Wayazo
May 5, 09:03 PM
As much as I want to say that it s a grass is always greener type situation, in Phoenix AT&T is considered the worst. Especially indoors. They really must stretch the towers out here in the desert. I can;t even use my iphone in my home.
I live just north of Seattle. I have an AT&T cell tower (sign on tower base identifies it as such) within line of sight less than a quarter mile away in a residential area. Inside my house I have never had a single call successfully completed on my iPhone. They have all dropped out. If I step outside where I can see the tower, about half the calls drop out. I also have delayed reception of SMS and voice mail. For example, this morning I received a voicemail that was left for me the previous evening. I've replaced my phone and cards twice without luck. My neighbor has Verizon. He can stand inside my house right next to me, get full bars, chat up a storm, SMS, browse Internet.
Go figure.
I live just north of Seattle. I have an AT&T cell tower (sign on tower base identifies it as such) within line of sight less than a quarter mile away in a residential area. Inside my house I have never had a single call successfully completed on my iPhone. They have all dropped out. If I step outside where I can see the tower, about half the calls drop out. I also have delayed reception of SMS and voice mail. For example, this morning I received a voicemail that was left for me the previous evening. I've replaced my phone and cards twice without luck. My neighbor has Verizon. He can stand inside my house right next to me, get full bars, chat up a storm, SMS, browse Internet.
Go figure.
Iconoclysm
Apr 20, 08:12 PM
You mean just like unix operating systems have "so many" viruses and it's a completely open source environment? In fact OSX is based on BSD unix. LOL
Yeah, because they hold the largest marketshare, right?
Yeah, because they hold the largest marketshare, right?
MattInOz
Apr 21, 09:57 AM
So you can't watch the Wizard of OZ and listen to Dark Side of the Moon at the same time? Get a real phone. :D
No but I can listen to Radiohead and read the wizard of id. :cool:
No but I can listen to Radiohead and read the wizard of id. :cool:
trrosen
Mar 18, 09:16 AM
Will never happen. The contract you signed with AT&T specifically says the required data plan cannot be tethered without an additional fee. You agreed not to do it, they have every right to punish those that break the contract.
I'm thinking the only proper response to someone violating a contract is to end the contract. (that is cut off your service) I don't think AT&T has a legal standing to say OK you broke our contract so we're going to unilaterally enter you into a new contract.
PS Something for all you "ITS MY DEVICE" people to remember. If you bought it on contract it's not your device until the contract has been fulfilled. Until then the sale is not complete and the Phone is AT&T's.
I'm thinking the only proper response to someone violating a contract is to end the contract. (that is cut off your service) I don't think AT&T has a legal standing to say OK you broke our contract so we're going to unilaterally enter you into a new contract.
PS Something for all you "ITS MY DEVICE" people to remember. If you bought it on contract it's not your device until the contract has been fulfilled. Until then the sale is not complete and the Phone is AT&T's.
milo
Sep 20, 11:21 AM
This must be a US-centric view. Here (UK) PVRs with twin Freeview (DTT) tuners and 80GB HDs are everywhere. And they are very cheap now (120 quid upwards).
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
Looks like a cool box, but still pretty expensive, $525 USD. And I assume not available in the USA. Anyone know what the cheapest PVR you can buy in the states is?
The only differences between a Mini and iTV are the connections on the back, better wireless speed and no DVD. Its pure the price and software that makes it a media device and not a computer.
And the fact that you can't use the iTV as a computer! The iPod can play audio and video like a mini can, does that make the iPod "a cut down mini" too?
If I have a mini, couldn't I use it as an iTV with frontrow? Why would I get an iTV when I can get a refirb mini for $200 more, when it can do more?
Because it's $200 more. And this is just the initial pricing, as time goes on the iTV will get cheaper faster than computers do.
I'm wondering why they couldn't/wouldn't just combine the mini and the iTV into a single unit. The mini's size could allow for a DVD slot/player/burner and maybe even allow for the Mac OS in the box, so you don't need another computer to stream your media from. In fact, I assumed that was what the Mini was ultimately destined for anyway.
