Applespider
Mar 20, 04:48 PM
The trouble with DRM is that it often affects the average Joe consumer more than it hurts those it's intended to stop.
CDs that don't play in a PC annoy Joe Public who buys a CD and wants to listen to it on his office PC while at work. The guy who planned on pirating it can easily get round the DRM and go on his merry way.
DRM embedded in iTunes annoy Joe Public who burned a track onto his wedding video and now can't distribute it to the wedding guests without working out an authorise/deauthorise schedule.
The record companies assume everyone is out to be a criminal while the 'criminals' don't bother buying DRMed files or strip out protection and do what they want so just as many files end up on P2P networks and on dodgy CDs on street corners.
CDs that don't play in a PC annoy Joe Public who buys a CD and wants to listen to it on his office PC while at work. The guy who planned on pirating it can easily get round the DRM and go on his merry way.
DRM embedded in iTunes annoy Joe Public who burned a track onto his wedding video and now can't distribute it to the wedding guests without working out an authorise/deauthorise schedule.
The record companies assume everyone is out to be a criminal while the 'criminals' don't bother buying DRMed files or strip out protection and do what they want so just as many files end up on P2P networks and on dodgy CDs on street corners.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:32 PM
That chart isn't going to fool anyone with a brain. All it shows is what is currently implemented. It says nothing about the potential contributions of all sources, how much they cost per watt, how much pollution they produce or whether or not they are renewable. It's a colorful red herring and you know it.
For one thing, there's no need for you to try to be a shill for the nuclear, oil, gas and coal industry - they already have well-financed lobbying operations and huge political influence. They'll get on fine without your "help". For another, it goes without saying that fossil fuels and nuclear are going to be used until they are gone. The energy demands are too great to do othwerise.
But they are called "non-renewable" energy sources for a reason, and they all pose major pollution problems that we are still struggling with. There is absolutely no good reason not to aggressively pursue the development and adoption of renewable energy sources as soon as is practical. Some day they will produce the bulk of the world's energy out of necessity if nothing else.
So in other words, without non-renewable energy, human civilization falls? That's a ridiculous stance.
The things we hope are reality and things that actually are reality often times greatly differ. People sing the praises of wind and solar, but the honest to God truth is that they can't compete. Not even close. It takes THOUSANDS of giant windmills to produce what one tiny nuclear power plant can. Can we put those in your back yard? Or how about off of your state's coast? How about solar... how long exactly does it take for a solar cell to pay for itself? The chart shows that despite heavy federal subsidies that such alternatives are STILL wholly incapable of doing the job we'd need them to do without nuclear, coal, oil, natural gas, etc. The ONLY one that has proven it's worth is hydro. That that was created out of pure invention, not a government subsidy.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Oh come on! You know what the answer to that will be. Panic wins every time as it makes better TV. :rolleyes:
Potassium Iodide tablets (retail $10 bottle) going for $500 on eBay. People are so stupid sometimes...
Yes, people have much potential for stupdity. They also have much potential to accomplish great things. Even (especially) without government holding their hands.
How's that going to work? People have to be fed too...
You're operating under a few false assumptions. First, bio fuels do not have to compete with food at all. Switch grass, moss, algae digesters, etc... its a quickly evolving world. Second, a great deal of our food price is wrapped up into transportation of said food. Third, using corn for fuel doesn't mean people go hungry, it only means that the price of corn goes up. Consequently prices of other goods might go up or down. What we probably agree on is that ethanol, etc. should not be subsidized.
For one thing, there's no need for you to try to be a shill for the nuclear, oil, gas and coal industry - they already have well-financed lobbying operations and huge political influence. They'll get on fine without your "help". For another, it goes without saying that fossil fuels and nuclear are going to be used until they are gone. The energy demands are too great to do othwerise.
But they are called "non-renewable" energy sources for a reason, and they all pose major pollution problems that we are still struggling with. There is absolutely no good reason not to aggressively pursue the development and adoption of renewable energy sources as soon as is practical. Some day they will produce the bulk of the world's energy out of necessity if nothing else.
