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.
Rt&Dzine
Mar 13, 06:21 PM
Your anecdotal evidence, though saddening, proves nothing. Expert estimates place the figure at around 4000 and anything other than that is just playing fantasy conspiracy theory. Playing on people's fears of what is not known is just poor science.
Perhaps the true figure is an unknown but even if we underestimate the figure by 10 times, it's still small compared to other risks and given that nuclear power is still in it's infancy, that risk can only go down with time as it did in other industries and technologies like cars. I would think the biggest risk from nuclear power at the moment belongs to the uranium ore miners.
People have the same irrational fear about flying. Every time there is a horrific plane crash, many people become afraid of flying for a short period of time afterwards, ignoring the excellent all-round safety record. Personally, I think it's because with flying or nuclear power, the risk lies outside of one's personal control. Walking or driving appears much safer because you are the one in control, even if statistics prove otherwise.
I'm not against nuclear power, but the estimates don't always take a lot of long term effects into account and the experts can't even agree. Some think radiation is good for you, and some say the Chernobyl estimate is 140,000 deaths in Ukraine and Belarus alone.
What's more, the long-term effects of the one instance of a severe radioactive meltdown and leak at a nuclear power plant—at Chernobyl in 1986—has also caused disagreement. The UN's World Health Organization and the International Atomic Energy Agency claim that only 56 people died as a direct result of the radiation released at Chernobyl and that about 4,000 will die from it eventually. But the International Agency for Research on Cancer, another UN agency, predicts 16,000 deaths from Chernobyl; an assessment by the Russian academy of sciences says there have been 60,000 deaths so far in Russia and an estimated 140,000 in Ukraine and Belarus. http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/03/13/japan-nuclear-emergency-how-much-radiation-is-safe/
Perhaps the true figure is an unknown but even if we underestimate the figure by 10 times, it's still small compared to other risks and given that nuclear power is still in it's infancy, that risk can only go down with time as it did in other industries and technologies like cars. I would think the biggest risk from nuclear power at the moment belongs to the uranium ore miners.
People have the same irrational fear about flying. Every time there is a horrific plane crash, many people become afraid of flying for a short period of time afterwards, ignoring the excellent all-round safety record. Personally, I think it's because with flying or nuclear power, the risk lies outside of one's personal control. Walking or driving appears much safer because you are the one in control, even if statistics prove otherwise.
I'm not against nuclear power, but the estimates don't always take a lot of long term effects into account and the experts can't even agree. Some think radiation is good for you, and some say the Chernobyl estimate is 140,000 deaths in Ukraine and Belarus alone.
What's more, the long-term effects of the one instance of a severe radioactive meltdown and leak at a nuclear power plant—at Chernobyl in 1986—has also caused disagreement. The UN's World Health Organization and the International Atomic Energy Agency claim that only 56 people died as a direct result of the radiation released at Chernobyl and that about 4,000 will die from it eventually. But the International Agency for Research on Cancer, another UN agency, predicts 16,000 deaths from Chernobyl; an assessment by the Russian academy of sciences says there have been 60,000 deaths so far in Russia and an estimated 140,000 in Ukraine and Belarus. http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/03/13/japan-nuclear-emergency-how-much-radiation-is-safe/
Xtremehkr
Mar 18, 09:35 PM
iTMS exists to sell iPods yes. But, if iTMS does not do something to protect the profits of those who allow iTMS to sell their songs then they will stop supplying iTMS with songs to sell.
There was a way to get around this before, but it was only used by a minority of people and considered an acceptable loss I guess.
What you have here is someone who is internationally advertising a way to beat copyright protections through iTMS, which hurts Apple as it may affect suppliers of music to iTMS.
There were ways to beat iTMS before and the best way was to avoid it altogether and use a P2P software.
This to me is different however. It is a direct attack on Apple aimed at disuading music labels from providing iTMS with songs to download.
In this instance I stand with Apple, as the MP3 market heats up, one of the determining factors in who people choose to buy their music from is going to be exclusive content. Labels are not going to release material to distributors who cannot assure that their material won't be easily pirated.
*If they fix this hole and leave everything else in place there really is no problem*
The songs iTMS sells are not their own! iTMS is a middleman that is not guaranteed access to the product that it resells. An essential part of selling iPods is being able to offer current music to play on them. iTMS needs to protect its ability to resell the music needed to use on iPods.