Because it would be way more expensive than $200, with little chance of prices dropping much.
Since iTV most likely wont be a DVR device, I coughed up $700 today for a Sony DVR instead.
I am sure Apple has a brilliant plan for the iTV, but I fail to see it.
Well, the first step of the plan is to cost less than $700. :eek: At that price, the technology will never be anything more than a niche.
because everything on cable is available at itunes. your analogy is wrong.
He was talking about the future of iTunes/iTV. Who's to say that someday everything on cable won't be on iTunes?
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
Looks like a cool box, but still pretty expensive, $525 USD. And I assume not available in the USA. Anyone know what the cheapest PVR you can buy in the states is?
The only differences between a Mini and iTV are the connections on the back, better wireless speed and no DVD. Its pure the price and software that makes it a media device and not a computer.
And the fact that you can't use the iTV as a computer! The iPod can play audio and video like a mini can, does that make the iPod "a cut down mini" too?
If I have a mini, couldn't I use it as an iTV with frontrow? Why would I get an iTV when I can get a refirb mini for $200 more, when it can do more?
Because it's $200 more. And this is just the initial pricing, as time goes on the iTV will get cheaper faster than computers do.
I'm wondering why they couldn't/wouldn't just combine the mini and the iTV into a single unit. The mini's size could allow for a DVD slot/player/burner and maybe even allow for the Mac OS in the box, so you don't need another computer to stream your media from. In fact, I assumed that was what the Mini was ultimately destined for anyway.
Because it would be way more expensive than $200, with little chance of prices dropping much.
Since iTV most likely wont be a DVR device, I coughed up $700 today for a Sony DVR instead.
I am sure Apple has a brilliant plan for the iTV, but I fail to see it.
Well, the first step of the plan is to cost less than $700. :eek: At that price, the technology will never be anything more than a niche.
because everything on cable is available at itunes. your analogy is wrong.
He was talking about the future of iTunes/iTV. Who's to say that someday everything on cable won't be on iTunes?
Mord
Jul 12, 04:19 AM
exctly what i have been saying this last year.
we all know thinksecrets record lately.
we all know thinksecrets record lately.
amac4me
Jul 12, 08:58 AM
Oh yeah, these babies will fly. Looking to replace my 2004 PowerMac G5 Dual 2.5
Bring it on :D
Bring it on :D
skunk
Mar 16, 02:09 PM
The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. Is completely irresponsible the opposite of short-sighted?
CaoCao
Mar 25, 09:59 AM
Subtract the individuals affiliated with gangs and the mentally unstable and we're staring at a long list of homosexuals murdered by "mainstream" individuals, many of whom attended church on a regular basis and were in fact catholic. That their religious affiliations are not immediately telegraphed is not evidence of absence, but rather of the fact that 76% of the population self-identifies as Christian.
Aren't we having a thread about religion dying?
Don't forget to subtract the victims who we aren't sure about them being killed because they were homosexual.
So, how many can you prove were Catholic, mentally stable and not in gangs?
People can BELIEVE whatever they want.
The reason why people have a problem with what the Vatican BELIEVES it is because it is so frequently converted into something that PHYSICALLY restricts the rights of other adults.
Stop imposing on people's rights, and you can go ahead and continue believing whatever you do.
Whether or not their beliefs are bigoted are a side issue and only strays from the actual reason people don't like the Vatican.
"so frequently" ORLY? Prove it. To prove that the Catholic Church restricts rights you have to prove that the rights existed before.
PS Marriage is a privilege not a right.
To stretch my own analogy, it also ignores that the men who put on white hoods and terrorized black people were not "mainstream" white people either, but they were nevertheless acting on the attitudes held by "mainstream" white people. They were radical, but saw themselves as the ones with the strength of will to enforce the true will of the "mainstream." It's all very well to believe that the darkies should keep their place, but somebody's got to do the work of keeping them there when they step out of line.
