crackbookpro
Apr 13, 11:52 AM
I'm getting this, but I will still be using FC Studio 7 a ton... I agree with both sides a lot on these ongoing threads/disagreements on the new release of FCPX.
I altogether, do think it will be a great release, I just know some want some other features, functions, benefits... and are waiting.
I altogether, do think it will be a great release, I just know some want some other features, functions, benefits... and are waiting.
jlasoon
Apr 9, 10:37 AM
Your overall point being because Apple poses and threat to Nintendo, which Nintendo recognises, Nintendo are doomed to go out of business?
That's not what he's saying. The premise being presented is adapt/evolve or face the consequences of a rapid moving technological world. Doesn't mean the company goes out of business.
That's not what he's saying. The premise being presented is adapt/evolve or face the consequences of a rapid moving technological world. Doesn't mean the company goes out of business.
caity13cait
Sep 22, 03:46 PM
Hi maybe this topic has been covered in the last 4 pages, but if the itv has video out won't that mean that you can record off of it, like hook it to a dvd burner or even a vhs? Maybe I am missing something here.
gorgeousninja
Apr 21, 08:02 AM
You must live in a alternate univerise if think that Apple users are tech savy. You average user is very happy to have Apple control thier experience, ie they are techtards. And frankly owning an Apple product is the best thing for them, with a PC etc they will just get themselves into trouble.
If your still under some illusion of how tech savy they are read through the macrumors forums...... and remeber they are the more tech savy ones!
I have moved every family member over to mac who has no idea about computer, they are happy. The people I know who work in IT, develop and are really tech savy, still have a PC (and an android, some have both android and iphone)
it would help to show you were a little more tech savvy if you learned how a spell-checker works....
It's really quite amusing to hear some of these 'Droid fans who think that just because they've changed their phone wallpaper makes them some kind of techno demi-god.
I am sure all your family members are very happy you 'moved them over to mac' (though I do wonder if they're aware of how patronizing you are)..
Who got the best deal? Your family have products that will do what they need when they need. You have a product that if you can keep it virus free and updated to the latest version will be seen as a major achievement.
If your still under some illusion of how tech savy they are read through the macrumors forums...... and remeber they are the more tech savy ones!
I have moved every family member over to mac who has no idea about computer, they are happy. The people I know who work in IT, develop and are really tech savy, still have a PC (and an android, some have both android and iphone)
it would help to show you were a little more tech savvy if you learned how a spell-checker works....
It's really quite amusing to hear some of these 'Droid fans who think that just because they've changed their phone wallpaper makes them some kind of techno demi-god.
I am sure all your family members are very happy you 'moved them over to mac' (though I do wonder if they're aware of how patronizing you are)..
Who got the best deal? Your family have products that will do what they need when they need. You have a product that if you can keep it virus free and updated to the latest version will be seen as a major achievement.
CaoCao
Mar 26, 10:40 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kris_Kime
That is appalling, what idiot tells police to stay outside a riot zone..
That is appalling, what idiot tells police to stay outside a riot zone..
whooleytoo
Apr 28, 09:17 AM
Make up your mind what you want to count iPads as. Damn is it a mobile device a computer. Someone give them a ****ing category already.
Hah, exactly.
I think it's unnecessarily divisive to argue whether or not an iPad is a "PC" or not. It's a device sold. You can count it in the "PC" category, along with Macs, or "Mobile" category, along with iPhones and MacBooks, or "Larger than pocket devices", along with Macs but excluding iPhones/iTouches.
Hah, exactly.
I think it's unnecessarily divisive to argue whether or not an iPad is a "PC" or not. It's a device sold. You can count it in the "PC" category, along with Macs, or "Mobile" category, along with iPhones and MacBooks, or "Larger than pocket devices", along with Macs but excluding iPhones/iTouches.
arkitect
Apr 15, 11:52 AM
Erroneous idea to you, but that's just like, your opinion, man.
