rquick
Aug 25, 02:21 AM
I read through most of these posts and I just have to rant a little. It's funny how the only place that people are unhappy with AT&T service and the iPhone is in surveys and on these forums. Except for the survey a few weeks back that said AT&T had the highest approval ratings. It probably depends on how you ask the questions. Nobody asked me, but I have had each model of the iphone and the only time I had a high number of dropped calls was with the 3g right after it was released about 2 years ago. The first major firmware upgrade fixed it and the number of dropped calls fell dramatically. It still had a few, but not to the point of being a problem. That phone is still in use by someone I know and see everyday and they love it. I now have the iphone 4 (since release day) and I can't remember my last dropped call. It has no reception issues at all - if anything it is the best connection and sound I have ever had with a cellphone. I am in Texas where AT&T rules - it is the old SWB after all and is based in Texas. I haven't had the chance to travel with the 4 yet, but I traveled all over the country with my 3gs and never had a problem. A few spots in the mountains that had no reception at all, but that was true for everyone else there too. Verizon included. I have a close friend whose entire company switched from Verizon and Blackberrys to get iPhones for everyone and they are extremely satisfied. They work all over the country (I mean literally everywhere) and their IT manager told me the cellphone and email related complaints have dropped off dramatically since they dropped Verizon cell phones and their old Blackberrys. That wouldn't be possible if AT&T was so universally hated. I have to admit though, I'm not positive the BBs were on Verizon but I think so because their cellphones definitely were. They carried both and many of their people were upset at being forced to carry Verizon phones. People just hate to be forced. It seems like a lot of people here say the iPhone won't even work in NY because of AT&T. My daughter lives in NY and she has had a 3g for 2 years and says she has no issues. Except in the subway. All of her friends use iphones in and around NY and they say they have no issues. Except in the subway. Anyone want to tell me that Verizon works in the subway? Nobody is perfect. And then I see someone on here complaining about the build of the iPhone 4 and I realize again that people are so totally full of crap it's amazing. The one thing no reasonable person can possibly complain about is the design and build quality of the 4 - make believe antenna issues notwithstanding- not without lying through their teeth. The design is absolutely outstanding. I love the glass back and the screen is beautiful. Makes me suspect they have not even had the chance to hold one yet. My daughter has tried to buy one several times in NY over the past few weeks without success because they are still in such extremely high demand. Like they would still be that popular if the service was so pitiful. She told me last week that the shipments are still sold out everyday at her favorite Apple stores. I keep telling her to try an AT&T store but she likes Apple stores, you know - where they treat her so rudely and don't have anyone helpful. Maybe its all in how YOU treat the people around you. Try saying something nice and maybe the clerk will look up from her ipad next time.
archipellago
May 2, 04:43 PM
This sounds like you're under the mistaken impression that hackers are members of some kind of organization or ranking.... they're not. They are, for the most part, quite independent. There's no such thing as "Hacker, Class 3" or "Hacker, Class 1". Also, not all hackers write malware and not all malware writers are hackers. The more you offer such statements, the more you reveal that you have no idea what you're talking about.
lol, sorry........I can't get into this but you are SO wrong its not true.
there are governments around the world employing people to do this kind of thing.
lol, sorry........I can't get into this but you are SO wrong its not true.
there are governments around the world employing people to do this kind of thing.
Watabou
May 2, 10:58 AM
That's why I use Firefox with NoScript installed. :)
Sm0kejaguar
Oct 26, 10:56 AM
After much debate and anguish i finally decided to order my Mac Pro yesterday... figures this would come up now.... /sigh. I am assuming they will only add a higher end config, but honestley... do any of us know?
Kebabselector
Mar 18, 08:02 AM
I get: 2000 any network-any time minutes, 5000 same network minutes, 5000 any network messages, UNLIMITED internet, that's right, no capping, no "fair usage policies", UNLIMITED! AAAAND I can tether with up to 5 devices,
True, but once you move away from a major city 3's network is rather crap.
To be fair it's a good deal, but good luck leaving 3 when you decide to move on. Their call centres are awful to deal with.
True, but once you move away from a major city 3's network is rather crap.
To be fair it's a good deal, but good luck leaving 3 when you decide to move on. Their call centres are awful to deal with.
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.
sawah
Mar 18, 01:14 PM
What the hell is your problem? AT&T has broken the law. Are you content with that?
Do you think it's appropriate for any company to sell an unlimited service, and make every attempt possible to limit it?