There was a way to get around this before, but it was only used by a minority of people and considered an acceptable loss I guess.
What you have here is someone who is internationally advertising a way to beat copyright protections through iTMS, which hurts Apple as it may affect suppliers of music to iTMS.
There were ways to beat iTMS before and the best way was to avoid it altogether and use a P2P software.
This to me is different however. It is a direct attack on Apple aimed at disuading music labels from providing iTMS with songs to download.
In this instance I stand with Apple, as the MP3 market heats up, one of the determining factors in who people choose to buy their music from is going to be exclusive content. Labels are not going to release material to distributors who cannot assure that their material won't be easily pirated.
*If they fix this hole and leave everything else in place there really is no problem*
The songs iTMS sells are not their own! iTMS is a middleman that is not guaranteed access to the product that it resells. An essential part of selling iPods is being able to offer current music to play on them. iTMS needs to protect its ability to resell the music needed to use on iPods.
SuperJudge
Apr 24, 10:36 AM
Maybe deep down I'm an atheist too, and I'm just entertaining the notion of agnosticism as a kind of nod to the great debt we owe Judaism and Christianity. If it wasn't for those two faiths which allowed for reformations (such a thing would be impossible under, say, Islam) then secular Western democracies would be vastly different.
...
If Europe had succumbed to the advance of Islam, if Vienna had fallen in the 17th century things likely would be very different today. Europe would have produced as many Nobel Prize winners as the entire Islamic World
Oh, please.
The Islamic World today doesn't have much resemblance to the Islamic World of antiquity. Don't forget that a vast majority of ancient Greek texts would have been lost to the ages if not for Islamic scholars, to say nothing of (relatively) advanced mathematical concepts and a symbol for zero.
...
If Europe had succumbed to the advance of Islam, if Vienna had fallen in the 17th century things likely would be very different today. Europe would have produced as many Nobel Prize winners as the entire Islamic World
Oh, please.
The Islamic World today doesn't have much resemblance to the Islamic World of antiquity. Don't forget that a vast majority of ancient Greek texts would have been lost to the ages if not for Islamic scholars, to say nothing of (relatively) advanced mathematical concepts and a symbol for zero.
AppliedVisual
Oct 31, 01:09 PM
Nothing will be better for complex music work than an 8-core Mac Pro. I admire your courage to realize the 4-core Mac Pro was more of a stop gap model than what the market needs longer term.
What's funny is that the 8-core Mac Pro will be more of a stop-gap model. After all, the Clovertown is two Woodcrest CPUs on the same die, but still running off the same FSB bandwidth and the first pair of cores must utilize the FSB to transfer data to the second pair of cores and vice versa. We won't see unified quad-core CPUs until sometime next year along with the multiplexed/bonded (and faster base rate) FSB implementations. ...AMD will be shipping fully unified quad-core CPUs in mid-December to early January. Not that it matters since Apple isn't using them.
Anyway, it's just another evolutionary step... Buy what you need when you need it and that's all there is to it.
What's funny is that the 8-core Mac Pro will be more of a stop-gap model. After all, the Clovertown is two Woodcrest CPUs on the same die, but still running off the same FSB bandwidth and the first pair of cores must utilize the FSB to transfer data to the second pair of cores and vice versa. We won't see unified quad-core CPUs until sometime next year along with the multiplexed/bonded (and faster base rate) FSB implementations. ...AMD will be shipping fully unified quad-core CPUs in mid-December to early January. Not that it matters since Apple isn't using them.
Anyway, it's just another evolutionary step... Buy what you need when you need it and that's all there is to it.
mmmcheese
Jul 12, 09:54 AM
I expect they will be Xeon based....but here's a crazy thought. Maybe, since Intel is supposed to be designing the motherboard, they will be putting 2 dual core Conroe in each machcine. I know what you're saying...impossible. Yeah, Intel said that about the early Celeron too...no SMP, but it was possible, and popular with enthusiasts because it was affordable. If anyone would know the tricks and backdoors to unlocking the processors, it would be Intel.
Of course I'm sure Intel would prefer to sell Xeon processors to Apple, even if they sold them at the same price as Conroe. Since Apple is Intel's new show pony, they want to have their entire processor line represented. Budget/Yonah...Mobile/Merom...Mainstream Desktop/Conroe....Workstation and Server/Xeon.
