Mister Snitch
Apr 9, 11:46 AM
I am firmly against poaching executives. They should always be deep-fried.
.jpg "A Victorian wedding portrait")
Mord
Jul 13, 10:36 AM
every vendor, dell, HP, gateway ect offer workstations with single xeons, it's a very common practice because it makes business sense.
skunk
Apr 24, 05:05 AM
You all know that hockey has become important to me in the last few months since I started playing-it has changed me in ways I can't explain. It's made me a new person. It is that one thing I thought I could never do, and now at 44, I am playing with guys who are 21 years old and I freak them out. "Dude, no way, you are pretty damn good." I love that. :) I want to help other people do the same.Come on, Lee, you just enjoy spending your time surrounded by young, fit redheads guys. :)
takao
Mar 14, 06:32 AM
actually the situations has became rather grave now over the night: another hydrogen explosion at the reactor 3 even bigger than the one which destroyed the the building on the block nr1
and now also a cooling failure at the reactor number 2 where after some reports the water levels have dropped so far that the fuel rods aren't covered completly anymore
regarding the US navy driving through a nuclear cloud: just further confirmation that more has leaked than they admit:
just yesterday a nuclear warning was coming from a a third nuclear plant only that they then realized that it was not their own radiation but actually the radition from the fukushima plant from more than 100 miles away
edit: according to some comments of the 5 emergency fire brigade water pumps used for pumping sea water into the reactors 4 aren't in working conditions partially because of the explosion: so now they have 1 pump to cool 3 reactors ? ... not looking good
and now also a cooling failure at the reactor number 2 where after some reports the water levels have dropped so far that the fuel rods aren't covered completly anymore
regarding the US navy driving through a nuclear cloud: just further confirmation that more has leaked than they admit:
just yesterday a nuclear warning was coming from a a third nuclear plant only that they then realized that it was not their own radiation but actually the radition from the fukushima plant from more than 100 miles away
edit: according to some comments of the 5 emergency fire brigade water pumps used for pumping sea water into the reactors 4 aren't in working conditions partially because of the explosion: so now they have 1 pump to cool 3 reactors ? ... not looking good
.Andy
Apr 23, 03:58 PM
Yay! It's .Andy! G'dday!
G'day skunk and PRSI friends! Apologies been busy down here :).
G'day skunk and PRSI friends! Apologies been busy down here :).
Eric5h5
Jul 12, 04:16 AM
I doubt that Apple are able to charge the "normal" Mac premium after the intel transition, since it is much simpler to compare Macs with another PCs.
Er...have you seen the MacBook Pro pricing? The MacBook pricing? The iMac pricing? The Mini pricing? (Which went UP by a fair amount). If you're thinking that x86 processors are cheaper than PPC, you're sadly mistaken. Cheap computers being cheap has just about nothing whatsoever to do with the CPU....
--Eric
Er...have you seen the MacBook Pro pricing? The MacBook pricing? The iMac pricing? The Mini pricing? (Which went UP by a fair amount). If you're thinking that x86 processors are cheaper than PPC, you're sadly mistaken. Cheap computers being cheap has just about nothing whatsoever to do with the CPU....
--Eric
makinao
Mar 11, 01:50 AM
I'm in the Philippines, and one side of the country is facing the epicenter. Right now, we are on tsunami alert level 1. This was the advisory an hour and a half ago. http://ndcc.gov.ph/attachments/article/165/Tsunami%20Bulletin%20No.%201%2011%20March2011,%202PM.pdf
We pray it doesn't get here.
We pray it doesn't get here.
Multimedia
Oct 30, 11:24 PM
Oh... That makes much more sense now. :cool:
Now what about instead of dealing with the solution of swapping drives in/out of the Mac Pro, instead use an external fiber channel or eSATA drive enclosure with hot-swappable drives? Fiber channel would be expensive unless you're already using it, but eSATA enclosures aren't all that bad.I already have a bunch of Adaptec eSATA/USB2 SATA enclosures that say they only work as USB2 on Macs. But I wonder if they won't work on any eSATA PCIe card we can put into the Mac Pro. How expensive are those eSATA PCIe cards anyway?
BTW I find USB2 HD hook ups to be far less problematic and just as fast or faster than FW hooks ups. Is that true?
Now what about instead of dealing with the solution of swapping drives in/out of the Mac Pro, instead use an external fiber channel or eSATA drive enclosure with hot-swappable drives? Fiber channel would be expensive unless you're already using it, but eSATA enclosures aren't all that bad.I already have a bunch of Adaptec eSATA/USB2 SATA enclosures that say they only work as USB2 on Macs. But I wonder if they won't work on any eSATA PCIe card we can put into the Mac Pro. How expensive are those eSATA PCIe cards anyway?
