benixau
Oct 10, 11:29 AM
Dear lord,
If you have any heart for 25 million of your wiser men, please make apple use the power4 chip at lightning speeds, and please lord, do it soon. It is becoming hard for us mac men to defend ourselves.
PS. If you could give me a brand new top of the line mac while your at it i wouldnt mind either.
Edit: There is no blasphemy intended here
If you have any heart for 25 million of your wiser men, please make apple use the power4 chip at lightning speeds, and please lord, do it soon. It is becoming hard for us mac men to defend ourselves.
PS. If you could give me a brand new top of the line mac while your at it i wouldnt mind either.
Edit: There is no blasphemy intended here
jettredmont
May 3, 03:44 PM
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
Naimfan
Apr 24, 11:02 AM
As soon as you start down the slippery slope of stating that some things in the Bible (I use the Bible as an example but this applies equally to all religions) are not true (i.e the world was created in seven days) or that certain parts are meant to be interpreted by the reader (who's interpretation is correct?) you lose all credibility.
Well, only if you insist that yours is the ONLY correct interpretation, right? What about the denominations that say "Here's what WE believe, but if someone believes something else, that's fine?"
Well, only if you insist that yours is the ONLY correct interpretation, right? What about the denominations that say "Here's what WE believe, but if someone believes something else, that's fine?"
ct2k7
Apr 24, 03:04 PM
Dissection time!
A woman's witness is worth half of a man's: [6]
An article in The New York
The New York Times
The New York Times Crossword
The New York Times and The
the New York Times.
According to the New York
The New York Times reported
The New York Times masthead
series of four transparent
New York Times, September 14,
The New York Times,
The New York Times,
for the New York Times).
The New York Times reports,
the New York Times called
A woman's witness is worth half of a man's: [6]
theheyes
May 2, 05:10 PM
I can't think of anywhere else on the internet where users are so pedantic about whether a piece of malware is a virus or not. It's completely missing the point. The amount of malware out there for Macs is very slowly increasing, which, in itself, is increasing the probability of infecting the user base and Macs can be remotely exploited just like any other operating system.
Instead of rebuffing the emergence of Mac malware with technicalities and pointing the finger at other products, it would be more useful to think about what it means to you, the user. Do you need to run out and buy an antivirus product? No, probably not. If you're someone who keeps on top of software updates and are generally sensible in how you use a computer then you're fine to carry on.
On the other hand, if you're someone who peruses file sharing services and questionable websites for dodgy content and pirated software then it's becoming increasingly more likely that one day you'll get burned. Highly likely? No, not yet, but it would be foolish to assume immunity to computer security issues based solely on the fact that something so far has not met the strict definition of "virus".
A few people need to stop being so short sighted in trying to meticulously defend the idea of "no viruses on Macs". Ultimately it's a rather hollow ideal to uphold because uninitiated users accept it as gospel and it doesn't encourage them to adopt safe computer practices.
Instead of rebuffing the emergence of Mac malware with technicalities and pointing the finger at other products, it would be more useful to think about what it means to you, the user. Do you need to run out and buy an antivirus product? No, probably not. If you're someone who keeps on top of software updates and are generally sensible in how you use a computer then you're fine to carry on.
On the other hand, if you're someone who peruses file sharing services and questionable websites for dodgy content and pirated software then it's becoming increasingly more likely that one day you'll get burned. Highly likely? No, not yet, but it would be foolish to assume immunity to computer security issues based solely on the fact that something so far has not met the strict definition of "virus".
A few people need to stop being so short sighted in trying to meticulously defend the idea of "no viruses on Macs". Ultimately it's a rather hollow ideal to uphold because uninitiated users accept it as gospel and it doesn't encourage them to adopt safe computer practices.
�algiris
Apr 28, 12:11 PM
They didn't delete the word "computer" from the Apple name for nothing.
I could use a good laugh. Please "deduce" this one.
I could use a good laugh. Please "deduce" this one.
brianus
Aug 29, 11:53 AM
You can't always win :rolleyes: :cool: :D
CRT monitors also consume more power than LCDs.
