CoryTV
Apr 12, 11:30 PM
You're assuming that if you didn't see a demo of it, it doesn't exist. iMovie has titling built in. They didn't demo titling this evening. Therefore, you're presuming this app has less titling than iMovie!
That seems pretty silly.
I made no such assumption, as far as less titling than imovie. But If there's a June release date, there is not 1 single major feature that hasn't been fully implemented. They are in final Beta. If they had a really high end titler/graphics engine, they would have shown it. Just like they would have shown high end grading. I'm not saying they're not coming at some point down the road, but I will eat a $100 bill on video if they have the full functionality of something like Color built in to this when it ships.
Look maybe what this all comes down to is this: They had to start somewhere, and they wanted to start selling it as soon as possible, and hope people will use FCS 3 + FCPX together until FCSX (why not jump to 10?) is released in 2 years.
Maybe this does have media sharing between stations, and pro tape i/o (which is still used by broadcast) But they don't need broadcast. That's the point. At $299 for the software, all they care about is people buying Apple Computers. And you know what? People buy Apple Computers who use Avid. Because they know at the very least, they can use FCP/Avid/CS5.5 on one system. And I do. And I will. I was just hoping at some point, I wouldn't have to choose between 3 NLE's on a per-project basis, as I will most likely be doing for the foreseeable future.
I LOVE the shiny new features on this. Thank GOD for 64-bit multicore. But in a lot of ways, tomorrow, many people will point out that Avid has been doing resolution and framerate independent timelines with ZERO rendering for like 18 months now. And Adobe's new warp stabilizer and h.264/avchd/red support are still pretty freakin amazing.
And I saw all the features through a tiny webstream, so maybe when I see it in glorious HD h.264 I'll change my mind.
But there's no reason in the 4 years since FCP 6 they couldn't have done all this and more. (FCP 7 was a really minor update) That's my frustration. They've been sitting on the COLOR tech, and they didn't fully integrate it? So we're still going to have to deal with the horrible round tripping as a best case senario? Or they didn't take some of the ideas of motion and integrate them seamlessly into the timeline, so we still have to use a separate FX program? Trust me, you could do this, and it would still be a good UI.
But fine, I'll plunk the $299 down and finally feel like I'm making use of all 8 of my cores, and pray for a day where I don't have to switch back and forth between apps.
That seems pretty silly.
I made no such assumption, as far as less titling than imovie. But If there's a June release date, there is not 1 single major feature that hasn't been fully implemented. They are in final Beta. If they had a really high end titler/graphics engine, they would have shown it. Just like they would have shown high end grading. I'm not saying they're not coming at some point down the road, but I will eat a $100 bill on video if they have the full functionality of something like Color built in to this when it ships.
Look maybe what this all comes down to is this: They had to start somewhere, and they wanted to start selling it as soon as possible, and hope people will use FCS 3 + FCPX together until FCSX (why not jump to 10?) is released in 2 years.
Maybe this does have media sharing between stations, and pro tape i/o (which is still used by broadcast) But they don't need broadcast. That's the point. At $299 for the software, all they care about is people buying Apple Computers. And you know what? People buy Apple Computers who use Avid. Because they know at the very least, they can use FCP/Avid/CS5.5 on one system. And I do. And I will. I was just hoping at some point, I wouldn't have to choose between 3 NLE's on a per-project basis, as I will most likely be doing for the foreseeable future.
I LOVE the shiny new features on this. Thank GOD for 64-bit multicore. But in a lot of ways, tomorrow, many people will point out that Avid has been doing resolution and framerate independent timelines with ZERO rendering for like 18 months now. And Adobe's new warp stabilizer and h.264/avchd/red support are still pretty freakin amazing.
And I saw all the features through a tiny webstream, so maybe when I see it in glorious HD h.264 I'll change my mind.
But there's no reason in the 4 years since FCP 6 they couldn't have done all this and more. (FCP 7 was a really minor update) That's my frustration. They've been sitting on the COLOR tech, and they didn't fully integrate it? So we're still going to have to deal with the horrible round tripping as a best case senario? Or they didn't take some of the ideas of motion and integrate them seamlessly into the timeline, so we still have to use a separate FX program? Trust me, you could do this, and it would still be a good UI.