And how do YOU not get the giant paragraph in their TOS that says you can't tether it to another device?? Use all the unlimited data you want on your phone. A judge isn't gonna waive that all away.
Not to mention, At&t is warning you that you are gonna get charged for it, which also covers their butts. They aren't charging you for it without telling you in advance first.
We've all know for years that our cell phone companies charge way too much for things. We still choose to pay them.
Do you think it's appropriate for any company to sell an unlimited service, and make every attempt possible to limit it?
And how do YOU not get the giant paragraph in their TOS that says you can't tether it to another device?? Use all the unlimited data you want on your phone. A judge isn't gonna waive that all away.
Not to mention, At&t is warning you that you are gonna get charged for it, which also covers their butts. They aren't charging you for it without telling you in advance first.
We've all know for years that our cell phone companies charge way too much for things. We still choose to pay them.
lilo777
Apr 20, 09:03 PM
Just curious what NFC does in any Android device currently?
Of course you can work hard to drain the phones battery but LTE is draining the phones battery without trying. Nothing wrong with that, but Apple focuses on a single model and they have a set of requirements that they wish to achieve (battery life being awesome is one of them!).
If you don't like it, don't buy it, I guess?
Quote: "Google has begun distributing stickers with near field communication (NFC) technology to businesses throughout Austin, Texas as part of its Google Places roll out. The stickers allow users to tap their NFC-equipped phone on the sticker and access content and information relevant to the local business.
The stickers are manufactured by Smartag and measure 80mm x 50mm (3.15 in x 1.97 in) in size. Users who have the Google Places app on their smartphones will be able to see the business' address, phone number, hours of business, types of payment accepted, reviews, and more. The user also has the ability to rate and review the business right from their mobile device. They will then receive personalized recommendations in their search results based on their preferences."
So OSX allows user access to all critical files with no option to hide?
I believe so. I am not aware of any other OS but Windows that has this feature.
Of course you can work hard to drain the phones battery but LTE is draining the phones battery without trying. Nothing wrong with that, but Apple focuses on a single model and they have a set of requirements that they wish to achieve (battery life being awesome is one of them!).
If you don't like it, don't buy it, I guess?
Quote: "Google has begun distributing stickers with near field communication (NFC) technology to businesses throughout Austin, Texas as part of its Google Places roll out. The stickers allow users to tap their NFC-equipped phone on the sticker and access content and information relevant to the local business.
The stickers are manufactured by Smartag and measure 80mm x 50mm (3.15 in x 1.97 in) in size. Users who have the Google Places app on their smartphones will be able to see the business' address, phone number, hours of business, types of payment accepted, reviews, and more. The user also has the ability to rate and review the business right from their mobile device. They will then receive personalized recommendations in their search results based on their preferences."
So OSX allows user access to all critical files with no option to hide?
I believe so. I am not aware of any other OS but Windows that has this feature.
slu
Oct 7, 03:51 PM
All I have to say is EAT IT MICROSOFT! Windows Mobile SUCKS lol :D :p
I love seeing the way things are going for Microsoft. It is like watching a giant passing out about to SLAM and hit the ground collapsed. Always too little too late! :rolleyes:
I hope my sarcasm meter is broken.
If it is not, comments like this are exactly what is wrong with this forum.
What does Microsoft has to do with topic?
I love seeing the way things are going for Microsoft. It is like watching a giant passing out about to SLAM and hit the ground collapsed. Always too little too late! :rolleyes:
I hope my sarcasm meter is broken.
If it is not, comments like this are exactly what is wrong with this forum.
What does Microsoft has to do with topic?
kultschar
Apr 9, 05:00 AM
Not been impressed with control system for certain games on ios however Dead Space on the iPad 2 impresses me graphics wise and a step in the right direction control wise but still a little clunky.
Surely a matter of time before we will start playing apps on our Apple TVs with a special controller of some sort!
Surely a matter of time before we will start playing apps on our Apple TVs with a special controller of some sort!
Teddy's
Aug 29, 01:06 PM
Last week I discovered a magazine based in Toronto (www.digitaljournal.com) They base their reports in the old saying that all tulips must grow the same height. They have been hitting "google's related news" (v.gr. the Sweatshop issue) and getting traffic to their websites. So, maybe the same kind of guru is running Greenpeace.
After what I have read about the enviroment friendly policy in Apple's website, I do not trust that Greenpeace report.
They are a lot of really awful companies in the world. Greenpeace: give me a break!
After 3 hours: Still, meh!