So in other words, without non-renewable energy, human civilization falls? That's a ridiculous stance.
The things we hope are reality and things that actually are reality often times greatly differ. People sing the praises of wind and solar, but the honest to God truth is that they can't compete. Not even close. It takes THOUSANDS of giant windmills to produce what one tiny nuclear power plant can. Can we put those in your back yard? Or how about off of your state's coast? How about solar... how long exactly does it take for a solar cell to pay for itself? The chart shows that despite heavy federal subsidies that such alternatives are STILL wholly incapable of doing the job we'd need them to do without nuclear, coal, oil, natural gas, etc. The ONLY one that has proven it's worth is hydro. That that was created out of pure invention, not a government subsidy.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Oh come on! You know what the answer to that will be. Panic wins every time as it makes better TV. :rolleyes:
Potassium Iodide tablets (retail $10 bottle) going for $500 on eBay. People are so stupid sometimes...
Yes, people have much potential for stupdity. They also have much potential to accomplish great things. Even (especially) without government holding their hands.
How's that going to work? People have to be fed too...
You're operating under a few false assumptions. First, bio fuels do not have to compete with food at all. Switch grass, moss, algae digesters, etc... its a quickly evolving world. Second, a great deal of our food price is wrapped up into transportation of said food. Third, using corn for fuel doesn't mean people go hungry, it only means that the price of corn goes up. Consequently prices of other goods might go up or down. What we probably agree on is that ethanol, etc. should not be subsidized.
theBB
Sep 12, 07:32 PM
$50 gets me all the standard and HD channels on DirecTV. iTunes is still not at that quality/price point yet.
Off topic, but how do you get your broadband internet? DSL? I guess DSL requires me to pay for a landline phone for another $20 per month, as I currently do not have a landline phone. Then, there is the DSL fee itself. Basic cable, broadband + HDTV is $62 per month right now. If I go with DirecTV, I would end up with DirecTV fees + $40 per month for DSL. Overall more expensive than cable.
Off topic, but how do you get your broadband internet? DSL? I guess DSL requires me to pay for a landline phone for another $20 per month, as I currently do not have a landline phone. Then, there is the DSL fee itself. Basic cable, broadband + HDTV is $62 per month right now. If I go with DirecTV, I would end up with DirecTV fees + $40 per month for DSL. Overall more expensive than cable.
Lennholm
May 2, 10:30 AM
Is your info from like 1993 ? Because this little known version of Windows dubbed "New Technology" or NT for short brought along something called the NTFS (New Technology File System) that has... *drumroll* ACLs and strict permissions with inheritance...
Unless you're running as administrator on a Windows NT based system, you're as protected as a "Unix/Linux" user. Of course, you can also run as root all the time under Unix, negating this "security".
So again I ask, what about Unix security protects you from these attacks that Windows can't do ?
And I say this as a Unix systems administrator/fanboy. The multi-user paradigm that is "Unix security" came to Windows more than 18 years ago. It came to consumer versions of Windows about 9 years ago if you don't count Windows 2000 as a consumer version.
Wait, knowledge is ignorance ? 1984 much ?
The fact is, understanding the proper terminology and different payloads and impacts of the different types of malware prevents unnecessary panic and promotes a proper security strategy.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
Great post! I think the biggest reason security has been so problematic on Windows, aside from the fact that it's the biggest target, is that the default user type is administrator.
The kind of issue in this case, caused by user ignorance, is really the only threat that exist for Windows since XP SP2. Internet Explorer has had sufficient, but very annoying, security measures against this since version 7 and I'm surprised Safari can let these kind of things slide through so easily.
Security in Windows has been pretty solid for years now, but that hasn't stopped many Linux/Unix/OSX-fanboys from claiming Windows security is like a swizz cheese. They don't even bother to do some research, they just keep shouting the same old mantra.