Great avatar, CompUser. I thought my system had just slowed to a crawl! :D
CRT monitors also consume more power than LCDs.
Great avatar, CompUser. I thought my system had just slowed to a crawl! :D
AndroidfoLife
Apr 21, 04:27 PM
Well, there are a few problems with your theories. First of all, there are vulnerabilities in Windows that merely visiting a web page clicked on from a Google search gets your machine infected. Or, you could visit a legitimate website that has mistakenly sold ad space to people hosting malware (this has occurred with both Foxnews.com and NYTimes.com), or you can download an app that you think is legitimate, but has spyware (like PrimoPDF).
I love seeing this "As long as you know what you're doing, and you're not an idiot, you're fine" attitude.
Ok those are fake websites and they do not infect your computer just by clicking into them you have to click on the download. My friend in the dorms did last year and i fixed her computer in twenty minutes. You don't realize that people have to click on that stuff. I never click on anything like that. I torrent all day and i have yet to get a virus or spyware on my PC. (likely because of Kypresky.)
What phone do you have? My iPhone battery lasts 3 or 4 days if I don't do anything , who cares.
Real Netflix App
Any Game made by Epic
About 2/3s of EAs games. (and the ones there only run on like 2 phones).
This is just the beginning.. I could add 100 more if you like. Your free tethering is no different then getting free tethering on an iPhone. It is not carrier supported (At least on AT&T) and they will always be working to try and block it.
On android I enjoy every game made on NES, SNES, gameboy, Gameboy advance, Saturn, Genesis, and for higher end phones N64, DS, Playstation, with PS2 comming. Thats millions of games I have access too. Don't tout its illegal. Illegal or not its still a benefit of android.
Sorry I don't watch movies on my 3.5 inch screen not worth it. Can't wait to get the transformer and watch it on the real web browser though.
I love seeing this "As long as you know what you're doing, and you're not an idiot, you're fine" attitude.
Ok those are fake websites and they do not infect your computer just by clicking into them you have to click on the download. My friend in the dorms did last year and i fixed her computer in twenty minutes. You don't realize that people have to click on that stuff. I never click on anything like that. I torrent all day and i have yet to get a virus or spyware on my PC. (likely because of Kypresky.)
What phone do you have? My iPhone battery lasts 3 or 4 days if I don't do anything , who cares.
Real Netflix App
Any Game made by Epic
About 2/3s of EAs games. (and the ones there only run on like 2 phones).
This is just the beginning.. I could add 100 more if you like. Your free tethering is no different then getting free tethering on an iPhone. It is not carrier supported (At least on AT&T) and they will always be working to try and block it.
On android I enjoy every game made on NES, SNES, gameboy, Gameboy advance, Saturn, Genesis, and for higher end phones N64, DS, Playstation, with PS2 comming. Thats millions of games I have access too. Don't tout its illegal. Illegal or not its still a benefit of android.
Sorry I don't watch movies on my 3.5 inch screen not worth it. Can't wait to get the transformer and watch it on the real web browser though.
Chris here
Sep 29, 07:23 AM
No.
Oh. Great. Cool answer.
Oh. Great. Cool answer.
MrCrowbar
Jul 12, 08:11 AM
I wish I could say "I'm getting a woodie", but I can't right now... There are people watching :p
Serously I think we'll see woodcrest in the MacPro for sure. Apple wants to stick with the "fastest desktop computer" I think.
Serously I think we'll see woodcrest in the MacPro for sure. Apple wants to stick with the "fastest desktop computer" I think.
imacintel
Aug 29, 08:51 PM
Why do these "tree-huggers" have to interfere with business?
Apple does what they can to have more "enviornmentally-friendly" ways of processing their products. But 4th worst?
This is where I agree with you. I don't call myself a tree hugger. Sure, I love the earth and planet but sometimes people take it too far.
Apple does what they can to have more "enviornmentally-friendly" ways of processing their products. But 4th worst?
