Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 04:10 PM
It isn't fallacious when the source is known to be unreliable and non representative of the field which they purport to be a part of.
But no one here has proved that Nicolosi is an unreliable representative of his field. If someone proves that Nicolosi is mistaken, maybe no one will need to attack him.
During this thread, I've just read an emotionally charged post that doesn't prove anything that the poster says about Nicolosi. I try to feel plenty of empathy. But if others keep attacking someone who disagrees with them, the attackers don't evoke my empathy. They decrease their credibility.
But no one here has proved that Nicolosi is an unreliable representative of his field. If someone proves that Nicolosi is mistaken, maybe no one will need to attack him.
During this thread, I've just read an emotionally charged post that doesn't prove anything that the poster says about Nicolosi. I try to feel plenty of empathy. But if others keep attacking someone who disagrees with them, the attackers don't evoke my empathy. They decrease their credibility.
archipellago
May 2, 04:41 PM
That's completely false. The current installed base of Macs is around 100 million, and it grows by over a million Macs per month. You don't need a certain percentage of market share for a useful botnet; you need numbers. You talking to a handful of hackers is hardly conclusive. I can interview a handful of people in my neighborhood and find a consensus on any number of falsehoods. Get some facts (rather than making stuff up) and then re-join the discussion.
trying to stick to facts...
OSX marketshare was just shy of 50 mill as announced by Tim Cook at his 'state of the mac address' in October last year...
will be higher now...but not massively so..
heres a link to help you..
http://www.bgr.com/2010/10/20/apple-cfo-tim-cook-details-state-of-the-mac/
apology by PM or in the thread is fine. :p;):rolleyes:
trying to stick to facts...
OSX marketshare was just shy of 50 mill as announced by Tim Cook at his 'state of the mac address' in October last year...
will be higher now...but not massively so..
heres a link to help you..
http://www.bgr.com/2010/10/20/apple-cfo-tim-cook-details-state-of-the-mac/
apology by PM or in the thread is fine. :p;):rolleyes:
archipellago
May 2, 05:02 PM
My head hurts� everyone needs a time out! Go to your corners! :p
sorry, I'm done here now.
sorry, I'm done here now.
emotion
Sep 20, 09:47 AM
I'm wondering why they couldn't/wouldn't just combine the mini and the iTV into a single unit. The mini's size could allow for a DVD slot/player/burner and maybe even allow for the Mac OS in the box, so you don't need another computer to stream your media from. In fact, I assumed that was what the Mini was ultimately destined for anyway.
Thoughts?
What do you thnk the iTV offers that a Mini doesn't? I'm not sure it offers anything other than freeing the Mini so it can be used as a computer in front of a computer monitor somewhere else (which is apparently Jobs' view of where a computer should be).
I might have the wrong end of the stick though.
Thoughts?
What do you thnk the iTV offers that a Mini doesn't? I'm not sure it offers anything other than freeing the Mini so it can be used as a computer in front of a computer monitor somewhere else (which is apparently Jobs' view of where a computer should be).
I might have the wrong end of the stick though.
Sydde
Apr 22, 08:50 PM
Atheists often, rightly or wrongly, seem to count agnostics in their number much as Blues is of classified as a part of Jazz (wrongly, IMO).
This document from census.gov (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0075.pdf) looks to me like it is showing a fairly steady increase in unbelief, which can only be a good thing.
On this forum, there only appear to be a lot of atheists because they tend to be outspoken, put forth strong arguments (the strength of which may be a matter of opinion), and respond quickly to religious nonsense.
This document from census.gov (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0075.pdf) looks to me like it is showing a fairly steady increase in unbelief, which can only be a good thing.
On this forum, there only appear to be a lot of atheists because they tend to be outspoken, put forth strong arguments (the strength of which may be a matter of opinion), and respond quickly to religious nonsense.
aristobrat
Sep 12, 06:26 PM
You mean CURRENT wireless isn't fast enough. There's a new, faster standard on the way, which is probably part of the reason this isn't shipping yet.
That's what I thought when I saw that they weren't specific about WiFi ... simply calling it "802.11 wireless networking" instead of specifically stating it was "802.11 A/B/G".
That's what I thought when I saw that they weren't specific about WiFi ... simply calling it "802.11 wireless networking" instead of specifically stating it was "802.11 A/B/G".
Kid Red
Sep 12, 06:33 PM
Wow, a TON OF YOU totally miss the iTV purpose, to stream content FROM YOUR MAC! That's why no tuner, no storage, no anything!! Does Airport Express have storage, an antenna, etc?!? NO!!!
