benpatient
May 2, 09:18 AM
As I understand it, Safari will open the zip file since it's a "safe" download. But that doesn't mean it'll execute the code within that zip file, so how is this malware executing without user permission?
malware doesn't execute without user permission.
it relies on tricking the user into giving it permission to run, striking at what is typically the weakest link in any computer's security: the user.
any argument that XX isn't a threat, because it requires users to take an action in order to be truly dangerous, is a flawed argument, because in general, users are stupid, or at the very least, careless.
malware doesn't execute without user permission.
it relies on tricking the user into giving it permission to run, striking at what is typically the weakest link in any computer's security: the user.
any argument that XX isn't a threat, because it requires users to take an action in order to be truly dangerous, is a flawed argument, because in general, users are stupid, or at the very least, careless.
Abulia
Sep 26, 06:41 PM
I think beyond a certain level all these Cores are only going to be good for building up your ePeen, speaking of which where can I get one? :D
Nevermind they are only 1.66Ghz each, there are 8 of them!
It's not the speed of your cores that makes you a man, it's how many you have! :D
Nevermind they are only 1.66Ghz each, there are 8 of them!
It's not the speed of your cores that makes you a man, it's how many you have! :D
THX1139
Jul 13, 02:40 AM
if you don't need all the power you can get the mac pro is not for you, apple does not do a consumer tower and most likely never will, they simply must have a quad settup and if they have two configs of them (a 3GHz and a 2.66) they may as well keep the low end option on the same platform, this has been said again and again and again, conroe is not bad it just does not make sense for apple to use it in the mac pro, conroe goes in the imac.
I wasn't saying that I don't need power, I just don't want to pay premium for quad processing with expensive overrated chips. And just because I don't want a Quad doesn't mean should be stuck with an iMac. I would be content with a Conroe running around 3GHZ in the currently shipping configurations. By your post, I get that you think the Conroe is for prosumer/home computers and the only "professional" level chip is Woodcrest. Apple has been shipping a mid-range G5 dual2.3 for quite awhile now. What's wrong with them shipping something similar with Conroe? Oh, wait... that would be wrong, because by your account, Conroe is NOT a professional chip. I disagree.
I wasn't saying that I don't need power, I just don't want to pay premium for quad processing with expensive overrated chips. And just because I don't want a Quad doesn't mean should be stuck with an iMac. I would be content with a Conroe running around 3GHZ in the currently shipping configurations. By your post, I get that you think the Conroe is for prosumer/home computers and the only "professional" level chip is Woodcrest. Apple has been shipping a mid-range G5 dual2.3 for quite awhile now. What's wrong with them shipping something similar with Conroe? Oh, wait... that would be wrong, because by your account, Conroe is NOT a professional chip. I disagree.
jaguarx
Oct 31, 02:24 AM
I've always found UBS2 HDs to be on average a little slower than FW400 but then FW800 kicks the **** out of it. If you needs the IO it's SATA through.
dmw007
Jul 11, 10:57 PM
The Mac Pros are going to receive Woodcrest processors. :)
My credit card is ready!
My credit card is ready and I have the green light to buy...muahaha...time to finally replace my 400MHz G4 Sawtooth Tower...
Same here, I am ready to buy a Mac Pro. :)
My credit card is ready!
My credit card is ready and I have the green light to buy...muahaha...time to finally replace my 400MHz G4 Sawtooth Tower...
Same here, I am ready to buy a Mac Pro. :)
Eidorian
Sep 26, 10:29 AM
Pardon Me But Would You Please Track Down The Link To That Card And IM Me and post it here? I need it NOW! Thanks.
I will be on this thread until the Mac Pro Clovertown option ships. :D
This is the Mac Pro I have been waiting for.http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2480
I know they're making a PCI Express, DDR2, SATA II version though. Old news to me...
I will be on this thread until the Mac Pro Clovertown option ships. :D
This is the Mac Pro I have been waiting for.http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2480
I know they're making a PCI Express, DDR2, SATA II version though. Old news to me...
munkery
May 2, 04:05 PM
In Windows 7 you not only have the option to switch it on and off, you can also customize the intrusiveness of it, I find it much more user friendly than in OS X.
