Yamcha
Apr 29, 03:37 PM
I'm looking forward to it, I really like the updated GUI, not to mention some of the features, like versions, auto save, & resuming apps..
TheWatchfulOne
Apr 15, 12:40 PM
Is it just me, or is the writing on the 3rd photo a bit skewed, or rotated in an odd way?
You are correct. In fact the text in the 1st image looks a little skewed as well. Most likely these images are fake, however they are pretty close to how I envision the next iPhone to look like.
You are correct. In fact the text in the 1st image looks a little skewed as well. Most likely these images are fake, however they are pretty close to how I envision the next iPhone to look like.
skunk
Apr 27, 12:58 PM
When did I say anything about what people are "entitled" to be???You implied it very clearly in the post Mord was replying to.
Balli
Sep 12, 02:44 AM
Does anyone know what time this even will be in GMT?
twoodcc
Apr 30, 09:43 PM
Got it! I had just enough time to put it in a case but not enough to boot it up before work :( The heat sink that Intel give you is BIG, but would probably fit in a 3u. Maybe. My case is 4u so lots of room. I put 12 gigs of ram it it too, just need a gpu now (from one of the other machines for now). I think I will see what is on Ebay or craig's list.
really? oh man, you've got to fill us in on how it does. some screen shots please! and maybe some pics of the thing also?
i was tempted to get one, but decided to save some money for now. i might get one late this year or next year
really? oh man, you've got to fill us in on how it does. some screen shots please! and maybe some pics of the thing also?
i was tempted to get one, but decided to save some money for now. i might get one late this year or next year
eternlgladiator
Apr 8, 11:48 AM
I've been waiting all week for this to finally become available. I can't wait!
I'm going to upgrade it to a 128 GB SSD when I get it. It'll be a monster.
I'm going to upgrade it to a 128 GB SSD when I get it. It'll be a monster.
tny
Nov 16, 04:26 PM
Do they have to remake a new "Universal Binary?" Because aren't the current UB's for Intel and PPC? Please tell me they wont. I don't wnat to have to wait again for new UB's
No. The AMD processors we're talking about have the same instruction set as the Intel processors Apple is currently using; in fact, the 64 bit extensions were written by AMD, not Intel (Intel's original 64-bit solution is Itanium, which on the seamier side of the computer trade - for instance, in the Register - is called the Itanic, because it is still sinking; eventually, Intel was forced to adopt AMD's extensions because the architecture is more compatible with the Pentium/x86 architecture).
Such a switch would be comparable in terms of technological impact to the switch from IBM for the G3 to Motorola for the G4, and then to IBM for the G5.
Now, if Apple switched to Intel Itanium or (if it were ever released again) the Digital Alpha, yes, a new form of Universal Binary would be needed. I suspect that the Cell processor is not completely compatible with the G5, so it's possible that a switch to Cell would require a new form of UB, too.
No. The AMD processors we're talking about have the same instruction set as the Intel processors Apple is currently using; in fact, the 64 bit extensions were written by AMD, not Intel (Intel's original 64-bit solution is Itanium, which on the seamier side of the computer trade - for instance, in the Register - is called the Itanic, because it is still sinking; eventually, Intel was forced to adopt AMD's extensions because the architecture is more compatible with the Pentium/x86 architecture).
Such a switch would be comparable in terms of technological impact to the switch from IBM for the G3 to Motorola for the G4, and then to IBM for the G5.
Now, if Apple switched to Intel Itanium or (if it were ever released again) the Digital Alpha, yes, a new form of Universal Binary would be needed. I suspect that the Cell processor is not completely compatible with the G5, so it's possible that a switch to Cell would require a new form of UB, too.
mrkgoo
Jan 12, 04:21 PM
C'mon...this is the CEO of Apple presenting at Macworld. He was hardly going to be subdued, not with a bunch of fanboys and shareholders present.
Anyway, I saw most of the iPhone stuff as excitement rather than arrogance. It's a reason I believe the ApplTV was 'previewed' last year, so all focus could be on the iPhone. I think Steve was genuinely excited to present it to us.
However, I do think that the pie charts explainingthe market share of Zune is a bit underhanded. If Microsft did the same thing with market share for OS, it'd be the same. 2% market share is pretty damned good for Zune, considering competition in the market - any other mp3 player would love to get that kind of market share. I'd prefer it if Apple focused more on selling theri own products in this regard, than downplaying others.
Anyway, I saw most of the iPhone stuff as excitement rather than arrogance. It's a reason I believe the ApplTV was 'previewed' last year, so all focus could be on the iPhone. I think Steve was genuinely excited to present it to us.
However, I do think that the pie charts explainingthe market share of Zune is a bit underhanded. If Microsft did the same thing with market share for OS, it'd be the same. 2% market share is pretty damned good for Zune, considering competition in the market - any other mp3 player would love to get that kind of market share. I'd prefer it if Apple focused more on selling theri own products in this regard, than downplaying others.
albusseverus
Jan 10, 05:41 PM
just goes to show, if your name is Think Secret and you have no corporate backing, Apple will hound you out of existence...
if you publish an unchecked story about the iPhone being delayed, causing a run on Apple's stock price...
or stuff up a trade show...
it's all just good fun... ??
it's hard to know the best way to treat this... ban them and give them MORE publicity? or boycott their site...