I love this! I want one today! I'm going to get a huge HD, maybe two of them and start my stored media collection on my G5 that I can wirelessly access in my HT room from the iTV's wireless remote!! I love it!! Music, Family photos in a slide show, eyegato to record HD programs!! Awesome!!!
This so rocks and will make a ton of money for Apple! I can't wait, this is truly what I've been looking for as there's no HDMI out on my G5!!
I love this! I want one today! I'm going to get a huge HD, maybe two of them and start my stored media collection on my G5 that I can wirelessly access in my HT room from the iTV's wireless remote!! I love it!! Music, Family photos in a slide show, eyegato to record HD programs!! Awesome!!!
This so rocks and will make a ton of money for Apple! I can't wait, this is truly what I've been looking for as there's no HDMI out on my G5!!
Multimedia
Oct 26, 03:39 PM
You won't see a Clovertown Mac Pro until after Adobe announces the ship date for CS3. The reasons are simple -- a) most would-be Mac Pro purchasers are holding off until the native version of Creative Suite; I know you may find this hard to believe, but the entire multimedia industry does not revolve around the Adobe Suite of graphics applications. Plus the industry is already rolling with G5 Quads for that work. There are plenty of other products that are way UB multi-core ready and/or would like to be run simultaneously in a fully blown multi-application multi-threaded workload.and b) marketing-wise changing from a dual dual 3 GHz high end to a dual quad 2.66 GHz high end would be seen as a downgrade.Yeah. Professional Mac Pro users can't do the math. :rolleyes:
4 x 3=12GHz
or
8 x 2.66= 21.28GHz
I wonder which one will get my Multi-Threaded Workload done faster? :confused: :eek:Apple will wait for CS3, and by then there will be a 3+ GHz Clovertown available which will provide for an upgrade that would be much easier to market and sell.I believe you are mistaken. A ton of dual 2.66GHz Clovertowns from various vendors will ship next month. Apple can't be seen as the only major Intel vendor to not ship dual Clovertowns in November and put it off until April or May. They would in effect be passing on an entire selling cycle. That would be business suicide. It would also be impossible.
Yes there I said it. What you suggest as will be the future is IMPOSSIBLE.
Oh and welcome to MacRumors. ;) :p :D
4 x 3=12GHz
or
8 x 2.66= 21.28GHz
I wonder which one will get my Multi-Threaded Workload done faster? :confused: :eek:Apple will wait for CS3, and by then there will be a 3+ GHz Clovertown available which will provide for an upgrade that would be much easier to market and sell.I believe you are mistaken. A ton of dual 2.66GHz Clovertowns from various vendors will ship next month. Apple can't be seen as the only major Intel vendor to not ship dual Clovertowns in November and put it off until April or May. They would in effect be passing on an entire selling cycle. That would be business suicide. It would also be impossible.
Yes there I said it. What you suggest as will be the future is IMPOSSIBLE.
Oh and welcome to MacRumors. ;) :p :D
OllyW
Apr 28, 08:25 AM
Apple leads. The PC you use today runs an OS that got its inspiration from Apple popularizing the GUI in the marketplace. The smart phone you use today gets its design cues from the iPhone.
I'm not really that surprised that my iMac and iPhone get their inspiration and design cues from Apple. :p
I'm not really that surprised that my iMac and iPhone get their inspiration and design cues from Apple. :p
munkery
May 2, 05:41 PM
What is "an installer" but an executable file and what prevents me from writing "an installer" that does more than just "installing".
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system.
I don't know of any Javascript DOM manipulation that lets you have write/read access to the local filesystem. This is already sandboxed.
The scripting engine in the current Safari is not yet sandboxed.
Here is a list of Javascript vulnerabilities:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+Javascript
The issue is Safari is launching an executable file that sits outside the browser sandbox.
In the current Safari, only some plugins are sandboxed, so this wasn't execution outside the sandbox.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
Except this:
Switching off or turning down UAC in Windows also equally impacts the strength of MIC (Windows sandboxing mechanism) because it functions based on inherited permissions. Unix DAC in Mac OS X functions via inherited permissions but MAC (mandatory access controls -> OS X sandbox) does not. Windows does not have a sandbox like OS X.
UAC, by default, does not use a unique identifier (password) so it is more susceptible to attacks the rely on spoofing prompts that appear to be unrelated to UAC to steal authentication. If a password is attached to authentication, these spoofed prompts fail to work.
Unix DAC is turned off in OS X in the root user account.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system.
I don't know of any Javascript DOM manipulation that lets you have write/read access to the local filesystem. This is already sandboxed.
The scripting engine in the current Safari is not yet sandboxed.