Unless you're running as administrator on a Windows NT based system, you're as protected as a "Unix/Linux" user. Of course, you can also run as root all the time under Unix, negating this "security".
So again I ask, what about Unix security protects you from these attacks that Windows can't do ?
And I say this as a Unix systems administrator/fanboy. The multi-user paradigm that is "Unix security" came to Windows more than 18 years ago. It came to consumer versions of Windows about 9 years ago if you don't count Windows 2000 as a consumer version.
Wait, knowledge is ignorance ? 1984 much ?
The fact is, understanding the proper terminology and different payloads and impacts of the different types of malware prevents unnecessary panic and promotes a proper security strategy.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
Great post! I think the biggest reason security has been so problematic on Windows, aside from the fact that it's the biggest target, is that the default user type is administrator.
The kind of issue in this case, caused by user ignorance, is really the only threat that exist for Windows since XP SP2. Internet Explorer has had sufficient, but very annoying, security measures against this since version 7 and I'm surprised Safari can let these kind of things slide through so easily.
Security in Windows has been pretty solid for years now, but that hasn't stopped many Linux/Unix/OSX-fanboys from claiming Windows security is like a swizz cheese. They don't even bother to do some research, they just keep shouting the same old mantra.
OllyW
Apr 30, 03:03 AM
The iPod wasn't an instant success, sales only really only took off after the introduction of the Dock Connecter, but mostly the Click Wheel. This places it in with big sales really starting in 2005. That timeframe to 2009 (which was peak iPod sales, and included the Touch) is only 4 - 5 years, not a decade.
I think the real reason the iPod took off around that time was because it was properly opened up to the Windows market with the introduction of USB syncing and iTunes for Windows.
I think the real reason the iPod took off around that time was because it was properly opened up to the Windows market with the introduction of USB syncing and iTunes for Windows.
Eso
Mar 18, 10:04 AM
you can buy an iPhone without signing a contract (eBay, from a friend, etc.) however you cannot get service for the iPhone (in the U.S. at least) without entering into an agreement with a carrier, which a court will enforce as a contract, regardless whether there's a physical signature or not.
You misunderstand the role of the courts. The court does not enforce contracts. Instead, their role is to determine the validity of said contract. Both sides may argue as to why the terms of the contract are justified or not, and the court will rule in favor of one or the other. The court will either uphold the terms of the contract or declare them to be invalid.
You misunderstand the role of the courts. The court does not enforce contracts. Instead, their role is to determine the validity of said contract. Both sides may argue as to why the terms of the contract are justified or not, and the court will rule in favor of one or the other. The court will either uphold the terms of the contract or declare them to be invalid.
mattk3650
Apr 5, 09:23 PM
Wanna know the reason behind this. People on Verizon don't have the iPhone and aren't leaving the company so they just buy the next best thing.
If there's no iPhone on Verizon before 2011 I'm getting a Droid so hurry up Apple.
If there's no iPhone on Verizon before 2011 I'm getting a Droid so hurry up Apple.
Jamieserg
Apr 13, 12:35 PM
I like the new Final Cut Interface the old one was getting tired. Plus rendering in the background will save me SO much time. A lot of my time is spent hitting cmd+r at the moment. Looks like a brilliant release but as always i'll save my final judgement for when I get my hands on it.
Evangelion
Jul 12, 01:02 AM
Sounds like these new Mac Pros are going to be expensive.
In a way, yes. And I think that ThinkSecret is right as well: I bet that we will see a "MacPro Mini" featuring a mini-tower-design (or maybe pizzabox) that will use Conroe. MacPro would be all quad-core. The Mini would cost $1499 - $1999, whereas MacPro would cost $2499 - $3499. iMac would get Merom.
I made this prediction a while ago, and I still stand by it.