But fine, I'll plunk the $299 down and finally feel like I'm making use of all 8 of my cores, and pray for a day where I don't have to switch back and forth between apps.
Apple OC
Apr 24, 09:11 PM
Yep. I've lived a completely sheltered life, never studied my faith, and certainly never questioned it- never been in any in-depth discussions of religion, and most importantly, I do not understand why I think Christianity is legitimate rather than any other religion.
I believe only the things my parents have told me, and I plug my ears whenever someone says anything different. I'm completely unaware of modern science and how some people consider it to be a religion killer.
To top it off, compared to all atheists, I'm an illiterate, illogical, southern-bred moron and I will never be able to make an educated decision for myself.
And just to be clear, I DID NOT make a 35 on the ACT my Junior year of high school, and I am not on scholarship to a top 25 university.
happy now? :cool:
lol ... thanks for clearing that up
I believe only the things my parents have told me, and I plug my ears whenever someone says anything different. I'm completely unaware of modern science and how some people consider it to be a religion killer.
To top it off, compared to all atheists, I'm an illiterate, illogical, southern-bred moron and I will never be able to make an educated decision for myself.
And just to be clear, I DID NOT make a 35 on the ACT my Junior year of high school, and I am not on scholarship to a top 25 university.
happy now? :cool:
lol ... thanks for clearing that up
slinger1968
Oct 26, 11:28 PM
I don't think Cloverton will run on standard DDR2. Kentsfield sure but doesn't Xeon REQUIRE ECC/FB-DIMM?Yeah, you are correct it would have to be Kentsfield because of the Xeon chipset/motherboard design requires ECC/FB-DIMMs.
What you are asking for will be Kentsfield not single Clovertown.You are correct, I lumped both 4 core chips under the Clovertown name.
I would love a Kentsfield "desktop" based tower but I don't know if Apple wants to add another product line.
What you are asking for will be Kentsfield not single Clovertown.You are correct, I lumped both 4 core chips under the Clovertown name.
I would love a Kentsfield "desktop" based tower but I don't know if Apple wants to add another product line.
toddicus
Nov 3, 08:08 AM
I have to say that I would have always agreed with you in the past. Apple just didnt seem to want to play in the mainstream desktop PC arena before. But if the Mac Pro goes 8 core (which is inevitible IMO) then there is a big yawning gap between the iMac and the Mac Pro, both price wise and performance wise. I dont understand why Apple seems content to leave it empty. Is it because there is no money to be made there?
I beleive that Kentsfield will allow them to fill it with a powerful machine that still allows them some profit margin. The 8 core Mac Pro will be a true professional workstation, with a price to match. It makes sense to slot something in a bit lower, esp. if the commodity price is lower for Apple (DDR2 ram instead of FB-Dimms, etc)
I think when they introduce cloverton it will be the top option. Probably two clovertons at 2.66 Ghz making the machine about 2,999 even 3,299. Making it the top machine, like the quad was with dual-core G5s. I don't think quad-core chips will sweet the line right away. So the base Mac Pro would stay the same, possibly even come down in a few months (even if only slightly) with probable price drops with quad-cores on the market.
this would make the gap between 24" imac and mac pro (dual 2 Ghz) not quite as big as if they were all 8-core mac pros
I beleive that Kentsfield will allow them to fill it with a powerful machine that still allows them some profit margin. The 8 core Mac Pro will be a true professional workstation, with a price to match. It makes sense to slot something in a bit lower, esp. if the commodity price is lower for Apple (DDR2 ram instead of FB-Dimms, etc)
I think when they introduce cloverton it will be the top option. Probably two clovertons at 2.66 Ghz making the machine about 2,999 even 3,299. Making it the top machine, like the quad was with dual-core G5s. I don't think quad-core chips will sweet the line right away. So the base Mac Pro would stay the same, possibly even come down in a few months (even if only slightly) with probable price drops with quad-cores on the market.
this would make the gap between 24" imac and mac pro (dual 2 Ghz) not quite as big as if they were all 8-core mac pros
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 07:24 PM
There is no evidence that sexual attraction/orientation can be changed by anyone, not even the individual.
