miketcool
Sep 12, 03:39 PM
This was released to make the other movie companies fold and agree to sign and give Apple their content. Why else would they allow everyone this info this early in the game? It is to make the movie industry drool and sell their stuff through iTunes.
jettredmont
May 2, 05:35 PM
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".
Until Vista and Win 7, it was effectively impossible to run a Windows NT system as anything but Administrator. To the point that other than locked-down corporate sites where an IT Professional was required to install the Corporate Approved version of any software you need to do your job, I never knew anyone running XP (or 2k, or for that matter NT 3.x) who in a day-to-day fashion used a Standard user account.
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
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.
Absolutely. I think it is absolutely critical to discern between a social-engineering attack (ie, one that requires a user to take some action unwittingly) from an automated attack (a classic virus or worm). The latter is certainly less common these days (although the "big boys" wanting to send Iranian nuclear reactors into convulsions seem to be keeping the dark art of worming alive and well), and so a typical user is much more likely to fall victim to a phishing scam than to get something nasty like the Asuza virus which wipes out their hard drive after an incubation period.
From the main "security firms", though, the money is in making all malware seem automated and thus only able to be countered by an automated virus detection/isolation utility. There just isn't much money in telling people to not click "Install" when MACDefender's installer comes up while looking through Google Images.
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".
Until Vista and Win 7, it was effectively impossible to run a Windows NT system as anything but Administrator. To the point that other than locked-down corporate sites where an IT Professional was required to install the Corporate Approved version of any software you need to do your job, I never knew anyone running XP (or 2k, or for that matter NT 3.x) who in a day-to-day fashion used a Standard user account.
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
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.
Absolutely. I think it is absolutely critical to discern between a social-engineering attack (ie, one that requires a user to take some action unwittingly) from an automated attack (a classic virus or worm). The latter is certainly less common these days (although the "big boys" wanting to send Iranian nuclear reactors into convulsions seem to be keeping the dark art of worming alive and well), and so a typical user is much more likely to fall victim to a phishing scam than to get something nasty like the Asuza virus which wipes out their hard drive after an incubation period.
From the main "security firms", though, the money is in making all malware seem automated and thus only able to be countered by an automated virus detection/isolation utility. There just isn't much money in telling people to not click "Install" when MACDefender's installer comes up while looking through Google Images.
Cyrax
Apr 6, 01:32 PM
What if I just want my top 10 favorites? In Windows I just drag the icon (of whatever I want) to the Start button, then drop it into the list of my favorites (I'm not sure of the actual term for this). Can this be done on a Mac?
Since I open the same 10 or 12 programs or folders or files many times throughout the day, every day, this is pretty important to me. It would absolutely mess up my work flow to lose this feature.
Those programs are the ones you would put on your Dock.
Since I open the same 10 or 12 programs or folders or files many times throughout the day, every day, this is pretty important to me. It would absolutely mess up my work flow to lose this feature.
Those programs are the ones you would put on your Dock.
kurtsayin
Aug 30, 10:40 AM
Who cares what greenpeace says about anything anyways?! They are a bunch of whack jobs who have been caught numerous times for fraud and are CONSTANTLY under investigation for fraud. This means they have a very specific agenda: Not to make the world greener when they find a problem, but to make problems in order to feel effective - even when it is entirely unnecessary.
Besides, if Apple were to somehow change their operating procedures in order to comply with the "green" standards, they will do nothing but lose money through another transition period which will slow their growth, lessen their capital resources, and make for slower product upgrades and releases - which will hurt the company detrimentally!
Besides, what does PVC really do anyways? It is a water-resistent, non-corrosive, plastic compound. It isn't toxic- per-say. It is only toxic when burned, and only to people in direct contact with the fumes - which is basically nobody. The real reason green peace wants to push this issue right now is because they think they are part of some eco-revolution that will bring down all corporations and make it so we all live happily in tee-pees without our manufactured products. Frankly, I am happy with my ibook and my motorola phone, and buick lesabre, and my flat screen tv, and I think everyone else is too, so tell green peace to just mind their own business and go live out in one of our MILLION ACRE FORESTS if they don't like progress and technology!
Besides, if Apple were to somehow change their operating procedures in order to comply with the "green" standards, they will do nothing but lose money through another transition period which will slow their growth, lessen their capital resources, and make for slower product upgrades and releases - which will hurt the company detrimentally!
Besides, what does PVC really do anyways? It is a water-resistent, non-corrosive, plastic compound. It isn't toxic- per-say. It is only toxic when burned, and only to people in direct contact with the fumes - which is basically nobody. The real reason green peace wants to push this issue right now is because they think they are part of some eco-revolution that will bring down all corporations and make it so we all live happily in tee-pees without our manufactured products. Frankly, I am happy with my ibook and my motorola phone, and buick lesabre, and my flat screen tv, and I think everyone else is too, so tell green peace to just mind their own business and go live out in one of our MILLION ACRE FORESTS if they don't like progress and technology!
dcranston
Sep 21, 04:30 AM
I'm glad to see at least a few people get it. Obviously iTV isn't for everyone. But let's take a look at the 6 most common complaints on this board:
1. I can already do this with a Mac Mini!
This may be true, but remember those are the same arguments against the iPod when it was released in 2001. You could already use a Creative MP3 player. Last I checked, the Mac Mini was still $300 more expensive, and is way overkill for a TV setup, not to mention the fact that you have to maintain a machine designed for mouse & keyboard use. Software Update comes up? Looks like you need to plug in that keyboard and mouse. Sure you can get most (if not all) of the functionality of the iTV on a Mac Mini, but who wants to spend $300 extra, lose some nice features like HDMI, and have to system adminster their living room!?