Kevin, can we have a negative Digg option... I want UnDigg
if you publish an unchecked story about the iPhone being delayed, causing a run on Apple's stock price...
or stuff up a trade show...
it's all just good fun... ??
it's hard to know the best way to treat this... ban them and give them MORE publicity? or boycott their site...
Kevin, can we have a negative Digg option... I want UnDigg
Hastings101
Apr 9, 12:22 AM
Go for it! If they deserve it, they deserve it!
Yea, the other people working there deserve to suffer for something one person does :p
Yea, the other people working there deserve to suffer for something one person does :p
thejadedmonkey
Oct 11, 01:21 AM
I'm sure I'll get snarkey comments, but here goes: If I can't check my email on it, I'm not interested.
I've got a couple iPods and a shuffle. They play music, and that's great, but I want something that gets MY information to me. When that happens, they've got me sold.
That's really funny.. I was just wishing my iPod (3G) could sync my email from outlook for reading on-the-go.
I've got a couple iPods and a shuffle. They play music, and that's great, but I want something that gets MY information to me. When that happens, they've got me sold.
That's really funny.. I was just wishing my iPod (3G) could sync my email from outlook for reading on-the-go.
jared1988
Apr 9, 09:17 PM
Yeah I just finished setting it up and i'm uber pleased! I'm in love with the shelves on the side, although give it a week and they will be crammed :p
hells yeah, i got a bunch of mighty muggs and iron man **** on my desk that needs a place to go
hells yeah, i got a bunch of mighty muggs and iron man **** on my desk that needs a place to go
MagnusVonMagnum
Apr 29, 01:26 PM
And people kept telling me that OSX and iOS weren't going to merge in any meaningful manner for years ahead, if ever. Yeah right. I'd bet the one after this has them nearly fully merged and I mean towards iOS for the most part. OSX will be dumbed down to the lowest common brain cell and you won't be able to get free/open software anymore. It'll have to come through the App Store or not at all. Wait and see. That is the point I'll be moving on.
tveric
Oct 5, 01:28 AM
Methinks you don't have a good grasp of public key encryption. (Or at least how it's supposed to work).
The encryption key is the one that is top secret because it's the one you keep private, and is the one which would allow DoubleTwist (or anyone else) to masquerade as iTS. The decryption key, by it's very nature, is vulnerable and in effect "public" (since it must be on the client machine, so it can be discovered). There is a flaw in the FairPlay system that Jon has exploited before (as I mentioned earlier in the thread) which has to do with the fact that the files are personalized locally on the client machine, so if they can fool iTunes into personalizing third party files, they're in like Flynn. (This also has the effect of making a private key or equivalent available on the system which may be the chink in FairPlay's armor).
Essentially, the FairPlay system is one that implies a certain amount of trust. Once you authorize a machine all of the purchased tracks from that account on the machines can be decrypted. Even if they are not on the machine at the time of the authorization and the machine is not on the network at the time (I have played back encrypted videos on DVD-R on my iBook while it was not on the 'net.)
I don't know how often it needs to "phone home" so you can't just load up 5 machines with protected content, detach them from the network and deactivate all of your machines at iTMS... Then spend the next year working on 5 more systems...
B
good lord, if anyone actually got through reading all this, can there be any doubt left that all consumers want is DRM-free content??? There's a simple rule that exists - the more complicated the DRM you put on your content, the less likely that people are going to buy it. Hence, people are downloading music and movies for free, and ripping Netflix DVDs to their hard drives to burn their own copies.
You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Until there's DRM-free movies and music for sale online, so-called pirated downloads will continue to dwarf legal downloads. End of story.
The encryption key is the one that is top secret because it's the one you keep private, and is the one which would allow DoubleTwist (or anyone else) to masquerade as iTS. The decryption key, by it's very nature, is vulnerable and in effect "public" (since it must be on the client machine, so it can be discovered). There is a flaw in the FairPlay system that Jon has exploited before (as I mentioned earlier in the thread) which has to do with the fact that the files are personalized locally on the client machine, so if they can fool iTunes into personalizing third party files, they're in like Flynn. (This also has the effect of making a private key or equivalent available on the system which may be the chink in FairPlay's armor).
Essentially, the FairPlay system is one that implies a certain amount of trust. Once you authorize a machine all of the purchased tracks from that account on the machines can be decrypted. Even if they are not on the machine at the time of the authorization and the machine is not on the network at the time (I have played back encrypted videos on DVD-R on my iBook while it was not on the 'net.)
I don't know how often it needs to "phone home" so you can't just load up 5 machines with protected content, detach them from the network and deactivate all of your machines at iTMS... Then spend the next year working on 5 more systems...
