ValSalva
Apr 25, 02:25 PM
Maybe this MacBook Pro update will incorporate a retina display which the high resolution wallpaper in Lion hints at.
jofarmer
Sep 12, 05:31 PM
And we FAIL to get ability to load 640x480 H.264 Baseline encoded video "...because it cannot be played on this 11month "old" iPod." What a crock! It's a load of bullocks I tell ya!
I take it that your conversion is over and the old iPod cannot play "Hi-Res H.264" and my asumptions prior in this thread where right :/
And as I already pointed out, that owners of "old" iPod 5G will have to reconvert movies and TV series and EVERYTHING they download from this day an, since all movies and tv episodes will be in 640x480 from now on.
Geez. Unlike M$ Apple has never been to much concerned with backwards compatibility, users without at least 10.3 Panther don't get much new fun these days. But like this....?
I take it that your conversion is over and the old iPod cannot play "Hi-Res H.264" and my asumptions prior in this thread where right :/
And as I already pointed out, that owners of "old" iPod 5G will have to reconvert movies and TV series and EVERYTHING they download from this day an, since all movies and tv episodes will be in 640x480 from now on.
Geez. Unlike M$ Apple has never been to much concerned with backwards compatibility, users without at least 10.3 Panther don't get much new fun these days. But like this....?
ArchaicRevival
Mar 23, 06:42 PM
Im in agreement with this.
Remove them from the App Store.
It might be illegal etc.. but we must draw the line somewhere.
Nope it's not illegal. The law enforcement is required to announce them, plus many radio show hosts announce them as well.
but I definitely agree with other posts, that if a guy is too drunk to drive, he's probably to drunk to use his phone and look for DUI checkpoints anyway. It's probably for people that are not super drunk, but are maybe 0.09% instead of 0.08%. ;)
Overzealous democrats and republicans on both side need to suck it.:mad:
Remove them from the App Store.
It might be illegal etc.. but we must draw the line somewhere.
Nope it's not illegal. The law enforcement is required to announce them, plus many radio show hosts announce them as well.
but I definitely agree with other posts, that if a guy is too drunk to drive, he's probably to drunk to use his phone and look for DUI checkpoints anyway. It's probably for people that are not super drunk, but are maybe 0.09% instead of 0.08%. ;)
Overzealous democrats and republicans on both side need to suck it.:mad:
.JPG "cute iphone 4 verizon cases.")
SodaPopMonster
Sep 14, 08:48 AM
I doubt that the iPhone will be something anyone expects- It'l be something that will make people say "We should have thought of that!".
Arcus
Mar 23, 04:18 PM
Oh god no I hope apple doesn't cave to this kind of Orwellian garbage. I feel for all of the victims of DUIs and know that I have personally called the police on a car that was very obviously had an impaired person behind the wheel but as a non drunk driver if I want to avoid being hassled I should be able to.
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.
Jimmieboy
Aug 31, 04:33 PM
Wahoo! I'm hoping for a couple of things:
1. The mac mini has an upped processor and can support 5.1 channel surround sound
2. Macbooks and macbook pro's to have the memrom
3. iMacs with conroe
4. An ipod update for the video and nano
5. All these rumors of an iphone. Maybe we'll get one maybe we won't? I'm not expecting it to be released on the 12th.
1. The mac mini has an upped processor and can support 5.1 channel surround sound
2. Macbooks and macbook pro's to have the memrom
3. iMacs with conroe
4. An ipod update for the video and nano
5. All these rumors of an iphone. Maybe we'll get one maybe we won't? I'm not expecting it to be released on the 12th.
AidenShaw
Sep 10, 11:19 PM
However, I was disappointed to learn that the 2nd processor could be only be used for little more than a coprocessor. So, I did some reading about the relationship of the Bus design, processor architecture and the OS. It made me appreciate Sparc a lot more.
Were you reading propaganda from Sun, or something from an unbiased source?
The P6 systems that you're talking about in the mid '90s were very similar in architecture to today's Intel systems.
The P6 systems had a shared FSB, so memory bandwidth was shared by the two processors. The SPARC systems usually had a crossbar switch, so that in theory each CPU had a private memory path. (The Woodcrest systems have an FSB per socket, to a shared memory controller.)
While the crossbar really shined when you had 32, 64 or more processors with many, many GiB of RAM - for a dual CPU system it really wasn't worth the cost.
Woodcrest, the PPC G5, and AMD aren't using crossbar memory controllers today....
Were you reading propaganda from Sun, or something from an unbiased source?
The P6 systems that you're talking about in the mid '90s were very similar in architecture to today's Intel systems.
The P6 systems had a shared FSB, so memory bandwidth was shared by the two processors. The SPARC systems usually had a crossbar switch, so that in theory each CPU had a private memory path. (The Woodcrest systems have an FSB per socket, to a shared memory controller.)
While the crossbar really shined when you had 32, 64 or more processors with many, many GiB of RAM - for a dual CPU system it really wasn't worth the cost.
Woodcrest, the PPC G5, and AMD aren't using crossbar memory controllers today....
