 20 and 33 percent of any potential settlement that may arise from SCO's claims.
So SCO obviously expected its legal costs to spiral beyond $31 million to make a special deal with its law firm to cap costs. The fact they are willing to give as much as 33% of any potential winnings with the legal firm indicates that the final tally could easily approach $100 million if not for the cap.
It is quite clear that Apple would have made life very, very expensive and excruciating for Creative's legal team. $100 million in legal costs is not unrealistic considering that you not only had the original suit, but countersuits by Apple involving 4 bonafide patents.
vwcruisn
Mar 23, 07:23 PM
Go read the forum title again.
I did. That didn't answer my question.
I did. That didn't answer my question.
Stridder44
Jul 14, 01:37 PM
You're impressed that a chip not even available yet beats a chip from june 2003?
No Im amused that people still think (more or less wish really) the G5 is better.
No Im amused that people still think (more or less wish really) the G5 is better.
cfanyc
Aug 29, 08:12 AM
another tuesday bites the dust.. oh well...
Oli3000
Apr 22, 11:50 AM
Something that was highlighted to me the other day is that 'apple staff can not book holiday on the 20th/21st/22nd May to mark the 10th anniversary of Apple Retail Stores.'
So, likelihood of MBA and iMac updates available for that weekend maybe?
Still, I have a 13.3 MBA ultimate, and yes I do game on it regularly - in a casual manner. I would hate to lose that ability - it somewhat loses plausibility as a laptop worth �1500! If I really want to game I would use a desktop, but a real leader in it's field, should have the ability to do everything at a reasonable level!
So, likelihood of MBA and iMac updates available for that weekend maybe?
Still, I have a 13.3 MBA ultimate, and yes I do game on it regularly - in a casual manner. I would hate to lose that ability - it somewhat loses plausibility as a laptop worth �1500! If I really want to game I would use a desktop, but a real leader in it's field, should have the ability to do everything at a reasonable level!
whatever
Oct 12, 02:21 PM
I would love to have a red iPod, but I don't know why we would ever give money to help fight AIDS on a continent where the people take NO precautions to prevent themselves from getting AIDS... I mean, sure many children are born with it in Africa, but for soooo many adults, they could prevent the spread if they would just be monogamous.
So there, I solved AIDS for free, no Oprah, no Bono, no Ipods. Just have sex only within a lifetime committed relationship and AIDS is all but gone in one generation!
I'll stick to my black aluminum iPod nano, anyhow. I just hope 10% of the proceeds didn't go to research finding cures for the black plague... or frostbite...
It makes me so happy to know that there are still plenty of stupid people in the world.
Thank you
So there, I solved AIDS for free, no Oprah, no Bono, no Ipods. Just have sex only within a lifetime committed relationship and AIDS is all but gone in one generation!
I'll stick to my black aluminum iPod nano, anyhow. I just hope 10% of the proceeds didn't go to research finding cures for the black plague... or frostbite...
It makes me so happy to know that there are still plenty of stupid people in the world.
Thank you
Multimedia
Aug 23, 07:02 PM
Smooth Move � Willingness To Admit They Are Right When They Are Right Is Smart Biz. Long Term it's cheap insurance. :)
Mundy
Sep 10, 11:41 AM
Clovertown will not be a workstation-class CPU, and I'm surprised that so many people are expecting to see it in the Mac Pro. Adopting Clovertown would be a big step backward for Apple, since Woodcrest uses dual, independent front-side busses, while Clovertown will use a single, shared FSB. Clovertown will be okay (and probably even excellent) for server applications, but most analysts aren't expecting it to be better than Woodcrest for the types of things most creative professionals do on the desktop.
Tigerton will be a bigger performance leap over Woodcrest than Clovertown. In truth, I don't expect Intel to release anything that will make a Mac Pro look remotely obsolete until their CPU line goes to a 45 nanometer process in the last half of 2007.
Quite simply, the way Intel is going about quad-core at this point in the game is both cautious and underwhelming. Once true quad core becomes a reality (and not simply two dual-core chips on a single peice of silicon, like Clovertown and Kentsfield), and the FSB is replaced by direct interconnects, then I'll upgrade from my Mac Pro. Otherwise, I expect the machine to remain capable and viable for the next three years or so.
Tigerton will be a bigger performance leap over Woodcrest than Clovertown. In truth, I don't expect Intel to release anything that will make a Mac Pro look remotely obsolete until their CPU line goes to a 45 nanometer process in the last half of 2007.
Quite simply, the way Intel is going about quad-core at this point in the game is both cautious and underwhelming. Once true quad core becomes a reality (and not simply two dual-core chips on a single peice of silicon, like Clovertown and Kentsfield), and the FSB is replaced by direct interconnects, then I'll upgrade from my Mac Pro. Otherwise, I expect the machine to remain capable and viable for the next three years or so.
dime21
Apr 20, 08:12 AM
So, you're against personal responsibility then?
most leftists usually are. government programs and pointless legislation have taken the place of personal responsibility, at least in their eyes. :rolleyes:
most leftists usually are. government programs and pointless legislation have taken the place of personal responsibility, at least in their eyes. :rolleyes:
brepublican
Sep 5, 03:19 PM
If I am forced to watch ANY commercials on the iTunes movie downloads, then I'll never use it, ever. Bad enough I spend $10 to go to a theater to have the same mazda zoom zoom zoom/coke and a smile crap every time.
