puuukeey
Sep 5, 11:08 AM
sounds logical but fake
kingtj
Oct 27, 10:41 AM
Shopping malls are private property, rented out in parcels at extremely high prices, so their tenants can run their shops with a perceived better shot at attracting passers-by than if they had a stand-alone store.
If you owned your own shop and some people kept standing out in front of your store without your permission, handing out political flyers, you'd probably run them off, right? In this case, the owners of the shopping mall are providing a similar service to the merchants paying to be there. It's FAR from a "public space".
As I said, fewer and fewer spaces where public debate can take place. Shopping malls are the same - 'public spaces' that aren't. Soon streets that have been public for years will start to be be privatised to provide 'better value for taxpayers' and the takeover will continue.
Then where can free debate take place? Some postage-stamp size bit of turf you call home?
If you owned your own shop and some people kept standing out in front of your store without your permission, handing out political flyers, you'd probably run them off, right? In this case, the owners of the shopping mall are providing a similar service to the merchants paying to be there. It's FAR from a "public space".
As I said, fewer and fewer spaces where public debate can take place. Shopping malls are the same - 'public spaces' that aren't. Soon streets that have been public for years will start to be be privatised to provide 'better value for taxpayers' and the takeover will continue.
Then where can free debate take place? Some postage-stamp size bit of turf you call home?
munkery
Jan 13, 12:59 PM
Not if you have UAC set correctly, although unfortunately it was weakened by default in 7, because of whining.
Explain how to set UAC up correctly to eliminate that issue with online games?
"Run as Administrator" sets the application to run with Superuser privileges. Turning UAC off sets the Admin account to run as Superuser without authentication so same security as XP.
That's not true. Actually last year Apple's overtook Oracle for the most security vulnerabilities. It just isn't worth as much to develop for.
Because the cumulative vulnerabilities of third party software such as Flash, Java, and etc included by default in Mac OS X inflate the count for Apple. Vulnerabilities are attributed to the vendor if included by default. Most of these third party softwares have worse security in Windows.
What type of vulnerabilities? Most vulnerabilities for any OS are not privilege escalation. Privilege escalation is rare for OSX.
Were they exploitable? Not all vulnerabilities are exploitable (~25%).
Explain how to set UAC up correctly to eliminate that issue with online games?
"Run as Administrator" sets the application to run with Superuser privileges. Turning UAC off sets the Admin account to run as Superuser without authentication so same security as XP.
That's not true. Actually last year Apple's overtook Oracle for the most security vulnerabilities. It just isn't worth as much to develop for.
Because the cumulative vulnerabilities of third party software such as Flash, Java, and etc included by default in Mac OS X inflate the count for Apple. Vulnerabilities are attributed to the vendor if included by default. Most of these third party softwares have worse security in Windows.
What type of vulnerabilities? Most vulnerabilities for any OS are not privilege escalation. Privilege escalation is rare for OSX.
Were they exploitable? Not all vulnerabilities are exploitable (~25%).
bigjnyc
Apr 25, 12:55 PM
Oh boy I've been trying to hold strong with my perfectly working 2009 MBP and not give in to any updates... This is the longest I've gone with a computer since I started using Macs lol...... But a case re-design might be too much for me.
mashinhead
Oct 12, 12:42 PM
goes to a great cause, and doesn't cost you anything more.
there is no such thing as charity in america, it always comes through commerce. why not just donate the $200 bux? does a lot more than the 10 bux you are donating now, so you can justify getting a new ipod. hell i would buy a red ipod just cos of the color i don't see why the cos has to be associated with it, if they're gonna do this they might as well just donate 10% of all ipod sales. at least it does something more than haveing a "show off" recipet for your so called act of charity.
