Apple OC
Apr 24, 01:53 PM
I invite you to demonstrate how Islam is a threat to freedom and democracy.
should we start with the freedom of choices for women?
should we start with the freedom of choices for women?
nagromme
Jul 14, 02:28 PM
A new case would be "fun" but what I care about is what it delivers, not how it looks when I crawl under my desk :)
For the low-end (single chip) towers, dual core Conroe makes more sense to me than Xeon, simply for cost reasons. (Though I'm eyeing the new Xeons for my first ever top-end Mac... with dual-duals!)
Two optical slots would be nice, allowing me to "wait and see" about next-gen optical formats.
My intention: to wait for 3Ghz+ Xeon, which sounds like it should only be a few months later. That's also time for a few little tweaks to be made if necessary, giving me something between a version A and version B machine.
I suspect we'll see a lot of reviews and benchmarks giving a bad cost to value ratio for the Macs.
Without a doubt. And in keeping with long tradition, the "less expensive" name-brand PC will mysteriously come with less (ports, software, even speed if Netburst lingers) than the Mac :)
For the low-end (single chip) towers, dual core Conroe makes more sense to me than Xeon, simply for cost reasons. (Though I'm eyeing the new Xeons for my first ever top-end Mac... with dual-duals!)
Two optical slots would be nice, allowing me to "wait and see" about next-gen optical formats.
My intention: to wait for 3Ghz+ Xeon, which sounds like it should only be a few months later. That's also time for a few little tweaks to be made if necessary, giving me something between a version A and version B machine.
I suspect we'll see a lot of reviews and benchmarks giving a bad cost to value ratio for the Macs.
Without a doubt. And in keeping with long tradition, the "less expensive" name-brand PC will mysteriously come with less (ports, software, even speed if Netburst lingers) than the Mac :)
CoryTV
Apr 12, 10:33 PM
Ugh... you guys speak as if you are all full-time film editors...
The new features are amazing! The hall that they presented at, well they were pretty much all "pros" in the industry. They were all pretty much PSYCHED about these features..
For what it's worth, I'm a film production major...
I'm a full time professional editor who has edited on Avid since 1997 and FCP since 2005.. Does that not count? Almost every 'pro film' editor I have ever met (and I'm talking people who make hollywood films) barely knows how to turn the machine on.
The new features are amazing! The hall that they presented at, well they were pretty much all "pros" in the industry. They were all pretty much PSYCHED about these features..
For what it's worth, I'm a film production major...
I'm a full time professional editor who has edited on Avid since 1997 and FCP since 2005.. Does that not count? Almost every 'pro film' editor I have ever met (and I'm talking people who make hollywood films) barely knows how to turn the machine on.
KingYaba
May 2, 01:21 PM
So few virus for MAC than when one appears it is news... :)
It's news because Apple has paraded though commercials explaining how they're safe and Windows is not. Safe from viruses, yes, but even as I looked through this thread I noticed some people don't understand the difference.
CHFy6egYcUg
It's news because Apple has paraded though commercials explaining how they're safe and Windows is not. Safe from viruses, yes, but even as I looked through this thread I noticed some people don't understand the difference.
CHFy6egYcUg
gugy
Sep 12, 03:28 PM
This is the same thing as having a mac mini connected to your TV...though I guess it has HDMI. This leads me to believe that they will release a Software Update for Front Row upon release of the "iTV".
Now, who wants to start speculating when this device will become the long-rumored TiVO killer? Doesn't look like there's much room back there to fit in a coax - seems like Apple missed out on a decent opportunity...
I think Apple had to compromise to be able to get TV shows on itunes pledging not to have a pvr to networks.
Elgato is here and they are good, so it's just a matter to buy it and use it to stream videos to your TV via ITV.
Now, who wants to start speculating when this device will become the long-rumored TiVO killer? Doesn't look like there's much room back there to fit in a coax - seems like Apple missed out on a decent opportunity...
I think Apple had to compromise to be able to get TV shows on itunes pledging not to have a pvr to networks.
Elgato is here and they are good, so it's just a matter to buy it and use it to stream videos to your TV via ITV.
TEG
Aug 29, 12:26 PM
No One cares what Greenpeace thinks. They are nothing but the military wing of the Sierra Club. The only thing I can't stand more than Greenpeace is the ELF.
Seriously.
TEG
Seriously.
TEG
darkplanets
Mar 13, 07:20 PM
First off, I want to thank you guys for actual intelligent input.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
valkraider
Apr 28, 10:30 AM
I'm sitting with my entire office laughing at your naivete and misunderstanding of what modern computer hardware is. Keep digging your hole.