2. I don't need another box cluttering everything up.
First of all, perhaps you missed the size part of the presentation. This thing looks like a small hot plate. Second, if you don't have a need to get content from your computer to your TV, don't buy this. If you have a need, you're going to be forced to plug *something* in...
3. It doesn't have DVR functionality. I'm so mad.
I own a TiVO and I love it. And for the forseeable future, will continue to use it. But the point that needs to be reinforced over and over on these forums is that a TiVO fills a need because content is not delivered how customers want it. As this model adapts, TiVO will become irrelevant. It seems silly to try to enter this market late in the game with a product that would be comparable at best. Remember, iTunes sells content, and this market is just beginning to come out.
4. Apple wants to lock you in to their proprietary iTunes world.
While I'm sure Apple would be more than happy if you bought all your content on iTunes, I don't think anyone realistically expects that to be the case. Does anyone here think that iTV would only play iTunes content? I'll eat my left shoe if that's the case. You will still be able to subscribe to rocketboom and rip your dvds and make your own iMovies... I'm sure they'll play on iTV.
5. There's no hole that needs to be filled with this product.
Perhaps your habits are strikingly different than mine. I have an entire hard drive full of content: photos, movies, music, podcasts, and every free tv show iTunes has ever given me. But didn't I just spend $800 on my new TV in my living room? I did! I want to share this content with my friends, my family, and just have a better viewing/listening experience myself. The living room is designed for sharing and passively intaking content. The computer is designed for actively managing, organizing, and receiving. This product marries the two concepts.
6. iTunes downloads aren't economically sound vs. TV
Obviously this statement depends greatly on the user. For myself, I watch only a few TV shows. I love the Daily Show, I enjoy Monk, I recently got into 30 Days, and I enjoy the occasional mythbusters. Daily Show is $10 for 16 episodes, or about a month. TDS is often in re-runs, which I don't have to pay for. It comes out to around $70 / year. Monk has only 4-6 shows per season, and 2 seasons / year, or about $20 / year. I've watched maybe 5 episodes of 30 Days at $2 each or $10 (in the last 4 months), and I've purchased 7 mythbusters this year, or $14. So if I continue at the same rate, I'll spend $140 this year on TV shows through iTunes. My basic cable bill with Comcast was $60 / month or $720 / year. (And I know many friends who pay over $100 / month for cable, including HBO or Disney) Whoa! I cancelled Comcast and feel very liberated to only spend money on shows I find interesting. The free shows allow me to check out and be engaged by new series as well. I'm sure many of you watch much more TV than I do, but I have to say, you'll be surprised at how much crap you're paying for, and how nice it is to choose what you want only. Again, if you watch 4-6 hours of television / day (excluding old rerun shows or just turning on broadcast television), perhaps this model is not for you. Even still, multi-pass like Daily show/ colbert at $10 /month (or less) could give you 3 hours a day for $60 / month. Sweet. Time well spent :)
So is this the be-all-and-end-all of devices? No. But if I can walk into Best Buy, and walk out with a $300 no-hassle device that lets me play all of my content passively and easily in the living room, that lets me manage and choose content in an interface designed to do that very efficiently (iTunes), and without the need for any other support hardware, installations, hours of configurations, or monthly subscription, I'll be pretty happy.
1. I can already do this with a Mac Mini!
This may be true, but remember those are the same arguments against the iPod when it was released in 2001. You could already use a Creative MP3 player. Last I checked, the Mac Mini was still $300 more expensive, and is way overkill for a TV setup, not to mention the fact that you have to maintain a machine designed for mouse & keyboard use. Software Update comes up? Looks like you need to plug in that keyboard and mouse. Sure you can get most (if not all) of the functionality of the iTV on a Mac Mini, but who wants to spend $300 extra, lose some nice features like HDMI, and have to system adminster their living room!?
2. I don't need another box cluttering everything up.
First of all, perhaps you missed the size part of the presentation. This thing looks like a small hot plate. Second, if you don't have a need to get content from your computer to your TV, don't buy this. If you have a need, you're going to be forced to plug *something* in...
3. It doesn't have DVR functionality. I'm so mad.
I own a TiVO and I love it. And for the forseeable future, will continue to use it. But the point that needs to be reinforced over and over on these forums is that a TiVO fills a need because content is not delivered how customers want it. As this model adapts, TiVO will become irrelevant. It seems silly to try to enter this market late in the game with a product that would be comparable at best. Remember, iTunes sells content, and this market is just beginning to come out.
4. Apple wants to lock you in to their proprietary iTunes world.
While I'm sure Apple would be more than happy if you bought all your content on iTunes, I don't think anyone realistically expects that to be the case. Does anyone here think that iTV would only play iTunes content? I'll eat my left shoe if that's the case. You will still be able to subscribe to rocketboom and rip your dvds and make your own iMovies... I'm sure they'll play on iTV.
