PghLondon
Apr 30, 06:59 PM
Very intelligent response.
Give it a shot pal.
I love internet tough guys.
Give it a shot pal.
I love internet tough guys.
halhiker
Mar 23, 05:04 PM
Drunk driver checkpoints are the biggest law enforcement scam being perpetrated on the public at large. These checkpoints do no better than roving patrols but cops do them because they can hassle the public without probable cause and bust them for other minor infractions. They also more likely to have them in poor neighborhoods where people may be late paying their insurance or vehicle fees. They make big money from impounding poor people's cars.
They pad the bottom line of the Law Enforcement Industrial Complex and so that's why they have them. It has NOTHING to do with justice.
They pad the bottom line of the Law Enforcement Industrial Complex and so that's why they have them. It has NOTHING to do with justice.
McDave
Sep 4, 09:46 PM
I really doubt that Apple will put a TV tuner in this thing (if it's real). Think about it -
Point 1 - If Apple puts a tuner in then they have to deal with the myriad of different types of TV.
Point 2 - THEY SELL TV SHOWS!
Does Steve want you to Tivo the new episode of "The Office" on your "MediaMac/Airport Express Video/Super iPod" or does he want you to come to the iTunes store and download it for $2? Apple, despite most of our (including my own) beliefs is a business and they have to think of the $$$ first.
Why give something away when you can make money off it? That's still my theory as to why the mini didn't have a tuner from the start.
Too true! Why create a device to capture/de-schedule broadcast TV (with the mis-timings, satellite rain-fade & commercials) when you can sell most of the content directly, with one mouse/remote-click.
I think this will do to movies & TV what the iPod did for music, just don't forget the Blu-Ray player.
McD
Point 1 - If Apple puts a tuner in then they have to deal with the myriad of different types of TV.
Point 2 - THEY SELL TV SHOWS!
Does Steve want you to Tivo the new episode of "The Office" on your "MediaMac/Airport Express Video/Super iPod" or does he want you to come to the iTunes store and download it for $2? Apple, despite most of our (including my own) beliefs is a business and they have to think of the $$$ first.
Why give something away when you can make money off it? That's still my theory as to why the mini didn't have a tuner from the start.
Too true! Why create a device to capture/de-schedule broadcast TV (with the mis-timings, satellite rain-fade & commercials) when you can sell most of the content directly, with one mouse/remote-click.
I think this will do to movies & TV what the iPod did for music, just don't forget the Blu-Ray player.
McD
ciTiger
Apr 25, 04:56 PM
Bring me my new MBP ASAP :P :D
I know the fall is the most optimistic date but hopefully when it does it will be well worth it!
I know the fall is the most optimistic date but hopefully when it does it will be well worth it!
mi5moav
Aug 31, 10:45 PM
I'm thinking of an Apple/Canon merger? I was hoping for a buyout of leica or kodak, but I think a Canon merger might work. We haven't seen any large mergers buyouts since HP/Compaq and something is going to happen soon. Though I don't know if this is true or not Steve Jobs and Canon have had close ties for nearly 15 years and I've noticed this recently with the Canon products being given first priority in there digital/video store. At one time Canon even invested something like $10 million into NEXT. Snapping(excuse the pun) Canon would help with a huge amount of patents and might be easier then starting from scratch with a camera or camcorder.
Jefferyd32
Apr 30, 02:04 PM
Where is the new Mac Mini update. I have been waiting and waiting to set up my HTPC.
macfan881
Sep 12, 05:31 PM
i still think theres one more piece to this i tv that we didnt see i think that we will probbaly see either before or during the relase of this itv a 40+ inch flat screen display with a hdtv Tunner and would make sense then appple would truly be multimedia Center king
MrWinters
Apr 28, 03:46 PM
Microsoft is DEAD. And so is Google.
GO APPLE!
Microsoft just posted a record quarter.
"Microsoft reported strong third-quarter sales and earnings, as the software giant weathered slowing PC sales with strong performances from its Office and Xbox businesses.
Net income in the company's fiscal third quarter climbed 31 percent to $5.23 billion on sales of $16.43 billion, a 13 percent gain.