If you and your entire office are sitting laughing at MacRumors comment posts then you are charging your customers WAY too much money.
If you and your entire office are sitting laughing at MacRumors comment posts then you are charging your customers WAY too much money.
eric_n_dfw
Mar 20, 07:22 PM
Which is why copyright is a bunch of bull.Not to the holder of the copyright.
Aduntu
Apr 22, 09:14 PM
to think that the earth is only several thousand years old ... IMO is not intelligent or rational thinking.
I agree. It's also not a bible teaching.
I agree. It's also not a bible teaching.
�algiris
May 2, 09:15 AM
Bigger, most Windows PC have anti-virus, can you say the same for Macs?
One thing Macs need anti-virus is to scan mails for Windows viruses, so that those doesn't to you PC. That is all.
One thing Macs need anti-virus is to scan mails for Windows viruses, so that those doesn't to you PC. That is all.
carmenodie
Mar 18, 08:14 AM
I went to att's site and 4 gigs of downloads cost 45 dollars. Kiss my @@@!!!
What's next? Charging per effing electron?
What's next? Charging per effing electron?
manu chao
Mar 19, 11:50 AM
By using Jon's tool, you KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY are violating an agreement that you yourself agreed to.
And if you use an Apple or AOL ID, Apple knows who is violating the agreement.
Even if the current iTMS server protocol cannot distinguish between iTunes and PyMusique, it should be quite easy to figure out how to do that distinction once Apple has its own copy of PyMusique. Then Apple can go over its server logs and get a list of the people who have used PyMusique.
Use at your own risk (or use at least gift certificates...).
And if you use an Apple or AOL ID, Apple knows who is violating the agreement.
Even if the current iTMS server protocol cannot distinguish between iTunes and PyMusique, it should be quite easy to figure out how to do that distinction once Apple has its own copy of PyMusique. Then Apple can go over its server logs and get a list of the people who have used PyMusique.
Use at your own risk (or use at least gift certificates...).
JasperJanssen
Apr 30, 03:41 AM
That's been my observation in the business world as well. With projects often being Web-based now, Windows is becoming irrelevant. On one project with about twenty developers, systems architects and analysts, close to half were running Macbook Pros (no Windows installed) and doing very well. It's just not an issue for many office folks. Obviously there are some roles that still require Windows, but not as many as it used to be. The tech folks in particular seem to take great delight in moving to Macs. Times have changed.
Don't forget the joys of Virtualisation, and especially virtualisation where just the contents of a window from a VM are ported to a window on the host OS.
With macbook pros cheaply upgradable to 8 gigs and quad-core CPUs there's nothing stopping you from running all three major OSes simultaneously.
Don't forget the joys of Virtualisation, and especially virtualisation where just the contents of a window from a VM are ported to a window on the host OS.
With macbook pros cheaply upgradable to 8 gigs and quad-core CPUs there's nothing stopping you from running all three major OSes simultaneously.
MacinDoc
Oct 26, 12:22 AM
Well, it would be easy enough for Apple to replace the dual 2.66 GHz Woodcrest option with a single Clovertown at the same clock speed, while also boosting speed a bit (like when it moved from dual processor G5s to dual core G5s) and reducing power consumption, heat production and fan noise a bit, and dropping the price at the same time. There's no direct equivalent of the 2.0 and 3.0 GHz dual Woodcrests, however, so replacing them could be a bit more complicated.
i_am_a_cow
Mar 20, 01:53 PM
Yes.
Probably not, but are you going to whip out a check to pay for it? Software delevelopment is not free.
What a silly thought. Of course it's not free. I'm saying that it is just as unethical for Apple to ignore Linux as it is for DVD Jon to try and play music on Linux. We are not talking about what is technically wrong here. After all, every country has a different set of laws. We are talking about what is the right thing to do. It would hardly be a burden for Apple to port iTunes and open up Airport drivers.
The main concern of mine is Apple's stubborn refusal to adapt to simple standards. They haven't kept up with GNU standards in GCC, they won't port Quicktime or iTunes to Linux, they won't make open drivers available for Airport cards. Apple is losing quite a few fans. I was a huge Apple fan for a long time (3/4 of my life). Now, I am losing respect for Apple's ridiculous money-making stubborness.
And don't try and argue that Mac OS X is just the same as linux. It isn't.
Probably not, but are you going to whip out a check to pay for it? Software delevelopment is not free.
What a silly thought. Of course it's not free. I'm saying that it is just as unethical for Apple to ignore Linux as it is for DVD Jon to try and play music on Linux. We are not talking about what is technically wrong here. After all, every country has a different set of laws. We are talking about what is the right thing to do. It would hardly be a burden for Apple to port iTunes and open up Airport drivers.