5. There's no hole that needs to be filled with this product.
Perhaps your habits are strikingly different than mine. I have an entire hard drive full of content: photos, movies, music, podcasts, and every free tv show iTunes has ever given me. But didn't I just spend $800 on my new TV in my living room? I did! I want to share this content with my friends, my family, and just have a better viewing/listening experience myself. The living room is designed for sharing and passively intaking content. The computer is designed for actively managing, organizing, and receiving. This product marries the two concepts.
6. iTunes downloads aren't economically sound vs. TV
Obviously this statement depends greatly on the user. For myself, I watch only a few TV shows. I love the Daily Show, I enjoy Monk, I recently got into 30 Days, and I enjoy the occasional mythbusters. Daily Show is $10 for 16 episodes, or about a month. TDS is often in re-runs, which I don't have to pay for. It comes out to around $70 / year. Monk has only 4-6 shows per season, and 2 seasons / year, or about $20 / year. I've watched maybe 5 episodes of 30 Days at $2 each or $10 (in the last 4 months), and I've purchased 7 mythbusters this year, or $14. So if I continue at the same rate, I'll spend $140 this year on TV shows through iTunes. My basic cable bill with Comcast was $60 / month or $720 / year. (And I know many friends who pay over $100 / month for cable, including HBO or Disney) Whoa! I cancelled Comcast and feel very liberated to only spend money on shows I find interesting. The free shows allow me to check out and be engaged by new series as well. I'm sure many of you watch much more TV than I do, but I have to say, you'll be surprised at how much crap you're paying for, and how nice it is to choose what you want only. Again, if you watch 4-6 hours of television / day (excluding old rerun shows or just turning on broadcast television), perhaps this model is not for you. Even still, multi-pass like Daily show/ colbert at $10 /month (or less) could give you 3 hours a day for $60 / month. Sweet. Time well spent :)
So is this the be-all-and-end-all of devices? No. But if I can walk into Best Buy, and walk out with a $300 no-hassle device that lets me play all of my content passively and easily in the living room, that lets me manage and choose content in an interface designed to do that very efficiently (iTunes), and without the need for any other support hardware, installations, hours of configurations, or monthly subscription, I'll be pretty happy.
asphalt-proof
Sep 21, 10:40 AM
I think the opposite. iTV is just another "pod" using a single computer as a separate node. The Apple paradigm here would be to release iTV and then to have a separate cable-in device (EyeTV essentially) at your computer that would serve as the DVR to load and control shows on your central computer, which could then be wirelessly distributed to iTVs throughout the house. Just buy one giant hard drive rather than having a bunch all over the place.
Apple has repeatedly said that they don't think people want a computer in their living room (to surf the net, etc). There does have to be a computer someplace, however, in this case acting as an entertainment server for iTV, iPods, etc.
This explanation makes so much sense to me. I was thinking about this today. I am not a A/V person at all. I can barely hook up my DVD player to my TV. But I am pretty good with my iMac, getting content on it and off it to my iPod. THe model that makes sense to me is I get the content from my computer and watch it on my TV. (note: I don't have cable so I don't worry aobut getting content from my TV to my computer. But the elgato system seems pretty easy to use.) I wonder if I would be able to use the elgato Hybrid TV to hook my xbox up to my computer but still play it on my TV though the iTV system? The reason I ask is it would cut down on clutter in the living room.
Apple has repeatedly said that they don't think people want a computer in their living room (to surf the net, etc). There does have to be a computer someplace, however, in this case acting as an entertainment server for iTV, iPods, etc.
This explanation makes so much sense to me. I was thinking about this today. I am not a A/V person at all. I can barely hook up my DVD player to my TV. But I am pretty good with my iMac, getting content on it and off it to my iPod. THe model that makes sense to me is I get the content from my computer and watch it on my TV. (note: I don't have cable so I don't worry aobut getting content from my TV to my computer. But the elgato system seems pretty easy to use.) I wonder if I would be able to use the elgato Hybrid TV to hook my xbox up to my computer but still play it on my TV though the iTV system? The reason I ask is it would cut down on clutter in the living room.
dudemac
Mar 18, 07:11 PM
DRM has everything
However, this is a major breach of security for Apple, that a home-brew front end can access their music store. Apple, will have to move on this big-time with everything they have. But it will require a major shift in their infrastructure to permanently fix.
I have to disagree that this is somehow a security breach. I have seen other front-end for the itms, just not ones that allowed purchase. It has been awhile but I think there was a extension in firefox that allowed you to access the itms database. So really this is just a feature enhancement of that.
However, this is a major breach of security for Apple, that a home-brew front end can access their music store. Apple, will have to move on this big-time with everything they have. But it will require a major shift in their infrastructure to permanently fix.
I have to disagree that this is somehow a security breach. I have seen other front-end for the itms, just not ones that allowed purchase. It has been awhile but I think there was a extension in firefox that allowed you to access the itms database. So really this is just a feature enhancement of that.
slu
Oct 7, 02:55 PM
Of course Android might surpass the iPhone. The iPhone is limited to 1 device whereas the Android is spanned over many more devices and will continue to branch out.
2010 Lamborghini Reventon
2010 Lamborghini Reventon
2010 Lamborghini Reventon
0815
May 2, 11:10 AM
Please wake me up when there is a real thread that requires no user interaction. Even if they found a way to start the installer automatically (I at least don't allow any downloads to be opened automatically) , why would I hit continue to install once the installer pops up?