However, I will return to what I touched on before: the Catholic Church (and Christian churches generally in the United States) currently have no need for terrorist thugs. They have great political influence and have convinced a significant plurality (seemingly no longer a majority, I am gratified to point out) that they are entitled to subjugate others bloodlessly and anonymously through the democratic process.
At least this is so until the courts clearly state once and for all that this is incompatible with our law and our society. Incidentally, that's also when the thugs will really come out, and you watch how many of them claim to be doing the Lord's work.
The Klan was basically an organization with the express purpose of keeping Negroes in line, can you prove an equivalent organization in the Catholic Church?
I did not miss the fact that you tried to expand the discussion point. ;)
Unfortunately, none of that is relevant to the original point of the thread. Looking back through the thread, Catholics and Catholicism were/ are the discussion. Not all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream'.
If we constantly expand the topic, none of what was previously said is relevant.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
You forgot the fact that many "Christians" in the US are fundamentalist nuts
Aren't we having a thread about religion dying?
Don't forget to subtract the victims who we aren't sure about them being killed because they were homosexual.
So, how many can you prove were Catholic, mentally stable and not in gangs?
People can BELIEVE whatever they want.
The reason why people have a problem with what the Vatican BELIEVES it is because it is so frequently converted into something that PHYSICALLY restricts the rights of other adults.
Stop imposing on people's rights, and you can go ahead and continue believing whatever you do.
Whether or not their beliefs are bigoted are a side issue and only strays from the actual reason people don't like the Vatican.
"so frequently" ORLY? Prove it. To prove that the Catholic Church restricts rights you have to prove that the rights existed before.
PS Marriage is a privilege not a right.
To stretch my own analogy, it also ignores that the men who put on white hoods and terrorized black people were not "mainstream" white people either, but they were nevertheless acting on the attitudes held by "mainstream" white people. They were radical, but saw themselves as the ones with the strength of will to enforce the true will of the "mainstream." It's all very well to believe that the darkies should keep their place, but somebody's got to do the work of keeping them there when they step out of line.
However, I will return to what I touched on before: the Catholic Church (and Christian churches generally in the United States) currently have no need for terrorist thugs. They have great political influence and have convinced a significant plurality (seemingly no longer a majority, I am gratified to point out) that they are entitled to subjugate others bloodlessly and anonymously through the democratic process.
At least this is so until the courts clearly state once and for all that this is incompatible with our law and our society. Incidentally, that's also when the thugs will really come out, and you watch how many of them claim to be doing the Lord's work.
The Klan was basically an organization with the express purpose of keeping Negroes in line, can you prove an equivalent organization in the Catholic Church?
I did not miss the fact that you tried to expand the discussion point. ;)
Unfortunately, none of that is relevant to the original point of the thread. Looking back through the thread, Catholics and Catholicism were/ are the discussion. Not all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream'.
If we constantly expand the topic, none of what was previously said is relevant.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
You forgot the fact that many "Christians" in the US are fundamentalist nuts
whooleytoo
Apr 28, 09:17 AM
Make up your mind what you want to count iPads as. Damn is it a mobile device a computer. Someone give them a ****ing category already.
Hah, exactly.
I think it's unnecessarily divisive to argue whether or not an iPad is a "PC" or not. It's a device sold. You can count it in the "PC" category, along with Macs, or "Mobile" category, along with iPhones and MacBooks, or "Larger than pocket devices", along with Macs but excluding iPhones/iTouches.
Hah, exactly.
I think it's unnecessarily divisive to argue whether or not an iPad is a "PC" or not. It's a device sold. You can count it in the "PC" category, along with Macs, or "Mobile" category, along with iPhones and MacBooks, or "Larger than pocket devices", along with Macs but excluding iPhones/iTouches.
backinblack875
Apr 8, 10:37 PM
Real games aren't played on an iDevice. Say what you want, it's true at the moment. No need to look into the future..........cause you don't know what it holds. And if you do tell me if i'll be at work Monday please! (Gov worker)
Govt SCUM!! (lol jk :D)
Govt SCUM!! (lol jk :D)
iStudentUK
Mar 13, 01:55 PM
I had not even been born when Chernobyl happened so I know very little about how it affected us. Like others have said, it's safe as long as it is used by responsible country. From what I've read, Chernobyl used ancient and much more vulnerable technology than today's plants use plus they were performing some kind of an experiment which fought against safety rules.