After what I have read about the enviroment friendly policy in Apple's website, I do not trust that Greenpeace report.
They are a lot of really awful companies in the world. Greenpeace: give me a break!
After 3 hours: Still, meh!
calvin66
Aug 29, 01:31 PM
While I'm sure Apple and everyone else has a long way to go with regard to clean manufacturing practices, I'm not sold on Greenpeace's approach to the ratings.
If you look at their scoring system, it is a compilation of Greenpeace's subjective evaluation of a variety of practices by each company. Much of what Dell gets credit for is timelines for changing its business practices, and openness with regard to information on hazardous substances in the manufacturing process. When you look at what they are doing (rather than what they are saying), Dell and Apple score the same--a +2 (partially good) on amounts recycled, and a 0 (bad) for PVC & BFR free products. The report doesn't say how it quantifies these rankings, nor the underlying data regarding the score....which is kinda funny given their harping on full disclosure for all the companies mentioned.
It turns out Greenpeace is like everybody else--manipulating the data to support its goals. It sure doesn't help their credibility.
If you look at their scoring system, it is a compilation of Greenpeace's subjective evaluation of a variety of practices by each company. Much of what Dell gets credit for is timelines for changing its business practices, and openness with regard to information on hazardous substances in the manufacturing process. When you look at what they are doing (rather than what they are saying), Dell and Apple score the same--a +2 (partially good) on amounts recycled, and a 0 (bad) for PVC & BFR free products. The report doesn't say how it quantifies these rankings, nor the underlying data regarding the score....which is kinda funny given their harping on full disclosure for all the companies mentioned.
It turns out Greenpeace is like everybody else--manipulating the data to support its goals. It sure doesn't help their credibility.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:03 PM
I agree with your pro-nuclear, pro energy independence stance, Fivepoint.
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
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.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
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.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
dethmaShine
May 2, 04:47 PM
There, fixed it for ya (and the "'s too) ;)
OS X and Windows have their pro's and con's, no OS is 100% secure. However (and read my posts), working in the field I can assure you 75%+ of my clients have security/virus/malware issues with everything from XP-W7. Executable's are the equivalent to barfing into your system; they get everywhere and are difficult to remove.
If Windows followed Apple and developed hardware to utilize their OS instead of coding an OS for a myriad of profiles (and ditching antiquated BIOS for EFI) it would allow for a better end user experience and for MS to focus on better security. Yet this would mean millions to billions for businesses to reinvest in new hardware as well as MS producing a good product (based on their industrial design team and product history, I wouldn't bet on it).
OS X based systems are generally more secure than Windows systems. I could google "OS X safer than Windows" and find as many claims as you suggest, but that would be bias. Google " 'OS X versus Windows' security' ", you will most likely discover articles/studies with no bias/agenda. If OS X wasn't more secure than Windows OS systems, why aren't more users running anti-virus/malware utilities?
Ah well, forget google-ing "windows is more secure than OS X",
just ask google; they know better I guess. ;)
OS X and Windows have their pro's and con's, no OS is 100% secure. However (and read my posts), working in the field I can assure you 75%+ of my clients have security/virus/malware issues with everything from XP-W7. Executable's are the equivalent to barfing into your system; they get everywhere and are difficult to remove.
If Windows followed Apple and developed hardware to utilize their OS instead of coding an OS for a myriad of profiles (and ditching antiquated BIOS for EFI) it would allow for a better end user experience and for MS to focus on better security. Yet this would mean millions to billions for businesses to reinvest in new hardware as well as MS producing a good product (based on their industrial design team and product history, I wouldn't bet on it).
OS X based systems are generally more secure than Windows systems. I could google "OS X safer than Windows" and find as many claims as you suggest, but that would be bias. Google " 'OS X versus Windows' security' ", you will most likely discover articles/studies with no bias/agenda. If OS X wasn't more secure than Windows OS systems, why aren't more users running anti-virus/malware utilities?
Ah well, forget google-ing "windows is more secure than OS X",
just ask google; they know better I guess. ;)
Ljohnson72
Jan 28, 10:59 PM
Because Android isn't an OS that is on multiple devices on multiple carriers. :rolleyes:
CQd44
Apr 21, 02:53 AM
Its amazing how all those "smart" Android users are still poorer than the average iOS user, and spend less than the average iOS user.
Amazing that all these "smart" people just make so much less money...
Are you ****ing serious?
I don't use Apple products but oh my god I feel bad for you guys. Having a fanboy like this must be ridiculously crappy.