BTW I find USB2 HD hook ups to be far less problematic and just as fast or faster than FW hooks ups. Is that true?
hush
Sep 20, 08:41 AM
Well, actually I cannot understand why Apple has rejected original nano's design and has made a return to ipod mini style... IMO Ipod Nano was one of the best designs in Apple's recent history, so I am looking for a second hand one :)
Cheers,
Cheers,
SDAVE
Apr 13, 12:31 AM
Wrong forum to talk about users who use FCP professionally (ie. Angus Wall, etc. etc.)
04440
Oct 27, 12:01 AM
The quad cores are already amazing.. Shoot.. I can't imagine where are programs are going. You know there's going to be that program that will only run on these 2 quad cores. Disgusting. But beautiful.. I don't want to start counting down the days for this release. I'm still burnt out about the MBP C2D. I'm waiting for my mac store to get it in stock.
theheadguy
Aug 29, 02:35 PM
I swear, some people will excuse Apple of genocide if given the chance. How is it that Apple is doing "everything they can" when Dell is doing so much better? They both make the same things! Same with Motorola and Nokia. We even have some conspiracy theorists thinking Greenpeace is out to get Apple (although they seem to miss the part where Acer scores worse, and happens to be a smaller PC maker). Its simply impossible to try and excuse Apple when a company like Dell does better, not caring about companies destroying the environment is one thing but trying to pretend Apple is actually doing a good job is another.
You're spot on. Some people can't face the facts. It hurts their feelings to realize Apple can do some things very poorly.
You're spot on. Some people can't face the facts. It hurts their feelings to realize Apple can do some things very poorly.
awmazz
Mar 13, 11:45 AM
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. 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.
And this is what I dislike about the pro-nuclear rhetoric. This is not true at all. Geo thermal energy. Cleaner, cheaper, safer than nuclear by magnitudes.
A nuclear power station is just a steam turbine fueled by poisonous rocks instead of carbonized trees as a heat source. I believe the iPad app version of Popular Science has an illustrated article about an test plant using geothermal heat instead to run steam turbines.
And this is what I dislike about the pro-nuclear rhetoric. This is not true at all. Geo thermal energy. Cleaner, cheaper, safer than nuclear by magnitudes.
A nuclear power station is just a steam turbine fueled by poisonous rocks instead of carbonized trees as a heat source. I believe the iPad app version of Popular Science has an illustrated article about an test plant using geothermal heat instead to run steam turbines.
Peterkro
Mar 14, 06:18 PM
Number 2 reactor explosion,possible containment vessel rupture (I hope not) doesn't sound good.
(it appears a expansion tank blew as it's directly connected to the main vessel this is not good)
@skunk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC_Inter-Island
(it appears a expansion tank blew as it's directly connected to the main vessel this is not good)
@skunk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC_Inter-Island
EricNau
Apr 25, 12:02 AM
The ACT test is like the SAT but for the middle of America. I got 36* and literally only studied the day before.
*weight my arguments posted on the Internet accordingly.
Long time no see. It's nice to have you back. :)
*weight my arguments posted on the Internet accordingly.
Long time no see. It's nice to have you back. :)
chaoticbear
Apr 15, 09:39 AM
Weird. That's the beauty of an SMB/CIFS NAS. It can run on Linux with ext3 and Samba and you'd think it was Windows/NTFS. Supporting >4GB is just a matter of getting the right format that the NAS understands, because it will translate that to a generic SMB call.
My current NAS is an HP Mediasmart running Windows Home Server, but I also used the Apple Time Capsule before that. Neither had any trouble with the issues you raise.
And dropbox has been a godsend for me. Drop a file in there and once synced it's accessible at full speeds from all of my three Macs (under OSX or Windows) my PC and even my iDevices.
B
Well, to be fair, this is not a high-end box we're dealing with. We bought a router that supports SMB via a USB external HDD. The formatting pains were when we thought we were ever going to disconnect the drive and take it anywhere with us, or plug it directly into a computer for transferring large chunks of data. We don't ever do either of those, so we basically just went through all that work for nothing. The OP asked for things they might not like, maybe they'll run into this one useless headache at some point in their future :p
My current NAS is an HP Mediasmart running Windows Home Server, but I also used the Apple Time Capsule before that. Neither had any trouble with the issues you raise.
And dropbox has been a godsend for me. Drop a file in there and once synced it's accessible at full speeds from all of my three Macs (under OSX or Windows) my PC and even my iDevices.
B
Well, to be fair, this is not a high-end box we're dealing with. We bought a router that supports SMB via a USB external HDD. The formatting pains were when we thought we were ever going to disconnect the drive and take it anywhere with us, or plug it directly into a computer for transferring large chunks of data. We don't ever do either of those, so we basically just went through all that work for nothing. The OP asked for things they might not like, maybe they'll run into this one useless headache at some point in their future :p
.jpg "Victorian era style boots")
BriGuy20
Oct 8, 09:24 AM
The only reason I could see this happening is if Apple doesn't roll out the iPhone to other carriers or if it does so late in 2011 or something.