The main concern of mine is Apple's stubborn refusal to adapt to simple standards. They haven't kept up with GNU standards in GCC, they won't port Quicktime or iTunes to Linux, they won't make open drivers available for Airport cards. Apple is losing quite a few fans. I was a huge Apple fan for a long time (3/4 of my life). Now, I am losing respect for Apple's ridiculous money-making stubborness.
And don't try and argue that Mac OS X is just the same as linux. It isn't.
faroZ06
May 2, 06:26 PM
Switching off or turning down UAC in Windows also equally impacts the strength of MIC (Windows sandboxing mechanism) because it functions based on inherited permissions. Unix DAC in Mac OS X functions via inherited permissions but MAC (mandatory access controls -> OS X sandbox) does not. Windows does not have a sandbox like OS X.
UAC, by default, does not use a unique identifier (password) so it is more susceptible to attacks the rely on spoofing prompts that appear to be unrelated to UAC to steal authentication. If a password is attached to authentication, these spoofed prompts fail to work.
Having a password associated with permissions has other benefits as well.
If "Open safe files after downloading" is turned on, it will both unarchive the zip file and launch the installer. Installers are marked as safe to launch because require authentication to complete installation.
No harm can be done from just launching the installer. But, you are correct in that code is being executed in user space.
Code run in user space is used to achieve privilege escalation via exploitation or social engineering (trick user to authenticate -> as in this malware). There is very little that can be done beyond prank style attacks with only user level access. System level access is required for usefully dangerous malware install, such as keyloggers that can log protected passwords. This is why there is little malware for Mac OS X. Achieving system level access to Windows via exploitation is much easier.
Webkit2 will further reduce the possibility of even achieving user level access.
The article suggested that the installer completed itself without authentication. I don't see how that is possible unless you are using the root account or something. It would give sudo access, but even still you'd get SOME dialog box :confused:
UAC, by default, does not use a unique identifier (password) so it is more susceptible to attacks the rely on spoofing prompts that appear to be unrelated to UAC to steal authentication. If a password is attached to authentication, these spoofed prompts fail to work.
Having a password associated with permissions has other benefits as well.
If "Open safe files after downloading" is turned on, it will both unarchive the zip file and launch the installer. Installers are marked as safe to launch because require authentication to complete installation.
No harm can be done from just launching the installer. But, you are correct in that code is being executed in user space.
Code run in user space is used to achieve privilege escalation via exploitation or social engineering (trick user to authenticate -> as in this malware). There is very little that can be done beyond prank style attacks with only user level access. System level access is required for usefully dangerous malware install, such as keyloggers that can log protected passwords. This is why there is little malware for Mac OS X. Achieving system level access to Windows via exploitation is much easier.
Webkit2 will further reduce the possibility of even achieving user level access.
The article suggested that the installer completed itself without authentication. I don't see how that is possible unless you are using the root account or something. It would give sudo access, but even still you'd get SOME dialog box :confused:
takao
Mar 15, 07:02 AM
the german government seems to have decided to put the plans for prolonging the life of it's current nuclearplants on hold for 3 months to evaluate the safety, risks and if the switch away from nuclear can't be accelerated (germany already consideres nuclear power only as a 'bridge technology' until renewable power forms can take over)
and as a direct consequence they have decided to shut off all reactors built prior to 1981: all in all seven nuclear reactors remain shut down for the next 3 months with a complete maximum nuclear output of 7000 MW
an obvious ploy IMHO to win the upcoming local elections in Baden-W�rtenberg which are in danger of being lost because of the pro-nuclear stance of the CDU-FDP coalition
the question which comes up though is: if 7 nuclear plants can easily taken off the grid for 3 months without consequences to electricity supply... why exactly are they deemed so important ?
and as a direct consequence they have decided to shut off all reactors built prior to 1981: all in all seven nuclear reactors remain shut down for the next 3 months with a complete maximum nuclear output of 7000 MW
an obvious ploy IMHO to win the upcoming local elections in Baden-W�rtenberg which are in danger of being lost because of the pro-nuclear stance of the CDU-FDP coalition
the question which comes up though is: if 7 nuclear plants can easily taken off the grid for 3 months without consequences to electricity supply... why exactly are they deemed so important ?
matticus008
Mar 19, 01:29 PM
But can a user be considered to be a party to that agreement if they have not used iTunes to access the store - does the purchasing process still involve an agreement approval stage using this software? Presumably not.