Demonstrably not true? That's funny, I keep looking in my church bulletin for some fun anti-gay rallies or barbeques but I'm not finding them. I do find that the Catholic high school is going to have a conference on preventing anti-gay bullying, gasp! I bet they're going to pull out that old chestnut from the Catechism, "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity."
SO MUCH HATE!
Not so much hate as intolerance.
Since you insist on not telling the whole story I'll then do it for you.
The CCC (CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH):
Your quote (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12397686&postcount=184) above from paragraph 2358 is bracketed by:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
If the Catholic Church was truly accepting, please tell why only homosexuals are called to chastity?
I am genuinely interested to hear.
Demonstrably not true? That's funny, I keep looking in my church bulletin for some fun anti-gay rallies or barbeques but I'm not finding them. I do find that the Catholic high school is going to have a conference on preventing anti-gay bullying, gasp! I bet they're going to pull out that old chestnut from the Catechism, "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity."
SO MUCH HATE!
Not so much hate as intolerance.
Since you insist on not telling the whole story I'll then do it for you.
The CCC (CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH):
Your quote (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12397686&postcount=184) above from paragraph 2358 is bracketed by:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
If the Catholic Church was truly accepting, please tell why only homosexuals are called to chastity?
I am genuinely interested to hear.
zero2dash
Jul 13, 10:47 AM
Apple needs to keep the prices and the configurations real now more than ever. I'm not saying PAR but but they can't get crazy.
Amen to that.
Look, I was looking forward to probably getting a Mac Pro later this year/early next year (more towards the time that all the "initial adopters" have reported all their bugs and CS3/Adobe goes Universal) but then I realized that I'd most likely be paying at least $2,000 for a BASE Mac Pro and that's disgusting. I'd like a Mac Pro with a decent amount of bells and whistles, not a base model...so then I'm probably paying $2,500+ (closer to $3,000) and that's ridiculous.
I love OSX as much as the next guy, but $3,000 is a large sum to pay for a computer. $3,000 could pay off about half of my remaining car loan balance...so if I have $3,000 dispensable income, sorry - I'd rather get the car paid off.
If Apple said "we realize the market prices and we're going to be competitive" then I'd be all ears. But we all know that isn't going to happen; no matter who makes Apple's innards or how non-unique it is, Apple will still charge an arm and a leg over street prices and quote it as being "the price to pay for the Apple experience". Like sbarton said, you can build a Core 2 Duo system for cheaper than $1,200 and I guarantee you that it'll come with a whole lot more than a Mac Pro costing twice the amount. If you're so hung up on running Windows and you hate it that bad, then by all means find a *nix distro that you like or attempt to run OSX86 on it. (I'm not encouraging software piracy nor am I discussing it further - I'm just saying "it's an option".)
I really want to buy an Apple again after using a G5 for the last year + at work, and I'm having a crippled experience on an outdated/slow machine running old versions of the programs I use. (G5 1.8, 1256mb RAM, OSX 10.39 Panther, Adobe CS Suite 1) It's high time though that I've come to realize that I'll never get a Mac for what I'm willing to pay for one, and I'm not accepting crippled hardware just to get OSX (ie buying a Mini or even an iMac both of which will undoubtedly be cheaper than a Mac Pro). Dell's get cheaper by the day...heck Dell's nowadays in most cases are actually cheaper than building your own (and you get a lot of freebie bonuses including monitors and the Windows License/install discs that you normally pay for). I thought about buying a refurb G5 DP (prob a 2.3) but for what I'd pay for that, it's still several hundred dollars over the same Core 2 system with better hardware, so I'm stuck no matter what I do. I'm not looking for pity or trying to incite a flame war, I'm just saying.
Meanwhile Apple apparently hasn't gotten the memo about PC price inflation being dead as of 6+ years ago. /shrug
Enjoy your new computers folks...wish I had the money to join you. Guess I'll stick with my P4 desktop and A2200+ laptop for now and maybe build a Core 2 system next year instead and take some of that extra money and put it towards the car loan. :( Guess I'll be sticking with CS2 in Windows for the time being...