Of course I'm sure Intel would prefer to sell Xeon processors to Apple, even if they sold them at the same price as Conroe. Since Apple is Intel's new show pony, they want to have their entire processor line represented. Budget/Yonah...Mobile/Merom...Mainstream Desktop/Conroe....Workstation and Server/Xeon.
AppliedVisual
Oct 31, 11:59 PM
Sorry for the noob question, but does anyone know how well Maya 7 will scale with 8 cores? My buddy is debating whether to buy a single Kentsfield or step up to dual Clovertons. He has a freelance business in which he uses Maya 7 quite a bit. Thanks.
Well the Maya application itself won't benefit anymore from 8 cores than it would from 2 or 4. But 8-cores will help immensely with rendering, especially if he uses MentalRay and has enough licenses. Currently Maya Complete has 2 licenses and Maya Unlimited has 8. I'm not sure how the Maya licenses will apply to quad-core CPUs just yet.
Well the Maya application itself won't benefit anymore from 8 cores than it would from 2 or 4. But 8-cores will help immensely with rendering, especially if he uses MentalRay and has enough licenses. Currently Maya Complete has 2 licenses and Maya Unlimited has 8. I'm not sure how the Maya licenses will apply to quad-core CPUs just yet.
alexf
Aug 29, 11:45 AM
Who the hell listens to GreenPeace anymore.
Seriously.
A lot of people (and companies, such as Apple).
Seriously.
Seriously.
A lot of people (and companies, such as Apple).
Seriously.
ReyesJonathan
Feb 28, 09:21 PM
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, a cupcake is going to take down iPhone?
:D:D:D:D
:D:D:D:D
Swift
Mar 18, 03:44 PM
DRM is a big, fat target for every hacker in the world. I doubt very much it will ever be perfect. It can't be. It would be easy to encrypt music so badly that you couldn't play it. To allow legit users to listen to it means the key is already there. The hacker just finds it.
alexdrinan
Sep 12, 04:05 PM
Here's what I would like Apple to do. Open up Front Row so that companies like el gato can integrate their eyeTV software into the Front Row system. That way, I can have a Mac sitting in the office with an eyeTV box to record HD programming off of cable. Then, I could have an iTV in my living room to play the recorded material onto my 46" LCD HDTV (which I haven't bought yet).
Seems to me this could be done without Apple having to open up Front Row. If Elgato added some sort of "export recording to iTunes Video Library" option (that also deletes the original file after export completes), you could have your stuff recording on your mac and ready to stream to iTV. I'd imagine you could also set up some sort of Smart Playlist in iTunes to show unwatched recordings that carries over to the iTV interface.
Seems to me this could be done without Apple having to open up Front Row. If Elgato added some sort of "export recording to iTunes Video Library" option (that also deletes the original file after export completes), you could have your stuff recording on your mac and ready to stream to iTV. I'd imagine you could also set up some sort of Smart Playlist in iTunes to show unwatched recordings that carries over to the iTV interface.
Edge100
Apr 15, 12:49 PM
What really sucks is how the leaders of the Catholic Church covered up this abuse and allowed it to continue. Surely they will burn in hell over that.
Nope; they wont. But that's only because there's no hell.
It would be much better for all concerned if they just went to prison here on Earth. Unfortunately, the pope made that difficult when he decided to cover up all the child rape.
Nope; they wont. But that's only because there's no hell.
It would be much better for all concerned if they just went to prison here on Earth. Unfortunately, the pope made that difficult when he decided to cover up all the child rape.
Dbrown
May 2, 10:30 PM
I am myself using a Mac in a business school seamlessly among my PC-using peers. There is nothing that they can do that I cannot - and many things I can do that they would have a difficult time doing in Windows.In fact, my colleagues have been so impressed that one has already made the switch recently, and another is preparing to switch as well. Those days of "needing to run Windows" for work are behind us.
You mean running stuff like iphoto?
PC versions of cross platform apps are typically faster, have more features than their mac counterparts. That's if there even is a version for mac. Its viable to not own a PC anymore because macs use PC hardware now and can run windows. PC users have no use for osx at all but many mac users still need to have windows
You mean running stuff like iphoto?
PC versions of cross platform apps are typically faster, have more features than their mac counterparts. That's if there even is a version for mac. Its viable to not own a PC anymore because macs use PC hardware now and can run windows. PC users have no use for osx at all but many mac users still need to have windows
Big-TDI-Guy
Mar 14, 04:59 AM
So if the NYT is telling the truth - this now officially a concern in my eyes.