Yes. By signing up for an account to use the iTunes Music Store, you are bound to their terms of service. Those terms only appear in the official iTunes client because that's the only source for the music. Just because those terms don't pop up on the screen if you use this PyMusique thing doesn't mean you aren't responsible for knowing. For example, if you do not receive a bill in the mail for your credit card, you are still responsible for making the payment and paying any late fees--it is your responsibility as the borrower to make the appropriate payment on time. By using the service, you are implicitly agreeing to the terms of service and use, including Apple's rights to prosecute (should they choose to) for your violation of those terms (i.e. using a non-approved client application). This is enforceable; whether Apple chooses to do anything about it remains unclear.
Also enforceable is the DMCA violation (and yes, it is a violation, because you are BYPASSING technology designed to secure DRM). Even though you paid for the songs, you also paid for the license for that song (which includes DRM), and you are breaking encryption by bypassing it. Walking through a hole in a fence is still trespassing, whether you made the hole or not. Again, from a legal perspective, this is a punishable violation.
I'm not saying that I like having my digital music locked down more vigorously than a CD I buy. But there are logical reasons for doing so. Namely, that the digital version, if un-DRMed, can be copied and transmitted with no special software or effort. If I want to share a CD, I have to burn a copy (requiring hardware and software) or extract the audio digitally and transmit it. Digital music does all that for you, and Apple's DRM gives you appropriate fair use rights. The DRM is designed to prevent casual copying that results in lower license sales.
You don't own the music you've bought, and you don't have any legal right to redistribute it because your license does not allow it. Should you be able to use it on any type of device you choose? Yes. Does DRM prevent that from happening? Often, also yes. Can you choose a different format that works with all devices (standard MP3 imported from a CD)? Yeah, but not on purchased iTunes music. Until DRM and file format technology becomes standardized, you have to deal with "early adopter syndrome" in a volatile market, which can result in purchases not being universally compatible (betamax/VHS/laser disc/DVD anyone?). Make a choice that works for you.
By purchasing AAC with Apple's DRM, you are choosing a file format with known and public limitations that will only work with a specific combination of hardware and software. You chose the delivery platform; you can't buy Windows software and then complain that it doesn't work on your Mac without buying it again. That's the way business works. Of course it would be fantastic if buying a license of Office for my PC gave me a corresponding license for all the other computer platforms I use, but that's not the case. Even say, Dreamweaver, which gives you Mac and PC installers, is only licensed to be used on one of the computers. I can install it on both, but that doesn't make it right or legal, even if I think that Macromedia is horrible (which I do).
In conclusion, breaking or bypassing DRM, while understandable on a basic level for getting compatibility with everything, is against the law. Using tools to do this which violate the iTMS terms of service is also a legal violation. The best way out of this situation is to support a universal standard that ensures compatibility with all devices and file formats. DRM isn't going away, and it shouldn't. But it should also not work against honest customers who just want iTunes songs to play on their Rio. Long post, my apologies.
Yes. By signing up for an account to use the iTunes Music Store, you are bound to their terms of service. Those terms only appear in the official iTunes client because that's the only source for the music. Just because those terms don't pop up on the screen if you use this PyMusique thing doesn't mean you aren't responsible for knowing. For example, if you do not receive a bill in the mail for your credit card, you are still responsible for making the payment and paying any late fees--it is your responsibility as the borrower to make the appropriate payment on time. By using the service, you are implicitly agreeing to the terms of service and use, including Apple's rights to prosecute (should they choose to) for your violation of those terms (i.e. using a non-approved client application). This is enforceable; whether Apple chooses to do anything about it remains unclear.
Also enforceable is the DMCA violation (and yes, it is a violation, because you are BYPASSING technology designed to secure DRM). Even though you paid for the songs, you also paid for the license for that song (which includes DRM), and you are breaking encryption by bypassing it. Walking through a hole in a fence is still trespassing, whether you made the hole or not. Again, from a legal perspective, this is a punishable violation.
I'm not saying that I like having my digital music locked down more vigorously than a CD I buy. But there are logical reasons for doing so. Namely, that the digital version, if un-DRMed, can be copied and transmitted with no special software or effort. If I want to share a CD, I have to burn a copy (requiring hardware and software) or extract the audio digitally and transmit it. Digital music does all that for you, and Apple's DRM gives you appropriate fair use rights. The DRM is designed to prevent casual copying that results in lower license sales.
You don't own the music you've bought, and you don't have any legal right to redistribute it because your license does not allow it. Should you be able to use it on any type of device you choose? Yes. Does DRM prevent that from happening? Often, also yes. Can you choose a different format that works with all devices (standard MP3 imported from a CD)? Yeah, but not on purchased iTunes music. Until DRM and file format technology becomes standardized, you have to deal with "early adopter syndrome" in a volatile market, which can result in purchases not being universally compatible (betamax/VHS/laser disc/DVD anyone?). Make a choice that works for you.