"We delivered strong financial results despite a mixed PC environment, which demonstrates the strength and breadth of our businesses," Microsoft's chief financial officer, Peter Klein, said in a statement. "Consumers are purchasing Office Xbox, and Kinect at tremendous rates, and businesses of all sizes are purchasing Microsoft platforms and applications."
Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-20058406-75.html#ixzz1Kqvp0N71"
Just because Apple's profit was higher doesn't dispel the end for Microsoft or Google. Every company in American except one made less profit that Apple, and trust me, they aren't all "doomed or Dead"....
Grow up Mr. Lawyer!
GO APPLE!
Microsoft just posted a record quarter.
"Microsoft reported strong third-quarter sales and earnings, as the software giant weathered slowing PC sales with strong performances from its Office and Xbox businesses.
Net income in the company's fiscal third quarter climbed 31 percent to $5.23 billion on sales of $16.43 billion, a 13 percent gain.
"We delivered strong financial results despite a mixed PC environment, which demonstrates the strength and breadth of our businesses," Microsoft's chief financial officer, Peter Klein, said in a statement. "Consumers are purchasing Office Xbox, and Kinect at tremendous rates, and businesses of all sizes are purchasing Microsoft platforms and applications."
Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-20058406-75.html#ixzz1Kqvp0N71"
Just because Apple's profit was higher doesn't dispel the end for Microsoft or Google. Every company in American except one made less profit that Apple, and trust me, they aren't all "doomed or Dead"....
Grow up Mr. Lawyer!
diamond.g
Apr 15, 03:49 PM
Of course, what did you expect from an interface designed for keyboards, joysticks, and mice?
Even USB 2.0 has a pathetic 50% effective utilization rate, while Firewire is ~95%. USB 2.0 is 480 Mb/s, which equals 60 MB/s, yet in real world speeds, you're lucky if you see 30 MB/s - HALF it's rated bandwidth. USB is just plain horrible for bulk data transfer, and the new 3.0 iteration is no different. The protocol overhead is atrocious.
Of course USB also operates in slow horrible PIO mode, meaning it has to run everything through the host CPU. PATA, SATA, SCSI, Firewire, and Thunderbolt all operate in DMA mode, bypassing the host CPU for much much faster transfers.
PATA has PIO modes too... You just have to work (or use a poopy old HD) to get it to turn on.
Even USB 2.0 has a pathetic 50% effective utilization rate, while Firewire is ~95%. USB 2.0 is 480 Mb/s, which equals 60 MB/s, yet in real world speeds, you're lucky if you see 30 MB/s - HALF it's rated bandwidth. USB is just plain horrible for bulk data transfer, and the new 3.0 iteration is no different. The protocol overhead is atrocious.
Of course USB also operates in slow horrible PIO mode, meaning it has to run everything through the host CPU. PATA, SATA, SCSI, Firewire, and Thunderbolt all operate in DMA mode, bypassing the host CPU for much much faster transfers.
PATA has PIO modes too... You just have to work (or use a poopy old HD) to get it to turn on.
gloss
Sep 26, 09:46 AM
I'm surprised at all the Cingular hate here. At least in the D.C. area, the word is that they have the best coverage available - better than Verizon, who was the previous benchmark before the merger.
Jamesbot
Mar 23, 04:47 PM
Miles you make a great point... You also confirm that Apple better pull them, its a pointless app because if your so drunk then you can't operate a phone let alone an app.
Whatever. Just because you're over the legal limit doesn't mean you're so completely smashed that you can't operate a touch screen device. Using an iphone is much, much easier than driving a car while intoxicated.
That said, I don't want to make this about whether or not drunk driving is OK. We all know it's wrong. At least I hope we all know it.
The way I see it, a group of politicians get together to conceive some non-issue, complain about something that is completely legal, in order to score points with their constituents and look like they're being tough on drunk driving. I guarantee you that these guys have driven home drunk just as much as the average person. Maybe I'm being cynical, but come on! Don't we have enough on our plate already with all the actual work we need to get done. Enough with the goddamned showmanship already!
Ask apple to take the apps down, who are you kidding?
Whatever. Just because you're over the legal limit doesn't mean you're so completely smashed that you can't operate a touch screen device. Using an iphone is much, much easier than driving a car while intoxicated.