Yes, Chernobyl (a level 7 disaster) is the worst nuclear power disaster to date, but it was caused by massive negligence and using technology that was considered unsafe in the West. The incident in Japan was nothing like this at all.
A nuclear plant had what is classified as the International Nuclear Event Scale as a "level 4 accident" following an enormous earthquake and then a tsunami. The Japanese government have reacted swiftly and evacuated people. The levels of radiation released are nothing to panic about.
I'd love to see a world powered by wind, sun and rainbows but that isn't realistic yet. I'd much rather we move away from fossil fuels to nuclear and renewable, and slowly shifting the balance further towards renewables over time as technology improves.
Yes, Chernobyl (a level 7 disaster) is the worst nuclear power disaster to date, but it was caused by massive negligence and using technology that was considered unsafe in the West. The incident in Japan was nothing like this at all.
A nuclear plant had what is classified as the International Nuclear Event Scale as a "level 4 accident" following an enormous earthquake and then a tsunami. The Japanese government have reacted swiftly and evacuated people. The levels of radiation released are nothing to panic about.
I'd love to see a world powered by wind, sun and rainbows but that isn't realistic yet. I'd much rather we move away from fossil fuels to nuclear and renewable, and slowly shifting the balance further towards renewables over time as technology improves.
MorganK
May 9, 11:35 PM
I have a 3G and my calls keep dropping for no apparent reason. I'll look down right after it ends and have 0 bars then 2 seconds later, standing in the same spot, I will have full bars. It is quite frustrating. Good thing I text more than I talk though or else I'd be highly annoyed.
latergator116
Mar 20, 08:11 PM
Okay, but your comment was in reply to maticus' one about the opinion that "breaking the law is breaking the law". Who was, in turn, talking about iTMS and related issues. Sorry if I lost track somewhere but I assumed you were talking about the same thing.
That's ok. I was responding to the hypothetical situation of a couple burning music cd's for their wedding and handing them out (thus breaking a copyright) to their guests which I said there was nothing wrong with.
That's ok. I was responding to the hypothetical situation of a couple burning music cd's for their wedding and handing them out (thus breaking a copyright) to their guests which I said there was nothing wrong with.
Benjamins
Apr 20, 08:01 PM
People should drop the Ferrari analogy, because it's totally off the mark. Ferrari is better than pretty much anything else, on almost every aspect you can think of, except size.
An iPhone isn't better than an Android phone on all aspects, it's better in certain ones and worse in others. Overall I prefer Apple's ecosystem when it comes to personal computing, and when it comes to cellphones, I just bought an iPhone (1st gen) because I'm an Apple user anyway, and it seemed pretty amazing in 2007 when Jobs introduced it, and I'm still using my 1st gen.
unless you really really want widgets and Flash, otherwise I can't think of anything better on Android.
Btw: my Prius gets much better gas mileage than a Ferrari. :)
An iPhone isn't better than an Android phone on all aspects, it's better in certain ones and worse in others. Overall I prefer Apple's ecosystem when it comes to personal computing, and when it comes to cellphones, I just bought an iPhone (1st gen) because I'm an Apple user anyway, and it seemed pretty amazing in 2007 when Jobs introduced it, and I'm still using my 1st gen.
unless you really really want widgets and Flash, otherwise I can't think of anything better on Android.