A US warship - 100 miles off the coast - passed through a cloud from the reactor - exposing it to one-months worth of activity. (not the helicopter pilots - the warship itself).
So, 100 miles away, and in one day, accumulated 30 days worth of radioactivity.
The low-level radioactive steam earlier mentioned was only truly dangerous for 5-15 seconds.
Somehow this does not add up. Especially if a warship is measuring 30 times higher levels from 100 miles away. The US warship has decided to move away from this flow. So, I would hardly blame anyone in Japan for wanting to to the same themselves.
A US warship - 100 miles off the coast - passed through a cloud from the reactor - exposing it to one-months worth of activity. (not the helicopter pilots - the warship itself).
So, 100 miles away, and in one day, accumulated 30 days worth of radioactivity.
The low-level radioactive steam earlier mentioned was only truly dangerous for 5-15 seconds.
Somehow this does not add up. Especially if a warship is measuring 30 times higher levels from 100 miles away. The US warship has decided to move away from this flow. So, I would hardly blame anyone in Japan for wanting to to the same themselves.
rjfiske
Sep 20, 03:25 PM
In the case of the DVR, what the heck are you people watching? The last time I saw cable (Dish Network) there were over two hundred channels, and not one thing I wanted to see. I'd much rather pay for a season pass for the one or two shows worth watching than around $60 for cable + Tivo every month.
Yes, I know, that puts me outside the norm. But I can use the time to read a book, cook a good meal, or go running/work out. All better uses of time than sitting in front entertainment programing that is 1/3 ads and 2/3 not worth watching.
/soapbox
I'm not sure I understand your question/comment. You say that a DVR isn't worth it because there are too many channels, and then you say that you don't want to watch advertisements. You seem to be against TV in general, which is fine. However...
The purpose of a DVR answers both of your initial concerns. That is, we have a DVR BECAUSE there's so many channels and BECAUSE there is so many ads. We can watch a 1hr program in 40 minutes, whenever we want, however we want. (don't even get me started on Football games). This (not surprisingly) frees up a tremendous amount of time where we can read, cook, work out, etc. Not once in our 2.5yrs of having TIVO have we had to say, "Sorry we can't do that because 'Survivor' is starting in 5 minutes". There's where the real value of a DVR comes into play. Just my opinion. :)
Yes, I know, that puts me outside the norm. But I can use the time to read a book, cook a good meal, or go running/work out. All better uses of time than sitting in front entertainment programing that is 1/3 ads and 2/3 not worth watching.
/soapbox
I'm not sure I understand your question/comment. You say that a DVR isn't worth it because there are too many channels, and then you say that you don't want to watch advertisements. You seem to be against TV in general, which is fine. However...
The purpose of a DVR answers both of your initial concerns. That is, we have a DVR BECAUSE there's so many channels and BECAUSE there is so many ads. We can watch a 1hr program in 40 minutes, whenever we want, however we want. (don't even get me started on Football games). This (not surprisingly) frees up a tremendous amount of time where we can read, cook, work out, etc. Not once in our 2.5yrs of having TIVO have we had to say, "Sorry we can't do that because 'Survivor' is starting in 5 minutes". There's where the real value of a DVR comes into play. Just my opinion. :)
CaoCao
Apr 22, 08:00 PM
This makeup of this forum's members intrigues mean slightly. Why are most of the posters here Atheists? Is it part of the Mac using demographic, the Internet in general's demographic, or are Atheists just the most interested in Politics, Religon, and Social Issues?
iz cald teh interwebz, der r lotz ov werd peplz hre.
The internet has a lot of anarchists too, they typically think they are one of the few people who have broken free of the slave mindset of their country
iz cald teh interwebz, der r lotz ov werd peplz hre.
The internet has a lot of anarchists too, they typically think they are one of the few people who have broken free of the slave mindset of their country
csjo00
Jun 9, 05:18 PM
Only time I've ever had a dropped call with AT&T is when the Wakarusa people come in to the area.
(Wakarusa is a huge festival 10 miles from where I live that increases the population of our county of ~8,000 to close to ~30,000. And it kills cell service.)
(Wakarusa is a huge festival 10 miles from where I live that increases the population of our county of ~8,000 to close to ~30,000. And it kills cell service.)
bchreng
Apr 10, 12:09 PM
Six of one, a half dozen of the other.