"Hi i'm bono, there's a huge aids problem in africa and people don't pay attention, heres a new ipod"
wtf.
there is no such thing as charity in america, it always comes through commerce. why not just donate the $200 bux? does a lot more than the 10 bux you are donating now, so you can justify getting a new ipod. hell i would buy a red ipod just cos of the color i don't see why the cos has to be associated with it, if they're gonna do this they might as well just donate 10% of all ipod sales. at least it does something more than haveing a "show off" recipet for your so called act of charity.
"Hi i'm bono, there's a huge aids problem in africa and people don't pay attention, heres a new ipod"
wtf.
CaoCao
Mar 22, 11:56 PM
But, why should one have to buy a ThunderPort to eSATA hub and a ThunderPort to USB 3.0 hub and clutter my desk and waste two of my precious daisy-chain positions just to have some ports that are common in un-Apple systems?
ThunderPort is cool, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be useful to simply build in common ports.
What is "ThunderPort"? Do you mean Thunderbolt?
Support for 32gb RAM?
That is a given, the chipset has 32GB max
ThunderPort is cool, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be useful to simply build in common ports.
What is "ThunderPort"? Do you mean Thunderbolt?
Support for 32gb RAM?
That is a given, the chipset has 32GB max
wwooden
Sep 12, 02:42 PM
I very much would like to have seen the prices remain the same and include an AC adapter again.
If you buy this iPod and an AC adapter it is still cheaper than before.
If you buy this iPod and an AC adapter it is still cheaper than before.
p0intblank
Aug 23, 07:33 PM
Damn, that's a lot of money. I hate that Apple gave in... but I guess they kind of had to, right? At least all the hate is over with. :)
Mattie Num Nums
Apr 19, 02:10 PM
um, radio controls, a la Bluetooth, WiFi, 3G, WiFi HotSpot enable/disable feature.
like this
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_Wy4RYRdRVb4/TQ7ETyKCo5I/AAAAAAAAAag/_RWELWS7MxE/s512/CAP201012191848.png
I love having the 4G and Flashlight in my Power Control menu.
like this
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_Wy4RYRdRVb4/TQ7ETyKCo5I/AAAAAAAAAag/_RWELWS7MxE/s512/CAP201012191848.png
I love having the 4G and Flashlight in my Power Control menu.
milo
Jul 17, 11:54 AM
Adding a mid-sized tower would be a bad move for Apple. They tried this before and the Cube lasted less than a year. Yes, the Cube was Apple's mid-sized tower. Apple knows that a mid-sized tower would either cannibalize their other lines (iMac, Mini and Pro) or suffer the same fate as the Cube.
The only reason the cube flopped was that it was horrible bang for buck. It was a great box, it just was about triple what it should have cost. The cube was extremely expensive, it cost almost as much as a tower. In this case we're talking about a box that would allow expandability for hundreds less than the "pro" towers. The same argument was used why apple would never ship a mini, and it was wrong then.
And cannibalizing other lines doesn't matter, a mac sold is a mac sold. There's no reason a mid tower couldn't be as profitable as any other mac.
The only reason the cube flopped was that it was horrible bang for buck. It was a great box, it just was about triple what it should have cost. The cube was extremely expensive, it cost almost as much as a tower. In this case we're talking about a box that would allow expandability for hundreds less than the "pro" towers. The same argument was used why apple would never ship a mini, and it was wrong then.
And cannibalizing other lines doesn't matter, a mac sold is a mac sold. There's no reason a mid tower couldn't be as profitable as any other mac.
sixth
Sep 5, 09:08 AM
damn nothing ;-( wtf!
cmaier
Nov 13, 05:26 PM
Well that might a the case in your situation but it this case Rogue Amoeba is using Apple's own copyright images in a client server application where the API on OS X does not confer the right to use those images on other devices by third party developers.
You're missing the point. Yes, Apple, as the copyright holder, can define the extent of its license (assuming they haven't already waived the right to do so, which they may have, and assuming it isn't fair use, which it almost certainly is), and, yes, they can decide what goes into the app store, making the extent of the copyright license moot.