Btw: my Prius gets much better gas mileage than a Ferrari. :)
kugino
Sep 20, 02:18 AM
I hate to be the first to post a negative but here it is. I don't think this will be overly expensive, but I also think we will be underwhelmed with it's features. Wireless is not that important to me. There are many wires back there already. It sounds like it will not have HDMI or TiVo features, and it will play movies out of iTunes, which screams to me that it will only play .mp4 and .m4v files much like my 5G iPod. If it cannot browse my my mac or firedrive, cannot stream from them, cannot play .avi, .wmw, .rm or VCD, then it will not replace my 4 year old xbox. Which itself has a 120Gig drive and a remote. Unless we are all sorely mistaken about what iTV will end up being, and it ends up adding these features (as someone above me noted, hoping Apple would read this forum) I will wait. Honestly, I am far more excited over the prospect of the MacBook Pros hopefully switching to Core 2 Duos before year end. Then I will have a much more powerful machine slung to my firedrive, router, xbox and tv. :)
dude, do a little research before droning on and on with misinformation. many of your concerns were addressed by steve in the keynote and by reading some of the other threads on the subject. :rolleyes:
dude, do a little research before droning on and on with misinformation. many of your concerns were addressed by steve in the keynote and by reading some of the other threads on the subject. :rolleyes:
JackAxe
Sep 26, 06:27 PM
Glad I didn't shell out the money thinking it was. 64 bit Maya is going to be nice, I'm think its coming when OSX 10.5 hits. I got Maya 8 but have not loaded it yet.
BTW, I go to the OSX Maya forum once in while and have seen your name there. Is DD the one that got the full version?
Nope, Bernard of course. :D
DD has helped me out a few times with other things.
That's what I was thinking about with leapard. I'm glad Apple is finally offering 64-bit gui support. I really didn't see a need for it, but now that these 3D apps are giving OS X the shaft, I'm eagerly awaiting it.
I would like to try out some of 8's new modeling tools. I'm going to have to wait though, since it's practically full price for an ugprade and I'll be moving to Intel this coming year. I wish Autodesklias had a more affordable upgrade path for small shops. This coming year is going to be expensive and probably buggy.
<]=)
BTW, I go to the OSX Maya forum once in while and have seen your name there. Is DD the one that got the full version?
Nope, Bernard of course. :D
DD has helped me out a few times with other things.
That's what I was thinking about with leapard. I'm glad Apple is finally offering 64-bit gui support. I really didn't see a need for it, but now that these 3D apps are giving OS X the shaft, I'm eagerly awaiting it.
I would like to try out some of 8's new modeling tools. I'm going to have to wait though, since it's practically full price for an ugprade and I'll be moving to Intel this coming year. I wish Autodesklias had a more affordable upgrade path for small shops. This coming year is going to be expensive and probably buggy.
<]=)
Edge100
Apr 15, 11:33 AM
All I'm doing is trying to argue that sure, there's plenty of stuff in there you're going to disagree with. And that's fine and I'm sure you'd have a lot of compelling arguments to refute the points.
But it's not *hateful*. I don't see how a rational being could find that hateful. That's just something that shuts down discussion and mischaracterizes an opponent.
It is hateful to trivialize a person's identity; to claim that homosexuality is a "trial", that must be overcome. It's dehumanizing, and it's hateful.
But it's not *hateful*. I don't see how a rational being could find that hateful. That's just something that shuts down discussion and mischaracterizes an opponent.
It is hateful to trivialize a person's identity; to claim that homosexuality is a "trial", that must be overcome. It's dehumanizing, and it's hateful.
OllyW
Apr 28, 10:08 AM
Do some research. Globally Apple passed 7% last year.
Apple sold around 14.5 million Macs last year (2.94m Q2 (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/04/20results.html), 3.47m Q3 (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/07/20results.html), 3.89m Q4 (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/10/18results.html), 4.13m Q1 (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/01/18results.html)). The Global sales for computers was almost 351 million (http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1519417).
I've done some research and still make it 4.1%. :)
Apple sold around 14.5 million Macs last year (2.94m Q2 (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/04/20results.html), 3.47m Q3 (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/07/20results.html), 3.89m Q4 (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/10/18results.html), 4.13m Q1 (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/01/18results.html)). The Global sales for computers was almost 351 million (http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1519417).