Yes, the biggest thread to security is sitting in front of the computer and if you click blindly 'continue' and 'ok' to every pop up, well, nobody can help you than anyway. I survived windows (since 3.1) without getting any virus/malware and I am confident that I will survive macOS without any (once real threads are there) ... just use common sense.
Yes, the biggest thread to security is sitting in front of the computer and if you click blindly 'continue' and 'ok' to every pop up, well, nobody can help you than anyway. I survived windows (since 3.1) without getting any virus/malware and I am confident that I will survive macOS without any (once real threads are there) ... just use common sense.
Surely
Apr 15, 09:52 AM
And it would never be pick up by the media. Like I said the media does not pay any attention to it and with out the media doing anything those groups can never get traction.
LGBT group yes are targeted the others it is hit or miss if the person is targeted. LGBT is going to be pick on pretty much no matter what. Fat kid may or may not be pick on. I have learned that humans are nothing more than things like chickens. That is if you put a chicken in a group with an injured leg the others will peck it to death. At first the injury might not of been a big deal but over time the extra damage adds up and kill it and the more it gets pecked at the worse it gets. All because it is different.
I don't agree. If those groups got organized, their message would eventually get picked up my the media. It's not like LGBT groups were started last weekend and, bam, the media picked up on it. It took decades for them to get to this point of media attention.
And I agree with Heilage: the message from the video doesn't only apply to LGBT folk.
LGBT group yes are targeted the others it is hit or miss if the person is targeted. LGBT is going to be pick on pretty much no matter what. Fat kid may or may not be pick on. I have learned that humans are nothing more than things like chickens. That is if you put a chicken in a group with an injured leg the others will peck it to death. At first the injury might not of been a big deal but over time the extra damage adds up and kill it and the more it gets pecked at the worse it gets. All because it is different.
I don't agree. If those groups got organized, their message would eventually get picked up my the media. It's not like LGBT groups were started last weekend and, bam, the media picked up on it. It took decades for them to get to this point of media attention.
And I agree with Heilage: the message from the video doesn't only apply to LGBT folk.
Thunderbird
Mar 13, 05:49 PM
Government officials are government officials-- they will never outright tell you the truth, because 9 times out of 10 they're uninformed about it or were told to say something they may not necessarily believe. They usually try to cover their bases-- see this way the government is covered in case something does happen.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
This is what I dislike. Not to get all political here, but alternative energy, however nice, is nowhere even close to providing the power we need.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live.
Windmills cannot ever meet energy demand; we're talking about a 5% fill if we put them everywhere. They're also too costly at this point for their given power output. Solar energy, though promising, still has a piss poor efficiency, and thus isn't ready for prime usage for some time. There's really no other alternatives.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
2010 Lamborghini Reventon
2010 Lamborghini Reventón
2010 Lamborghini Reventon
2010 Lamborghini Reventon
Lamborghini Reventon Roadster
2010 Lamborghini Reventon
HQ Lamborghini Auto Car : 2010
2010 Lamborghini Reventón
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
This is what I dislike. Not to get all political here, but alternative energy, however nice, is nowhere even close to providing the power we need.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live.
Windmills cannot ever meet energy demand; we're talking about a 5% fill if we put them everywhere. They're also too costly at this point for their given power output. Solar energy, though promising, still has a piss poor efficiency, and thus isn't ready for prime usage for some time. There's really no other alternatives.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Denarius
Mar 15, 09:34 PM
I did a little reading and now am a one minute expert... :p
I've read these reactors did auto shut down when the earthquake hit. The problem is that the rods create tremendous persistent heat even after a shutdown, and it is the lack of cooling water that is causing the problem.
Could it be considered a myth that any nuclear reactor can be expected to automatically safely shutdown when power to all safety systems are lost no matter how it is designed?
And who was saying this could not be like Chernobyl??
Modern plants use passive removal systems in the event of reactor instability and they are much safer as a result. The Fukushima reactors date from the 60's so the decay heat removal mechanisms are active, employing pumps instead of heat removal via natural circulation in the event of a failure, hence older plants do present more of a risk in this sense than modern ones.
Ah, but once again it's all about location, location, location, and they don't have any viable sites for safe nuclear energy, if such a thing exists.
That's true, but I suspect a modern plant employing passive safety mechanisms would fare a lot better in the same scenario.
Still, ifs and ands... Sincerely hope they manage to get it under control. Just been another fire I see on the BBC News site.
I've read these reactors did auto shut down when the earthquake hit. The problem is that the rods create tremendous persistent heat even after a shutdown, and it is the lack of cooling water that is causing the problem.
Could it be considered a myth that any nuclear reactor can be expected to automatically safely shutdown when power to all safety systems are lost no matter how it is designed?
And who was saying this could not be like Chernobyl??
Modern plants use passive removal systems in the event of reactor instability and they are much safer as a result. The Fukushima reactors date from the 60's so the decay heat removal mechanisms are active, employing pumps instead of heat removal via natural circulation in the event of a failure, hence older plants do present more of a risk in this sense than modern ones.
Ah, but once again it's all about location, location, location, and they don't have any viable sites for safe nuclear energy, if such a thing exists.