As I said, Dr. Spitzer disagrees. Please watch his video, CalBoy. I've already posted a link to it in the post where I mentioned Focus on the Family.
As I said, Dr. Spitzer disagrees. Please watch his video, CalBoy. I've already posted a link to it in the post where I mentioned Focus on the Family.
archipellago
May 2, 05:12 PM
Chrome already uses a Sandbox similar to Webkit2 but it is built on top of webkit rather than implemented within webkit. Supposedly, Webkit2's split in the process will be better placed than that of Chrome.
Safari will use Webkit2 as it is based off of Webkit. Safari based on Webkit2 will be released soon, with the release of OS X Lion.
so a very small percentage of the market will be using it (the better tech) then?
if IE or FF don't do something similar then it won't really matter from a cybercrime point of view as 'no one' uses Safari and only the foolish use Chrome.
sad really..
I can't think of anywhere else on the internet where users are so pedantic about whether a piece of malware is a virus or not. It's completely missing the point. The amount of malware out there for Macs is very slowly increasing, which, in itself, is increasing the probability of infecting the user base and Macs can be remotely exploited just like any other operating system.
Instead of rebuffing the emergence of Mac malware with technicalities and pointing the finger at other products, it would be more useful to think about what it means to you, the user. Do you need to run out and buy an antivirus product? No, probably not. If you're someone who keeps on top of software updates and are generally sensible in how you use a computer then you're fine to carry on.
On the other hand, if you're someone who peruses file sharing services and questionable websites for dodgy content and pirated software then it's becoming increasingly more likely that one day you'll get burned. Highly likely? No, not yet, but it would be foolish to assume immunity to computer security issues based solely on the fact that something so far has not met the strict definition of "virus".
A few people need to stop being so short sighted in trying to meticulously defend the idea of "no viruses on Macs". Ultimately it's a rather hollow ideal to uphold because uninitiated users accept it as gospel and it doesn't encourage them to adopt safe computer practices.
sorry, last post...
great post....
all sentiments apply equally to OSX and Windows users..
Safari will use Webkit2 as it is based off of Webkit. Safari based on Webkit2 will be released soon, with the release of OS X Lion.
so a very small percentage of the market will be using it (the better tech) then?
if IE or FF don't do something similar then it won't really matter from a cybercrime point of view as 'no one' uses Safari and only the foolish use Chrome.
sad really..
I can't think of anywhere else on the internet where users are so pedantic about whether a piece of malware is a virus or not. It's completely missing the point. The amount of malware out there for Macs is very slowly increasing, which, in itself, is increasing the probability of infecting the user base and Macs can be remotely exploited just like any other operating system.
Instead of rebuffing the emergence of Mac malware with technicalities and pointing the finger at other products, it would be more useful to think about what it means to you, the user. Do you need to run out and buy an antivirus product? No, probably not. If you're someone who keeps on top of software updates and are generally sensible in how you use a computer then you're fine to carry on.
On the other hand, if you're someone who peruses file sharing services and questionable websites for dodgy content and pirated software then it's becoming increasingly more likely that one day you'll get burned. Highly likely? No, not yet, but it would be foolish to assume immunity to computer security issues based solely on the fact that something so far has not met the strict definition of "virus".
A few people need to stop being so short sighted in trying to meticulously defend the idea of "no viruses on Macs". Ultimately it's a rather hollow ideal to uphold because uninitiated users accept it as gospel and it doesn't encourage them to adopt safe computer practices.
sorry, last post...
great post....
all sentiments apply equally to OSX and Windows users..
JFreak
Jul 12, 05:39 AM
Well, the Mini got more expensive, but it's capabilities went WAY up. Optical audio in and out, twice the USB-ports (fixing the two biggest complaints about the old Mini)
Way, costs about $1 for Apple to fix it. Great!