By purchasing AAC with Apple's DRM, you are choosing a file format with known and public limitations that will only work with a specific combination of hardware and software. You chose the delivery platform; you can't buy Windows software and then complain that it doesn't work on your Mac without buying it again. That's the way business works. Of course it would be fantastic if buying a license of Office for my PC gave me a corresponding license for all the other computer platforms I use, but that's not the case. Even say, Dreamweaver, which gives you Mac and PC installers, is only licensed to be used on one of the computers. I can install it on both, but that doesn't make it right or legal, even if I think that Macromedia is horrible (which I do).
In conclusion, breaking or bypassing DRM, while understandable on a basic level for getting compatibility with everything, is against the law. Using tools to do this which violate the iTMS terms of service is also a legal violation. The best way out of this situation is to support a universal standard that ensures compatibility with all devices and file formats. DRM isn't going away, and it shouldn't. But it should also not work against honest customers who just want iTunes songs to play on their Rio. Long post, my apologies.
jchung
Mar 18, 06:53 AM
I wouldn't be so opposed to this if AT&T could accurately track data usage. A number of people are being billed for some fairly large data usage which does not match their actual usage.
Here is the thread on Apple's support forum. http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2450738
As you can see, its been going on for a while. No one noticed until AT&T introduced their tiered data plan.
Until AT&T gets their data usage accounting worked out, I will NEVER sign up for their tiered plan nor their hot spot plan. Imagine how much worse their accounting will be with hot spot. And you have no tools to determine the real cause of the issue.
What is really stupid about this from AT&T is that they are requiring the user to act to Opt Out of getting the hot spot data plan. I thought companies stopped automatically enrolling people even if they were notified. I thought companies were supposed to require an Opt In for subscriptions and services.
Did we just go back 10 years?
Here is the thread on Apple's support forum. http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2450738
As you can see, its been going on for a while. No one noticed until AT&T introduced their tiered data plan.
Until AT&T gets their data usage accounting worked out, I will NEVER sign up for their tiered plan nor their hot spot plan. Imagine how much worse their accounting will be with hot spot. And you have no tools to determine the real cause of the issue.
What is really stupid about this from AT&T is that they are requiring the user to act to Opt Out of getting the hot spot data plan. I thought companies stopped automatically enrolling people even if they were notified. I thought companies were supposed to require an Opt In for subscriptions and services.
Did we just go back 10 years?
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 07:09 AM
You have completely missed the point.
That doesn't surprise me. Please tell me exactly what point I missed.
That doesn't surprise me. Please tell me exactly what point I missed.
gnasher729
Sep 12, 07:42 PM
I sure wish Apple would have come up with a system for ripping DVDs to my computer and cataloging them, that I would have loved. How much you want to bet that never happens?
Use Handbrake to convert to H.264, then drag the result into iTunes.
Use Handbrake to convert to H.264, then drag the result into iTunes.
ddtlm
Oct 12, 06:35 PM
MacCoaster:
Ok, here we go. You have a program.c so compile it into compiler.o like this:
gcc -c program.c
You may place flags such as -O before -c, or maybe even after it. But certainly before it. Anyway, you have some asm_func.asm, so compile it into asm_func.o like this:
nasm -f elf asm_func.asm
Now, you can link these two .o files like this:
gcc *o -o exe
Which makes an executable named exe (which of course you can change to be whatever you want).
Anyway, do note that the ASM funcs do the integer "benchmark" and not the float one. Also, I think because I overwrite ebx when I am not supposed to, the asm routines tend to cause program segaults after they exit. :) But they still provide a valid result. I could fix that, but whatever.
Ok, here we go. You have a program.c so compile it into compiler.o like this:
gcc -c program.c
You may place flags such as -O before -c, or maybe even after it. But certainly before it. Anyway, you have some asm_func.asm, so compile it into asm_func.o like this:
nasm -f elf asm_func.asm
Now, you can link these two .o files like this:
gcc *o -o exe
Which makes an executable named exe (which of course you can change to be whatever you want).
Anyway, do note that the ASM funcs do the integer "benchmark" and not the float one. Also, I think because I overwrite ebx when I am not supposed to, the asm routines tend to cause program segaults after they exit. :) But they still provide a valid result. I could fix that, but whatever.
spicyapple
Oct 25, 11:18 PM
HDV render = 60% on every core. WTF?
What type of filters are you applying? Perhaps the plug-in hasn't been optimized for multiple cores.
What type of filters are you applying? Perhaps the plug-in hasn't been optimized for multiple cores.