Wang Foolio
May 3, 10:54 AM
What I want to know is whether the 27" will play nice with 1080p input from an HDMI adaptor. BD player/PS3 hooked up to a 27" iMac without need for an expensive upscaler would be nice.
KingCrimson
Apr 29, 11:49 AM
Haha, you're funny. I'm no fan of the Xbox, but you've got to be kidding if you think Nintendo is ever really going to kill Sony/MS. Nintendo may have sold the most consoles, but most main virtually unused, cos the Wii is woefully under-powered, propped up by the same old kiddy franchises and once you get past the new gimmicks gets boring fast.
I hardly know anyone with a Wii, that still uses it. The same will happen to the 3DS.
Nothing beats the XBox-Live ecosystem from what I read. Kudos for MSFT investing in it for a decade until it became profitable.
I hardly know anyone with a Wii, that still uses it. The same will happen to the 3DS.
Nothing beats the XBox-Live ecosystem from what I read. Kudos for MSFT investing in it for a decade until it became profitable.
Macnoviz
Oct 12, 03:37 PM
I think we can call this confirmed. The Chicago Tribune has a pic of Bono and Oprah using the red Nano on the front page of their website - http://www.chicagotribune.com/
A further story by the Trib says this will happen on Friday (tomorrow) - http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-061012red-ipod-story,1,3682862.story?coll=chi-news-hed
I call fake
It's definitly photoshoped, you can see the headphones are shorter than the normal headphones :D
no, really
Is that a C2D MBP in the background?
A further story by the Trib says this will happen on Friday (tomorrow) - http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-061012red-ipod-story,1,3682862.story?coll=chi-news-hed
I call fake
It's definitly photoshoped, you can see the headphones are shorter than the normal headphones :D
no, really
Is that a C2D MBP in the background?
DVK916
Sep 17, 08:23 PM
ok.. see, i never said TECHNICALLY it was crap. OK, so CDMA can have higher speed than 3G GSM. ITS A MOBILE PHONE. what the hell do you need 14mbps for?
a jet car that goes 300mph on a drag strip is NOT better than a Audi/Merc/BMW/Bentley/etc that only does 250mph, but can drive on a normal road.
for consumers, it (CDMA) is crap. you are so used to having to choose a phone based on what your carrier supports (or vice-versa) that you can't see how that is a problem. GSM (which uses a SIM card) offers so much more flexibility. hell. I can take my phone to any country with a GSM network, put in a sim card, and VOILA i am connected (not that i need to worry anyway, with vodafone global roaming)
WRONG GSM does NOT work in Japan. You can't go to any country and use it. Japan doesn't have GSM.
a jet car that goes 300mph on a drag strip is NOT better than a Audi/Merc/BMW/Bentley/etc that only does 250mph, but can drive on a normal road.
for consumers, it (CDMA) is crap. you are so used to having to choose a phone based on what your carrier supports (or vice-versa) that you can't see how that is a problem. GSM (which uses a SIM card) offers so much more flexibility. hell. I can take my phone to any country with a GSM network, put in a sim card, and VOILA i am connected (not that i need to worry anyway, with vodafone global roaming)
WRONG GSM does NOT work in Japan. You can't go to any country and use it. Japan doesn't have GSM.
Silentwave
Jul 15, 04:28 PM
I know that it is a desktop chip but I would expect that a site like anandtech or tomshardware would check againt the core duo just to see how much the difference is between the two "core" CPU.
Why?
Mobile vs. desktop
32 bit vs. 64 bit
Pentium M architecture vs. Intel Core microarchitecture (yes, Yonah uses the latest version of the pentium M architecture, far more efficient than netburst)
and I doubt very much they have comparable Mobos/ machines to test them on.
Why?
Mobile vs. desktop
32 bit vs. 64 bit
Pentium M architecture vs. Intel Core microarchitecture (yes, Yonah uses the latest version of the pentium M architecture, far more efficient than netburst)
and I doubt very much they have comparable Mobos/ machines to test them on.
GFLPraxis
Apr 14, 12:07 PM
Drat, I just bought a MBP, first laptop upgrade in 4 years :(
Hopefully we get a Thunderbolt-to-USB3 connector.
Hopefully we get a Thunderbolt-to-USB3 connector.
maknik
Nov 13, 01:56 PM
There is no real-world solution to this problem as long as Apple insists on vetting every app and update. No company can be perfect in such a vast (many thousands a week) undertaking, so every developer runs the risk that his app will be caught in some bizarre limbo while an easily-fixed bug sits out there slowly damaging the developer's name. Unfortunately, there are only two solutions to this problem: customer pressure for Apple to reduce its oversight (followed by complaints by those apparently scared of having to vet applications on their own), or lawsuits. I suspect the latter is the only plausible solution.
Ach111es
Apr 25, 01:10 PM
Was thinking of springing for a mid 15 for 2000 and the education deal...now I may just buy a base 13 or even MBA refresh and plan on reselling for the awesome update (which I will also buy with education deal).
poppe
Sep 5, 12:32 PM
So no mermom MBP's on September 12 then?