... built-in wireless, about twice as fast CPU and Core Image compliant video.
You cannot put a price tag for components such as CPU and GPU that get updated with every single hardware revision. Yes, in time they become more capable with every revision, but the relative price of such components does not change that much. The built-in wireless on the other hand is something of extra value; however, Apple cuts its own costs of eliminating an option, so it should not cost the customer that much extra.
Comparing price and capabilities, The Mini just got a whole lot cheaper :). The low-end Mini costs the same as the old hi-end Mini, but the new low-end Mini is a lot better than the old hi-end Mini.
You should compare dollars to dollars when you say one is cheaper than another. You buy items with dollars and that's it. You look at the numbers and say that smaller value is cheaper. Didn't your mother teach you that?
your all looking at the server specs which have no need for more than 8x pci-e, if that.
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.
Way, costs about $1 for Apple to fix it. Great!
... built-in wireless, about twice as fast CPU and Core Image compliant video.
You cannot put a price tag for components such as CPU and GPU that get updated with every single hardware revision. Yes, in time they become more capable with every revision, but the relative price of such components does not change that much. The built-in wireless on the other hand is something of extra value; however, Apple cuts its own costs of eliminating an option, so it should not cost the customer that much extra.
Comparing price and capabilities, The Mini just got a whole lot cheaper :). The low-end Mini costs the same as the old hi-end Mini, but the new low-end Mini is a lot better than the old hi-end Mini.
You should compare dollars to dollars when you say one is cheaper than another. You buy items with dollars and that's it. You look at the numbers and say that smaller value is cheaper. Didn't your mother teach you that?
your all looking at the server specs which have no need for more than 8x pci-e, if that.
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.
ReanimationLP
Aug 29, 11:41 AM
Who the hell listens to GreenPeace anymore.
Seriously.
Seriously.
Hellhammer
Mar 13, 02:18 PM
How do you proponents of nuclear power discount the very real risks it poses to mankind itself?
I rather take the risks than go back to stone age.
Decades ago more research and money should of been thrown at alternative energy's. Innovations from that could of put us more safely further ahead.
There is a better way, timely and costly to find them and that takes away from the profits the already rich make from the 'nuclear industry', while they continue to brainwash the citizens of the world how safe it is .... "snap out of it I say"....
That is just speculation. How do you know, for sure, that there is something better? So far every option has its tradeoffs. Although I'm with you that there must be other sources of energy, it's not that simple to find them. Fossil fuels are running out so something must be used in order to keep up with the growing demand of energy. Even if you discover a new source of energy, it will require years, even decades, of testing before it is safe to use it in massive quantities.
I rather take the risks than go back to stone age.
Decades ago more research and money should of been thrown at alternative energy's. Innovations from that could of put us more safely further ahead.
There is a better way, timely and costly to find them and that takes away from the profits the already rich make from the 'nuclear industry', while they continue to brainwash the citizens of the world how safe it is .... "snap out of it I say"....
That is just speculation. How do you know, for sure, that there is something better? So far every option has its tradeoffs. Although I'm with you that there must be other sources of energy, it's not that simple to find them. Fossil fuels are running out so something must be used in order to keep up with the growing demand of energy. Even if you discover a new source of energy, it will require years, even decades, of testing before it is safe to use it in massive quantities.
likemyorbs
Mar 26, 12:49 PM
Wow. Someone should explain to him all the reasons why that is unconstitutional.
Speedy2
Oct 7, 04:12 PM
Flash in the independant operator here, not the full SDK.
And how is this relevant? If Adobe makes it possible to use the entire range of the iPhone's hardware it makes no difference.
-> New development platform, available for other OSs
Exactly what you wanted, right?
Oh the whining will go on I suppose...
And how is this relevant? If Adobe makes it possible to use the entire range of the iPhone's hardware it makes no difference.
-> New development platform, available for other OSs
Exactly what you wanted, right?
Oh the whining will go on I suppose...
rxse7en
Oct 11, 02:30 PM
Got my coupon and tested it. It doesn't stack...total price is $1349.00
B
B
edifyingGerbil
Apr 26, 12:32 PM
Christianity, especially Catholicism has it's own colorful (blood red) history.
As I said elsewhere there is no moral equivalence. It took Augustine's and Aquinas' great rambling treatises to justify warfare, for instance.
In the Qur'an and the Hadith war is encouraged and its virtues extolled.
I wish people would stop trying to equate the wars of Christianity (and of that mainly Western Christianity) with Islam's modern terrorism and calls for warfare against the infidel.
In Islamic Law non-muslims are considered najiss, that means ritually impure, down to our souls, our essences. Christians are reviled especially because they practice "shirk", a law forbidding the joining of others to allah. Jews are designated as apes and pigs in the Qur'an.
there is no equivalence between Islam and Christianity.
As I said elsewhere there is no moral equivalence. It took Augustine's and Aquinas' great rambling treatises to justify warfare, for instance.
In the Qur'an and the Hadith war is encouraged and its virtues extolled.
I wish people would stop trying to equate the wars of Christianity (and of that mainly Western Christianity) with Islam's modern terrorism and calls for warfare against the infidel.
In Islamic Law non-muslims are considered najiss, that means ritually impure, down to our souls, our essences. Christians are reviled especially because they practice "shirk", a law forbidding the joining of others to allah. Jews are designated as apes and pigs in the Qur'an.
there is no equivalence between Islam and Christianity.
Clive At Five
Sep 21, 12:43 PM
I think we'd all agree it'd be nice for Apple to have more of a worldwide presence. As for emerging technologies, global efforts require a lot more research and funding than if Apple were to just stay in the U.S. That's why Apple's technologies always start here.
Think about it: Apple started iTunes nationally. It took a little time to get going but eventually it took off and Apple had the confidence that it would work world-wide... so they started expanding.
But imagine instead that Apple unleashed iTunes worldwide from day one. The investment required for something like that would have been MUCH too high for the risk of the project.
The same goes for TV content. TV content on the iTS is still relatively new and now that Apple has seen the success of it in the US, they will start expanding world-wide. In fact, Apple has seen the success of the iTS as a whole and knows that its reputation is favorable. This will allow them to expand their new content globally in a shorter amount of time (since it's less of a risk now).
It's more than just reputation, though. Different places around the world have different licensing requirements, so it's not as simple as flicking a switch and allowing other countries to connect to the iTS. There's a lot of bureaucracy and negotiations involved.
So if you, and everyone else will have a bit of patience, Apple will work their way out to you. Apple is a U.S. company. If you're not in the U.S., you can't expect Apple's merchandise and services immediately upon release. It just doesn't work that way.
-Clive
Think about it: Apple started iTunes nationally. It took a little time to get going but eventually it took off and Apple had the confidence that it would work world-wide... so they started expanding.
But imagine instead that Apple unleashed iTunes worldwide from day one. The investment required for something like that would have been MUCH too high for the risk of the project.
The same goes for TV content. TV content on the iTS is still relatively new and now that Apple has seen the success of it in the US, they will start expanding world-wide. In fact, Apple has seen the success of the iTS as a whole and knows that its reputation is favorable. This will allow them to expand their new content globally in a shorter amount of time (since it's less of a risk now).
It's more than just reputation, though. Different places around the world have different licensing requirements, so it's not as simple as flicking a switch and allowing other countries to connect to the iTS. There's a lot of bureaucracy and negotiations involved.
So if you, and everyone else will have a bit of patience, Apple will work their way out to you. Apple is a U.S. company. If you're not in the U.S., you can't expect Apple's merchandise and services immediately upon release. It just doesn't work that way.
-Clive
jettredmont
May 3, 03:44 PM
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
citizenzen
Mar 16, 11:57 AM
First...
Second...
Third...
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
*ouch*
Rolled my eyes so far I think I pulled something.
Second...
Third...
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
*ouch*
Rolled my eyes so far I think I pulled something.
citizenzen
Apr 24, 11:14 AM
What's the deal with religious people?
It's just tribalism, upon tribalism, upon tribalism.