This is where I agree with you. I don't call myself a tree hugger. Sure, I love the earth and planet but sometimes people take it too far.
gatekpr
Jun 8, 09:35 AM
I jailbroke my iPhone 3GS and switched to T-mobile. I haven't had ONE dropped call since I did that in November. The edge network is a little slower, but well worth the switch. I could never use the 3G in Houston anyway. Sad, the 4th largest city in the nation and I would get 5-10 dropped calls a day. It was worse with the Blackberry Bold--you can't turn off the 3G, so it would drop incessantly.
I'm excited about the iPhone 4, my sources tell me they already have a jailbreak for it. I'm excited!
I'm excited about the iPhone 4, my sources tell me they already have a jailbreak for it. I'm excited!
Multimedia
Oct 25, 10:39 PM
I am so there with the cash ready a willing to fly out the window to Apple's account sooner than Apple can say:
"8-Core Mac Pro Available At the Apple Online Store For Ordering." :)
"8-Core Mac Pro Available At the Apple Online Store For Ordering." :)
todstiles
Aug 29, 04:57 PM
You people that are quoting and referencing information on wikipedia are really funny. Since when is anything that is written there taken as fact?
And you have to take statements from Greenpeace for what they are worth. You are talking about an organization that thrives on attention. Of course they are going to make outlandish statements. It's the only way anyone would ever know they exist.
Let's not put too much stock in this. There are absolutely no facts to back this up. As usual Greenpeace has nothing to show me. Nothing.
And you have to take statements from Greenpeace for what they are worth. You are talking about an organization that thrives on attention. Of course they are going to make outlandish statements. It's the only way anyone would ever know they exist.
Let's not put too much stock in this. There are absolutely no facts to back this up. As usual Greenpeace has nothing to show me. Nothing.
Rt&Dzine
Mar 27, 07:06 PM
I think it's pretty safe to say that Nicolosi is anti-gay.
But I do think there is a place in this world for therapists to work with people who feel conflicted with their sexual orientation. Heck, we accept that people can change gender ... why not sexual preference as well? In either case it's important that this would come from the patient's desire to change and not from the therapists desire to change them.
People try all sorts of wacky therapies that aren't backed by science. I wonder how many parents have followed his book, A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality.
But I do think there is a place in this world for therapists to work with people who feel conflicted with their sexual orientation. Heck, we accept that people can change gender ... why not sexual preference as well? In either case it's important that this would come from the patient's desire to change and not from the therapists desire to change them.
People try all sorts of wacky therapies that aren't backed by science. I wonder how many parents have followed his book, A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality.
GGJstudios
May 4, 02:59 PM
You're operating based on assumptions that because it hasn't happened in a meaningful way that it cannot happen and I think that is a false sense of security paramount to emotional fanaticism.
Please quote when I have ever indicated that Macs cannot or will not get malware or viruses. Before you falsely accuse me of having such assumptions, take the time to read the Mac Virus/Malware Info (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=9400648&postcount=4) I've posted in so many of these threads.
Since no OS, including Mac OS X, is immune to malware threats, this situation could change at any time, but if a new virus is discovered, the news media, forums, blogs, etc. will be instantly buzzing with the news.
Get your facts right before you make assumptions about me.
Please quote when I have ever indicated that Macs cannot or will not get malware or viruses. Before you falsely accuse me of having such assumptions, take the time to read the Mac Virus/Malware Info (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=9400648&postcount=4) I've posted in so many of these threads.
Since no OS, including Mac OS X, is immune to malware threats, this situation could change at any time, but if a new virus is discovered, the news media, forums, blogs, etc. will be instantly buzzing with the news.
Get your facts right before you make assumptions about me.
MacRumors
Oct 7, 10:30 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/10/07/android-to-surpass-iphone-in-market-share-by-2012/)
Computerworld reports (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139026/Android_to_grab_No._2_spot_by_2012_says_Gartner) that research firm Gartner is forecasting significant growth in Google's Android operating system for smart phones, noting that it expects Android to surpass Apple's iPhone to claim the number two spot behind Symbian OS with 14.5% of the global smart phone market by 2012.While the first Android product release, the T-Mobile G1, only won a lukewarm response, Android 1.5 (code-named Cupcake) is well thought-out, Dulaney said. Other expected improvements in Android for its application store and development environment will be "backed by the power of Google's search engine," he said. "Google's other up-and-coming consumer and enterprise products should make[Android] a dominant platform."