But it doesn't make sense for them to do so! Integration between iphone and mac would only sell more of each. They don't lose money on this sort of use of the icons - it's not like they offer a paid license for those images.
There is no duty to police copyrights to avoid losing them.
And, there is no rational alternative to using those icons (despite your repeated "all they had to do is create their own icons" argument) because Apple is likely to turn around and assert trademark/trade dress.
So all you can do is use words, or images unrelated to the appearance of the machines being represented. If the words say "Macbook Pro," e.g., APple can turn around and say you can't do THAT, either, because that's a trademark. If your handmade image looks too much like a mac, that's trademark infringement too (according to Apple). So you have to make it NOT look like the thing it represents. That totally defeats the POINT of the images in this use.
It's like having to write an article in a newspaper reviewing a concert without mentioning the name of the band or the names of any of the band members.
And Apple is doing it for absolutely no good reason.
You're missing the point. Yes, Apple, as the copyright holder, can define the extent of its license (assuming they haven't already waived the right to do so, which they may have, and assuming it isn't fair use, which it almost certainly is), and, yes, they can decide what goes into the app store, making the extent of the copyright license moot.
But it doesn't make sense for them to do so! Integration between iphone and mac would only sell more of each. They don't lose money on this sort of use of the icons - it's not like they offer a paid license for those images.
There is no duty to police copyrights to avoid losing them.
And, there is no rational alternative to using those icons (despite your repeated "all they had to do is create their own icons" argument) because Apple is likely to turn around and assert trademark/trade dress.
So all you can do is use words, or images unrelated to the appearance of the machines being represented. If the words say "Macbook Pro," e.g., APple can turn around and say you can't do THAT, either, because that's a trademark. If your handmade image looks too much like a mac, that's trademark infringement too (according to Apple). So you have to make it NOT look like the thing it represents. That totally defeats the POINT of the images in this use.
It's like having to write an article in a newspaper reviewing a concert without mentioning the name of the band or the names of any of the band members.
And Apple is doing it for absolutely no good reason.
drlunanerd
Sep 2, 04:55 PM
I think it's pointing to Apple not bothering with the Paris Expo anymore. Their disinterest started last year, and unfortunately I was there at the time, altough Mr Jobs did show up for a press conference and checked out the Sony stand, ha.
I had a better time at the London Mac Expo. Apple should make product announcements here from now on :D
I had a better time at the London Mac Expo. Apple should make product announcements here from now on :D
iRobby
Apr 22, 03:00 AM
I have no idea how this would be useful. Buffer times, connection loss, no WiFi around, these are all problems that will prevent this from working.
What's wrong with storing music on hard drives locally?
Not sure how I feel about this or if I'd use it til details are released by Apple. For those not interested know this is an option we can continue using our hard drives on desktops as well as IOS Devices like we are now. Personally, I may just use DropBox for access to all my files including music unless this program has major industry revolutionary characteristics.
What's wrong with storing music on hard drives locally?
Not sure how I feel about this or if I'd use it til details are released by Apple. For those not interested know this is an option we can continue using our hard drives on desktops as well as IOS Devices like we are now. Personally, I may just use DropBox for access to all my files including music unless this program has major industry revolutionary characteristics.
HecubusPro
Sep 17, 11:05 PM
O no! Our cell phone technology is behind that of Europe's, where the small, congested spaces make it easier to unveil new cell technologies! The horror...