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!"
The Great Red Dragon and the
ブレイク／William Blake
It's just tribalism, upon tribalism, upon tribalism.
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!"
flopticalcube
Apr 22, 08:00 PM
Didn't you know? Aside from owning Apple products it's also quite trendy being an atheist. They think they don't need to back up their points with Reason or facts so it's a kind of intellectual laziness which compels most people.
I'm not saying that I'm a devout Christian or anything of the sort, I'm agnostic, but it's based on Reason.
Please expound on said reason, for the benefit of all...
I'm not saying that I'm a devout Christian or anything of the sort, I'm agnostic, but it's based on Reason.
Please expound on said reason, for the benefit of all...
Rend It
Aug 29, 02:14 PM
But diesel has significantly more particulate matter in it - bad for respiratory health - particularly in cities.
That's what particulate filters are for:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_Particulate_Filter
Low-sulfur diesel fuel standards are being phased in now, to make the US diesel more like that available elsewhere, like Europe, where diesels are much more common. At this point in time, diesel represents the most feasible option in terms of improving our individual utilization of fossil fuels in cars. A Jetta TDI is easily capable of 40+ mpg. Ideally, it would be a hybrid with diesel. Eventually, with the same hardware, we can move to biodiesel, and further reduce our oil dependencies.
That's what particulate filters are for:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_Particulate_Filter
Low-sulfur diesel fuel standards are being phased in now, to make the US diesel more like that available elsewhere, like Europe, where diesels are much more common. At this point in time, diesel represents the most feasible option in terms of improving our individual utilization of fossil fuels in cars. A Jetta TDI is easily capable of 40+ mpg. Ideally, it would be a hybrid with diesel. Eventually, with the same hardware, we can move to biodiesel, and further reduce our oil dependencies.
Kilamite
Apr 28, 07:22 AM
Guessing 2012 see Apple shift up again? Redesigned MacBook Pro's, retina display iPad 3..
leekohler
Apr 15, 10:01 AM
First and foremost, I myself am a gay male in his 20's. I know all about discrimination and bullying. I've lived it first-hand, but perhaps nowhere near to the extent that it appears to be common these days, where teenagers are basically pushed to suicide in some cases. It is sad and I can barely begin to imagine their pain.
With that said, however, I'm not super excited by these campaigns that seem to be sprouting, left and right, that, more or less, encourage people to be gay/lesbian/whatever. At the end of the day that's basically the underlying message in all these videos: "Go ahead, by gay. It's perfectly fine."
Personally, I think that is a decision that one has to arrive to after much soul-searching. It's a very private journey and I'm not so sure that the media should be offering this type of "GO FOR IT!" message. One should come to accept who he/she is and embrace the inevitable consequences of the lifestyle. Let's face it, it's not easy at all for the vast majority of people who live this lifestyle, no matter how picture-perfect they want to brag about how their life is. That's 100% BULL. I have a very open-minded family (who even welcomes my other half like a son of their own) and I live in Orlando (one VERY gay city), but this alternate route is nowhere near easy or rose-colored.
So, I'm very in between. I'm all for ensuring we don't get mistreated or discriminated but I also think all these teens (the target audience of these campaigns) shouldn't be exposed to this type of encouragement either. I'm very disgusted with the GLBT community as of late, with all the bigotry and one-sided attitude. It's funny how we all want to be heard, accepted, and given a chance to express ourselves and fight for what we believe in, but the minute any group, church, or organization stands behind their beliefs, they're immediately labeled as hateful, homophobes with no hearts. Seriously, WTF? Aren't THEY entitled to fight for what THEY believe in as well? I think respect is a two-way street. We sure cry and moan and whine if we don't get any of it, but I see a lot of my own community acting quick to bad-mouth anyone that doesn't support our agenda. Maybe that's why I'm so "eh" about this whole thing.
Many church groups are trying to take away your our rights. We're just trying to be ourselves. I'm sorry, but I have no respect for any group that wants to take the rights of others. We are not trying to take anything form religious groups that don;t like us, but they are trying to take something form us. Big difference.