Here is a list of Javascript vulnerabilities:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+Javascript
The issue is Safari is launching an executable file that sits outside the browser sandbox.
In the current Safari, only some plugins are sandboxed, so this wasn't execution outside the sandbox.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
Except this:
Switching off or turning down UAC in Windows also equally impacts the strength of MIC (Windows sandboxing mechanism) because it functions based on inherited permissions. Unix DAC in Mac OS X functions via inherited permissions but MAC (mandatory access controls -> OS X sandbox) does not. Windows does not have a sandbox like OS X.
UAC, by default, does not use a unique identifier (password) so it is more susceptible to attacks the rely on spoofing prompts that appear to be unrelated to UAC to steal authentication. If a password is attached to authentication, these spoofed prompts fail to work.
Unix DAC is turned off in OS X in the root user account.
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 02:54 PM
stem cells is not altering the original genetical code. HUGE difference
The point is that Greenpeace opposes ALL R&D into GM foods, just as G.W. opposes ALL R&D into stem cell research, including research to use stem cells w/o harming the fetus.
The point is that Greenpeace opposes ALL R&D into GM foods, just as G.W. opposes ALL R&D into stem cell research, including research to use stem cells w/o harming the fetus.
rdowty
Mar 14, 06:13 PM
Nobody seems to think of abandoning coal when a bunch of miners die. I think there have been more coal related deaths than nuclear ones.
1macker1
Mar 18, 12:49 PM
This will cause a major problem for apple. Cant wait to see the fallout.
macridah
Oct 25, 10:33 PM
I just got my mac pro a month and a half ago.
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 30, 04:22 AM
Most classic geophysicists & geologists do not believe man is causing global warming.
Absolute nonsense.
Global warming is a natural process and has happened many times over the lifespan of the earth. Sometimes it precedes an ice age sometimes it is ralated to internal changes within the earth core. It has occured in our past and it appears to be occuring now. The real reason for cooling and warming of the Earth are not well understood.
You are here talking about the natural oscillation of temperature (see my previuos post) geophysists often talk about which leads to an occasional ice age now then. There is a natural CO2 variation in the atmosphere which have been studied over extremely long periods by studying ice core samples from e.g. Greenland.
Every single well-founded theoretical model over natural CO2 variation model predicts we are outside the natural variation.
That is a fact.
We also know that CO2 is very potent greenhouse effect.
Thus we also know that the earth is getting warmer due to the increased CO2 level.
The increased CO2 level coincides with the industrilization when man began to burn fossile fuel in a historically unprecedented manner.
Mankind is causing the increased CO2 level. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
This can of course not the explain the natural variation of temperature, but the fact remains our activities here in earth is causing an increased temperature.
Environmental scientists agree that man is causing global warming. All of their theories are based on models.
All scientific models are just theoretical models and can not be prove themselves. (see Gödel 1931)
But these models are designed trying to prove that man's production of greenhouse gas is the cause and they are way too simplified. We do not have enough information on all of the critical factors affecting climate change to build proper models.
In consequense of your argument and Gödel, it follows that we never can say anything about science. This is the same argument tobacco lobbyists have been using in defence of cigarettes.
Reality may be somewhere in between. However global warming has taken place on Venus and is currently taking place on Mars. Man obviously did not cause thes activities and it may or may not be related to the Earth's current episode of warming.
Again, you are talking about natural variations. But again, not a single theretical model predicts the current CO2 level to be natural variation.
I am not arguing with the idea of reducing greenhouse gas emissions if we can practically. Why contribute to a problem. I just don't think that we can effect climate change on a global scale and if the Earth choses to warm for whatever reason we will not be able to stop it.
No one is claiming to have the final model explaining the temperature on earth. Nevertheless, the fact remains, we are outside the natural CO2 level. CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas. There is a significant lag between the level of CO2 and the temperature on earth. Hence, if we don't do something now it might be late tomorrow. I wrote might, because, as you said, noone knows for sure. But are we really interested in playing dice with our own existence?
Sidenote: In science, the name of the game is getting publications. The sorry fact is that you don't get publications by singing with the choir. Since this debate is considered both important and urgent, it is easier to get a not-so well-founded-model published right now. I have seen crazy ideas published explaining the incrased temperature on earth as cow flatulence and rotting trees at bottoms of lakes (methane gas is also a potent greenhouse gas)
These publications makes it unfortunately even harder to sort out the real facts about this issue which very well might be the most important issue mankind has been faced with here on earth.
Absolute nonsense.