Switching off or turning down UAC in Windows also equally impacts the strength of MIC (Windows sandboxing mechanism) because it functions based on inherited permissions. Unix DAC in Mac OS X functions via inherited permissions but MAC (mandatory access controls -> OS X sandbox) does not. Windows does not have a sandbox like OS X.
UAC, by default, does not use a unique identifier (password) so it is more susceptible to attacks the rely on spoofing prompts that appear to be unrelated to UAC to steal authentication. If a password is attached to authentication, these spoofed prompts fail to work.
Having a password associated with permissions has other benefits as well.
So Safari auto-downloads, unarchives and auto-executes something, but you think it is safe because it's an installer ? :confused:
If "Open safe files after downloading" is turned on, it will both unarchive the zip file and launch the installer. Installers are marked as safe to launch because require authentication to complete installation.
I'm sorry, but I'm still curious about the "auto-execute" part. Why would it run the installer automatically after decompressing it. That sounds quite "unsafe" to me. Even without administrator privilege, that means code can still run that can affect the current user's account.
No harm can be done from just launching the installer. But, you are correct in that code is being executed in user space.
Code run in user space is used to achieve privilege escalation via exploitation or social engineering (trick user to authenticate -> as in this malware). There is very little that can be done beyond prank style attacks with only user level access. System level access is required for usefully dangerous malware install, such as keyloggers that can log protected passwords. This is why there is little malware for Mac OS X. Achieving system level access to Windows via exploitation is much easier.
Webkit2 will further reduce the possibility of even achieving user level access.
Switching off or turning down UAC in Windows also equally impacts the strength of MIC (Windows sandboxing mechanism) because it functions based on inherited permissions. Unix DAC in Mac OS X functions via inherited permissions but MAC (mandatory access controls -> OS X sandbox) does not. Windows does not have a sandbox like OS X.
UAC, by default, does not use a unique identifier (password) so it is more susceptible to attacks the rely on spoofing prompts that appear to be unrelated to UAC to steal authentication. If a password is attached to authentication, these spoofed prompts fail to work.
Having a password associated with permissions has other benefits as well.
So Safari auto-downloads, unarchives and auto-executes something, but you think it is safe because it's an installer ? :confused:
If "Open safe files after downloading" is turned on, it will both unarchive the zip file and launch the installer. Installers are marked as safe to launch because require authentication to complete installation.
I'm sorry, but I'm still curious about the "auto-execute" part. Why would it run the installer automatically after decompressing it. That sounds quite "unsafe" to me. Even without administrator privilege, that means code can still run that can affect the current user's account.
No harm can be done from just launching the installer. But, you are correct in that code is being executed in user space.
Code run in user space is used to achieve privilege escalation via exploitation or social engineering (trick user to authenticate -> as in this malware). There is very little that can be done beyond prank style attacks with only user level access. System level access is required for usefully dangerous malware install, such as keyloggers that can log protected passwords. This is why there is little malware for Mac OS X. Achieving system level access to Windows via exploitation is much easier.
Webkit2 will further reduce the possibility of even achieving user level access.
KnightWRX
May 2, 11:14 AM
The fight can't be won, it's useless... there will always be those people who go, "Oh my god... random email, you need my credit card, social security number, and my youngest child? Sure thing! Here you go!"
And then freak out because their bank accounts are all empty and their kid's running off with some 40 year old. It'll never end.
That's never been a reason to give up. I was raised on Shonen Anime. I don't know the meaning of the words "giving up". ;)
And then freak out because their bank accounts are all empty and their kid's running off with some 40 year old. It'll never end.
That's never been a reason to give up. I was raised on Shonen Anime. I don't know the meaning of the words "giving up". ;)
matticus008
Mar 21, 02:45 AM
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
aegisdesign
Oct 26, 05:11 AM
JUST IMAGINE A COMPUTER IN WHICH EACH PIXEL IS CONTROLLED BY A SINGLE PROCESSOR.
I've used one. Back in the 1980s, beginning of the 90s. The low end model had 1024 processors and the high end model 4096 processors. It was a pig to program. When drawing on the screen you split the task at hand up into many parallel threads each drawing a part of the screen. Not quite 1 CPU per pixel but you get the idea.
I've used one. Back in the 1980s, beginning of the 90s. The low end model had 1024 processors and the high end model 4096 processors. It was a pig to program. When drawing on the screen you split the task at hand up into many parallel threads each drawing a part of the screen. Not quite 1 CPU per pixel but you get the idea.