Big name is big name.
And yeah, really garbage. :rolleyes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games
Pretty impressive, I'd say. But it won't just be Epic. Others are and will follow. Rest assured.
A remake of their 2D sidesscrollers 'Jill of the Jungle' and Jazz Jackrabbit for iOS would be freaking awesome! I own an iPad 2 as well as a Nintendo DS and can say that my iPad is currently getting way more gaming use. The games are way cheaper, can be just as fun, control just as well, look better and are much easier to lug around.
Big name is big name.
And yeah, really garbage. :rolleyes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games
Pretty impressive, I'd say. But it won't just be Epic. Others are and will follow. Rest assured.
A remake of their 2D sidesscrollers 'Jill of the Jungle' and Jazz Jackrabbit for iOS would be freaking awesome! I own an iPad 2 as well as a Nintendo DS and can say that my iPad is currently getting way more gaming use. The games are way cheaper, can be just as fun, control just as well, look better and are much easier to lug around.
eric_n_dfw
Mar 20, 07:19 PM
But what if I got hold of that wedding video and decided to, I dunno, turn it into a music video for my own music... and that music video got onto MTV? No one is losing out on any money. No one is being hurt. I'm not stealing. I'm -merely- infringing copyright.
The videographer is being hurt, you and/or MTV have stolen the royalties they are due. (Asuming you are saying that it is someone else's video, not one that you shot and/or editted together.)
If it was produced by a videographer, they were probably smart enough to mark it with a copyright (you don't have to file anything to do so) and then they can sue you for that infringement because you are profitting off of his/her work. (Or, more likely, they'd sue Viacom for broadcast of their video without permission since they have the deeper pockets. But Viacom probably is imune because you signed a paper saying you owned said production - THEN they'd sue you.)
The theft in this is the result of the infringement. By admitting it's infringement, you are admitting that it's illegal. The only reason to copyright something is to protect your interests from those who would, well, infringe on them. :rolleyes:
The videographer is being hurt, you and/or MTV have stolen the royalties they are due. (Asuming you are saying that it is someone else's video, not one that you shot and/or editted together.)
If it was produced by a videographer, they were probably smart enough to mark it with a copyright (you don't have to file anything to do so) and then they can sue you for that infringement because you are profitting off of his/her work. (Or, more likely, they'd sue Viacom for broadcast of their video without permission since they have the deeper pockets. But Viacom probably is imune because you signed a paper saying you owned said production - THEN they'd sue you.)
The theft in this is the result of the infringement. By admitting it's infringement, you are admitting that it's illegal. The only reason to copyright something is to protect your interests from those who would, well, infringe on them. :rolleyes:
rikers_mailbox
Sep 20, 03:03 AM
If Iger is correct and iTV has a hard drive.. then I beleive iTV could serve as an external iTunes Library server/device. Authorized computers can access and manage it using iTunes (running as a client). iTS downloads, podcasts, imported physical CDs, etc would all be stored on iTV.
Look at your hard drive usage, Music takes up a significant amount of it. Why does it need to be kept on your local machine if iTV provides a network?
Look at your hard drive usage, Music takes up a significant amount of it. Why does it need to be kept on your local machine if iTV provides a network?
mpstrex
Aug 30, 11:09 AM
Something just dawned on me. Like when Macrumors (or someone) posted that Rush Limbaugh was selling his broadcasts for MP3 players, people here were divided. And it's the same thing with Greenpeace. We're fighting over idealistic opinions.
Maybe we should focus our attention on fighting for the Apple and all its greatness (and some not-so-great things), instead of against each other.
Maybe we should focus our attention on fighting for the Apple and all its greatness (and some not-so-great things), instead of against each other.
skunk
Apr 27, 09:21 AM
A slight correction: you either believe in the Biblical God and that the Bible is divinely inspired or you believe neither.
You can believe there is a God without believing the Judeo/Christian folklore.
Exactly what I was going to say.
<high five>
You can believe there is a God without believing the Judeo/Christian folklore.
Exactly what I was going to say.
<high five>
samdweck
Oct 7, 07:11 PM
yes, we can still be friends, and i am sorry about comparing you to hitler... i am jewish and know the seriousness of that!
Jason Beck
May 3, 06:35 PM
Someone link us some malware and viruses for OSX so we can have a looksie.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий