CuttyShark
Apr 13, 12:40 AM
But it seems to me the man who uses tools is just a fool!:D Great song BTW! Songs of Yesterday
;) I soooooo wish I could fart an edit right outta my head. Life would be so much easier. Unfortunately, it somehow has to go through my hands, a mouse, keyboard, FCP, AVID, etc. before it's done.
Ahhh...such is life... ;)
Cheers!!
;) I soooooo wish I could fart an edit right outta my head. Life would be so much easier. Unfortunately, it somehow has to go through my hands, a mouse, keyboard, FCP, AVID, etc. before it's done.
Ahhh...such is life... ;)
Cheers!!
iindigo
May 2, 11:02 AM
Windows Vista & 7 have the UAC - meaning that admin accounts are effectively the same as on *nix & OS X.
It works well (on Win7)
I'm well aware of UAC. UAC also just happens to be "that annoying popup thing" that has become extremely popular for users to disable entirely since the debut of Vista.
It works well (on Win7)
I'm well aware of UAC. UAC also just happens to be "that annoying popup thing" that has become extremely popular for users to disable entirely since the debut of Vista.
takao
Mar 13, 06:47 AM
It won't be an issue. Please refer to my previous post in this thread.
I feel like the fear mongering done by the international media is just unreal-- is everyone that uneducated?
well flooding the inner containment vessel with seawater + added boric acid is by all means an absolute last resort option in any playbook
(hardly a DIY solution: many reactors have the option and external connectors to do just that)
afterall they don't even know the situation inside because the temperature sensors aren't working anymore
also since that water can't be exchanged directly it means that they might have to cool the containment construction from the outside with additional water
obviously it won't be a disaster on the scale of chernobyl but it is already high up on the scale of disasters (6 reactors without cooling, 2 core meltdowns), it's pretty much confirmed that nuclear material has been spilled even if it was just hydrogen blowing up the external construction
it shouldn't be forgotten IMHO that a lot of radition will be spilled in the clean up progress (not only radiation: boric acid is actually quite toxic)
as a consequence the german government for example is already thinking about taking back their early decision to extend the use of their current nuclear plants
edit: according to some reports the evacuation zone was extended to 20 km
edit: don't forget that reducing the heat of a molten core might take quite some time so i wouldn't call the danger off as well: even when being cooled it still might have just enough remaining heat to melt through the bottom of the pressure chamber. i suspect we will know more in 24 hours
I feel like the fear mongering done by the international media is just unreal-- is everyone that uneducated?
well flooding the inner containment vessel with seawater + added boric acid is by all means an absolute last resort option in any playbook
(hardly a DIY solution: many reactors have the option and external connectors to do just that)
afterall they don't even know the situation inside because the temperature sensors aren't working anymore
also since that water can't be exchanged directly it means that they might have to cool the containment construction from the outside with additional water
obviously it won't be a disaster on the scale of chernobyl but it is already high up on the scale of disasters (6 reactors without cooling, 2 core meltdowns), it's pretty much confirmed that nuclear material has been spilled even if it was just hydrogen blowing up the external construction
it shouldn't be forgotten IMHO that a lot of radition will be spilled in the clean up progress (not only radiation: boric acid is actually quite toxic)
as a consequence the german government for example is already thinking about taking back their early decision to extend the use of their current nuclear plants
edit: according to some reports the evacuation zone was extended to 20 km
edit: don't forget that reducing the heat of a molten core might take quite some time so i wouldn't call the danger off as well: even when being cooled it still might have just enough remaining heat to melt through the bottom of the pressure chamber. i suspect we will know more in 24 hours
The Beatles
Apr 9, 12:49 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Ahhh. A Gamer. Thanks.;) What you are seeing is called RDF. That field will not be around forever.
desktop wallpaper kiss.
desktop wallpaper kiss
desktop wallpaper kiss.
__THISRES__97527.jpg "desktop wallpaper kiss. series")
desktop wallpaper kiss. series
Kiss kiss bang bang is a great wallpaper for your computer desktop and it is available in normal resolutions. Kiss kiss bang bang is part of the Kiss kiss
Kiss kiss bang bang is a great wallpaper for your computer desktop and it is available in normal resolutions. Kiss kiss bang bang is part of the Kiss kiss
desktop wallpaper kiss.
desktop wallpaper kiss
Or Set a desktop wallpapers to
Kiss After Rain wallpaper
desktop wallpaper kiss.
desktop wallpaper kiss.
May 8 2010 3:20 AM
desktop wallpaper link
polar bear desktop wallpaper
Ahhh. A Gamer. Thanks.;) What you are seeing is called RDF. That field will not be around forever.
pmz
Mar 18, 09:27 AM
Go look up the words: entitlement, spoiled, ignorance and unfounded :)
What the hell is your problem? AT&T has broken the law. Are you content with that?
Do you think it's appropriate for any company to sell an unlimited service, and make every attempt possible to limit it?
What the hell is your problem? AT&T has broken the law. Are you content with that?
Do you think it's appropriate for any company to sell an unlimited service, and make every attempt possible to limit it?
Huntn
Apr 27, 09:47 PM
The people who put the "blood" on Christianity's hands have never used the Bible to justify it. The mujahideen use the Qur'an and hadith to justify their actions.
I understand the distinction you are making about Islam and I agree it is a substantial distinction. But if actions count, it's a fine point if the Bible was used or not to justify the actions of seizing and holding onto power and spilling blood in the process which is a historical fact.
I understand the distinction you are making about Islam and I agree it is a substantial distinction. But if actions count, it's a fine point if the Bible was used or not to justify the actions of seizing and holding onto power and spilling blood in the process which is a historical fact.
Edge100
Apr 15, 12:30 PM
I realize this is off topic, but I felt compelled to reply.
You've taken that completely out of context. The point is that a person being raped, while conscious and aware of the situation, would do everything they could to stop it from happening. By not screaming, did she do all she could to keep it from happening? The verse right after that gives an example of a woman in the country, instead of in the city. She is raped, but makes an effort to scream in order to attract help from someone, but there is no one else around to hear her screams. If a person is being raped but doesn't try to resist or call for help, can she really be compared to the one that did call for help?
This is by no means intended to be all inclusive, but demonstrates that there were in fact protections in the law for those who were raped and not those having sex while not married and claiming to be raped.
My jaw just hit the floor. Did you just make excuses for certain forms of rape? You couldn't have.
Let's get to the bottom of this: is there any circumstance for which the Bible dictates that a woman who is raped should be put to death?
You've taken that completely out of context. The point is that a person being raped, while conscious and aware of the situation, would do everything they could to stop it from happening. By not screaming, did she do all she could to keep it from happening? The verse right after that gives an example of a woman in the country, instead of in the city. She is raped, but makes an effort to scream in order to attract help from someone, but there is no one else around to hear her screams. If a person is being raped but doesn't try to resist or call for help, can she really be compared to the one that did call for help?
This is by no means intended to be all inclusive, but demonstrates that there were in fact protections in the law for those who were raped and not those having sex while not married and claiming to be raped.
My jaw just hit the floor. Did you just make excuses for certain forms of rape? You couldn't have.
Let's get to the bottom of this: is there any circumstance for which the Bible dictates that a woman who is raped should be put to death?
ChrisA
Oct 26, 08:25 PM
Apple wasn't very quick at adopting the Core2 chips (which are pin-compatible with Core chips), what would make Clovertown any different?
The C2D was a general upgrade that applied to every MBP sold where as
Clovertown may be a build to order option.
The C2D was a general upgrade that applied to every MBP sold where as
Clovertown may be a build to order option.
Tommyg117
Sep 21, 08:50 AM
I'm really excited for this. I can't wait to get it in my hands and experiment.
ziggyonice
Apr 20, 05:25 PM
Android is to Windows, as iOS is to Mac OS.
The similarities are astounding � Google is doing the same thing Microsoft did back in the day.
As much as Apple cares about marketshare, the experience is more important to them then the product itself. That's really something.
The similarities are astounding � Google is doing the same thing Microsoft did back in the day.
As much as Apple cares about marketshare, the experience is more important to them then the product itself. That's really something.
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?
jettredmont
May 3, 03:44 PM
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
WilliamG
May 30, 09:59 PM
I drop so many calls on AT&T 3G that it's a joke. I drop basically no calls on AT&T EDGE. Seattle, here.
kingtj
May 6, 09:27 AM
Ultimately, yes - that's probably the only realistic solution AT&T has, and they *are* adding new cell towers all the time. I got SMS messages a couple of times announcing new ones they put online in my city, over the last year or so.
But there's a technology battle here they're on the losing end of, as well. The CDMA network providers have an advantage automatically, because the frequencies they use penetrate structures better than the GSM network frequencies used by AT&T and T-Mobile. (Note that T-Mobile was the other carrier with equal customer dissatisfaction to AT&T in the bar graph ranking that metric.)
I have Verizon and I think I've had two dropped calls in years.
AT&T really needs to get more towers up, that's the only solution in my mind.
Kayle
But there's a technology battle here they're on the losing end of, as well. The CDMA network providers have an advantage automatically, because the frequencies they use penetrate structures better than the GSM network frequencies used by AT&T and T-Mobile. (Note that T-Mobile was the other carrier with equal customer dissatisfaction to AT&T in the bar graph ranking that metric.)
I have Verizon and I think I've had two dropped calls in years.
AT&T really needs to get more towers up, that's the only solution in my mind.
Kayle
Cromulent
Mar 26, 11:12 PM
...seems to be asking the absurd question
You need to learn how to read quoted text before reading a response.
so I guess I'm asking not "why are condoning the belief or not condoning it," but rather "what possible sense could it make from a practical perspective."
You obviously seem to be missing the extremely simple point here, I was merely pointing out that in Catholicism priests are expected to be celibate so expecting a gay person to be celibate is not exactly unheard of in a religious context.
The fact that some people have the opinion that being gay is OK as long as you are not a practicing gay follows the same logic as priests being expected to remain celibate and also shares some of the reasons why as well.
Being gay and being a priest have absolutely nothing in common.
If you had followed the thread you would see where the original comment came from.
You need to learn how to read quoted text before reading a response.
so I guess I'm asking not "why are condoning the belief or not condoning it," but rather "what possible sense could it make from a practical perspective."
You obviously seem to be missing the extremely simple point here, I was merely pointing out that in Catholicism priests are expected to be celibate so expecting a gay person to be celibate is not exactly unheard of in a religious context.
The fact that some people have the opinion that being gay is OK as long as you are not a practicing gay follows the same logic as priests being expected to remain celibate and also shares some of the reasons why as well.
Being gay and being a priest have absolutely nothing in common.
If you had followed the thread you would see where the original comment came from.
Sounds Good
Apr 5, 06:21 PM
Under the Apple menu on the top toolbar, you can access both recently used programs and recently used files just the same as in the Windows Start menu.
Ahh, good. Thanks. Are we able to put our "favorite" programs or files there too, like on the Windows Start menu? (even if they are not the most recently used?)
It's essentially the same thing, but better.
Why / how is it better?
Ahh, good. Thanks. Are we able to put our "favorite" programs or files there too, like on the Windows Start menu? (even if they are not the most recently used?)
It's essentially the same thing, but better.
Why / how is it better?
Lau
Aug 29, 10:57 AM
It's a tough one. I'd like to think that we could vote with our wallets over something like this, but unfortunately I need a computer, and there's no way I'm not using OSX.
I'd like to think we could still complain about it, but "Apple's annual shareholder meetings have seen frequent protests from environmental groups" makes me think that they don't really give a toss, which is bad, mmkay.
I don't really see why if Dell can do it, Apple can't.
I'd like to think we could still complain about it, but "Apple's annual shareholder meetings have seen frequent protests from environmental groups" makes me think that they don't really give a toss, which is bad, mmkay.
I don't really see why if Dell can do it, Apple can't.
marmotmammal
Apr 12, 11:06 PM
I was just about to buy PluralEyes. Thus far, FCP X seems to be OK, whether it's a real upgrade, iMovie or whatever. 64-bit, editing while ingesting...that's kool. Just gotta wait for more info.
munkery
May 2, 06:40 PM
Bugs are not flaws in a security model. They have nothing to do with "Unix security" being better. Stop hammering that point, it's not even valid.
Bugs are flaws in the overall security model. Part of an OSs security model includes the implementation of exploit mitigations. The best exploit mitigation is to have as few bugs as possible. Obviously, in relation to privilege escalation, OS X has far fewer bugs.