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.
sinsin07
Apr 8, 11:57 PM
These people are fleeing the "yellow light of death” on PS3 or "red ring of death' on 360. The consoles are so poorly made that broken PS3's seldomly fetch $50 on eBay.
Dodge Caliber SRT4 ECU upgrade
2008 Dodge Caliber SRT4
The 2010 Dodge Caliber is a
Caliber SRT4
quot;The Dodge Caliber SRT4 was
CaliberForumz.com | Dodge
Dodge Caliber 2008 Warranty
whooleytoo
Sep 21, 02:47 PM
I think there's (at least!) two separate debates going on here -
- what is the best home entertainment network design/topology?
- how well does the iTV serve the topology Apple has chosen?
The first question is a doozy. Personally, I think Apple's choice is a bit unwieldy. Have your entertainment network rely on your Mac/PC is fine; except when you need to restart after installing software (could the hard disk in the iTV buffer enough content to keep going until the Mac restarts? Possibly). Another problem is if your home PC is a laptop, which might not be in the home, or will sleep if inadvertently shut.
Also, it is a bit tedious if you have to get up from your sofa to your Mac, start downloading the film/show, then return to the couch and wait for the film/show to start playing. Wouldn't it be far better if you could purchase the film via the iTV, without having to go to your Mac/PC? (If this is possible, feel free to ignore this paragraph. ;) )
Personally, I'd prefer to have a home entertainment storage server, essentially something akin to the iTV but with a large hard disk (or RAID) attached, which stores all my iTunes and other media. Anything I buy on my MacBook - songs, TV shows, movies - are backed up to the server when I plug it into my home network (could the Leopard backup APIs achieve this?) and thus always available regardless of where my Mac is. And, I'd watch far more moves if they were just a menu click away, rather than rooting around the house for a DVD case.
As for the second question, if you accept Apple's argument that the Mac/PC will be the entertainment centre for the home, the iTV is probably the simplest device you could come up with. It's basically an Airport Express with "AirFlicks".
One thing puzzles me though - the iTV is not a complicated piece of kit, hardly any more so than the mini or any other Mac. So, why did Apple pre-announce earlier this month for release early next year, and not release a finished product?
Did they think of it too late to finish it in time for the iTunes Movie store announcement? Unlikely - people have been calling for video streaming for some time; and Apple would have been working behind the scenes on the iTunes movie store for some months. The fact that they appear to have finalised the configuration, aesthetics and price would indicate it's more or less done. More likely - iTV is waiting on some other key piece of technology before it can be released. And the obvious answer would be - Leopard.
iTV isn't being released until the Leopard timeframe, and Leopard has major unannounced features which we won't hear about until Macworld '07. Could it be some Mac media centre functionality as some have suggested?
p.s. as for a name, how about the "Apple Jack"? Rhymes with Apple Mac, and implies "jacking" all your content into your TV? Whaddya think?
Eeek! sorry. This post was far longer than I expected!
- what is the best home entertainment network design/topology?
- how well does the iTV serve the topology Apple has chosen?
The first question is a doozy. Personally, I think Apple's choice is a bit unwieldy. Have your entertainment network rely on your Mac/PC is fine; except when you need to restart after installing software (could the hard disk in the iTV buffer enough content to keep going until the Mac restarts? Possibly). Another problem is if your home PC is a laptop, which might not be in the home, or will sleep if inadvertently shut.
Also, it is a bit tedious if you have to get up from your sofa to your Mac, start downloading the film/show, then return to the couch and wait for the film/show to start playing. Wouldn't it be far better if you could purchase the film via the iTV, without having to go to your Mac/PC? (If this is possible, feel free to ignore this paragraph. ;) )
Personally, I'd prefer to have a home entertainment storage server, essentially something akin to the iTV but with a large hard disk (or RAID) attached, which stores all my iTunes and other media. Anything I buy on my MacBook - songs, TV shows, movies - are backed up to the server when I plug it into my home network (could the Leopard backup APIs achieve this?) and thus always available regardless of where my Mac is. And, I'd watch far more moves if they were just a menu click away, rather than rooting around the house for a DVD case.
As for the second question, if you accept Apple's argument that the Mac/PC will be the entertainment centre for the home, the iTV is probably the simplest device you could come up with. It's basically an Airport Express with "AirFlicks".