That said, I don't want to make this about whether or not drunk driving is OK. We all know it's wrong. At least I hope we all know it.
The way I see it, a group of politicians get together to conceive some non-issue, complain about something that is completely legal, in order to score points with their constituents and look like they're being tough on drunk driving. I guarantee you that these guys have driven home drunk just as much as the average person. Maybe I'm being cynical, but come on! Don't we have enough on our plate already with all the actual work we need to get done. Enough with the goddamned showmanship already!
Ask apple to take the apps down, who are you kidding?
drsmithy
May 3, 03:12 PM
Don't despair.
An Apple Patent May Hint at a Mini Tower Desktop...
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2010/04/an-apple-patent-may-hint-at-a-mini-tower-desktop-with-usb-30.html
Image (http://www.patentlyapple.com/.a/6a0120a5580826970c01347fbb924f970c-pi)
That's describing a machine identical to the current Mac Pro, so anything based on it is going to be in the same price brackets.
An Apple Patent May Hint at a Mini Tower Desktop...
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2010/04/an-apple-patent-may-hint-at-a-mini-tower-desktop-with-usb-30.html
Image (http://www.patentlyapple.com/.a/6a0120a5580826970c01347fbb924f970c-pi)
That's describing a machine identical to the current Mac Pro, so anything based on it is going to be in the same price brackets.
aly
Sep 14, 09:04 AM
I doubt we'll see some headless tower (apart from the macpro) i honestly don't think its in apple's interest to openup a new price point. Mac mini provides a nice entry for windows users, people wanting something next to their tv, or have the monitor etc already. MacBook provides mobile low end. iMac allows a bit more power and features over the mini for home users wanting a bit more and companies and people who dont need the power of the Mac Pro. MacBook Pro is high end portable allowing for graphics, photography, design, etc, and to some extent gaming on the go. The Mac Pro is the beast, a workstation more than a desktop and therefore is over specced for the normal user. But why put in a new model in between a imac and a mac pro when having the gap forces people looking for more than an imac to go for the mac pro and increase revenue. By creating an 'in between' model it takes sales away from the popular imac and the expensive mac pro, would probably have to have lower margins to get people to buy it and would just float about in the middle. Maybe die a fate similar to the cube? I don't see it being a smart move.
*LTD*
Apr 19, 07:24 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8H7)
One part supplier gone, another one pops up.
Samsung can't afford to lose customers the likes of Apple.
Regardless, this suit has nothing to do with Samsung's supply agreements with Apple. Bridges won't be burned, Samsung won't breach their contracts, and the sky won't fall.
It's just business. And yes, a lot of entities are guilty of ripping off Apple's work. It's almost a favorite pastime in the industry. Apple has the wherewithal to go after whomever the wish without fear of losing customers, partners, or suppliers. Yeah, they are *that* secure, folks. Welcome to 2011 and the beginning of a massive growth phase for Apple driven by insane customer demand.
One part supplier gone, another one pops up.
Samsung can't afford to lose customers the likes of Apple.
Regardless, this suit has nothing to do with Samsung's supply agreements with Apple. Bridges won't be burned, Samsung won't breach their contracts, and the sky won't fall.
It's just business. And yes, a lot of entities are guilty of ripping off Apple's work. It's almost a favorite pastime in the industry. Apple has the wherewithal to go after whomever the wish without fear of losing customers, partners, or suppliers. Yeah, they are *that* secure, folks. Welcome to 2011 and the beginning of a massive growth phase for Apple driven by insane customer demand.
chezhoy
Apr 22, 12:30 PM
I sure hope not!