Amazing that all these "smart" people just make so much less money...
Are you ****ing serious?
I don't use Apple products but oh my god I feel bad for you guys. Having a fanboy like this must be ridiculously crappy.
Edge100
Apr 15, 11:23 AM
You are just being disingenuous. I think you just did not quote the part that says it is only OK with the Catholic church if gay men and women do not give physical expression to their gay "inclinations".
Sorry, but do you not see how horrid this position is?
"We won't hate you, as long as you deny who you are."
Jesus H. Christ.
Sorry, but do you not see how horrid this position is?
"We won't hate you, as long as you deny who you are."
Jesus H. Christ.
Dippo
Mar 18, 04:20 PM
RIAA Okay, so you want to actually pay for your music, huh?
Zac Efron Sexy 2011 New
Abstract
Mar 19, 10:08 AM
aah yes of course.. (slap on forehead). hmm.. then adding DRM on fly before delivering might be the workaround apple does... although as noted in my previous post, that can be defeated too.
No no, I don't think people get it.
If they put DRM on the track before you buy it, then everyone who buys that song will have the same song with the same DRM, which means that any computer can play it, as everyone has the same iTunes and a track with the same DRM.
Adding specific DRM on the fly isn't what Apple has to do, either. Your iTunes still has to know that it IS the computer that you can play a particular track from, and not just any computer.
No no, I don't think people get it.
If they put DRM on the track before you buy it, then everyone who buys that song will have the same song with the same DRM, which means that any computer can play it, as everyone has the same iTunes and a track with the same DRM.
Adding specific DRM on the fly isn't what Apple has to do, either. Your iTunes still has to know that it IS the computer that you can play a particular track from, and not just any computer.
Aduntu
Apr 22, 08:52 PM
Do you mean some Magical force creating Eve from Adam's rib?
not even interesting :cool:
Because it's harder to imagine that an intelligent designer had a hand in it than it is to imagine that everything happened by chance?
You are confusing the Big Bang Theory with current biochemical theories regarding primitive life with planetary formation. They are all independent working models of how events have unfolded in the past.
The only thing they happen to have in common is stand in the way of stubborn beliefs.
No, I don't think I'm confusing anything actually.
not even interesting :cool:
Because it's harder to imagine that an intelligent designer had a hand in it than it is to imagine that everything happened by chance?
You are confusing the Big Bang Theory with current biochemical theories regarding primitive life with planetary formation. They are all independent working models of how events have unfolded in the past.
The only thing they happen to have in common is stand in the way of stubborn beliefs.
No, I don't think I'm confusing anything actually.
munkery
May 2, 04:56 PM
Again, look, if you're not interested in the mechanics, that's fine. Stop replying to me.
My post is inquiring about the mechanics. For the past hour, I've been trying to find how this thing ticks by searching around for in-depth articles (none to find, everyone just points to Intego's brief overview that is seriously lacking in details) or for the archive itself.
If you don't want to take this discussion to the technical level I am trying to take it, just don't participate.
The Javascript exploit injected code into the Safari process to cause the download of a payload. That payload was the installer. (EDIT: the Javascript code did not exploit a vulnerability in Safari).
The installer is marked as safe to auto-execute if "open safe files after downloading" is turned on.
An installer is used to trick users to authenticate because the malware does not include privilege escalation via exploitation.
If you had any technical knowledge you could have figured that out yourself via the Intego article.
I don't know of any other Web browser (this is not a OS problem, it's a Safari problem) that automatically assumes executables are safe and thus should be auto-executed.
Installers being marked as safe really doesn't increase the likelihood of user level access as any client-side exploit provides user level access. I don't understand why you are hung up on this installer being able to auto-execute; it really makes no difference in terms of user level access. The attacker could have deleted your files with just an exploit that provides user level access.
What does Webkit2 have anything to do with running an installer on the OS after downloading it ? That happens outside the rendering engine's sandbox. You're not quite understanding what this sandbox does if you think this protects you against these types of attacks.
Webkit2 will prevent user level access via an exploit. Preventing these types of attacks is the intended purpose of sandboxing.
My post is inquiring about the mechanics. For the past hour, I've been trying to find how this thing ticks by searching around for in-depth articles (none to find, everyone just points to Intego's brief overview that is seriously lacking in details) or for the archive itself.
If you don't want to take this discussion to the technical level I am trying to take it, just don't participate.
The Javascript exploit injected code into the Safari process to cause the download of a payload. That payload was the installer. (EDIT: the Javascript code did not exploit a vulnerability in Safari).