Amen to that.
Look, I was looking forward to probably getting a Mac Pro later this year/early next year (more towards the time that all the "initial adopters" have reported all their bugs and CS3/Adobe goes Universal) but then I realized that I'd most likely be paying at least $2,000 for a BASE Mac Pro and that's disgusting. I'd like a Mac Pro with a decent amount of bells and whistles, not a base model...so then I'm probably paying $2,500+ (closer to $3,000) and that's ridiculous.
I love OSX as much as the next guy, but $3,000 is a large sum to pay for a computer. $3,000 could pay off about half of my remaining car loan balance...so if I have $3,000 dispensable income, sorry - I'd rather get the car paid off.
If Apple said "we realize the market prices and we're going to be competitive" then I'd be all ears. But we all know that isn't going to happen; no matter who makes Apple's innards or how non-unique it is, Apple will still charge an arm and a leg over street prices and quote it as being "the price to pay for the Apple experience". Like sbarton said, you can build a Core 2 Duo system for cheaper than $1,200 and I guarantee you that it'll come with a whole lot more than a Mac Pro costing twice the amount. If you're so hung up on running Windows and you hate it that bad, then by all means find a *nix distro that you like or attempt to run OSX86 on it. (I'm not encouraging software piracy nor am I discussing it further - I'm just saying "it's an option".)
I really want to buy an Apple again after using a G5 for the last year + at work, and I'm having a crippled experience on an outdated/slow machine running old versions of the programs I use. (G5 1.8, 1256mb RAM, OSX 10.39 Panther, Adobe CS Suite 1) It's high time though that I've come to realize that I'll never get a Mac for what I'm willing to pay for one, and I'm not accepting crippled hardware just to get OSX (ie buying a Mini or even an iMac both of which will undoubtedly be cheaper than a Mac Pro). Dell's get cheaper by the day...heck Dell's nowadays in most cases are actually cheaper than building your own (and you get a lot of freebie bonuses including monitors and the Windows License/install discs that you normally pay for). I thought about buying a refurb G5 DP (prob a 2.3) but for what I'd pay for that, it's still several hundred dollars over the same Core 2 system with better hardware, so I'm stuck no matter what I do. I'm not looking for pity or trying to incite a flame war, I'm just saying.
Meanwhile Apple apparently hasn't gotten the memo about PC price inflation being dead as of 6+ years ago. /shrug
Enjoy your new computers folks...wish I had the money to join you. Guess I'll stick with my P4 desktop and A2200+ laptop for now and maybe build a Core 2 system next year instead and take some of that extra money and put it towards the car loan. :( Guess I'll be sticking with CS2 in Windows for the time being...
Lennholm
May 2, 10:30 AM
Is your info from like 1993 ? Because this little known version of Windows dubbed "New Technology" or NT for short brought along something called the NTFS (New Technology File System) that has... *drumroll* ACLs and strict permissions with inheritance...
Unless you're running as administrator on a Windows NT based system, you're as protected as a "Unix/Linux" user. Of course, you can also run as root all the time under Unix, negating this "security".
So again I ask, what about Unix security protects you from these attacks that Windows can't do ?
And I say this as a Unix systems administrator/fanboy. The multi-user paradigm that is "Unix security" came to Windows more than 18 years ago. It came to consumer versions of Windows about 9 years ago if you don't count Windows 2000 as a consumer version.
Wait, knowledge is ignorance ? 1984 much ?
The fact is, understanding the proper terminology and different payloads and impacts of the different types of malware prevents unnecessary panic and promotes a proper security strategy.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
Great post! I think the biggest reason security has been so problematic on Windows, aside from the fact that it's the biggest target, is that the default user type is administrator.
The kind of issue in this case, caused by user ignorance, is really the only threat that exist for Windows since XP SP2. Internet Explorer has had sufficient, but very annoying, security measures against this since version 7 and I'm surprised Safari can let these kind of things slide through so easily.
Security in Windows has been pretty solid for years now, but that hasn't stopped many Linux/Unix/OSX-fanboys from claiming Windows security is like a swizz cheese. They don't even bother to do some research, they just keep shouting the same old mantra.
Unless you're running as administrator on a Windows NT based system, you're as protected as a "Unix/Linux" user. Of course, you can also run as root all the time under Unix, negating this "security".
So again I ask, what about Unix security protects you from these attacks that Windows can't do ?
And I say this as a Unix systems administrator/fanboy. The multi-user paradigm that is "Unix security" came to Windows more than 18 years ago. It came to consumer versions of Windows about 9 years ago if you don't count Windows 2000 as a consumer version.
Wait, knowledge is ignorance ? 1984 much ?
The fact is, understanding the proper terminology and different payloads and impacts of the different types of malware prevents unnecessary panic and promotes a proper security strategy.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
Great post! I think the biggest reason security has been so problematic on Windows, aside from the fact that it's the biggest target, is that the default user type is administrator.
The kind of issue in this case, caused by user ignorance, is really the only threat that exist for Windows since XP SP2. Internet Explorer has had sufficient, but very annoying, security measures against this since version 7 and I'm surprised Safari can let these kind of things slide through so easily.
Security in Windows has been pretty solid for years now, but that hasn't stopped many Linux/Unix/OSX-fanboys from claiming Windows security is like a swizz cheese. They don't even bother to do some research, they just keep shouting the same old mantra.
JediZenMaster
Mar 18, 10:34 AM
I'm happy AT&T did this because i'm a firm believer that you should pay for what you consume. I know people may disagree but don't complain to me just deal with AT&T.
Happy Tethering :p
Happy Tethering :p
MacRumors
May 2, 08:49 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/02/new-macdefender-malware-threat-for-mac-os-x/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/05/02/094840-macdefender.jpg
Antivirus firm Intego today noted (http://blog.intego.com/2011/05/02/macdefender-rogue-anti-malware-program-attacks-macs-via-seo-poisoning/) the discovery of new malware known as "MACDefender" targeting Mac OS X users via Safari. According to the report, the malware appears to be being deployed via JavaScript as a compressed ZIP file reached through Google searches.When a user clicks on a link after performing a search on a search engine such as Google, this takes them to a web site whose page contains JavaScript that automatically downloads a file. In this case, the file downloaded is a compressed ZIP archive, which, if a specific option in a web browser is checked (Open "safe" files after downloading in Safari, for example), will open.More information is available in Apple's support communities (1 (https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3029144), 2 (https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3029310)), where users report that the malware is popping up directly in Google image searches.
Users running administrator accounts and with the Safari option to open "safe" files automatically checked appear to be most at risk, with some claiming that no notification of installation was seen or password required. Only when a screen popped up asking for a credit card number to sign up for virus protection did they realize that malware had been installed on their systems.
For those infected with the MACDefender malware, the following steps are recommended:
1. Open Applications > Utilities > Activity Monitor and quit any processes linked to MACDefender.
2. Delete MACDefender from the Applications folder.
3. Check System Preferences > Accounts > Login Items for suspicious entries
4. Run a Spotlight search for "MACDefender" to check for any associated files that might still be lingering.
Full details on the malware and the simplest steps needed for its complete removal are still being investigated.
Users are of course reminded that day-to-day system usage with standard accounts rather than administrator ones, as well as unchecking the Safari option for automatically opening "safe" files, are two of the simplest ways users can enhance their online security, adding extra layers of confirmation and passwords in the way of anything being installed on their systems.
Article Link: New 'MACDefender' Malware Threat for Mac OS X (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/02/new-macdefender-malware-threat-for-mac-os-x/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/05/02/094840-macdefender.jpg
Antivirus firm Intego today noted (http://blog.intego.com/2011/05/02/macdefender-rogue-anti-malware-program-attacks-macs-via-seo-poisoning/) the discovery of new malware known as "MACDefender" targeting Mac OS X users via Safari. According to the report, the malware appears to be being deployed via JavaScript as a compressed ZIP file reached through Google searches.When a user clicks on a link after performing a search on a search engine such as Google, this takes them to a web site whose page contains JavaScript that automatically downloads a file. In this case, the file downloaded is a compressed ZIP archive, which, if a specific option in a web browser is checked (Open "safe" files after downloading in Safari, for example), will open.More information is available in Apple's support communities (1 (https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3029144), 2 (https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3029310)), where users report that the malware is popping up directly in Google image searches.
Users running administrator accounts and with the Safari option to open "safe" files automatically checked appear to be most at risk, with some claiming that no notification of installation was seen or password required. Only when a screen popped up asking for a credit card number to sign up for virus protection did they realize that malware had been installed on their systems.
For those infected with the MACDefender malware, the following steps are recommended:
1. Open Applications > Utilities > Activity Monitor and quit any processes linked to MACDefender.
2. Delete MACDefender from the Applications folder.
3. Check System Preferences > Accounts > Login Items for suspicious entries
4. Run a Spotlight search for "MACDefender" to check for any associated files that might still be lingering.
Full details on the malware and the simplest steps needed for its complete removal are still being investigated.
Users are of course reminded that day-to-day system usage with standard accounts rather than administrator ones, as well as unchecking the Safari option for automatically opening "safe" files, are two of the simplest ways users can enhance their online security, adding extra layers of confirmation and passwords in the way of anything being installed on their systems.
Article Link: New 'MACDefender' Malware Threat for Mac OS X (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/02/new-macdefender-malware-threat-for-mac-os-x/)
bf2008
May 2, 09:05 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?
dlcrow
Mar 18, 10:23 AM
How exactly are they able to tell if someone is tethering or not?
Every OS and application creates network data in a way that network sniffing can do a pretty good job of detecting where it is coming from.
In the simplest case, browsers put User-Agent strings into every HTTP request. For a more complex case, just looking at the TCP packets can often tell you where they came from. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCP/IP_stack_fingerprinting for more details.
It's not a hard problem to tell if you are tethering or not.
Every OS and application creates network data in a way that network sniffing can do a pretty good job of detecting where it is coming from.
In the simplest case, browsers put User-Agent strings into every HTTP request. For a more complex case, just looking at the TCP packets can often tell you where they came from. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCP/IP_stack_fingerprinting for more details.
It's not a hard problem to tell if you are tethering or not.
Chupa Chupa
Aug 29, 11:10 AM
This should be a Page 2 story at best. Let's be clear about what this bit of propaganda is... We know Greenpeace is anti-technology, anti-capitalism. They know Apple is not only a huge success story, but also has a big presence in consumer's minds. Everyone knows Apple and iPods. Clearly Greenpeace, like the iPod labor camp story before it, is USING Apple to forward their own agenda of killing technology and thwarting capitalism and innovation.
theelysium
May 16, 05:52 PM
I have a huge drop call and coverage issue at my new home in Rancho Cordova, CA. I live by Jackson HWY (16). I have been excessive with my reports through my AT&T iPhone app "Mark The Spot". After 6 months of reports for only about 10% of the issues (I have so many issue here 10% was a lot :eek: of reporting!) I've experience they sent me a message letting me know that my reports helped pinpoint a tower issues and it will be replaced in a few weeks!
I know AT&T has issues, but I'd like to see if Verizon would actually do something like this! I am not happy with the network experience I've had here, but I am really happy to see that my voice was heard from a large company using innovative tools created by them on my iPhone.
I can tell that the tower is currently being worked on, because my service is getting worse. It won't be long now that I'll finally be able to a constant signal and hopefully no more dropped calls.
Before I received the message that they would replace the tower I ordered an AT&T micro cell. I think I'll install it anyway just to see how it will improve my coverage. This also brings up another point that they are giving us the ability to fix coverage issues with the Micro Cell they are offering. I know it's $150 (expensive), but at least they are offering an alternative for you.
One thing I've noticed as a customer is any aspect of the New AT&T that was legacy Cingular seems in the most part to be fine. It's all the junk they merged in from the legacy AT&T Wireless. This goes for call centers, towers, policies, etc. If I call customer service and have an excellent experience I'll ask the rep, "Are you legacy Cingluar or AT&T?" Every time they say Cingular. Of course if I have the opposite and ask "Are you legacy Cingluar or AT&T?" They either don't know what the word legacy means (which I then have to explain) or they say of course AT&T! I wish Cingular stayed Cingular and let AT&T die off! Legacy AT&T is the cancer in the New AT&T which is just Cingular with AT&T's name.
It's silly to think that the AT&T name is so valuable that they'd buy the crappy company just to use their stupid :eek: name. Who cares if AT&T is as recognizable as Coca Cola overseas?! Why not be so great at what you do that your name (Cingular), becomes as recognizable as Coca Cola! Cingular shouldn't have bought recognition... they should have tried to earn it! If they had tried to earn their recognition we wouldn't have Legacy AT&T's cancer in our cell phone company!:(
I know AT&T has issues, but I'd like to see if Verizon would actually do something like this! I am not happy with the network experience I've had here, but I am really happy to see that my voice was heard from a large company using innovative tools created by them on my iPhone.
I can tell that the tower is currently being worked on, because my service is getting worse. It won't be long now that I'll finally be able to a constant signal and hopefully no more dropped calls.
Before I received the message that they would replace the tower I ordered an AT&T micro cell. I think I'll install it anyway just to see how it will improve my coverage. This also brings up another point that they are giving us the ability to fix coverage issues with the Micro Cell they are offering. I know it's $150 (expensive), but at least they are offering an alternative for you.
One thing I've noticed as a customer is any aspect of the New AT&T that was legacy Cingular seems in the most part to be fine. It's all the junk they merged in from the legacy AT&T Wireless. This goes for call centers, towers, policies, etc. If I call customer service and have an excellent experience I'll ask the rep, "Are you legacy Cingluar or AT&T?" Every time they say Cingular. Of course if I have the opposite and ask "Are you legacy Cingluar or AT&T?" They either don't know what the word legacy means (which I then have to explain) or they say of course AT&T! I wish Cingular stayed Cingular and let AT&T die off! Legacy AT&T is the cancer in the New AT&T which is just Cingular with AT&T's name.
It's silly to think that the AT&T name is so valuable that they'd buy the crappy company just to use their stupid :eek: name. Who cares if AT&T is as recognizable as Coca Cola overseas?! Why not be so great at what you do that your name (Cingular), becomes as recognizable as Coca Cola! Cingular shouldn't have bought recognition... they should have tried to earn it! If they had tried to earn their recognition we wouldn't have Legacy AT&T's cancer in our cell phone company!:(
ezekielrage_99
Sep 26, 10:48 PM
And UT2007 and Q4 and render video. All at the same time :confused:
Do we need that?
Sounds kind of fun :cool:
I'm sure the studios are drooling for a 80 core model, it would make rendering a lot faster. I heard that Monsters Inc had single frames that took up to 90 hours to render. :eek:
Got to love Renderman, Global Illumination and Raytraced Shadows.....
The rendertime is a bitch but it looks totally sweet.
Do we need that?
Sounds kind of fun :cool:
I'm sure the studios are drooling for a 80 core model, it would make rendering a lot faster. I heard that Monsters Inc had single frames that took up to 90 hours to render. :eek:
Got to love Renderman, Global Illumination and Raytraced Shadows.....
The rendertime is a bitch but it looks totally sweet.
Doctor Q
Mar 18, 04:10 PM
Apple's "fix" for this is fairly simple. Send the files in an ecrypted form. In order to maximize caching, use a common key that all iTunes clients have built-in, sort of like DVDs and CES. The client can then decrypt with the common key and re-encrypt with the DRM key.Don't iTMS and iTunes already do this?
slinger1968
Nov 2, 06:28 PM
I'm back where I was to begin with, ready to buy the 2.66GHz release I hope will happen Tuesday November 14. The lower power ones will also be slower with a slower FSB as well. I forgot to remember that.I wouldn't expect the Clovertowns to be a BTO option right away. Sure they are pin compatable but Apple will need to make sure that they can cool these chips well enough to be very stable. Maybe Apple has already been testing the clovertown config, but we haven't heard any rumors and who knows if they need additional cooling.
I expect Apple to be more conservative than guys like Anand and Tom's hardware. Hopefully there's enough cooling "headroom" already built into the Mac Pro.
Also, who knows if the chip yield is high enough to trickle down to Apple? I honestly haven't heard much on their expected ship numbers.
I expect Apple to be more conservative than guys like Anand and Tom's hardware. Hopefully there's enough cooling "headroom" already built into the Mac Pro.
Also, who knows if the chip yield is high enough to trickle down to Apple? I honestly haven't heard much on their expected ship numbers.
leomac08
Mar 11, 01:05 AM
I have been seeing the breaking news, I saw a tsunami!:(
It was originally 7.9 then upgraded to 8.8, then 8.9:eek:
It's so devastating! Cars couldn't escape!:eek:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12709598
It was originally 7.9 then upgraded to 8.8, then 8.9:eek:
It's so devastating! Cars couldn't escape!:eek:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12709598
gugy
Aug 29, 02:50 PM
It isnt absolutley 100% false. There is an extreme amount of people on this planet. Look at that rathole of a place China. And in america, the immigrants. There are a hell of a lot of people and my solution: Nuke the middle-east.
and he said 40 years ago not 30 go back to 66 from NOW
What an intelligent statement.:rolleyes:
and he said 40 years ago not 30 go back to 66 from NOW
What an intelligent statement.:rolleyes:
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 03:38 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)
He took your advice and said "great" in agreement and you call him a d**k? Sounds like your projecting? Maybe we didn't get the whole story?
You're certainly not getting the whole story.
He took your advice and said "great" in agreement and you call him a d**k? Sounds like your projecting? Maybe we didn't get the whole story?
You're certainly not getting the whole story.
KnightWRX
May 2, 04:11 PM
No one is pointing fingers or bickering. I'm responding to your question. The only technical requirement that was satisfied is that the user had "Open "safe" files after downloading" selected. An app installer is not unsafe. Whether the app to be installed is safe or not is another matter, but the installer cannot harm your system or your user files, simply by launching. If you don't want apps... installers or otherwise... to launch after downloading, simply deselect that box.
Wait, the "Open Safe files" bit was for the zip archive, which runs it through Archive Utility. What then auto-executes an installer ? You're suggesting Safari somehow knows that the zip archive contains an installer and that it is indeed an installer and then executes it.
Do you have any proof of this ? I've been trying to get my hands on the zip archive itself to inspect it but no luck, as Google is now swamped with "news" about this thing that just rehashes what you just said.
Basically, the details you provide here are nothing I already don't know about the current situation, I am asking for more here. Not just "deselect" that box, but rather what else can be auto-executes and what else is considered "safe".
I don't use Safari, I'm not at risk, but I'd still like to know the details of this.
That's why I say you purposefully ignore my point. My point is let's dissect and understand this thing, not glance over it like the current news outlet, heck even Intego's description does. That's why I don't like Intego, they just spread FUD without ever explaining anything and mark everything as a "virus" (their Virus X-barrier says VIRUS FOUND! when it finds malware that isn't a virus...).