I could also see Google making more unit sales but with lower revenue (i.e. more low-end units).
I think the point will be moot because of the gazillion different iterations of hardware manufacturers tacking on their individualized stuff.
I could also see Google making more unit sales but with lower revenue (i.e. more low-end units).
I think the point will be moot because of the gazillion different iterations of hardware manufacturers tacking on their individualized stuff.
KidStallyn
Mar 18, 10:50 AM
They actually give you an extra 2gb of data now with the tethering plan. I suspect you argument is one of the main reasons that was implemented.
1) Why would I need an extra 2GB when I'm already Unlimited?
2) Why would I need to pay an extra $20 for 1s and 0s going from my laptop thru my phone. If I'm using the laptop, I'm not using my phone and vice versa. It's still single use.
3) Do you pay "Extra" for home internet because you have a wireless router that allows you to connect multiple PCs to the same connection?? How is tethering on a mobile phone any different??? This sets a precedence that could allow for home internet providers to charge on a per PC connect basis.
1) Why would I need an extra 2GB when I'm already Unlimited?
2) Why would I need to pay an extra $20 for 1s and 0s going from my laptop thru my phone. If I'm using the laptop, I'm not using my phone and vice versa. It's still single use.
3) Do you pay "Extra" for home internet because you have a wireless router that allows you to connect multiple PCs to the same connection?? How is tethering on a mobile phone any different??? This sets a precedence that could allow for home internet providers to charge on a per PC connect basis.
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.
grubesteak
Sep 26, 12:29 AM
What incentive does anyone ever have to buy if they keep announcing new chips? I'm all for the advancement of new technology, but I'm not forking over any money just yet.
Seems like there's a new "just around the corner" press release/rumor every other week.
Seems like there's a new "just around the corner" press release/rumor every other week.
iJohnHenry
Apr 23, 03:54 PM
You don't understand because you can't see the big picture.
You have to step back, in order to see the big picture.
He could be standing in the middle of the Andromeda galaxy, and it would be of no value.
I think ancient Jews thought each day began at dawn and ended at sunset.
So, all biblical days are Solar days?
Perhaps God goes by a much longer passage of time for His days. ;)
You have to step back, in order to see the big picture.
He could be standing in the middle of the Andromeda galaxy, and it would be of no value.
I think ancient Jews thought each day began at dawn and ended at sunset.
So, all biblical days are Solar days?
Perhaps God goes by a much longer passage of time for His days. ;)
Don't panic
Mar 15, 05:11 PM
i can't find a good source for timed updates.
all things seem to go together and i can't really tell what's new and what's not.
one thing seemingly emerging as really problematic is the spent fuel pools.
I can't understand how it is possible that the design puts it in the worst possible place (in terms of management during a crisis) and without ANY containment protection.
it's crazy.
puma, could you explain the rationale?
all things seem to go together and i can't really tell what's new and what's not.
one thing seemingly emerging as really problematic is the spent fuel pools.
I can't understand how it is possible that the design puts it in the worst possible place (in terms of management during a crisis) and without ANY containment protection.
it's crazy.
puma, could you explain the rationale?
ncv
Apr 12, 10:15 PM
Great news. Pity I just did the Final Cut Pro training course.
alex_ant
Oct 9, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by gopher
Only we have some people come on this board who claim that the Mac is much slower. For what purpose?
To show people that Macs are not as fast as Apple claims them to be, and to send Apple a message that they need to get their hardware in gear already. "We" want Apple to succeed as much as you do. What we don't want is for Apple to become complacent, as it has recently, and sell nothing but high-priced boxes full of yesterday's technology. (PC100/133 across the board, and crippled DDR in the Power Macs. No Firewire2, no USB2, no ATA-133. Is this 2002 or is it 1999?)
And Arne, if you are reading these boards, please delete clearly PC biased hate posts ASAP.
Silence your opposition - fabulous.
Only we have some people come on this board who claim that the Mac is much slower. For what purpose?
To show people that Macs are not as fast as Apple claims them to be, and to send Apple a message that they need to get their hardware in gear already. "We" want Apple to succeed as much as you do. What we don't want is for Apple to become complacent, as it has recently, and sell nothing but high-priced boxes full of yesterday's technology. (PC100/133 across the board, and crippled DDR in the Power Macs. No Firewire2, no USB2, no ATA-133. Is this 2002 or is it 1999?)
And Arne, if you are reading these boards, please delete clearly PC biased hate posts ASAP.
Silence your opposition - fabulous.