I've done some research and still make it 4.1%. :)
munkery
May 2, 08:18 PM
Problems with Windows security in comparison to Mac OS X presented just in this thread:
1) Greater number of privilege escalation vulnerabilities:
Here is a list of privilege escalation (UAC bypass) vulnerabilities just related to Stuxnet (win32k.sys) in Windows in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=win32k.sys+2011
Here is a list of all of the privilege escalation vulnerabilities in Mac OS X in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+privileges+2011
2) Earlier versions of NT based Windows (Windows XP and earlier) do not use discretionary access controls by default.
3) Permissions system does not include a user defined unique identifier (password) by default. More susceptible to user space exploitation leading to authentication stolen via spoofed prompt that appears unrelated to UAC because password not associated with authentication.
4) Windows sandbox mechanism relies on inherited permissions so that turning off UAC turns off the sandbox. This sandbox has been defeated in the wild (in the last two pwn2owns).
I do not know of any TrustedBSD MAC framework (BSD and Mac sandbox), AppArmor (openSUSE and Ubuntu), or SE Linux (Fedora) mandatory access control escapes? These sandbox mechanisms do not rely on inherited permissions.
5) The Windows registry is a single point of failure that can be leveraged by malware.
EDIT:
If malware doesn't need to use some method to achieve privilege escalation or actively phish users for their credit card number to be profitable enough to warrant their creation, then why did the specific example of malware that started this thread rely on these methods to be profitable?
Why did it not use the methods presented by KnightWRX? Why do you not see malware that only uses user level access to upload a user's data files to achieve some effect that is profitable? I can't recall any malware that uses this method.
Is it because most users do not have valuable info stored in insecure data files? I keep that type of info in encrypted secured notes in Keychain Access or in encrypted sparse bundle disk images.
Is it because it would require too much time to data mine the files for valuable info in relation to the amount of profit gained? How many GBs of data are on your system? Even the data I keep in encrypted sparse bundle disk images wouldn't be very useful for identity theft even if it was not encrypted.
Is it because given all the variables it is more cost effective to go after achieving system level access to keystroke log passwords protected by user space security mechanisms or simply to use basic phishing scams on unknowledgeable users? Makes sense to me but maybe I am wrong.
1) Greater number of privilege escalation vulnerabilities:
Here is a list of privilege escalation (UAC bypass) vulnerabilities just related to Stuxnet (win32k.sys) in Windows in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=win32k.sys+2011
Here is a list of all of the privilege escalation vulnerabilities in Mac OS X in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+privileges+2011
2) Earlier versions of NT based Windows (Windows XP and earlier) do not use discretionary access controls by default.
3) Permissions system does not include a user defined unique identifier (password) by default. More susceptible to user space exploitation leading to authentication stolen via spoofed prompt that appears unrelated to UAC because password not associated with authentication.
4) Windows sandbox mechanism relies on inherited permissions so that turning off UAC turns off the sandbox. This sandbox has been defeated in the wild (in the last two pwn2owns).
I do not know of any TrustedBSD MAC framework (BSD and Mac sandbox), AppArmor (openSUSE and Ubuntu), or SE Linux (Fedora) mandatory access control escapes? These sandbox mechanisms do not rely on inherited permissions.
5) The Windows registry is a single point of failure that can be leveraged by malware.
EDIT:
If malware doesn't need to use some method to achieve privilege escalation or actively phish users for their credit card number to be profitable enough to warrant their creation, then why did the specific example of malware that started this thread rely on these methods to be profitable?
Why did it not use the methods presented by KnightWRX? Why do you not see malware that only uses user level access to upload a user's data files to achieve some effect that is profitable? I can't recall any malware that uses this method.
Is it because most users do not have valuable info stored in insecure data files? I keep that type of info in encrypted secured notes in Keychain Access or in encrypted sparse bundle disk images.