Global warming is a natural process and has happened many times over the lifespan of the earth. Sometimes it precedes an ice age sometimes it is ralated to internal changes within the earth core. It has occured in our past and it appears to be occuring now. The real reason for cooling and warming of the Earth are not well understood.
You are here talking about the natural oscillation of temperature (see my previuos post) geophysists often talk about which leads to an occasional ice age now then. There is a natural CO2 variation in the atmosphere which have been studied over extremely long periods by studying ice core samples from e.g. Greenland.
Every single well-founded theoretical model over natural CO2 variation model predicts we are outside the natural variation.
That is a fact.
We also know that CO2 is very potent greenhouse effect.
Thus we also know that the earth is getting warmer due to the increased CO2 level.
The increased CO2 level coincides with the industrilization when man began to burn fossile fuel in a historically unprecedented manner.
Mankind is causing the increased CO2 level. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
This can of course not the explain the natural variation of temperature, but the fact remains our activities here in earth is causing an increased temperature.
Environmental scientists agree that man is causing global warming. All of their theories are based on models.
All scientific models are just theoretical models and can not be prove themselves. (see Gödel 1931)
But these models are designed trying to prove that man's production of greenhouse gas is the cause and they are way too simplified. We do not have enough information on all of the critical factors affecting climate change to build proper models.
In consequense of your argument and Gödel, it follows that we never can say anything about science. This is the same argument tobacco lobbyists have been using in defence of cigarettes.
Reality may be somewhere in between. However global warming has taken place on Venus and is currently taking place on Mars. Man obviously did not cause thes activities and it may or may not be related to the Earth's current episode of warming.
Again, you are talking about natural variations. But again, not a single theretical model predicts the current CO2 level to be natural variation.
I am not arguing with the idea of reducing greenhouse gas emissions if we can practically. Why contribute to a problem. I just don't think that we can effect climate change on a global scale and if the Earth choses to warm for whatever reason we will not be able to stop it.
No one is claiming to have the final model explaining the temperature on earth. Nevertheless, the fact remains, we are outside the natural CO2 level. CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas. There is a significant lag between the level of CO2 and the temperature on earth. Hence, if we don't do something now it might be late tomorrow. I wrote might, because, as you said, noone knows for sure. But are we really interested in playing dice with our own existence?
Sidenote: In science, the name of the game is getting publications. The sorry fact is that you don't get publications by singing with the choir. Since this debate is considered both important and urgent, it is easier to get a not-so well-founded-model published right now. I have seen crazy ideas published explaining the incrased temperature on earth as cow flatulence and rotting trees at bottoms of lakes (methane gas is also a potent greenhouse gas)
These publications makes it unfortunately even harder to sort out the real facts about this issue which very well might be the most important issue mankind has been faced with here on earth.
ddtlm
Oct 12, 06:27 PM
nixd2001:
Those score I posted earlier were from the integer version of the loop that I was ripping on as meaningless. The float version is not quite so meaningless because you can't just unroll the thing, because floats get different results if the ops are even done in different orders. For the benefit of people who may not know it, with floating point numbers often 4x != x + x + x.
Anyway, my P3 Xeon 700 sports this compiler:
gcc version 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.3 2.96-112)
Results for the exact loop posted by PCUser are:
gcc -O driver.c -o exe && time ./exe
38.858
gcc -O2 -funroll-loops driver.c -o exe && time ./exe
38.818
On a side note, I also found gcc on my Mac after relogging into the terminal so that things were added to the path. Funny that the finder's find cannot see tools like gcc. I'll get results for that posted soon.
Those score I posted earlier were from the integer version of the loop that I was ripping on as meaningless. The float version is not quite so meaningless because you can't just unroll the thing, because floats get different results if the ops are even done in different orders. For the benefit of people who may not know it, with floating point numbers often 4x != x + x + x.
Anyway, my P3 Xeon 700 sports this compiler:
gcc version 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.3 2.96-112)
Results for the exact loop posted by PCUser are:
gcc -O driver.c -o exe && time ./exe
38.858
gcc -O2 -funroll-loops driver.c -o exe && time ./exe
38.818
On a side note, I also found gcc on my Mac after relogging into the terminal so that things were added to the path. Funny that the finder's find cannot see tools like gcc. I'll get results for that posted soon.
NightFox
Apr 13, 03:48 AM
Just give me a way of directly importing/converting my Premiere projects and I'll be sold...
techwarrior
Nov 12, 12:14 PM
Add me to the happy list. I have had all iPhones since 3G, and rarely lose a call, one or two places I typically go have poor service so I let others know I will call back if I drop in these spots. MCell has done wonders for the poor service at my home.