In a way, yes. And I think that ThinkSecret is right as well: I bet that we will see a "MacPro Mini" featuring a mini-tower-design (or maybe pizzabox) that will use Conroe. MacPro would be all quad-core. The Mini would cost $1499 - $1999, whereas MacPro would cost $2499 - $3499. iMac would get Merom.
I made this prediction a while ago, and I still stand by it.
I'mAMac
Aug 29, 02:36 PM
30 years ago climate scientists warned us to expect an imminent ice age....it even made the cover of Time, if I'm not mistaken.
I noticed that you didn't dispute the fact that the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor. This is not a disputable fact; no climate scientist will argue with you there. Global warming is also not a disputable fact; it is well-documented and has been occuring since records were first kept. However, saying that scientists have reached an "unprecedented consensus" is absolutely false; and would that even matter? How often do you read a story on CNN or MSNBC that begins with the phrase "Scientists NOW think...." Science is in its very nature an evolutionary process, and findings change over time. Who remembers when nine of out ten doctors smoked Camels more than any other cigarette?
I'm ranting now, sorry. The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. But according to the Department of Energy and the EPA, C02 is the dominant greenhouse gas, accounting for over 99% of the greenhouse effect....aside from water vapor. This certainly makes C02 the most significant non-water contributor to global warming...but even then, climate scientists will not argue with you if you point out that nature produces three times the CO2 that humans do.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
No climate scientist will argue the fact that global climate change has, in the past, universally been the result of cyclical variances in Earth's orbit/rotation, and to a lesser degree variances in our Sun's output. Why then, since pollution has been reduced dramatically, and since climate change is known to be caused by factors outside of our control, is it so crazy to believe that we're not at fault anymore?
And since when does being in a "tiny percentage" denote right/wrong? Aren't you a Mac zealot? :)
cars may have produced 100x less CO2 forty years ago. but today there 100x more cars on the road. Global Warming is caused by many reasons. I won't get into them all but I will mention one. Electricity. The heat from our major cities and towns go into the atmosphere, decrease O-zone protection, which in turn makes the sun shine stronger and melts our ice caps. But there are other reasons that i dont feel like explaining. If you want to know more...google it.
I noticed that you didn't dispute the fact that the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor. This is not a disputable fact; no climate scientist will argue with you there. Global warming is also not a disputable fact; it is well-documented and has been occuring since records were first kept. However, saying that scientists have reached an "unprecedented consensus" is absolutely false; and would that even matter? How often do you read a story on CNN or MSNBC that begins with the phrase "Scientists NOW think...." Science is in its very nature an evolutionary process, and findings change over time. Who remembers when nine of out ten doctors smoked Camels more than any other cigarette?
I'm ranting now, sorry. The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. But according to the Department of Energy and the EPA, C02 is the dominant greenhouse gas, accounting for over 99% of the greenhouse effect....aside from water vapor. This certainly makes C02 the most significant non-water contributor to global warming...but even then, climate scientists will not argue with you if you point out that nature produces three times the CO2 that humans do.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
No climate scientist will argue the fact that global climate change has, in the past, universally been the result of cyclical variances in Earth's orbit/rotation, and to a lesser degree variances in our Sun's output. Why then, since pollution has been reduced dramatically, and since climate change is known to be caused by factors outside of our control, is it so crazy to believe that we're not at fault anymore?
And since when does being in a "tiny percentage" denote right/wrong? Aren't you a Mac zealot? :)
cars may have produced 100x less CO2 forty years ago. but today there 100x more cars on the road. Global Warming is caused by many reasons. I won't get into them all but I will mention one. Electricity. The heat from our major cities and towns go into the atmosphere, decrease O-zone protection, which in turn makes the sun shine stronger and melts our ice caps. But there are other reasons that i dont feel like explaining. If you want to know more...google it.