Agreed. The U.S. is pretty much behind everyone else as far as cell phone technology goes. Do I care? No. My cell phone takes and gives calls. Who cares if it can take 30MP photos and watch steaming TV and movies and play Crysis at 120fps and pay my bills and rob convenient stores and solve world hunger? When I get a new cell phone and the salesman starts running off at the mouth at how cool it is and all the groovy things it does, I stop him and ask, "can I call people on it?" If the answer is yes, then I'm happy. :D
Agreed. The U.S. is pretty much behind everyone else as far as cell phone technology goes. Do I care? No. My cell phone takes and gives calls. Who cares if it can take 30MP photos and watch steaming TV and movies and play Crysis at 120fps and pay my bills and rob convenient stores and solve world hunger? When I get a new cell phone and the salesman starts running off at the mouth at how cool it is and all the groovy things it does, I stop him and ask, "can I call people on it?" If the answer is yes, then I'm happy. :D
asdf542
Apr 14, 12:35 PM
First, no I made no such claim. I responded to one. And the claim wasn't that it will be restricted to being Mac only, but that it will end up being Mac only, in the same sense that FW is. Some PC ship with FW, but not many. It is considered a Mac only interface. The gist is that TB may as well, if history repeats. You didn't prove anything. You see many PC's shipping with TB right now? How many PC vendors have announces support for TB? The unfortunate fact is that consumers know the USB brand, so the vendors will support it. TB might be in Intel's spec, but that doesn't mean every system will support it nor that many drive vendors will either. No. The claim simply stated 'Mac only'. Nothing more and nothing less and you agreed with said two word claim. Thunderbolt will be integrated into every Ivy Bridge chipset just like USB 3.0. It's not the same situation as FireWire in the slightest. Not only is it faster than USB 3.0 but it also works with USB via adapters as well as almost any other IO on the planet. FireWire worked only with FireWire devices.
See econgeek's post. It explains is pretty well.
You mean the one right above your post that proves you wrong? Funny stuff.
See econgeek's post. It explains is pretty well.
You mean the one right above your post that proves you wrong? Funny stuff.
JMP
Apr 30, 06:51 PM
Evolution of the "Operating System."
It has to happen sometime and in some form.
Apple is doing it. if you have any better ideas that *will* raise the bar and represent the Gold Standard for the rest of the industry, please let Apple know. They might be hiring.
Evolution?? No
Transformation?? Yes
I'd like "spaces" the way it is now, it's perfect.
It has to happen sometime and in some form.
Apple is doing it. if you have any better ideas that *will* raise the bar and represent the Gold Standard for the rest of the industry, please let Apple know. They might be hiring.
Evolution?? No
Transformation?? Yes
I'd like "spaces" the way it is now, it's perfect.
~Shard~
Sep 10, 03:11 PM
Dare I dream? How about a quad processor quad core system! 16 cores in all!!!
That's nothing. Just wait for Dunnington or Harpertown. :cool:
That's nothing. Just wait for Dunnington or Harpertown. :cool:
darthcarto
Apr 20, 12:35 PM
I'm not so concerned that the data is there (my life is boring, so track away), but it seems careless that the data is unencrypted, even on unencrypted backups. I assume this won't stay this way long. Next update or two, I bet we'll see it encrypted.
iMacZealot
Sep 17, 07:48 PM
OK. hang on. back the f&6king truck up.
maybe we're backwards here. but i have NEVER, EVER heard of ANY kind of phone service where INCOMING calls are anything BUT free (excluding reverse-charge, obviously).
http://www1.sprintpcs.com/explore/servicePlansOptionsV2/FreeClearFairFlexiblePlans.jsp?FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=1436723&CURRENT_USER%3C%3EATR_SCID=ECOMM&CURRENT_USER%3C%3EATR_PCode=None&CURRENT_USER%3C%3EATR_cartState=group
maybe we're backwards here. but i have NEVER, EVER heard of ANY kind of phone service where INCOMING calls are anything BUT free (excluding reverse-charge, obviously).
http://www1.sprintpcs.com/explore/servicePlansOptionsV2/FreeClearFairFlexiblePlans.jsp?FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=1436723&CURRENT_USER%3C%3EATR_SCID=ECOMM&CURRENT_USER%3C%3EATR_PCode=None&CURRENT_USER%3C%3EATR_cartState=group
john1620b
May 3, 10:14 AM
Sweet...wish there were two Thunderbolt ports on the 21.5-inch as well.
aristotle
Nov 13, 05:45 PM
You're missing the point. Yes, Apple, as the copyright holder, can define the extent of its license (assuming they haven't already waived the right to do so, which they may have, and assuming it isn't fair use, which it almost certainly is), and, yes, they can decide what goes into the app store, making the extent of the copyright license moot.