ATT is the only service I can get at work. Due to my office being an R&D facility for a company that makes phone systems they block all external wireless signals and then put ATT repeaters in the building.
So, for me, it would take a lot to push me over the edge to move to another provider. I do like how others are pushing ATT to adopt with more competitive plan options and think competition from TMo, Sprint/Nextel and Vz can only be good for those of us who can stay with ATT.
ATT is the only service I can get at work. Due to my office being an R&D facility for a company that makes phone systems they block all external wireless signals and then put ATT repeaters in the building.
So, for me, it would take a lot to push me over the edge to move to another provider. I do like how others are pushing ATT to adopt with more competitive plan options and think competition from TMo, Sprint/Nextel and Vz can only be good for those of us who can stay with ATT.
Mord
Jul 12, 05:19 PM
jiggy:
your thinking is exactly why most pc's suck, dell ect choose components that are "good enough" or choose some unsuitable cpu because it sounds fast, woodcest makes the most sense to go into the mac pro, conroe into the imac merom into the mbp simple as.
just because something is not for you does not mean how you want it is how it should be, your a kid who likes playing with pc hardware and likes components with "big numbers" and overclockability, and while a quad would be wasted on you it'd be great for people who actually buy mac pro's/powermacs.
you give pc users a bad name it's not the other way around.
your thinking is exactly why most pc's suck, dell ect choose components that are "good enough" or choose some unsuitable cpu because it sounds fast, woodcest makes the most sense to go into the mac pro, conroe into the imac merom into the mbp simple as.
just because something is not for you does not mean how you want it is how it should be, your a kid who likes playing with pc hardware and likes components with "big numbers" and overclockability, and while a quad would be wasted on you it'd be great for people who actually buy mac pro's/powermacs.
you give pc users a bad name it's not the other way around.
PCUser
Oct 8, 09:54 AM
What? No Dynamic Link Libraries in the MacOS X? You've got to be kidding me. That's a very bad choice on Apple's part. Especially since UNIX has their own type of DLL's. The whole point of a DLL is to make it so that programs don't need to load the same exact libraries into memory and waste space... the standard C library alone is about 2 megs. And the speed benefit from static libraries versus dynamic in *nix is nill. I know, I've compiled the same library both ways just to test that fact. (For those that don't know, static libraries are compiled into an app, and dynamic libraries are stored only once in memory.)
The point you had said before was that the reason x86 sucked was that it was 25 year old technology. Your exact wording was:
Don't assume anything about the quality of a 25 year old architecture. X86 blows crap, and always will.
The point you had said before was that the reason x86 sucked was that it was 25 year old technology. Your exact wording was:
Don't assume anything about the quality of a 25 year old architecture. X86 blows crap, and always will.
CuttyShark
Apr 13, 03:26 AM
It can edit and do cool stuff and we know that. What all can it do? We just have to wait and see. For now, I see it's something fun to play around with and I'll probably do that. I'll take my 5D, shoot some fun stuff, edit on location, and upload to youtube. I can't say how far I'd go if my paying gig requires pulling footage from a tape source, importing an EDL or older FCP project for an update, or organizing tracks for exporting stems to my post audio outsourcer.
It looks like fun, but I feel there's many more questions to come.
Oh well...back the smug!! ;)
Cheers!
It looks like fun, but I feel there's many more questions to come.
Oh well...back the smug!! ;)
Cheers!
Kalmia
Sep 20, 01:06 AM
TV show recording would be REALLY nice, but it's probably wishful thinking, considering it could potentially cut into profits from iTunes. Still, one can dream...
In addition, I would really love a movie rental option, though that's probably even more farfetched. It would save us a TON of money on late fees, though.
My main concern is how big of a hole this is going to leave in my wallet. I guess it's still pretty early to be speculating, given that we don't know much about it. So I should probably try not to get my hopes up in the meantime. :p
~Kalmia
In addition, I would really love a movie rental option, though that's probably even more farfetched. It would save us a TON of money on late fees, though.
My main concern is how big of a hole this is going to leave in my wallet. I guess it's still pretty early to be speculating, given that we don't know much about it. So I should probably try not to get my hopes up in the meantime. :p
~Kalmia
iphones4evry1
May 6, 01:32 AM
I have definitely noticed an increase over the past few months. I used to experience a dropped call about once every two months, and now it's about twice per week.
AT&T really needs to work on this problem. It seems to be getting worse.
AT&T really needs to work on this problem. It seems to be getting worse.
dethmaShine
Apr 21, 04:40 AM
Android is the best and Apple is losing marketshare.
Simple.
I must go back to my basement now. :o
Simple.
I must go back to my basement now. :o