Ooh, I wonder what the other upgrades will be. Macbook Airs are becoming really awesome notebooks. Hopefully it someday takes over the macbook. iPad <Macbook (Air) < Macbook Pro < iMac < Mac Pro
Ooh, I wonder what the other upgrades will be. Macbook Airs are becoming really awesome notebooks. Hopefully it someday takes over the macbook. iPad <Macbook (Air) < Macbook Pro < iMac < Mac Pro
munkery
Mar 23, 04:20 PM
http://www.macforensicslab.com/ProductsAndServices/index.php?main_page=document_general_info&products_id=174
Much of the information in the PDF (http://www.macforensicslab.com/Malware_on_Mac_OS_X.pdf) associated with this article (http://www.macforensicslab.com/ProductsAndServices/index.php?main_page=document_general_info&products_id=174) is incorrect. For example:
Page 26
It refers to the bundle architecture as insecure. The argument presented would be true if security sensitive apps were not owned by system. Given that they are owned by system, malware cannot modify the bundle of an app owned by system without authentication when the app is run with user privileges in an admin or standard account.
For example, show package contents of iTunes, Safari, or Mail and try to create a folder in the bundle. In relation to the example in the article, try renaming iTunes. The argument in the article relies on actions that can not be completed in an OS X admin account; these type of changes are even more restricted in a standard account.
Apps not owned by system are vulnerable but without privilege escalation can not install rootkits or keyloggers. Even apps owned by system run with user privileges and require privilege escalation to install dangerous payloads.
Mac OS X does not prompt for authentication if you install apps in the proper location for that user account type. When installed in the proper location, apps are sandboxed from the system level of Mac OS X by the Unix DAC model used within Mac OS X.
Windows is less secure because most apps (Chrome only exception I can recall) install their associated files in levels of the system that require authentication regardless of user account type (unless Admin in Windows XP because running as superuser - no authentication required to install with elevated privileges - very dangerous). It is easier to trick Windows users to install a trojan with elevated privileges given that almost all apps ask for authentication to install and the user can not distinguish the intent of that authentication.
Page 30
The claim that the Application folder is unprotected is false. Security sensitive apps within the Application folder are owned by system.
Also, security sensitive system binaries are still stored in /bin and /sbin in Mac OS X.
Page 31
The ability to read the contacts stored in Address Book could be used by a worm to propagate. But, malware that uses this to spread is not likely to appear in the wild if the malware is not profitable. It is unlikely that malware will be profitable without being able to hook (this is a specific function) into apps owned by system.
Page 33
Starts off talking about trojans, trojans are easily avoided with user knowledge in Mac OS X because most apps do not require authentication to install if installed in the appropriate location where the Unix DAC model protects the system.
Viruses using the model shown in the article will not be successful without privilege escalation. This is the reason why Mac OS X malware is not successful in the wild.
By default, very few server side services are exposed in Mac OS X and those that are exposed are sandboxed. Vectors for worm propagation are limited to client side. Client side worms require authentication to install and spread if do not include privilege escalation via exploitation because of the Unix DAC model used in Mac OS X. Trojans used to trick users to authenticate are less likely to be successful in Mac OS X as stated above.
Much of the information in the PDF (http://www.macforensicslab.com/Malware_on_Mac_OS_X.pdf) associated with this article (http://www.macforensicslab.com/ProductsAndServices/index.php?main_page=document_general_info&products_id=174) is incorrect. For example:
Page 26
It refers to the bundle architecture as insecure. The argument presented would be true if security sensitive apps were not owned by system. Given that they are owned by system, malware cannot modify the bundle of an app owned by system without authentication when the app is run with user privileges in an admin or standard account.
For example, show package contents of iTunes, Safari, or Mail and try to create a folder in the bundle. In relation to the example in the article, try renaming iTunes. The argument in the article relies on actions that can not be completed in an OS X admin account; these type of changes are even more restricted in a standard account.
Apps not owned by system are vulnerable but without privilege escalation can not install rootkits or keyloggers. Even apps owned by system run with user privileges and require privilege escalation to install dangerous payloads.
Mac OS X does not prompt for authentication if you install apps in the proper location for that user account type. When installed in the proper location, apps are sandboxed from the system level of Mac OS X by the Unix DAC model used within Mac OS X.
Windows is less secure because most apps (Chrome only exception I can recall) install their associated files in levels of the system that require authentication regardless of user account type (unless Admin in Windows XP because running as superuser - no authentication required to install with elevated privileges - very dangerous). It is easier to trick Windows users to install a trojan with elevated privileges given that almost all apps ask for authentication to install and the user can not distinguish the intent of that authentication.