With that said, however, I'm not super excited by these campaigns that seem to be sprouting, left and right, that, more or less, encourage people to be gay/lesbian/whatever. At the end of the day that's basically the underlying message in all these videos: "Go ahead, by gay. It's perfectly fine."
Personally, I think that is a decision that one has to arrive to after much soul-searching. It's a very private journey and I'm not so sure that the media should be offering this type of "GO FOR IT!" message. One should come to accept who he/she is and embrace the inevitable consequences of the lifestyle. Let's face it, it's not easy at all for the vast majority of people who live this lifestyle, no matter how picture-perfect they want to brag about how their life is. That's 100% BULL. I have a very open-minded family (who even welcomes my other half like a son of their own) and I live in Orlando (one VERY gay city), but this alternate route is nowhere near easy or rose-colored.
So, I'm very in between. I'm all for ensuring we don't get mistreated or discriminated but I also think all these teens (the target audience of these campaigns) shouldn't be exposed to this type of encouragement either. I'm very disgusted with the GLBT community as of late, with all the bigotry and one-sided attitude. It's funny how we all want to be heard, accepted, and given a chance to express ourselves and fight for what we believe in, but the minute any group, church, or organization stands behind their beliefs, they're immediately labeled as hateful, homophobes with no hearts. Seriously, WTF? Aren't THEY entitled to fight for what THEY believe in as well? I think respect is a two-way street. We sure cry and moan and whine if we don't get any of it, but I see a lot of my own community acting quick to bad-mouth anyone that doesn't support our agenda. Maybe that's why I'm so "eh" about this whole thing.
Many church groups are trying to take away your our rights. We're just trying to be ourselves. I'm sorry, but I have no respect for any group that wants to take the rights of others. We are not trying to take anything form religious groups that don;t like us, but they are trying to take something form us. Big difference.
MacinDoc
Aug 29, 03:07 PM
For those who don't know what the Precautionary Principle, it is a belief that essentially states that everything should be assumed to be harmful until proven otherwise. Therefore, it applies mostly to innovators and producers of new products that have not been made before. Apple, being an innovative company, introduces new technologies. Dell, on the other hand, copies what others have done. So, the only way that Apple could adhere as closely to the Precautionary Principle as Dell would be to become another Dell, and to only copy what other manufacturers were already making. So, including this principle in Greenpeace's analysis of the environmental friendliness of tech firms is laughable at best, conspiratorial at worst.
Am I saying that Apple could not do better as a steward of the environment? No, but I suspect that Dell, which should be stopping its distribution of CRTs (which consume much more power than LCDs and contain lead) and designing products to have a longer lifespan, is more in need of improvement than Apple is.
Am I saying that Apple could not do better as a steward of the environment? No, but I suspect that Dell, which should be stopping its distribution of CRTs (which consume much more power than LCDs and contain lead) and designing products to have a longer lifespan, is more in need of improvement than Apple is.
ddtlm
Oct 12, 06:02 PM
MacCoaster:
Missed your request for ASM directions for a sec there. :) Anyway, I use NASM. Available here:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/nasm
I do my assembly in a .asm file, and use a C program as a wrapper to make things easy. C program, including my C loops. Notice that is't ugly and I manually change it to test different things, but hey it works. You can do better Im sure. :)
#include <math.h>
unsigned int asm_func1( );
unsigned int asm_func2( );
unsigned int asm_func3( );
unsigned int C_func1( )
{
Missed your request for ASM directions for a sec there. :) Anyway, I use NASM. Available here:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/nasm
I do my assembly in a .asm file, and use a C program as a wrapper to make things easy. C program, including my C loops. Notice that is't ugly and I manually change it to test different things, but hey it works. You can do better Im sure. :)
#include <math.h>
unsigned int asm_func1( );
unsigned int asm_func2( );
unsigned int asm_func3( );
unsigned int C_func1( )
{
Prof.
Jun 19, 01:13 PM
Didn't their slogan used to be "The carrier with the fewest dropped calls"? Or something to that effect.