1. First, the file would need to be considered "safe" to be allowed to auto-download and auto-open, AND the browser would need to be set to allow this.
2. Then, like the case with the installer above, it would need to seek the user's permission to be installed. This again, required the complicity of the user, who would still need the administrator's password.
How can anything be considered safe in this scenario ? We have a compressed archive and an executable file. Both are rather unsafe. Especially the executable file. I don't care that it is an installer, no executable file is safe. What if the "installer" had some payload code on launch, before privilege escalation ?
This is what I'm interested in knowing, how is this thing packaged so that it gets auto-executed. You aren't answering my question either. I'm technical enough I think that I already understood what you and the Studios guy are "trying to explain to me", but you both fail to understand the underlying question :
Why is this thing auto-executing ? I know it's because Safari considers it safe since the user checked the safe box, that's in the article. I want to know why is an executable file being launched after a zip file was uncompressed and how does Safari know this is "safe" ?
Both of you are only repeating the same stuff that's in the media. I want the details, not the media overview. I want the archive itself if possible. Let's find it, dissect it, understand it. If Apple needs to modify some defaults, let's ask for that.
Wait, the "Open Safe files" bit was for the zip archive, which runs it through Archive Utility. What then auto-executes an installer ? You're suggesting Safari somehow knows that the zip archive contains an installer and that it is indeed an installer and then executes it.
Do you have any proof of this ? I've been trying to get my hands on the zip archive itself to inspect it but no luck, as Google is now swamped with "news" about this thing that just rehashes what you just said.
Basically, the details you provide here are nothing I already don't know about the current situation, I am asking for more here. Not just "deselect" that box, but rather what else can be auto-executes and what else is considered "safe".
I don't use Safari, I'm not at risk, but I'd still like to know the details of this.
That's why I say you purposefully ignore my point. My point is let's dissect and understand this thing, not glance over it like the current news outlet, heck even Intego's description does. That's why I don't like Intego, they just spread FUD without ever explaining anything and mark everything as a "virus" (their Virus X-barrier says VIRUS FOUND! when it finds malware that isn't a virus...).
1. First, the file would need to be considered "safe" to be allowed to auto-download and auto-open, AND the browser would need to be set to allow this.
2. Then, like the case with the installer above, it would need to seek the user's permission to be installed. This again, required the complicity of the user, who would still need the administrator's password.
How can anything be considered safe in this scenario ? We have a compressed archive and an executable file. Both are rather unsafe. Especially the executable file. I don't care that it is an installer, no executable file is safe. What if the "installer" had some payload code on launch, before privilege escalation ?
This is what I'm interested in knowing, how is this thing packaged so that it gets auto-executed. You aren't answering my question either. I'm technical enough I think that I already understood what you and the Studios guy are "trying to explain to me", but you both fail to understand the underlying question :
Why is this thing auto-executing ? I know it's because Safari considers it safe since the user checked the safe box, that's in the article. I want to know why is an executable file being launched after a zip file was uncompressed and how does Safari know this is "safe" ?
Both of you are only repeating the same stuff that's in the media. I want the details, not the media overview. I want the archive itself if possible. Let's find it, dissect it, understand it. If Apple needs to modify some defaults, let's ask for that.
�algiris
Apr 28, 12:11 PM
They didn't delete the word "computer" from the Apple name for nothing.
I could use a good laugh. Please "deduce" this one.
I could use a good laugh. Please "deduce" this one.
cult hero
Apr 13, 12:14 AM
Since I'm not a video editor, what I find most interesting about this product is the price. Mind you, time will tell HOW interesting the price is but if it's truly a "Pro" app (and I don't care about your current opinion on the matter since no one here has used it) and they're selling it for $300... THAT is very interesting.
I'm curious to see what Lion sells for when it's released. I think Apple's gonna start pushing software prices down. How's that for weird?
I'm curious to see what Lion sells for when it's released. I think Apple's gonna start pushing software prices down. How's that for weird?