Bugs are flaws in the overall security model. Part of an OSs security model includes the implementation of exploit mitigations. The best exploit mitigation is to have as few bugs as possible. Obviously, in relation to privilege escalation, OS X has far fewer bugs.
yukio
Aug 25, 10:17 PM
SJ said it takes 2 years to build a cell tower in the bay area. compared to something like 6 months in texas
it's not a sf bay area problem nearly as much as it is a san francisco problem.
i live in the city, and i swear - while the rest of us are working - the "neighbors against things we don't understand" go to each and every city board meeting and derail cell antenna applications.
even though we have huge chunks of the city with electrified light rail wires overhead emitting their own em radiation, it's the cellphones that must be stopped.
i'm not making excuses for att - because i think that they have experience deploying in plenty of difficult markets - they just choose to not work the system to get things done.
and let's face it - service always declines in a single-provider model.
it's not a sf bay area problem nearly as much as it is a san francisco problem.
i live in the city, and i swear - while the rest of us are working - the "neighbors against things we don't understand" go to each and every city board meeting and derail cell antenna applications.
even though we have huge chunks of the city with electrified light rail wires overhead emitting their own em radiation, it's the cellphones that must be stopped.
i'm not making excuses for att - because i think that they have experience deploying in plenty of difficult markets - they just choose to not work the system to get things done.
and let's face it - service always declines in a single-provider model.
Caliber26
Apr 15, 10:17 AM
Theres ways to express your opinion (even if its pretty unpopular) without stooping to this. Not Cool
Agreed. But you know what, some people deserve not one ounce of respect. The minute one crosses that line with me, and takes the liberty to label me as a self-hater, guess what, you've successfully lit a fire under my *** and I'm gonna talk back at you in a fitting way. Point blank.
You can go ahead and read thru all my posts in MacRumors and you'll see that I'm not a negative whiner, or one quick to disrespect others. But I have zero tolerance for people that are quick to label or judge me for my views.
Agreed. But you know what, some people deserve not one ounce of respect. The minute one crosses that line with me, and takes the liberty to label me as a self-hater, guess what, you've successfully lit a fire under my *** and I'm gonna talk back at you in a fitting way. Point blank.
You can go ahead and read thru all my posts in MacRumors and you'll see that I'm not a negative whiner, or one quick to disrespect others. But I have zero tolerance for people that are quick to label or judge me for my views.
Multimedia
Jul 12, 10:29 AM
I bet the the Quad G5 will retain their value for awhile.Yes, it will. Given that many pro apps are still not Universal, and that many times first ported version is somewhat buggy, the PPC hardware running native PPC software will become very valuable during the next 12ish months.I agree. It is a classic that can also run classic. And it is incredibly quiet - a feature seldom mentioned that many find valuable. In any event the G5 Quad will still be the second fastest Mac after this first round of Mac Pros ship. And I'd still rather have four G5 cores than two Core 2 Duo cores. Wouldn't you?
But I also think that for certain verticle markets, like video that are already completely Universal, this new IntelQuad may perform significantly faster than the G5 Quad - enough so for many video pros to take the leap. Looking forward to the benchmarks on this front. But realy waiting for 8 cores with Leopard next Spring. :)
But I also think that for certain verticle markets, like video that are already completely Universal, this new IntelQuad may perform significantly faster than the G5 Quad - enough so for many video pros to take the leap. Looking forward to the benchmarks on this front. But realy waiting for 8 cores with Leopard next Spring. :)
Glideslope
Apr 9, 01:37 PM
Huge!
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 08:13 AM
The iPod was not a fad by any sense of the word. Once you reach a decade of popularity, it's not a fad. It's like calling land line phones a fad because there was a time when they didn't exist, then they did exist and were popular, and now they are fading due to cell phones. Ridiculous.
A fad is something that comes and goes quickly with a spike in popularity at its peak, and then people look back and wonder why they did it. That isn't the case with the iPod which still sells in the millions.
Amazing to see how people will resort to anything to make Apple look less popular than they are.
A fad is something that comes and goes quickly with a spike in popularity at its peak, and then people look back and wonder why they did it. That isn't the case with the iPod which still sells in the millions.
Amazing to see how people will resort to anything to make Apple look less popular than they are.