Took the words right out of my mouth. I dont see Apple going this route, though I do understand that it can represent a substantial stream of revenue. I think that the Media store will simply act to fuel demand for a media device, much like the iTMS - iPod setup, from which Apple doesnt make a lot of money (Music Store)
Took the words right out of my mouth. I dont see Apple going this route, though I do understand that it can represent a substantial stream of revenue. I think that the Media store will simply act to fuel demand for a media device, much like the iTMS - iPod setup, from which Apple doesnt make a lot of money (Music Store)
ChazUK
Apr 19, 07:28 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.3; en-gb; Nexus S Build/GRI40) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)
Samsung running Android look very very similar to Apple's, to the point where it causes confusion in the marketplace for consumers. I've seen several people mistake one of these things for an iPhone because they look that similar. It's a combination of Google's Android and Samsung's hardware.
This confusion is no accident, that was the intent all along. There is no reason why they could not create their own look and feel... change it up enough so it's not an obvious copy. Other handset makers have been able to do that.
The Nexus S looks different to the Galaxy S in software and physical looks but is included in the suit. As that is a Google experience device I do wonder why Apple don't target Google directly.
Samsung running Android look very very similar to Apple's, to the point where it causes confusion in the marketplace for consumers. I've seen several people mistake one of these things for an iPhone because they look that similar. It's a combination of Google's Android and Samsung's hardware.
This confusion is no accident, that was the intent all along. There is no reason why they could not create their own look and feel... change it up enough so it's not an obvious copy. Other handset makers have been able to do that.
The Nexus S looks different to the Galaxy S in software and physical looks but is included in the suit. As that is a Google experience device I do wonder why Apple don't target Google directly.
jonnymo5
Mar 29, 12:57 PM
Hmmm looks like the analyst just took the current Symbian market share and gave it to Windows7 for 2015. I think that is very naive. I think that many more people will move to Android, iPhone and WebOS in the time it takes Nokia to ramp up the Windows phones.
MacRumors
Sep 14, 08:02 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Macworld has received an invitation to an Apple special event (http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/09/14/photokina/index.php) on September 25th, right before Photokina. Indications from the invitation are an Aperture-related announcement. An Aperture update had previously been rumored on page 2 (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060822235447.shtml).
http://guides.macrumors.com/images/1/1b/Photokina.jpg
Digg This (http://www.digg.com/apple/Apple_To_Hold_Sept_24th_Special_Event_Photokina)
Macworld has received an invitation to an Apple special event (http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/09/14/photokina/index.php) on September 25th, right before Photokina. Indications from the invitation are an Aperture-related announcement. An Aperture update had previously been rumored on page 2 (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060822235447.shtml).
http://guides.macrumors.com/images/1/1b/Photokina.jpg
Digg This (http://www.digg.com/apple/Apple_To_Hold_Sept_24th_Special_Event_Photokina)
Calidude
Mar 23, 06:56 PM
Maybe certain municipalities do list them, but NJ does not have a law like that.
And all of you who say "the country is in flames", "unemployment is high", and ask how politicians can focus their time on this is amazing...you people are stupid. Do you understand how being a politician works? What their staff does all day? That you can't fix a nation in a day?
And not that it really matters, but our problem in America is that we're refusing to accept the global economy and that we can't remain a strong manufacturer and a strong service provider...tariffs and taxes won't accomodate both happily.
We still have an incredibly strong economy, so I don't really see what anyone is complaining about...
Wow you are in such denial that I feel sorry for you.
And all of you who say "the country is in flames", "unemployment is high", and ask how politicians can focus their time on this is amazing...you people are stupid. Do you understand how being a politician works? What their staff does all day? That you can't fix a nation in a day?
And not that it really matters, but our problem in America is that we're refusing to accept the global economy and that we can't remain a strong manufacturer and a strong service provider...tariffs and taxes won't accomodate both happily.
We still have an incredibly strong economy, so I don't really see what anyone is complaining about...
Wow you are in such denial that I feel sorry for you.
berkleeboy210
Sep 26, 09:37 AM
I just bought one of the new BlackBerry's (8703e) for Verizion. That should keep me satisfied until January.
I just want to commend Verizon Wireless on their service though, I ordered the phone at 10pm Last Night, it's already been shipped :)
Anywoo, Bring on the iPhone!
I just want to commend Verizon Wireless on their service though, I ordered the phone at 10pm Last Night, it's already been shipped :)
Anywoo, Bring on the iPhone!
munkery
Mar 23, 04:20 PM
http://www.macforensicslab.com/ProductsAndServices/index.php?main_page=document_general_info&products_id=174
Much of the information in the PDF (http://www.macforensicslab.com/Malware_on_Mac_OS_X.pdf) associated with this article (http://www.macforensicslab.com/ProductsAndServices/index.php?main_page=document_general_info&products_id=174) is incorrect. For example:
Page 26
It refers to the bundle architecture as insecure. The argument presented would be true if security sensitive apps were not owned by system. Given that they are owned by system, malware cannot modify the bundle of an app owned by system without authentication when the app is run with user privileges in an admin or standard account.
For example, show package contents of iTunes, Safari, or Mail and try to create a folder in the bundle. In relation to the example in the article, try renaming iTunes. The argument in the article relies on actions that can not be completed in an OS X admin account; these type of changes are even more restricted in a standard account.
Apps not owned by system are vulnerable but without privilege escalation can not install rootkits or keyloggers. Even apps owned by system run with user privileges and require privilege escalation to install dangerous payloads.
Mac OS X does not prompt for authentication if you install apps in the proper location for that user account type. When installed in the proper location, apps are sandboxed from the system level of Mac OS X by the Unix DAC model used within Mac OS X.
Windows is less secure because most apps (Chrome only exception I can recall) install their associated files in levels of the system that require authentication regardless of user account type (unless Admin in Windows XP because running as superuser - no authentication required to install with elevated privileges - very dangerous). It is easier to trick Windows users to install a trojan with elevated privileges given that almost all apps ask for authentication to install and the user can not distinguish the intent of that authentication.
Page 30
The claim that the Application folder is unprotected is false. Security sensitive apps within the Application folder are owned by system.
Also, security sensitive system binaries are still stored in /bin and /sbin in Mac OS X.
Page 31
The ability to read the contacts stored in Address Book could be used by a worm to propagate. But, malware that uses this to spread is not likely to appear in the wild if the malware is not profitable. It is unlikely that malware will be profitable without being able to hook (this is a specific function) into apps owned by system.
Page 33
Starts off talking about trojans, trojans are easily avoided with user knowledge in Mac OS X because most apps do not require authentication to install if installed in the appropriate location where the Unix DAC model protects the system.
Viruses using the model shown in the article will not be successful without privilege escalation. This is the reason why Mac OS X malware is not successful in the wild.
By default, very few server side services are exposed in Mac OS X and those that are exposed are sandboxed. Vectors for worm propagation are limited to client side. Client side worms require authentication to install and spread if do not include privilege escalation via exploitation because of the Unix DAC model used in Mac OS X. Trojans used to trick users to authenticate are less likely to be successful in Mac OS X as stated above.
Much of the information in the PDF (http://www.macforensicslab.com/Malware_on_Mac_OS_X.pdf) associated with this article (http://www.macforensicslab.com/ProductsAndServices/index.php?main_page=document_general_info&products_id=174) is incorrect. For example:
Page 26
It refers to the bundle architecture as insecure. The argument presented would be true if security sensitive apps were not owned by system. Given that they are owned by system, malware cannot modify the bundle of an app owned by system without authentication when the app is run with user privileges in an admin or standard account.
For example, show package contents of iTunes, Safari, or Mail and try to create a folder in the bundle. In relation to the example in the article, try renaming iTunes. The argument in the article relies on actions that can not be completed in an OS X admin account; these type of changes are even more restricted in a standard account.
Apps not owned by system are vulnerable but without privilege escalation can not install rootkits or keyloggers. Even apps owned by system run with user privileges and require privilege escalation to install dangerous payloads.
Mac OS X does not prompt for authentication if you install apps in the proper location for that user account type. When installed in the proper location, apps are sandboxed from the system level of Mac OS X by the Unix DAC model used within Mac OS X.
Windows is less secure because most apps (Chrome only exception I can recall) install their associated files in levels of the system that require authentication regardless of user account type (unless Admin in Windows XP because running as superuser - no authentication required to install with elevated privileges - very dangerous). It is easier to trick Windows users to install a trojan with elevated privileges given that almost all apps ask for authentication to install and the user can not distinguish the intent of that authentication.
Page 30
The claim that the Application folder is unprotected is false. Security sensitive apps within the Application folder are owned by system.
Also, security sensitive system binaries are still stored in /bin and /sbin in Mac OS X.
Page 31
The ability to read the contacts stored in Address Book could be used by a worm to propagate. But, malware that uses this to spread is not likely to appear in the wild if the malware is not profitable. It is unlikely that malware will be profitable without being able to hook (this is a specific function) into apps owned by system.
Page 33
Starts off talking about trojans, trojans are easily avoided with user knowledge in Mac OS X because most apps do not require authentication to install if installed in the appropriate location where the Unix DAC model protects the system.
Viruses using the model shown in the article will not be successful without privilege escalation. This is the reason why Mac OS X malware is not successful in the wild.
By default, very few server side services are exposed in Mac OS X and those that are exposed are sandboxed. Vectors for worm propagation are limited to client side. Client side worms require authentication to install and spread if do not include privilege escalation via exploitation because of the Unix DAC model used in Mac OS X. Trojans used to trick users to authenticate are less likely to be successful in Mac OS X as stated above.