QCassidy352
Jul 14, 03:18 PM
Actually October 19, 2005 for the 970MP.
the original quote was to "G5/PPC fanboys," not "970MP fanboys." But whatever. My point is that it's hardly surprising that a bleeding edge chip beats an old one. That's kinda the point of technological progress, no?
Now u see why Steve wet his pants when he saw these chips over a year ago. Then Decided to switch , He knew if he had not. Apple's platform would be dead in the water.
So then AMD and IBM are dead in the water? Somebody better call them and tell them.
Believe it or not, the fact that intel is releasing new chips does not mean that the other companies have given up or that intel has "won." IBM's desktop and server chips have been and will continue to be very competitive. Apple switched because PPC was not cutting it for laptops.
the original quote was to "G5/PPC fanboys," not "970MP fanboys." But whatever. My point is that it's hardly surprising that a bleeding edge chip beats an old one. That's kinda the point of technological progress, no?
Now u see why Steve wet his pants when he saw these chips over a year ago. Then Decided to switch , He knew if he had not. Apple's platform would be dead in the water.
So then AMD and IBM are dead in the water? Somebody better call them and tell them.
Believe it or not, the fact that intel is releasing new chips does not mean that the other companies have given up or that intel has "won." IBM's desktop and server chips have been and will continue to be very competitive. Apple switched because PPC was not cutting it for laptops.
chasemac
Aug 24, 12:02 AM
Seriously, all... this is much better than the alternative. I.e. Apple having to completely re-engineer or stop selling the iPod. $100 million is chump change. Stock market is highly reactionary and irrational. It should all smooth out in the next couple days.
Yes, the consumer could care less. Apple reached the top of this mountain first. They got the loot first right? Or not, it just reminds me of something.:)
Yes, the consumer could care less. Apple reached the top of this mountain first. They got the loot first right? Or not, it just reminds me of something.:)
Warbrain
Sep 26, 09:00 AM
I admit they do indeed do these things... or have done these things in the past. But the situation that I spoke of was last week, also every time I have called them they have worked with everything and entered things just right so that if I wanted to change my plan it would not be prorated at all.
Christopher
I suppose everyone's experience is different. I've never had problems with Cingular and have never been with any other company because of that. They've always cooperated with me and have handled the problems accordingly.
Christopher
I suppose everyone's experience is different. I've never had problems with Cingular and have never been with any other company because of that. They've always cooperated with me and have handled the problems accordingly.
vd0t
Sep 9, 11:19 AM
Is one of the 512MB RAM on the iMac soldered on?? :confused:
Peace
Sep 5, 06:06 PM
Just copy it to the computer at home. How are the members of your family going to use a computer if you take the only one with you?
By using the BOX with the HARD DRIVE next to the TV!!
Damn..
Lets just agree to disagree and see what happens next Tuesday ok ? :)
By using the BOX with the HARD DRIVE next to the TV!!
Damn..
Lets just agree to disagree and see what happens next Tuesday ok ? :)
hehe299792458
Apr 11, 07:51 AM
I am confused. If your Mac is networked, why not just share your music folder on your network so any computer etc can play the music from the shared music folder on the mac?
I think it's a matter of push streaming vs pull
I think it's a matter of push streaming vs pull
mattwolfmatt
Apr 4, 12:10 PM
As the story says: "A private armed security guard interrupted the burglars and at some point, gunfire was exchanged with the two male burglars, who were also armed, Facicci said."
The burglars were shooting at him also. So the security guard acting in self defense. It wasn't like they were unarmed and while they ran away he shot them.
From the article:
A private armed security guard interrupted the burglars and at some point, gunfire was exchanged with the two male burglars, who were also armed, Facicci said.
Only in America, can you have the intention to hurt/kill others, but until an x amount of people are hurt/shot or raped, then charges can be pressed allow criminals to make multiple attempts until they have a good successful one before they are official caught/punished. What the hell did he think would happen robbing a store while being armed? Cops would give him lollipops? Come on, people that rob banks shouldn't be "surprised" that they were shot. He knew the consequences of armed robbery.
I feel I must defend my original post from page 1 . . . when I posted that, there was no mention of gunfire in the article. This story has been updated since I posted my question of whether the guard had the right to do what he did. And as I said, there are facts we don't know yet.
Don't jump all over someone for not reading the article, when the article you are referring to wasn't posted yet.
The burglars were shooting at him also. So the security guard acting in self defense. It wasn't like they were unarmed and while they ran away he shot them.
From the article:
A private armed security guard interrupted the burglars and at some point, gunfire was exchanged with the two male burglars, who were also armed, Facicci said.
Only in America, can you have the intention to hurt/kill others, but until an x amount of people are hurt/shot or raped, then charges can be pressed allow criminals to make multiple attempts until they have a good successful one before they are official caught/punished. What the hell did he think would happen robbing a store while being armed? Cops would give him lollipops? Come on, people that rob banks shouldn't be "surprised" that they were shot. He knew the consequences of armed robbery.
I feel I must defend my original post from page 1 . . . when I posted that, there was no mention of gunfire in the article. This story has been updated since I posted my question of whether the guard had the right to do what he did. And as I said, there are facts we don't know yet.
Don't jump all over someone for not reading the article, when the article you are referring to wasn't posted yet.