One thing puzzles me though - the iTV is not a complicated piece of kit, hardly any more so than the mini or any other Mac. So, why did Apple pre-announce earlier this month for release early next year, and not release a finished product?
Did they think of it too late to finish it in time for the iTunes Movie store announcement? Unlikely - people have been calling for video streaming for some time; and Apple would have been working behind the scenes on the iTunes movie store for some months. The fact that they appear to have finalised the configuration, aesthetics and price would indicate it's more or less done. More likely - iTV is waiting on some other key piece of technology before it can be released. And the obvious answer would be - Leopard.
iTV isn't being released until the Leopard timeframe, and Leopard has major unannounced features which we won't hear about until Macworld '07. Could it be some Mac media centre functionality as some have suggested?
p.s. as for a name, how about the "Apple Jack"? Rhymes with Apple Mac, and implies "jacking" all your content into your TV? Whaddya think?
Eeek! sorry. This post was far longer than I expected!
steve_hill4
Jul 12, 06:13 AM
Because 105% of Mac-users have bought Photoshop Elements bundled with a digital camera. 95% of those never bother to upgrade to full version and 82% of those never use the software anyway. Oh, and 67% of statistics are made on spot ;)
I thought it was 88.2%?
;)
Actually from a Guinness ad, which also stated men think of sex every 6 seconds, before cutting to a revolving pint glass, with a half second flash of a woman in lingerie about half way through.
I thought it was 88.2%?
;)
Actually from a Guinness ad, which also stated men think of sex every 6 seconds, before cutting to a revolving pint glass, with a half second flash of a woman in lingerie about half way through.
Moyank24
Mar 25, 11:52 PM
Prove why I should be denied the right to copulate in public, and think of the children is not an acceptable answer
Give me a break. Now you are just minimizing what is a violation of civil rights.
sure, homosexuals can go to a "church" and have a "wedding" ceremony, no one is preventing them.
Being able to have a "wedding ceremony" is not the issue. It's having the same rights as our heterosexual counterparts. This involves about 1000 tax benefits and simple things like hospital visitation.
Men are allowed to get married to women and vice versa everyone is equal (regardless of the reason).
We will be equal when men are allowed to marry men and women are allowed to marry women. There was a time when a Black man and white woman didn't have the right to get married. That wrong was righted and so will this one.
The Catholic Church recognizes that people don't choose to be homosexual, however it does recognize that acting on those urges is entirely their choice. Chastity is what they are called to.
Luckily I don't recognize what the Catholic Church recognizes. So they can call themselves to chastity. As I said, they need to worry about cleaning their own house, and stay out of mine.
Give me a break. Now you are just minimizing what is a violation of civil rights.
sure, homosexuals can go to a "church" and have a "wedding" ceremony, no one is preventing them.
Being able to have a "wedding ceremony" is not the issue. It's having the same rights as our heterosexual counterparts. This involves about 1000 tax benefits and simple things like hospital visitation.
Men are allowed to get married to women and vice versa everyone is equal (regardless of the reason).
We will be equal when men are allowed to marry men and women are allowed to marry women. There was a time when a Black man and white woman didn't have the right to get married. That wrong was righted and so will this one.
The Catholic Church recognizes that people don't choose to be homosexual, however it does recognize that acting on those urges is entirely their choice. Chastity is what they are called to.
Luckily I don't recognize what the Catholic Church recognizes. So they can call themselves to chastity. As I said, they need to worry about cleaning their own house, and stay out of mine.
shawnce
Jul 12, 04:41 PM
The upcomming WWDC has everything to be the coolest, most agressive WWDC ever.
Glad I get to make it this year! :)
(missed 2005)
Glad I get to make it this year! :)
(missed 2005)
~Shard~
Oct 28, 10:32 AM
I don't know if Intel ever changed it, but one of the historical reasons you couldn't make a scalable multi-cpu x86 system is that x86s did bus snooping. Once you got more than ~3-4 x86s on the same bus the bus would be saturated by snooping traffic and there would be little room for real data. I think that's why Intel is pushing multi-core so much, it's a hack to work around Intel's broken bus. The RISC cpus (MIPS et al) didn't do that, that's why all the high cpu count systems used them.
Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for the info. :cool:
Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for the info. :cool:
twoodcc
Oct 10, 10:32 AM
it's too early to tell yet. this is all just speculation at this point. wait until more android phones and android 1.5 is out first
Object-X
Sep 12, 05:27 PM
I really don't understand all the comments about why doesn't it have a DVD player, or it doesn't have Tivo capabilities, ect. I really think you all are missing the point: it is designed to eventually replace all those technologies. OK, it doesnt' do it yet, but Jobs said something very important at the end of the keynote, and that was "you can see the direction we are heading".
The whole concept here is to make DVD players, recorders, rentals, and even channel viewing irrelevant. You will purchase, subscribe, rent?, and control all media content on your computer and simply stream it to an HDTV.
Does it support HDTV resolutions? Not yet, but I'm sure it will. Remember, iTV is a direction, not the end of the road.
So, the complaints are more or less becaues we are impatient and want it all now. This is just a start. If done right, this concept of computer, iTunes Store, and iTV could replace cable and satellite TV service. Why screw around trying to record shows, edit commercials, ect. when you can just get and control your content easily and simply with your computer?
I like this whole idea. I can see cable news channels offering their content via TVcasts that you can subscribe too, and other network channels offering their media libraries for download or even rental; and the iTunes Store will basically act as the purchasing hub. Want Monday nights football game? Just subscribe to it on iTunes and it will download automatically and you can watch it whenever. Who needs Tivo? Don't need 200 channels of crap? Just download the stuff you want to watch and have your own media library. Who needs cable and commercials?
The whole concept here is to make DVD players, recorders, rentals, and even channel viewing irrelevant. You will purchase, subscribe, rent?, and control all media content on your computer and simply stream it to an HDTV.
Does it support HDTV resolutions? Not yet, but I'm sure it will. Remember, iTV is a direction, not the end of the road.
So, the complaints are more or less becaues we are impatient and want it all now. This is just a start. If done right, this concept of computer, iTunes Store, and iTV could replace cable and satellite TV service. Why screw around trying to record shows, edit commercials, ect. when you can just get and control your content easily and simply with your computer?
I like this whole idea. I can see cable news channels offering their content via TVcasts that you can subscribe too, and other network channels offering their media libraries for download or even rental; and the iTunes Store will basically act as the purchasing hub. Want Monday nights football game? Just subscribe to it on iTunes and it will download automatically and you can watch it whenever. Who needs Tivo? Don't need 200 channels of crap? Just download the stuff you want to watch and have your own media library. Who needs cable and commercials?
Zwopple
Oct 7, 03:53 PM
Ridiculous? The majority of people with developer/programming skills are more familiar with Windows or Linux than Mac OS. The need of first buying a Mac and then learning how to use it, the SDK and Objective-C will stop too many great developers from giving it a try. I suppose Apple could solve this by allowing Mac OS to run on a virtual machine, e.g. VirtualBox, including the SDK. But they don't.
And the same can be said vice versa. Anyone that wants to program for Windows will need to use .Net and a Windows Box. What is this "because I'm a PC I will complain I can't dev for iPhone" crap?
I'm not starting a PC vs MAC war I'm just stating that it's fairly obvious that 99% of the time you will have to be developing on the operating system that you're developing for. iPhone OS is a limited version of Mac OS X and it's really no surprise it requires you to use XCode which is Mac Only.
Oh and you CAN dev iPhone apps on windows. If you really REALLY want to you can set up all the compiler settings and command line tools to do it. It's just not worth the time.
And the same can be said vice versa. Anyone that wants to program for Windows will need to use .Net and a Windows Box. What is this "because I'm a PC I will complain I can't dev for iPhone" crap?
I'm not starting a PC vs MAC war I'm just stating that it's fairly obvious that 99% of the time you will have to be developing on the operating system that you're developing for. iPhone OS is a limited version of Mac OS X and it's really no surprise it requires you to use XCode which is Mac Only.
Oh and you CAN dev iPhone apps on windows. If you really REALLY want to you can set up all the compiler settings and command line tools to do it. It's just not worth the time.
nehunte
Oct 7, 10:52 AM
Every phone that comes out after the iPhone is supposed to surpass the iPhone by 20**. This is getting old. It took how many years for someone to beat up on Nokia? That's right, it'll be a long time before you see a dent in the iPhone's armor.