B
good lord, if anyone actually got through reading all this, can there be any doubt left that all consumers want is DRM-free content??? There's a simple rule that exists - the more complicated the DRM you put on your content, the less likely that people are going to buy it. Hence, people are downloading music and movies for free, and ripping Netflix DVDs to their hard drives to burn their own copies.
You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Until there's DRM-free movies and music for sale online, so-called pirated downloads will continue to dwarf legal downloads. End of story.
AhmedFaisal
Apr 13, 11:23 AM
His point was remove the TSA security check and only have only armed air marshals. Bringing a gun to a bomb fight is like bringing a knife to a gun fight.
My point was that the TSA security does provide a buffer to keep terrorists from boarding a plan packed with explosives where an armed masrhal is going to be useless.
The world we once knew no longer exists, time to get used to it.
No, my point was to scale it back to what it was before 9/11 and maintain both domestic and international security at the pre 9/11 level of international security.
My point was that the TSA security does provide a buffer to keep terrorists from boarding a plan packed with explosives where an armed masrhal is going to be useless.
The world we once knew no longer exists, time to get used to it.
No, my point was to scale it back to what it was before 9/11 and maintain both domestic and international security at the pre 9/11 level of international security.
flopticalcube
Apr 13, 11:10 AM
Great, a shoot out on a plane loaded with innocent bystanders. :rolleyes:
El Al relies primarily on profiling. Armed Sky Marshalls are standard on ALL flights to/from/within the US although they may not be present on any particular flight.
El Al relies primarily on profiling. Armed Sky Marshalls are standard on ALL flights to/from/within the US although they may not be present on any particular flight.
iMacZealot
Jan 5, 03:17 PM
Feel it people. A million geeks, all achieving orgasm at the same time. It's such a thing of beauty. :)
EWW!!
It's in my head forever!!!
EWW!!
It's in my head forever!!!
CalBoy
Apr 15, 04:21 PM
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well actually we know the TSA methods don't work because both of the incidents were from European airports that mirror what the TSA does. Added to the number of weapons that make it through TSA checkpoints, it's easy to see that the TSA does in fact not work to the extent that it is expected to.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
smiley face clip art
Well actually we know the TSA methods don't work because both of the incidents were from European airports that mirror what the TSA does. Added to the number of weapons that make it through TSA checkpoints, it's easy to see that the TSA does in fact not work to the extent that it is expected to.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
leekohler
Mar 4, 11:07 AM
Keep talking Veil, 2010 was just the 'coming attractions.'
No- you keep talking, please. Please, we beg you to keep trying crap like this. It'll all but guarantee the Republicans' demise. Really, you could not self destruct more beautifully. You're not for freedom at all, just freedom for government and corporations to walk all over their workers. And since you never mentioned the anti-gay addition to this bill, I assume you're OK with that too.
No- you keep talking, please. Please, we beg you to keep trying crap like this. It'll all but guarantee the Republicans' demise. Really, you could not self destruct more beautifully. You're not for freedom at all, just freedom for government and corporations to walk all over their workers. And since you never mentioned the anti-gay addition to this bill, I assume you're OK with that too.
ssteve
Oct 6, 12:18 PM
Except Verizon does that too!!!!
Are you amongst tall buildings when you experience these dropped calls on Verizon? Maybe Verizon drops these calls because of the same reason AT&T does....
Don't get me wrong. I won't get an iPhone until I can get it on Verizon. I live in AZ and there are only two small spots where I ever lose a call and most of the time when I am in these areas, the calls do not drop.
Verizon...Get the iPhone.
Are you amongst tall buildings when you experience these dropped calls on Verizon? Maybe Verizon drops these calls because of the same reason AT&T does....
Don't get me wrong. I won't get an iPhone until I can get it on Verizon. I live in AZ and there are only two small spots where I ever lose a call and most of the time when I am in these areas, the calls do not drop.
Verizon...Get the iPhone.
Some_Big_Spoon
Apr 29, 09:28 PM
Agreed. I'm not sure what the motivation in having such highly-stylized, and ill-fitting UI's are, but they're eyesores, and very difficult to use. I've switched off, and reverted to the "classic" views wherever possible in Lion.
I noticed most of the criticism stems from the changes in iCal and Address Book which are both disgusting. Sadly they havent changed yet
I noticed most of the criticism stems from the changes in iCal and Address Book which are both disgusting. Sadly they havent changed yet
LightSpeed1
Apr 12, 01:13 AM
http://www.chipotle.com/en-us/assets/images/menu/menu_burrito_bowl.png
mmmmmmMan, now I have the taste for one.
280513Nice!:D
mmmmmmMan, now I have the taste for one.
280513Nice!:D
exspes
Jan 13, 04:04 PM
What I'm wondering is.. if Gizmodo never posted that video, would we have heard about it anyway? As in, would there be news stories saying "Pranksters hit CES hard by turning off displays"
My guess is we wouldn't have heard anything of the sort.
My guess is we wouldn't have heard anything of the sort.
Chasb
Jan 15, 02:19 PM
Some nice products, but nothing I wanted or need.