The installer is marked as safe to auto-execute if "open safe files after downloading" is turned on.
An installer is used to trick users to authenticate because the malware does not include privilege escalation via exploitation.
If you had any technical knowledge you could have figured that out yourself via the Intego article.
I don't know of any other Web browser (this is not a OS problem, it's a Safari problem) that automatically assumes executables are safe and thus should be auto-executed.
Installers being marked as safe really doesn't increase the likelihood of user level access as any client-side exploit provides user level access. I don't understand why you are hung up on this installer being able to auto-execute; it really makes no difference in terms of user level access. The attacker could have deleted your files with just an exploit that provides user level access.
What does Webkit2 have anything to do with running an installer on the OS after downloading it ? That happens outside the rendering engine's sandbox. You're not quite understanding what this sandbox does if you think this protects you against these types of attacks.
Webkit2 will prevent user level access via an exploit. Preventing these types of attacks is the intended purpose of sandboxing.
CaoCao
Mar 26, 01:19 AM
WTF? Who said that anyone should be copulating in public? You have completely lost this argument at this point. Not to mention your mind...This has just gotten stupid.
I'm commenting on arbitrary rules
You're joking right? That's a heck of a statement you make there. Is that based on any fact? Or just your ignorance?
I'm assuming that by stability you mean children?
relationships built on love in general are less stable, cf. US divorce rate.
Marriage should be about more than love, the people should be fully committed to working through problems instead of divorce. My Grandfather's wedding was arranged, this year they are celebrating 50 years of marriage and they love each other. Love can grow or even start if nurtured.
The Constitution of the United States forbids tyranny of the majority by denying the government the power to deprive anyone of liberty without a compelling state interest in doing so. A powerful majority may not simply outlaw an unpopular minority.
However it isn't tyranny because the government isn't actually depriving them of liberty, merely not supporting them.
I'm commenting on arbitrary rules
You're joking right? That's a heck of a statement you make there. Is that based on any fact? Or just your ignorance?
I'm assuming that by stability you mean children?
relationships built on love in general are less stable, cf. US divorce rate.
Marriage should be about more than love, the people should be fully committed to working through problems instead of divorce. My Grandfather's wedding was arranged, this year they are celebrating 50 years of marriage and they love each other. Love can grow or even start if nurtured.
The Constitution of the United States forbids tyranny of the majority by denying the government the power to deprive anyone of liberty without a compelling state interest in doing so. A powerful majority may not simply outlaw an unpopular minority.
However it isn't tyranny because the government isn't actually depriving them of liberty, merely not supporting them.
mac jones
Mar 12, 03:58 AM
Hey, I've been hanging out on the forum for the iPad. But frankly i'm a little confused right now about what i just saw. From appearances (I mean appearances), the nuke plant in Japan BLEW UP, and they are lying about it if they say it's a minor issue. I don't want to believe this . You can see it with your own eyes, but i'm not sure exactly what i'm seeing. Certainly it isn't a small explosion.
Until I know what's really happening I'm officially, totally, freaked out......Any takers? :D
Until I know what's really happening I'm officially, totally, freaked out......Any takers? :D
Th3Crow
Apr 28, 11:43 PM
Do you think the people you know represent a fair sample group? You don't know anyone who needs Windows for work?
A reasonable question, AppleScruff. Indeed, my sample group includes staff, faculty, and students from different disciplines (including business/commerce, and engineering) at a university who use their Macs for research, graduate work, or lecture preparation; a prominent cardiologist at a large hospital; a financial advisor; professional musicians; and many others.
I am myself using a Mac in a business school seamlessly among my PC-using peers. There is nothing that they can do that I cannot - and many things I can do that they would have a difficult time doing in Windows. In fact, my colleagues have been so impressed that one has already made the switch recently, and another is preparing to switch as well. Those days of "needing to run Windows" for work are behind us.
A reasonable question, AppleScruff. Indeed, my sample group includes staff, faculty, and students from different disciplines (including business/commerce, and engineering) at a university who use their Macs for research, graduate work, or lecture preparation; a prominent cardiologist at a large hospital; a financial advisor; professional musicians; and many others.
I am myself using a Mac in a business school seamlessly among my PC-using peers. There is nothing that they can do that I cannot - and many things I can do that they would have a difficult time doing in Windows. In fact, my colleagues have been so impressed that one has already made the switch recently, and another is preparing to switch as well. Those days of "needing to run Windows" for work are behind us.