I'm going to make a new smartphone next week. It's an iPhone-killer. Guaranteed.
I'm going to make a new smartphone next week. It's an iPhone-killer. Guaranteed.
Tobsterius
Apr 13, 04:42 AM
Yes, that was exactly my point. The people who know how to use the software are (sometimes) assistant editors, although I find the vast majority know how to do a few simple things, but do them well.. The original poster was implying you needed to be a hollywood film editor to judge technical capabilities, and I was saying they were the worst choice for just that reason.
The people who know the most about editing systems are the Sr. editors who work on heavy, effects based sequences that work in broadcast production environments (I'm not talking about me here). *They* are the ones who push systems to the limits and *they* are the ones who go to NAB. (They're still only 10% of that room)
I think that most of them will find that Apple has, at present abandoned them. That's not to say the industry won't shift, and there won't be enough 3rd party solutions out there, but they are throwing Avid a HUGE bone here.
FCP was making big inroads into broadcast, and they're throwing it away-- for today certainly.
Filmwise, could go either way, depending on the production. If it's got great RED/4k performance, "film" support isn't so important..
But for the indie crowd, they're really screwing them over, if they are abandoning Color. *THAT* is what shocked me. I'm also surprised that effects weren't more advanced. I couldn't see anything on a titling tool, but that's pretty imporant for Broadcast as well.. and *no* existing solution is good for that... They really had (have?) a chance to make that right, and it seems they don't care.
So, when I say "iMovie Pro" that isn't necessarily pejorative. This product is WAY, WAY, WAY more iMovie than FCP. That doesn't mean you can't cut "a real movie" on it. But for Broadcast TV, it's a real step down in a lot of ways-- at the very least not a step up.. The interface is very iMovie. They should have called it iMovie PRO, especially if they're getting rid of the rest of the FCS apps..
Now if it turns out this is just the tip of the iceberg-- then we really could be in for a treat.
Dead on.
There is of course, a lot of questions left unanswered and X, from what I've gathered, is very much is a step down. Where's the viewer? How accurate is this 'skimming' feature? Is it as annoying as the skimming feature in iMovie?
Was trim mode improved? from what I've seen, it looks dumbed down; even more simplified than what is the current version of FCP.
Does multi-camera editing still exist?
Where are the video scopes?
Dual monitor support?
ability to open multiple projects and time lines? And for that matter, what about timeline nesting? I know they've addressed this with this 'compound clips' but can I still take one timeline and drop it into another like I can in FCP 7?
Custom keyboard mapping?
What about the slew of third party plugins and filters I've spent money on? Will they still work?
Can I still capture tape or has Apple decided (like they have with DVDs) that tape is dead?
I think that this can go on and on.
As a long time professional FCP editor, I'm worried. Not because of change-- I like change. What I hate is when they change things and feel as if they need to reinvent how editors and editing have functioned for decades.
The people who know the most about editing systems are the Sr. editors who work on heavy, effects based sequences that work in broadcast production environments (I'm not talking about me here). *They* are the ones who push systems to the limits and *they* are the ones who go to NAB. (They're still only 10% of that room)
I think that most of them will find that Apple has, at present abandoned them. That's not to say the industry won't shift, and there won't be enough 3rd party solutions out there, but they are throwing Avid a HUGE bone here.
FCP was making big inroads into broadcast, and they're throwing it away-- for today certainly.
Filmwise, could go either way, depending on the production. If it's got great RED/4k performance, "film" support isn't so important..
But for the indie crowd, they're really screwing them over, if they are abandoning Color. *THAT* is what shocked me. I'm also surprised that effects weren't more advanced. I couldn't see anything on a titling tool, but that's pretty imporant for Broadcast as well.. and *no* existing solution is good for that... They really had (have?) a chance to make that right, and it seems they don't care.
So, when I say "iMovie Pro" that isn't necessarily pejorative. This product is WAY, WAY, WAY more iMovie than FCP. That doesn't mean you can't cut "a real movie" on it. But for Broadcast TV, it's a real step down in a lot of ways-- at the very least not a step up.. The interface is very iMovie. They should have called it iMovie PRO, especially if they're getting rid of the rest of the FCS apps..
Now if it turns out this is just the tip of the iceberg-- then we really could be in for a treat.