~Shard~
Oct 26, 11:17 PM
Multimedia, I was wondering if you could address the FSB issue being discussed by a few people here, namely how more and more cores using the same FSB per chip can push only so much data through that 1333 MHZ pipe, thereby making the FSB act as a bottleneck. Any thoughts?
iphones4evry1
Oct 8, 12:15 AM
If the day comes when an Android phone is as good as an iPhone, then it will be the service provider that will be the tipping point. AT&T better get their act together!
ZenoVT
May 8, 03:41 PM
I live in manhattan and the call failed frequency is soo great that if I'm connected to wifi, you bet I'm using skype to make my calls. I hate when I'm on hold with a company going through those annoying labyrinth of an automated they set up to tie us in a loop, and when i finally get a hold of a representative I get a Call Failed error on my iPhone.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 06:44 PM
You and I have a terribly different definition of ruins I suppose. I consider a place ruins when its not even inhabitable.
Well if you were to look at world history, rather than just look at the world through a religious lens, you'd know the reasons for ongoing conflicts in much of that section of the world. Hint: it tends to do with imperialists powers tamperings.
Also, where is the biggest muslim population in the world? ;)
Most Islamic countries are not inhabitable by homosexuals or religious minorities, your mileage may vary.
The biggest muslim population right now is Indonesia, and they tried banning Christians from using Allah to describe their God. They're also trying to ban the Ahmadiyah sect...
I don't think France or Britain are responsible for Iran's strict implementation of Islamic law and ruthless persecution of dissidents, and to claim that they are responsible is insulting to Muslims because it implies they're far too reactionary to deal with anything using Reason. Just like people who want to ban qur'an burnings and blasphemy because they're afraid of how muslims might react. Are Muslims animals who are so easily goaded? No, they're human beings so they should be expected to act responsibly and not go on rampages at the slightest provocation.
Well if you were to look at world history, rather than just look at the world through a religious lens, you'd know the reasons for ongoing conflicts in much of that section of the world. Hint: it tends to do with imperialists powers tamperings.
Also, where is the biggest muslim population in the world? ;)
Most Islamic countries are not inhabitable by homosexuals or religious minorities, your mileage may vary.
The biggest muslim population right now is Indonesia, and they tried banning Christians from using Allah to describe their God. They're also trying to ban the Ahmadiyah sect...
I don't think France or Britain are responsible for Iran's strict implementation of Islamic law and ruthless persecution of dissidents, and to claim that they are responsible is insulting to Muslims because it implies they're far too reactionary to deal with anything using Reason. Just like people who want to ban qur'an burnings and blasphemy because they're afraid of how muslims might react. Are Muslims animals who are so easily goaded? No, they're human beings so they should be expected to act responsibly and not go on rampages at the slightest provocation.
Gamoe
Apr 9, 05:12 AM
I think iOS games have great potential, but I still feel that there is a gap between okay and great that is differentiated by physical controls. All we need are a few buttons and a joystick and/or d-pad. But Apple's design-style doesn't seem to allow that, and I for one think that's a shame.
Mord
Jul 13, 10:24 AM
no, i looked up real numbers and took off ~40% which is the amount apple would get off from retail prices.
+ if the low end mac pro has a single cpu if we are lucky it may have an empty socket ready for an upgrade.
+ if the low end mac pro has a single cpu if we are lucky it may have an empty socket ready for an upgrade.
LegendKillerUK
Mar 18, 08:47 AM
Here's a newsflash: Just because you put something into a contract doesn't make it legal or make it fair. What if AT&T stipulated that they were allowed to come by your house and give you a wedgie every time you checked your voicemail...? Would you still be screaming about how its "justified" because its written on some lop-sided, legalese-ridden piece of paper?
No, because that is clearly retarded.
No, because that is clearly retarded.
JackAxe
Sep 26, 04:22 PM
This coming year is going to be great. A MacPro with 8 cores along with UB versions of the software packages I use daily. What more could a peep like me ask for... Well, Pixar could offer mult-threading support for Renderman Maya plug-in, that would be nice. :o
Good things come to those who wait. :)
<]=)
Good things come to those who wait. :)
<]=)
Beric
Mar 12, 03:36 AM
What the hell? Why doesn't the wind blow it into China instead??? :D
Anyways, that seems kinda extreme. That looks worse than a nuclear missle strike.