And because Android and Google operate in an "integrative and open environment, [they] could easily top ... the singular Apple," he said.
Android will also run on phones from several manufacturers, helping its growth, especially when compared to the iPhone, Dulaney said. In as many as 40 models of Android devices will ship, and the next OS update, code-named Donut, will ship in the second quarter, Dulaney predicted.The predicted margin is small, however, with Apple predicted to grab 13.7% of the smart phone market in 2012. Both companies are forecasted to take significant share from Symbian, which currently holds approximately 50% market share but is expected to fall to 39% over that time.
Article Link: Android to Surpass iPhone in Market Share by 2012? (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/10/07/android-to-surpass-iphone-in-market-share-by-2012/)
Computerworld reports (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139026/Android_to_grab_No._2_spot_by_2012_says_Gartner) that research firm Gartner is forecasting significant growth in Google's Android operating system for smart phones, noting that it expects Android to surpass Apple's iPhone to claim the number two spot behind Symbian OS with 14.5% of the global smart phone market by 2012.While the first Android product release, the T-Mobile G1, only won a lukewarm response, Android 1.5 (code-named Cupcake) is well thought-out, Dulaney said. Other expected improvements in Android for its application store and development environment will be "backed by the power of Google's search engine," he said. "Google's other up-and-coming consumer and enterprise products should make[Android] a dominant platform."
And because Android and Google operate in an "integrative and open environment, [they] could easily top ... the singular Apple," he said.
Android will also run on phones from several manufacturers, helping its growth, especially when compared to the iPhone, Dulaney said. In as many as 40 models of Android devices will ship, and the next OS update, code-named Donut, will ship in the second quarter, Dulaney predicted.The predicted margin is small, however, with Apple predicted to grab 13.7% of the smart phone market in 2012. Both companies are forecasted to take significant share from Symbian, which currently holds approximately 50% market share but is expected to fall to 39% over that time.
Article Link: Android to Surpass iPhone in Market Share by 2012? (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/10/07/android-to-surpass-iphone-in-market-share-by-2012/)
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 01:18 PM
Can we talk about Greenpeace's environmental track record for a minute?
- They mourn the millions of gallons of gasoline burned by cars, but refuse to support diesel fuel, which, while slightly more polluting than gas, is nearly twice as efficient, meaning collective fuel consumption would be cut dramatically.
- They champion E85, which provides only about 70% of the efficiency of gas and requires nearly a gallon of gas to manufacture per gallon of E85.
- Ditto the above for hydrogen-based fuels.
- They've indirectly caused the deaths of thousands of starving Africans by preventing the development of genetically-engineered foods.
So who is Greenpeace accountable to?
- They mourn the millions of gallons of gasoline burned by cars, but refuse to support diesel fuel, which, while slightly more polluting than gas, is nearly twice as efficient, meaning collective fuel consumption would be cut dramatically.
- They champion E85, which provides only about 70% of the efficiency of gas and requires nearly a gallon of gas to manufacture per gallon of E85.
- Ditto the above for hydrogen-based fuels.
- They've indirectly caused the deaths of thousands of starving Africans by preventing the development of genetically-engineered foods.
So who is Greenpeace accountable to?
Rodimus Prime
Mar 12, 01:44 PM
BTW, this Japanese plant was built in 1971, which is *older* than the 30+ years you deride the old Soviet plants for being. So there's more of your 'expert because I've got two degrees' opinion lying in more not so expert after all rubble. Speaking of deriding:
:p
I might like to point out that the Chernobyl plant was designed to produced weapons grade plutonium and produce power. That put some major problems on the design and put safety at risk. Control rods would have to be able to removed WHILE the reactor was running and fairly often. Not something you do unless you plane on making weapons grade plutonium. It also had to be much larger in size because it needed to produce power.
Yet another reason why this is not be Chernobyl.
We can also add unlike Soviet Russia Japan would not of cut huge safety corners to save cost at the time and over the past 30 years they sure as hell would of improved the plants safe.