Dead on.
There is of course, a lot of questions left unanswered and X, from what I've gathered, is very much is a step down. Where's the viewer? How accurate is this 'skimming' feature? Is it as annoying as the skimming feature in iMovie?
Was trim mode improved? from what I've seen, it looks dumbed down; even more simplified than what is the current version of FCP.
Does multi-camera editing still exist?
Where are the video scopes?
Dual monitor support?
ability to open multiple projects and time lines? And for that matter, what about timeline nesting? I know they've addressed this with this 'compound clips' but can I still take one timeline and drop it into another like I can in FCP 7?
Custom keyboard mapping?
What about the slew of third party plugins and filters I've spent money on? Will they still work?
Can I still capture tape or has Apple decided (like they have with DVDs) that tape is dead?
I think that this can go on and on.
As a long time professional FCP editor, I'm worried. Not because of change-- I like change. What I hate is when they change things and feel as if they need to reinvent how editors and editing have functioned for decades.
lilo777
Apr 20, 09:03 PM
Just curious what NFC does in any Android device currently?
Of course you can work hard to drain the phones battery but LTE is draining the phones battery without trying. Nothing wrong with that, but Apple focuses on a single model and they have a set of requirements that they wish to achieve (battery life being awesome is one of them!).
If you don't like it, don't buy it, I guess?
Quote: "Google has begun distributing stickers with near field communication (NFC) technology to businesses throughout Austin, Texas as part of its Google Places roll out. The stickers allow users to tap their NFC-equipped phone on the sticker and access content and information relevant to the local business.
The stickers are manufactured by Smartag and measure 80mm x 50mm (3.15 in x 1.97 in) in size. Users who have the Google Places app on their smartphones will be able to see the business' address, phone number, hours of business, types of payment accepted, reviews, and more. The user also has the ability to rate and review the business right from their mobile device. They will then receive personalized recommendations in their search results based on their preferences."
So OSX allows user access to all critical files with no option to hide?
I believe so. I am not aware of any other OS but Windows that has this feature.
Of course you can work hard to drain the phones battery but LTE is draining the phones battery without trying. Nothing wrong with that, but Apple focuses on a single model and they have a set of requirements that they wish to achieve (battery life being awesome is one of them!).
If you don't like it, don't buy it, I guess?
Quote: "Google has begun distributing stickers with near field communication (NFC) technology to businesses throughout Austin, Texas as part of its Google Places roll out. The stickers allow users to tap their NFC-equipped phone on the sticker and access content and information relevant to the local business.
The stickers are manufactured by Smartag and measure 80mm x 50mm (3.15 in x 1.97 in) in size. Users who have the Google Places app on their smartphones will be able to see the business' address, phone number, hours of business, types of payment accepted, reviews, and more. The user also has the ability to rate and review the business right from their mobile device. They will then receive personalized recommendations in their search results based on their preferences."
So OSX allows user access to all critical files with no option to hide?
I believe so. I am not aware of any other OS but Windows that has this feature.
maxspivak
Sep 12, 04:00 PM
This device eliminates the need to burn discs for video and makes it easier to view content - however acquired - that's already on your computer. Bravo. Simple.
But at what quality??? Q1 2007 is as late as end of March. HD-DVD came out in April and BluRay in -- what -- May? So almost a year later Apple introduces a device that will play *near* (i.e. lower than) DVD-quality when the market is finally warming up to HD quality disks.
Regular DVD is 480i. Say that near-dvd quality is 420i. It will look like crap on that "big screen plasma" Jobs talked about.
He's marketing it to someone who will plug it into a $5K+ TV. At that price point, give us HD playback, both optical and streaming/downloaded, legally. I'd be happy to pay double or triple for a box that does it smoothly.
But at what quality??? Q1 2007 is as late as end of March. HD-DVD came out in April and BluRay in -- what -- May? So almost a year later Apple introduces a device that will play *near* (i.e. lower than) DVD-quality when the market is finally warming up to HD quality disks.
Regular DVD is 480i. Say that near-dvd quality is 420i. It will look like crap on that "big screen plasma" Jobs talked about.
He's marketing it to someone who will plug it into a $5K+ TV. At that price point, give us HD playback, both optical and streaming/downloaded, legally. I'd be happy to pay double or triple for a box that does it smoothly.