Is it because it would require too much time to data mine the files for valuable info in relation to the amount of profit gained? How many GBs of data are on your system? Even the data I keep in encrypted sparse bundle disk images wouldn't be very useful for identity theft even if it was not encrypted.
Is it because given all the variables it is more cost effective to go after achieving system level access to keystroke log passwords protected by user space security mechanisms or simply to use basic phishing scams on unknowledgeable users? Makes sense to me but maybe I am wrong.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 04:47 PM
Are the action of a few countries a representative of Islam?
the actions of "a few countries" that are many miles apart (so by all rights should have different cultures) but have one thing in common, ie islam, are a representation of the effects of islam.
islam is unpleasant and, i guess for want of a better word, evil.
the actions of "a few countries" that are many miles apart (so by all rights should have different cultures) but have one thing in common, ie islam, are a representation of the effects of islam.
islam is unpleasant and, i guess for want of a better word, evil.
legacyb4
Sep 12, 06:28 PM
Hate to say it, but I agree... I've got an old P4/2.8 running MCE2005 with a TV tuner and while not outputting the highest quality video, it's fulfilling the role of what I want in my living room; namely, a digital recording device for TV content that can also play back DVDs and downloaded content. It'd be a plus if I actually used the computer but I'm a Mac man suffering the Windows solution for something that Apple hasn't fully provided me yet...
When this thing surpasses the capabilities of my Windows media center and Xbox 360 combo then I will be impressed. Until then Apple is playing catch up to MCE and playing it poorly.
When this thing surpasses the capabilities of my Windows media center and Xbox 360 combo then I will be impressed. Until then Apple is playing catch up to MCE and playing it poorly.
jefhatfield
Oct 12, 05:51 AM
Originally posted by alex_ant
The kind of Mac that's adequate now (say an 800MHz TiBook) will probably seem quite slow in three years, whereas if you buy a top-of-the-line PC notebook today, it could easily last 5 or more. With OS X, the days of Macs lasting 5+ years are gone, at least for the moment. We do things with our computers today that we didn't do with them 5 years ago - mainly due to the trickle-down effect.
Alex
because the way the pc software gets so overbloated so fast, any pc laptop is rendered too slow in two years and any pc desktop (with the desktop's higher specs and expandability) is rendered too slow in three years
i can't see any pc lasting four years comfortably, unless it's an ultra sparc, sun, or silicon graphics unit
i am assuming this for someone who would sometimes need to use photoshop, autocad, or a fifty dollar high end game
.....
as for macs, i give them the same time frame even though they are behind the pc speed curve
i don't see mac software titles pushing the mac hardware off the planet like in the pc world, which is seen more as a throwaway consumer electronic
thank god that macs are not seen or built as throwaway consumer electronics
even the "now" lowly crt imac is a sturdy machine that will outlast, on the physical level, most pcs on the market
.....
when i got my ibook, even though the single usb port left me stranded peripheral wise two years later, it was built to last and last
when i got my pc laptop, made by compaq, the thing was definitely sold as a throwaway unit
the rubber feet fell off which i had to glue back on
one screen hinge kept on popping off so i have to avoid touching it on that left side
when i close the pc laptop unit, i have to do it slowly since that particular model had thin plastic latches that broke off easily and the ribbon cable connecting the lcd had a tendency to get unplugged inside the unit
and the battery was useless after a year and wouldn't hold a charge anymore
i never shelled out the $199 bucks to get a new battery and now i just use the short length ac adapter
.....
in contrast, my ibook's only deterioration has been the battery's ability to hold a 4 1/2 hour charge...the thing never got 6 hours in real world everyday use like advertised...using just word processing with the lcd dimmed way down, a reviewer got five hours on a new rev a. ibook battery
now the laptop's battery, after 34 months of daily use, holds a 2 3/4 hour charge...actually, not bad compared to the pc laptop whose battery died after just a year
.....