:p
I might like to point out that the Chernobyl plant was designed to produced weapons grade plutonium and produce power. That put some major problems on the design and put safety at risk. Control rods would have to be able to removed WHILE the reactor was running and fairly often. Not something you do unless you plane on making weapons grade plutonium. It also had to be much larger in size because it needed to produce power.
Yet another reason why this is not be Chernobyl.
We can also add unlike Soviet Russia Japan would not of cut huge safety corners to save cost at the time and over the past 30 years they sure as hell would of improved the plants safe.
wrlsmarc
Jun 19, 02:07 PM
Just spent the last week in Manhattan. Wow. Service has seriously improved. I used my data card for the week to check email and work from my hotel. Good speeds and very reliable. I lost one connection over a period of 6 days and that may have been my data card fault. I use a mifi from Novatel, the device can sometimes be quirky establishing a connection. Overall my performance was solid.
I aslo used my iPhone extensively for conversation. I did not drop one call the whole week and was on it continuously. In years past driving around corners would result in suspect connections but none of that happened this trip. Finally, my iPad data rates were near 2kpbs download speeds with acceptable latency.
I assume that much of the negative chatter about AT&T is from those that have not used their service in a while. Bad memories tend to run long. I live in San Francisco and service is improving there as well, although the New York market I would rate as pretty perfect.
I aslo used my iPhone extensively for conversation. I did not drop one call the whole week and was on it continuously. In years past driving around corners would result in suspect connections but none of that happened this trip. Finally, my iPad data rates were near 2kpbs download speeds with acceptable latency.
I assume that much of the negative chatter about AT&T is from those that have not used their service in a while. Bad memories tend to run long. I live in San Francisco and service is improving there as well, although the New York market I would rate as pretty perfect.
skunk
Mar 14, 06:34 PM
James Lovelock described nuclear as 'the only green choice'.Would that be an "unearthly" green choice? As in "glow-in-the-dark"?
Then you're probably more shocked at the Canadians, Norwegians, and Swedes, who consume more power per person than Americans do. Iceland consumes twice as much per person than us. And they don't even use AC.I guess keeping warm is more expensive than keeping cool. I thought their insulation was so much better. :confused:
Then you're probably more shocked at the Canadians, Norwegians, and Swedes, who consume more power per person than Americans do. Iceland consumes twice as much per person than us. And they don't even use AC.I guess keeping warm is more expensive than keeping cool. I thought their insulation was so much better. :confused:
Bill McEnaney
Apr 23, 12:20 AM
I don't Know what type of Atheists you meet, but most of those in this forum(theists too :D) DO argue their beliefs and do not expect them to go unchecked.
Unchecked in what sense of the word "unchecked?"
Unchecked in what sense of the word "unchecked?"
milo
Jul 13, 10:45 AM
no, i looked up real numbers and took off ~40% which is the amount apple would get off from retail prices.
+ if the low end mac pro has a single cpu if we are lucky it may have an empty socket ready for an upgrade.
If you looked up real numbers, post the real numbers. Based on the real numbers I've seen the price difference would be hundreds of dollars.
And PC companies are offering single woodcrest simply because conroe isn't shipping yet. Today, they have no other option for dual core. They might keep that config when conroe ships (for the few who may want that), but the conroe version will likely be hundreds less.
EDIT: Looking at Dell, so far they only seem to have woodcrests in server machines. They don't seem to be offering them in any config of desktop yet.
+ if the low end mac pro has a single cpu if we are lucky it may have an empty socket ready for an upgrade.
If you looked up real numbers, post the real numbers. Based on the real numbers I've seen the price difference would be hundreds of dollars.
And PC companies are offering single woodcrest simply because conroe isn't shipping yet. Today, they have no other option for dual core. They might keep that config when conroe ships (for the few who may want that), but the conroe version will likely be hundreds less.
EDIT: Looking at Dell, so far they only seem to have woodcrests in server machines. They don't seem to be offering them in any config of desktop yet.
OdduWon
Nov 3, 11:23 AM
Someone give multimedia 8 cores please. so he will have more time to bring the know. :D
you rock ;)
you rock ;)