That's true, but I suspect a modern plant employing passive safety mechanisms would fare a lot better in the same scenario.
Still, ifs and ands... Sincerely hope they manage to get it under control. Just been another fire I see on the BBC News site.
JackAxe
Apr 21, 05:44 AM
Its amazing how all those "smart" Android users are still poorer than the average iOS user, and spend less than the average iOS user.
Amazing that all these "smart" people just make so much less money...
WOW! What an incredibly stupid post!
Amazing that all these "smart" people just make so much less money...
WOW! What an incredibly stupid post!
appleguy123
Apr 23, 12:49 AM
The ad at the top is calling us out.
>>I'm referring to an ad that says "Learn grammar punctuation."
>>I'm referring to an ad that says "Learn grammar punctuation."
bfar5
Aug 17, 07:30 AM
hahahahahahaha That was a good one.
lmao
lmao
Stage
Mar 19, 11:54 PM
If only people could work up a tenth of this kind of moral indignation over things that really matter, like poverty or racism. I despair that the only thing that seems to get geeks politically active is the threat that they won't be able to use their music illegally. It's sad, really.
Yeah, you can't. Instead of being out protesting you are stuck at your computer dissing IP geeks. Mmm...Sad and hypocritical. Now that's sad.
Yeah, you can't. Instead of being out protesting you are stuck at your computer dissing IP geeks. Mmm...Sad and hypocritical. Now that's sad.
G58
Oct 18, 07:56 AM
If I thought it was Relevant to mention the people, I would have.
Steve Wozniak co founded Apple. His inventions and machines are credited with contributing significantly to the personal computer revolution of the 1970s. Indeed, he created the Apple I and Apple II. The latter gained so much popularity it eventually became one of the best selling personal computers of the 1970s and early 1980s.
But, and here's the important point, he's nothing to do with the daily running of Apple now and has contributed virtually nothing since the early days. Yet Apple, in it's second phase with Steve Jobs in charge, is redefining mobile phones - totally without Woz playing any part in the lineage that made it possible.
Andy Rubin has also founded a company. But his history is that of a man who's come up with some possibly badly timed and poorly executed ideas, and partnered with the same haphazard wisdom. He also possesses more of an employee mentality, than a visionary to whom money is attracted.
It has to be remembered that Ubuntu [that other example of open source OS 'success'] is the only 'flavour' of the computer operating system based on the Debian Linux distribution to have broken out of the geek domain into the wider market. And this is as a result of Mark Shuttleworth's patronage. Therefore, Google are to Android as Shuttleworth is to Ubuntu - patrons. This isn't how business works. This isn't how businesses make money.
When I speak of lineage, I do so with some degree of authority and experience. The old 'Deep Throat' quote: "Follow the money" embodies wisdom that seems to have escaped you, yet it's true of everything from enterprise to terrorism.
What we have with the iPhone is a genuinely useful, definable lineage that can be accurately tracked in retrospect, as well as predicted to a certain extent in terms of future performance. But don't worry, you're not alone in not recognising that. Sir Alan Sugar made the same mistake of underestimating the iPod back in as did Steve Ballmer with the iPhone, and the whole of Wall Street did with Apple.
However, we are now in the middle of Apple's iPhone play. [Not literally, but figuratively]. And this play is very very well planned, conceived and directed. So much so in fact that I can see elements of Chinese military strategy at the heart of it. [But that's a discussion for another day].
In contrast, the Android project is like a flotilla of hopeful, yet dubiously piloted little boats, setting out on what they all seem to believe is the same journey, but by the best will in the world, can't possibly be. Not only are there too many interests that need to be served, there are far too many opportunities for the 'fleet' to loose contact with each other and their market, make no money, and eventually break up.
You say: "It's very likely to happen." re numbers of Android developers and apps etc. Sure, while the water looks good, phone makers have little to lose in pushing handset to run Android, and several will, inevitably, immediately diluting any potential gain for individual manufacturers. But as soon as interest wanes, users will find lines being dropped players will drop out of the game, and support will disappear.
So, even though the Android may well be, or is possibly, EVENTUALLY capable of being, as good a mobile operating system as Apple's iPhone OS is NOW, [albeit one developed by an un-monetised network], without the benefit of what Apple brings to the party, in terms of a single identifiable and desirable hardware solution, it's not a credible alternative. It certainly isn't ever going to be a game changer.
And don't forget, we've all been buying phones from these other players for years, and found them all wanting in a vast variety of ways, no matter how varied the choice of form factors and functionality.
Finally, psychologically this choice actually proves to be an enormous negative, as is always the case. More is not less. Fewer choices actually make choosing easier. So why are people betting on the opposite to what experience tells us is true?
Your knowledge of mobile history is a bit lacking.
Good ideas come from people, not companies. Both devices have long personal histories, even though the current iPhone and Android devices only started in mid 2005.
Android was begat by Andy Rubin, who worked at Apple in 1989, then was a major player in Magic Cap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Cap), WebTV, and Danger. So there's long experience behind both iPhone and Android teams.
It's very likely to happen.
As for quoting raw numbers, they're not always useful. There's been over three quarters of a million downloads of the Android SDK. Doesn't mean that many are working on it actively. Similarly, many of those so-called "iPhone developers" are regular users who bought memberships to get beta access.