Page 30
The claim that the Application folder is unprotected is false. Security sensitive apps within the Application folder are owned by system.
Also, security sensitive system binaries are still stored in /bin and /sbin in Mac OS X.
Page 31
The ability to read the contacts stored in Address Book could be used by a worm to propagate. But, malware that uses this to spread is not likely to appear in the wild if the malware is not profitable. It is unlikely that malware will be profitable without being able to hook (this is a specific function) into apps owned by system.
Page 33
Starts off talking about trojans, trojans are easily avoided with user knowledge in Mac OS X because most apps do not require authentication to install if installed in the appropriate location where the Unix DAC model protects the system.
Viruses using the model shown in the article will not be successful without privilege escalation. This is the reason why Mac OS X malware is not successful in the wild.
By default, very few server side services are exposed in Mac OS X and those that are exposed are sandboxed. Vectors for worm propagation are limited to client side. Client side worms require authentication to install and spread if do not include privilege escalation via exploitation because of the Unix DAC model used in Mac OS X. Trojans used to trick users to authenticate are less likely to be successful in Mac OS X as stated above.
cadillaccactus
Sep 5, 12:41 PM
i just picked up 30 shares of AAPL. i have a very strong outlook on the next 6 months.
localoid
Apr 22, 02:19 AM
I really hope this happens but I have a feeling that it will be hobbled in some way. If it runs from an iTunes master copy of songs then it might preclude people uploading music that has been ripped from CDs or bought somewhere else (like Amazon).
Actually, Amazon gives you 5 gigs of space on your cloud drive for your own MP3s. When/if you buy songs from them, you get additional space for the songs you've purchased.
Actually, Amazon gives you 5 gigs of space on your cloud drive for your own MP3s. When/if you buy songs from them, you get additional space for the songs you've purchased.
uv23
Sep 4, 07:28 PM
I predict a more powerful, larger storage, video iPod with a dock that has component/hdmi/whatever video and optical audio outs. No big deal. It's a natural progression from what's available today.
JMP
Apr 30, 06:53 PM
You'll be looking forward to lion then. Not a new Mac.
Neither
Neither
Lone Deranger
Mar 30, 01:40 PM
Why only allow Apple to use it?
And there we have it. MS greed. Thank you.
And there we have it. MS greed. Thank you.
appleguy
Sep 4, 08:35 PM
Stick to the cables, you need 802.11n minimum to do this and it will kill your home network. Nobody else at home can do anything else.
Well if its your network. screw everyone else I say. lol:cool:
Well if its your network. screw everyone else I say. lol:cool:
akac
Mar 30, 11:53 AM
Honestly the term "app" didn't even exist 5 years ago. And yeah, it's super generic.
I support microsoft on this one, guys.
I keep hearing this...but yes it did. It was used occasionally for Windows Mobile apps, BlackBerry apps, and more. I just checked the internet wayback machine and found at handango.com several "apps" mentioned. Here is one "From business and personal productivity software to travel apps and games, we have the best mobile downloads to fit every interest."
The point is that its been used for quite a long time. Not as often back then as it is now, but it was used.
I support microsoft on this one, guys.
I keep hearing this...but yes it did. It was used occasionally for Windows Mobile apps, BlackBerry apps, and more. I just checked the internet wayback machine and found at handango.com several "apps" mentioned. Here is one "From business and personal productivity software to travel apps and games, we have the best mobile downloads to fit every interest."
The point is that its been used for quite a long time. Not as often back then as it is now, but it was used.
kresh
Oct 27, 07:57 AM
Good for them. If Apple needs to get its house in order then the more information the better. Time for change and it ain't gonna be cheap.
But this particular crap from Greenpeace has already been debunked.
They have gone from a respectable environmentalist group to a militant anti-business lobby.
I am Green, but I am not Greenpeace!
link at /. where this has been gone over a while ago, what a bogus Greenpeace report: http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=198431&cid=16258305
But this particular crap from Greenpeace has already been debunked.
They have gone from a respectable environmentalist group to a militant anti-business lobby.
I am Green, but I am not Greenpeace!
link at /. where this has been gone over a while ago, what a bogus Greenpeace report: http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=198431&cid=16258305