when i looked at a computer accessories catalog, they recommended that i replace my pc model's battery after one year of part time use
but they also recommended that i replace my rev. a ibook's battery after just one year, also...how wrong they were...ha:p
if i still have my 300 mhz ibook two years from now, even if i wouldn't likely be using it much, i will give it a five year birthday party on macrumors...ibook's in late-2004 will be at 1.9 ghz by then if apple still has an ibook on the consumer end...this is based on average speed climb in industry
right now, the earliest rev. a ibooks are now 3 1/4 years old, originally had os 8.5, and i bet most are still working:D
The kind of Mac that's adequate now (say an 800MHz TiBook) will probably seem quite slow in three years, whereas if you buy a top-of-the-line PC notebook today, it could easily last 5 or more. With OS X, the days of Macs lasting 5+ years are gone, at least for the moment. We do things with our computers today that we didn't do with them 5 years ago - mainly due to the trickle-down effect.
Alex
because the way the pc software gets so overbloated so fast, any pc laptop is rendered too slow in two years and any pc desktop (with the desktop's higher specs and expandability) is rendered too slow in three years
i can't see any pc lasting four years comfortably, unless it's an ultra sparc, sun, or silicon graphics unit
i am assuming this for someone who would sometimes need to use photoshop, autocad, or a fifty dollar high end game
.....
as for macs, i give them the same time frame even though they are behind the pc speed curve
i don't see mac software titles pushing the mac hardware off the planet like in the pc world, which is seen more as a throwaway consumer electronic
thank god that macs are not seen or built as throwaway consumer electronics
even the "now" lowly crt imac is a sturdy machine that will outlast, on the physical level, most pcs on the market
.....
when i got my ibook, even though the single usb port left me stranded peripheral wise two years later, it was built to last and last
when i got my pc laptop, made by compaq, the thing was definitely sold as a throwaway unit
the rubber feet fell off which i had to glue back on
one screen hinge kept on popping off so i have to avoid touching it on that left side
when i close the pc laptop unit, i have to do it slowly since that particular model had thin plastic latches that broke off easily and the ribbon cable connecting the lcd had a tendency to get unplugged inside the unit
and the battery was useless after a year and wouldn't hold a charge anymore
i never shelled out the $199 bucks to get a new battery and now i just use the short length ac adapter
.....
in contrast, my ibook's only deterioration has been the battery's ability to hold a 4 1/2 hour charge...the thing never got 6 hours in real world everyday use like advertised...using just word processing with the lcd dimmed way down, a reviewer got five hours on a new rev a. ibook battery
now the laptop's battery, after 34 months of daily use, holds a 2 3/4 hour charge...actually, not bad compared to the pc laptop whose battery died after just a year
.....
when i looked at a computer accessories catalog, they recommended that i replace my pc model's battery after one year of part time use
but they also recommended that i replace my rev. a ibook's battery after just one year, also...how wrong they were...ha:p
if i still have my 300 mhz ibook two years from now, even if i wouldn't likely be using it much, i will give it a five year birthday party on macrumors...ibook's in late-2004 will be at 1.9 ghz by then if apple still has an ibook on the consumer end...this is based on average speed climb in industry
right now, the earliest rev. a ibooks are now 3 1/4 years old, originally had os 8.5, and i bet most are still working:D
BWhaler
Jul 11, 11:47 PM
I certainly don't know, but in the past I thought Apple would of gone with the Conroe chip.
But Apple is being very aggressive these days, and appears to be going to marketshare now that Microsoft is showing serious signs of aging.
My hope is for the Woodcrest chip. I would buy that in a heart beat since it is 64 bit and more future proof. A conroe system will make me wait out a year (like I did with the MBPros...I've been waiting on the real chip the Core 2 Duo...)
But Apple is being very aggressive these days, and appears to be going to marketshare now that Microsoft is showing serious signs of aging.
My hope is for the Woodcrest chip. I would buy that in a heart beat since it is 64 bit and more future proof. A conroe system will make me wait out a year (like I did with the MBPros...I've been waiting on the real chip the Core 2 Duo...)