Don't get me started on the "85,000" apps. Tens of thousands are poor duplicates. That goes for all platforms:
Sometimes I wonder how many really unique apps there can be, not just variations. Someone should do a study on the topic. Would be interesting. Must be in the low thousands, if any that many.
Steve Wozniak co founded Apple. His inventions and machines are credited with contributing significantly to the personal computer revolution of the 1970s. Indeed, he created the Apple I and Apple II. The latter gained so much popularity it eventually became one of the best selling personal computers of the 1970s and early 1980s.
But, and here's the important point, he's nothing to do with the daily running of Apple now and has contributed virtually nothing since the early days. Yet Apple, in it's second phase with Steve Jobs in charge, is redefining mobile phones - totally without Woz playing any part in the lineage that made it possible.
Andy Rubin has also founded a company. But his history is that of a man who's come up with some possibly badly timed and poorly executed ideas, and partnered with the same haphazard wisdom. He also possesses more of an employee mentality, than a visionary to whom money is attracted.
It has to be remembered that Ubuntu [that other example of open source OS 'success'] is the only 'flavour' of the computer operating system based on the Debian Linux distribution to have broken out of the geek domain into the wider market. And this is as a result of Mark Shuttleworth's patronage. Therefore, Google are to Android as Shuttleworth is to Ubuntu - patrons. This isn't how business works. This isn't how businesses make money.
When I speak of lineage, I do so with some degree of authority and experience. The old 'Deep Throat' quote: "Follow the money" embodies wisdom that seems to have escaped you, yet it's true of everything from enterprise to terrorism.
What we have with the iPhone is a genuinely useful, definable lineage that can be accurately tracked in retrospect, as well as predicted to a certain extent in terms of future performance. But don't worry, you're not alone in not recognising that. Sir Alan Sugar made the same mistake of underestimating the iPod back in as did Steve Ballmer with the iPhone, and the whole of Wall Street did with Apple.
However, we are now in the middle of Apple's iPhone play. [Not literally, but figuratively]. And this play is very very well planned, conceived and directed. So much so in fact that I can see elements of Chinese military strategy at the heart of it. [But that's a discussion for another day].
In contrast, the Android project is like a flotilla of hopeful, yet dubiously piloted little boats, setting out on what they all seem to believe is the same journey, but by the best will in the world, can't possibly be. Not only are there too many interests that need to be served, there are far too many opportunities for the 'fleet' to loose contact with each other and their market, make no money, and eventually break up.
You say: "It's very likely to happen." re numbers of Android developers and apps etc. Sure, while the water looks good, phone makers have little to lose in pushing handset to run Android, and several will, inevitably, immediately diluting any potential gain for individual manufacturers. But as soon as interest wanes, users will find lines being dropped players will drop out of the game, and support will disappear.
So, even though the Android may well be, or is possibly, EVENTUALLY capable of being, as good a mobile operating system as Apple's iPhone OS is NOW, [albeit one developed by an un-monetised network], without the benefit of what Apple brings to the party, in terms of a single identifiable and desirable hardware solution, it's not a credible alternative. It certainly isn't ever going to be a game changer.
And don't forget, we've all been buying phones from these other players for years, and found them all wanting in a vast variety of ways, no matter how varied the choice of form factors and functionality.
Finally, psychologically this choice actually proves to be an enormous negative, as is always the case. More is not less. Fewer choices actually make choosing easier. So why are people betting on the opposite to what experience tells us is true?
Your knowledge of mobile history is a bit lacking.
Good ideas come from people, not companies. Both devices have long personal histories, even though the current iPhone and Android devices only started in mid 2005.
Android was begat by Andy Rubin, who worked at Apple in 1989, then was a major player in Magic Cap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Cap), WebTV, and Danger. So there's long experience behind both iPhone and Android teams.
It's very likely to happen.
As for quoting raw numbers, they're not always useful. There's been over three quarters of a million downloads of the Android SDK. Doesn't mean that many are working on it actively. Similarly, many of those so-called "iPhone developers" are regular users who bought memberships to get beta access.
Don't get me started on the "85,000" apps. Tens of thousands are poor duplicates. That goes for all platforms:
Sometimes I wonder how many really unique apps there can be, not just variations. Someone should do a study on the topic. Would be interesting. Must be in the low thousands, if any that many.
gopher
Oct 9, 11:38 AM
Spec fp is extremely biased because it assumes the case of zero error code. It doesn't measure raw performance like floating point calculations per second does. When errors occur in code, the Pentium grinds to a halt, sometimes even making the Pentium IV slower than the Pentium III that is a whole Ghz slower!
When RC5 and Genentech tests prove that raw performance the G4 is much faster than the Pentium IV or AMD, which it does, then it basically throws out the whole idea that Mhz matters. The G4 is 4 to 5 times faster.
As for hand optimizing code, you don't have to do it. What you do have to do is write developers of your software if you are displeased with how poorly they optimize code, or go seek better written software. That's why people who do video prefer Final Cut Pro over Adobe Premier in many cases.
As for other factors which influence speed, let's look at the internet browsing which people constantly harp about being slower on a Mac than a PC. My 768/128 DSL on my G4/800 Flat Panel iMac is easily 5 times faster browsing webpages than my T-3 based Windows 2000 Pentium III 1 Ghz machine. I wait and wait on this Pentium III. Goes to show you processor isn't everything. What really matters is how well written the software is. Mozilla for Mac OS X, and Chimera for Mac OS X, as well as iCab for Mac OS X are much faster than Explorer for any platform.