Again, it's a worse-case scenario. Still, get something in the gulf stream, and it's going everywhere.
Anyways, that seems kinda extreme. That looks worse than a nuclear missle strike.
Again, it's a worse-case scenario. Still, get something in the gulf stream, and it's going everywhere.
sam10685
Sep 12, 06:04 PM
I'm really impressed with the price. Obviously they're not gonna talk about all the features this early, but so far it looks good. Will it record TV? I guess "no."
i have an extremely good feeling it will. i also have an extremely good feeling that they will launch this thing prior to christmas for two reasons... Why would they anounce something this cool in september and not release it by christmas? also, Apple has a history of doing weird stuff like releasing stuff early. "yeah... we're going to start this Intel transition in 6 months." *4 months later, Intel transition starts.*
i have an extremely good feeling it will. i also have an extremely good feeling that they will launch this thing prior to christmas for two reasons... Why would they anounce something this cool in september and not release it by christmas? also, Apple has a history of doing weird stuff like releasing stuff early. "yeah... we're going to start this Intel transition in 6 months." *4 months later, Intel transition starts.*
bluap84
Mar 11, 08:51 AM
This is just crazy. They quoted a girl on cnn from their facebook comments saying the failnami was a big letdown. What a gigantic "tw*t".
+1
didnt know the word tw@t was used over the pond... lol amezzin
+1
didnt know the word tw@t was used over the pond... lol amezzin
turnerwing
Oct 16, 04:40 AM
I have had ATT BBERRY for the last two years. I used to have ATT and left because of dropped calls. 6 years later I went back and that was a mistake. The coverage is worse than Verizon and dropped calls are bad. As soon as the Verizon iPhone comes out I am there.
R.Perez
Mar 13, 03:21 PM
We don't need nuclear, or coal or oil for that matter.
A large (think 100milesx100miles) solar array in death valley for example, could power the entire Continental US.
Stop saying nuclear is "clean", its not. Not only is the mining process horrible for the environment, there is still the issue of radioactive waste. These proposals to somehow shoot the waste into space, or store in the ocean are absolutely outlandish and ridiculous.
If we combined large solar arrays with wind, and tidal power, plus requiring that solar panels also be installed on all new home and apartment construction, we could easily meet our electricity needs with little environmental impact.
The largest issue here is cost, but when you factor in the long term economic cost of global warming or ecological collapse, really we are talking pennies.
A large (think 100milesx100miles) solar array in death valley for example, could power the entire Continental US.
Stop saying nuclear is "clean", its not. Not only is the mining process horrible for the environment, there is still the issue of radioactive waste. These proposals to somehow shoot the waste into space, or store in the ocean are absolutely outlandish and ridiculous.
If we combined large solar arrays with wind, and tidal power, plus requiring that solar panels also be installed on all new home and apartment construction, we could easily meet our electricity needs with little environmental impact.
The largest issue here is cost, but when you factor in the long term economic cost of global warming or ecological collapse, really we are talking pennies.
todstiles
Aug 29, 04:57 PM
You people that are quoting and referencing information on wikipedia are really funny. Since when is anything that is written there taken as fact?
And you have to take statements from Greenpeace for what they are worth. You are talking about an organization that thrives on attention. Of course they are going to make outlandish statements. It's the only way anyone would ever know they exist.
Let's not put too much stock in this. There are absolutely no facts to back this up. As usual Greenpeace has nothing to show me. Nothing.
And you have to take statements from Greenpeace for what they are worth. You are talking about an organization that thrives on attention. Of course they are going to make outlandish statements. It's the only way anyone would ever know they exist.
Let's not put too much stock in this. There are absolutely no facts to back this up. As usual Greenpeace has nothing to show me. Nothing.