But it doesn't make sense for them to do so! Integration between iphone and mac would only sell more of each. They don't lose money on this sort of use of the icons - it's not like they offer a paid license for those images.
There is no duty to police copyrights to avoid losing them.
And, there is no rational alternative to using those icons (despite your repeated "all they had to do is create their own icons" argument) because Apple is likely to turn around and assert trademark/trade dress.
So all you can do is use words, or images unrelated to the appearance of the machines being represented. If the words say "Macbook Pro," e.g., APple can turn around and say you can't do THAT, either, because that's a trademark. If your handmade image looks too much like a mac, that's trademark infringement too (according to Apple). So you have to make it NOT look like the thing it represents. That totally defeats the POINT of the images in this use.
It's like having to write an article in a newspaper reviewing a concert without mentioning the name of the band or the names of any of the band members.
And Apple is doing it for absolutely no good reason.
I'm not missing the point. You are. They have a right to determine how their trademarks are to be used and if they did not vigourously defend them, you would see MSFT stealing even icons from OS X.
Apple is a company with a responsibility to shareholders. They are not your friends. Google is not your friend either.
The purpose of the image use is on a mac. You are also not looking at it from Apple's point of view that Apple wants to have the iPhone be a success regardless of whether the server used in a client server environment is running OS X, linux, some other unix or windows. If they were to allow some of their third party developer running OS X based services use their icons, the real client server developers running in the cloud would complain about favouritism. They have to keep third party developers under the same rules regardless of whether the app uses a mac based service or not.
But it doesn't make sense for them to do so! Integration between iphone and mac would only sell more of each. They don't lose money on this sort of use of the icons - it's not like they offer a paid license for those images.
There is no duty to police copyrights to avoid losing them.
And, there is no rational alternative to using those icons (despite your repeated "all they had to do is create their own icons" argument) because Apple is likely to turn around and assert trademark/trade dress.
So all you can do is use words, or images unrelated to the appearance of the machines being represented. If the words say "Macbook Pro," e.g., APple can turn around and say you can't do THAT, either, because that's a trademark. If your handmade image looks too much like a mac, that's trademark infringement too (according to Apple). So you have to make it NOT look like the thing it represents. That totally defeats the POINT of the images in this use.
It's like having to write an article in a newspaper reviewing a concert without mentioning the name of the band or the names of any of the band members.
And Apple is doing it for absolutely no good reason.
I'm not missing the point. You are. They have a right to determine how their trademarks are to be used and if they did not vigourously defend them, you would see MSFT stealing even icons from OS X.
Apple is a company with a responsibility to shareholders. They are not your friends. Google is not your friend either.
The purpose of the image use is on a mac. You are also not looking at it from Apple's point of view that Apple wants to have the iPhone be a success regardless of whether the server used in a client server environment is running OS X, linux, some other unix or windows. If they were to allow some of their third party developer running OS X based services use their icons, the real client server developers running in the cloud would complain about favouritism. They have to keep third party developers under the same rules regardless of whether the app uses a mac based service or not.
Vaco Deus
Mar 23, 04:39 PM
Let the apps stay.
These 'senators' should be working on more pressing issues than this
These 'senators' should be working on more pressing issues than this
rpieket
Mar 30, 01:38 PM
Disclaimer: Apple fanboy here. But agree with Microsoft.
App Store is simply the description of the actual thing: An app store. It's just too simple.
It would be a description of the actual thing if the App Store were, in fact, an actual store.
But it isn't an actual store. It is a service and an application.
-Ron.
App Store is simply the description of the actual thing: An app store. It's just too simple.
It would be a description of the actual thing if the App Store were, in fact, an actual store.
But it isn't an actual store. It is a service and an application.
-Ron.