It is in software, and until people realize it is in the software, complaining about hardware is not going to matter a hill of beans. 64 bit processors are so slow to be developed because so few people have made their software optimized for 64 bit operations. If people need it, they'll get it. For 99% of computer use processor speed of machines nowadays is more than adequate both on PC and the Mac. Adding peripherals though is much easier on the Mac, and installing and removing software still is much easier on the Mac without causing a crash. And ease also means less time spent. So what does speed of the machine have to do with productivity when machines like PCs are so hard to manage? Nothing! Because when it is easier, it takes less time. That's the Mac advantage.
When RC5 and Genentech tests prove that raw performance the G4 is much faster than the Pentium IV or AMD, which it does, then it basically throws out the whole idea that Mhz matters. The G4 is 4 to 5 times faster.
As for hand optimizing code, you don't have to do it. What you do have to do is write developers of your software if you are displeased with how poorly they optimize code, or go seek better written software. That's why people who do video prefer Final Cut Pro over Adobe Premier in many cases.
As for other factors which influence speed, let's look at the internet browsing which people constantly harp about being slower on a Mac than a PC. My 768/128 DSL on my G4/800 Flat Panel iMac is easily 5 times faster browsing webpages than my T-3 based Windows 2000 Pentium III 1 Ghz machine. I wait and wait on this Pentium III. Goes to show you processor isn't everything. What really matters is how well written the software is. Mozilla for Mac OS X, and Chimera for Mac OS X, as well as iCab for Mac OS X are much faster than Explorer for any platform.
It is in software, and until people realize it is in the software, complaining about hardware is not going to matter a hill of beans. 64 bit processors are so slow to be developed because so few people have made their software optimized for 64 bit operations. If people need it, they'll get it. For 99% of computer use processor speed of machines nowadays is more than adequate both on PC and the Mac. Adding peripherals though is much easier on the Mac, and installing and removing software still is much easier on the Mac without causing a crash. And ease also means less time spent. So what does speed of the machine have to do with productivity when machines like PCs are so hard to manage? Nothing! Because when it is easier, it takes less time. That's the Mac advantage.
Apple OC
Mar 15, 10:01 PM
I did a little reading and now am a one minute expert... :p
I've read these reactors did auto shut down when the earthquake hit. The problem is that the rods create tremendous persistent heat even after a shutdown, and it is the lack of cooling water that is causing the problem.
Could it be considered a myth that any nuclear reactor can be expected to automatically safely shutdown when power to all safety systems are lost no matter how it is designed?
And who was saying this could not be like Chernobyl??
Chernobyl was 25 years ago and Russia was not very open to outside help ... no matter how bad this escalades ... somehow this will be contained.
I've read these reactors did auto shut down when the earthquake hit. The problem is that the rods create tremendous persistent heat even after a shutdown, and it is the lack of cooling water that is causing the problem.
Could it be considered a myth that any nuclear reactor can be expected to automatically safely shutdown when power to all safety systems are lost no matter how it is designed?
And who was saying this could not be like Chernobyl??
Chernobyl was 25 years ago and Russia was not very open to outside help ... no matter how bad this escalades ... somehow this will be contained.
Rodimus Prime
Apr 15, 09:50 AM
You could make the argument that a certain amount of bullying is actually a good thing because it forces kids to develop a thick skin and learn how to deal with aggressive and negative people.
Life isn't a nice place -- and it's not like you can rat to a teacher or your parents if your boss is a d-bag who makes your life miserable every day because he is charge.
there is a very fine limit to it. Problem is a VERY VERY small percentage of people are going to take on 99% of the bulling.
Class of 30 students you will have 1 kid who is targeted. As that moves up to Jr high and high school the ratio gets even worse were you may find a 100 to 1 or higher ratio. That 1% has to take on 99% of the bulling and what makes it worse is that same 1% is not going to be helped or defended by others for fear of them being dragged into it and being the target as well. It is ugly. I was on the receiving side.
It is one thing for minor picking on things from friends but another for bulling.
Life isn't a nice place -- and it's not like you can rat to a teacher or your parents if your boss is a d-bag who makes your life miserable every day because he is charge.
there is a very fine limit to it. Problem is a VERY VERY small percentage of people are going to take on 99% of the bulling.
Class of 30 students you will have 1 kid who is targeted. As that moves up to Jr high and high school the ratio gets even worse were you may find a 100 to 1 or higher ratio. That 1% has to take on 99% of the bulling and what makes it worse is that same 1% is not going to be helped or defended by others for fear of them being dragged into it and being the target as well. It is ugly. I was on the receiving side.
It is one thing for minor picking on things from friends but another for bulling.
Peterkro
Mar 12, 02:15 PM
TEPCo press release:
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11031229-e.html
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11031229-e.html
rasmasyean
Mar 15, 07:07 PM
Sorry doublepost but different topic now:
Wikileaks: Japan warned over nuclear plants
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8384059/Japan-earthquake-Japan-warned-over-nuclear-plants-WikiLeaks-cables-show.html
Why does this not surprise me? Japan nuclear has a long history of coverups and poor operational procedures - including mixing nuclear fuel in a bucket and being surprised when it went critical.
Even the UK here has a long history of blunders and covering up - look at Windscale, later renamed Sellafield in a PR move. Some of the radiation leaks here were only revealed decades later.
Building reactors to a 1 accident in 1000 years standard of protection, as pushed by the industry PR, is just not good enough. Given 100 reactors, that equates to a serious issue every 10 years on average, and we already have far more than 100 reactors globally.
None of this stuff is ever "perfect". I'm sure the US has had it's share of "coverups" and "blunders" too even with all the "red tape" this country has. It's just that most people were keeping an eye on the part where they purposely blew them up! :p
No system is completely failproof. There's no such thing. You weigh the risk and then you accept them when it goes south.
Wikileaks: Japan warned over nuclear plants
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8384059/Japan-earthquake-Japan-warned-over-nuclear-plants-WikiLeaks-cables-show.html
Why does this not surprise me? Japan nuclear has a long history of coverups and poor operational procedures - including mixing nuclear fuel in a bucket and being surprised when it went critical.
Even the UK here has a long history of blunders and covering up - look at Windscale, later renamed Sellafield in a PR move. Some of the radiation leaks here were only revealed decades later.
Building reactors to a 1 accident in 1000 years standard of protection, as pushed by the industry PR, is just not good enough. Given 100 reactors, that equates to a serious issue every 10 years on average, and we already have far more than 100 reactors globally.
None of this stuff is ever "perfect". I'm sure the US has had it's share of "coverups" and "blunders" too even with all the "red tape" this country has. It's just that most people were keeping an eye on the part where they purposely blew them up! :p
No system is completely failproof. There's no such thing. You weigh the risk and then you accept them when it goes south.
Mord
Jul 12, 05:55 AM
At what point servers began to demand less than workstations or regular desktops? Server-grade hardware (SCSI cards for example) are 8x pcie, so I expect nothing less from Apple server hardware. Anything less would be a joke.
i meant for graphics.
oh and stop with the quadruple posting, you can reply and open the thread in another tab and copy quotes across to multi quote, or just learn the quoting syntax and use one window
as for why mac users use photoshop it's because the competitors suck, gimp is ok but nothing more, corel products make me want to pull my hair out and don't talk to me about fireworks is a completely different product.
i meant for graphics.
oh and stop with the quadruple posting, you can reply and open the thread in another tab and copy quotes across to multi quote, or just learn the quoting syntax and use one window
as for why mac users use photoshop it's because the competitors suck, gimp is ok but nothing more, corel products make me want to pull my hair out and don't talk to me about fireworks is a completely different product.
OllyW
Apr 28, 01:27 PM
It would help the iPad, in the manner you are describing it, if, like an Android/Honeycomb tablet it was a machine in it's own right.
If you look at the way it works, and the way Apple have designed the OS, it's obvious that Apple do not see the iPad as an independent PC, and that Apple themselves see it, and have designed it to be just an extension of your "Real" personal computer.
We are having to rely on 3th party apps to get around Apple's official built in limitations for the device, It's linked totally to just one computer running iTunes, you can't even connect it to say your PC, your friends, PC and your works PC to upload and download data to and from the various machines.
The iPad, as designed, with Apples official software is made so that you set thing up and organise things on your PC or Mac, then you dock your iPad (your mobile extension of your PC) you do a few things, then you come back, re-dock the iPad and it get's backed up.
That's the device that Apple made and how they see it.
It's not the iPad's fault. It's how Apple have made it.
The fact that with some 3rd party apps you can extend it's functionality beyond how Apple see the device is neither here nor there.
Personally, I very VERY much hope Apple do allow the iPad to grow into a fully independent device and break it's lock down link to iTunes.
Unfortunately, seeing as the iTunes link is Apple's money making link, I cannot see them allowing this to happen for a long time, meaning it will never grow to it's full potential as a fully independent device.
Well put.
This is why I don't think it's a PC. It's getting there but it's still too restricted in it's current guise.
If you look at the way it works, and the way Apple have designed the OS, it's obvious that Apple do not see the iPad as an independent PC, and that Apple themselves see it, and have designed it to be just an extension of your "Real" personal computer.
We are having to rely on 3th party apps to get around Apple's official built in limitations for the device, It's linked totally to just one computer running iTunes, you can't even connect it to say your PC, your friends, PC and your works PC to upload and download data to and from the various machines.
The iPad, as designed, with Apples official software is made so that you set thing up and organise things on your PC or Mac, then you dock your iPad (your mobile extension of your PC) you do a few things, then you come back, re-dock the iPad and it get's backed up.
That's the device that Apple made and how they see it.
It's not the iPad's fault. It's how Apple have made it.
The fact that with some 3rd party apps you can extend it's functionality beyond how Apple see the device is neither here nor there.
Personally, I very VERY much hope Apple do allow the iPad to grow into a fully independent device and break it's lock down link to iTunes.
Unfortunately, seeing as the iTunes link is Apple's money making link, I cannot see them allowing this to happen for a long time, meaning it will never grow to it's full potential as a fully independent device.
Well put.
This is why I don't think it's a PC. It's getting there but it's still too restricted in it's current guise.
No comments:
Post a Comment