cool haircuts celebrity 2011

I have personally thought through my beliefs extensively (likely more and more frequently than most of you have thought through your respective beliefs).

What a condescending statement. :rolleyes:

Open and doing something. Safari, Mail, iTunes, and working in photoshop probably won't benefit much from quad cores. Batching in PS, Aperture and doing a render in FCP would.

I am on the brink of buying something. What, time will tell. If the quad core does make a marked difference when running PS and at most one background process I'll consider it. Otherwise its a Dual core 2.66 for me.

I could not disagree with you more. Our G5 and Mac Pro Quads give us an extra production hour, at least, per day, using many of the apps you mentioned above. It is up to the user the know how to push these boxes.

Just today, we processed 8.7 Gig of Photoshop documents (high res art scans from a lambda flatbed of 4x8 foot originals at 300 dpi -- i know the artist was crazy, but it is what we GOT.) -- We open all this data over 20 docs, changed RGB to CMYK, adjusted color, resized to a normal size, sharpened, added masks and saved. We did all this in 40 minutes -- that is 2 minutes per average size doc of 600MB.

Are you really going to tell me that my G5 Dual 2.7 could hang like this.

No Way -- We had activity monitor open -- Photoshop used an average of 72% off ALL FOUR PROCESSORS.

We did use safari at the same time to download a template for the art book (250 MG) and we had a DVD ripping via Mac the Ripper as well.

Quad Core Rules. Soon to be OCTO.

Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...


I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.


You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.


Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.

You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.


Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.

Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.

Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.


Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).

But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.


UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.


Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.


There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.


Sorry! I know; it burns!

...


Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.


Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.

Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.

so much for the no malware on macs myth :D
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:

funny how your post is at -19.

I think there's (at least!) two separate debates going on here -

- what is the best home entertainment network design/topology?
- how well does the iTV serve the topology Apple has chosen?

The first question is a doozy. Personally, I think Apple's choice is a bit unwieldy. Have your entertainment network rely on your Mac/PC is fine; except when you need to restart after installing software (could the hard disk in the iTV buffer enough content to keep going until the Mac restarts? Possibly). Another problem is if your home PC is a laptop, which might not be in the home, or will sleep if inadvertently shut.

Also, it is a bit tedious if you have to get up from your sofa to your Mac, start downloading the film/show, then return to the couch and wait for the film/show to start playing. Wouldn't it be far better if you could purchase the film via the iTV, without having to go to your Mac/PC? (If this is possible, feel free to ignore this paragraph. ;) )

Personally, I'd prefer to have a home entertainment storage server, essentially something akin to the iTV but with a large hard disk (or RAID) attached, which stores all my iTunes and other media. Anything I buy on my MacBook - songs, TV shows, movies - are backed up to the server when I plug it into my home network (could the Leopard backup APIs achieve this?) and thus always available regardless of where my Mac is. And, I'd watch far more moves if they were just a menu click away, rather than rooting around the house for a DVD case.

As for the second question, if you accept Apple's argument that the Mac/PC will be the entertainment centre for the home, the iTV is probably the simplest device you could come up with. It's basically an Airport Express with "AirFlicks".

One thing puzzles me though - the iTV is not a complicated piece of kit, hardly any more so than the mini or any other Mac. So, why did Apple pre-announce earlier this month for release early next year, and not release a finished product?

Did they think of it too late to finish it in time for the iTunes Movie store announcement? Unlikely - people have been calling for video streaming for some time; and Apple would have been working behind the scenes on the iTunes movie store for some months. The fact that they appear to have finalised the configuration, aesthetics and price would indicate it's more or less done. More likely - iTV is waiting on some other key piece of technology before it can be released. And the obvious answer would be - Leopard.

iTV isn't being released until the Leopard timeframe, and Leopard has major unannounced features which we won't hear about until Macworld '07. Could it be some Mac media centre functionality as some have suggested?

p.s. as for a name, how about the "Apple Jack"? Rhymes with Apple Mac, and implies "jacking" all your content into your TV? Whaddya think?

Eeek! sorry. This post was far longer than I expected!

You might have a point here but at that price point I suspect a 30GB HD and no PVR use. The HD could be used for caching and PPV/rental movies though.

I was going to ask why not a PRV, but realized it myself. While apple does not prevent you from loading music you have aquired through other means onto your iPod, they don't help you either. They don't help you buy CD's because its too broad an experience to simplfy. Same with the PVR. How a customer aquires content from a provider varies too much for apple to engineer an simple solution. But they can provide their own simple content delivery solution.

Next, they need to provide an NAS for all your media either from the store, ripped from disc or created yourself. Move the media off the computer.

I believe you can also pull the hard drive and scan it with another Windows based machine to find the files also.

You can scan it but if you are doing manual removal its because the scanners aren't finding it (but its still there). In these cases you have to hunt the file down manually, most security sites will post removal instructions but Windows OS allows for files to completely hide themselves even when booting into safe mode and having all files and folders as well as system files showing. A lot of files even though they are there can't be seen by command prompt either.

However, buy using a non windows OS you can always see these files so I'll plug the drive they are on into a mac or linux machine and locate the files on there.

Not all viruses hide files like that obviously but some do so if you ever do a manual removal and the file you are looking for isn't there (but you know for sure the machine is infected) then most likely you just have to pop out the drive and plug it into another OS.

I really wish MS would fix this and not let files be hidden, it would make my job MUCH easier.

Many people say this, but they fail at the point where actions are of culture and not representative of the religion itself.

I invite you to demonstrate how Islam is a threat to freedom and democracy.

I guess all this honour killing pretty much explains the original theory how freedom of women has been affected

thanks again edifyingG for presenting some very valid points

Right, schools should teach you how to think. Besides, what a kid learns at age 7 will be somewhat obsolete by the time she enters the work force at 24, seventeen years later. For all we know, she could be given a Linux box at that time, or a Chrome PC, or a Mac, or something not even invented yet instead of a Windows box.

A lot can change in almost 20 years.

It won't be an issue. Please refer to my previous post in this thread.

I feel like the fear mongering done by the international media is just unreal-- is everyone that uneducated?

As I said, Dr. Spitzer disagrees. Please watch his video, CalBoy. I've already posted a link to it in the post where I mentioned Focus on the Family.

According to you and your internet sources, sexuality can be readily changed by the individual right? So why don't you try changing yours? You don't actually have to have sex with anyone, just will yourself to be attracted to someone of the same sex.

I'm pretty happy with nuclear power. Those reactors have stood up to more than they were realistically ever expected to have to. Contrast that with the sort of thing that happens when oil platforms go wrong.

It's a bit like those who dislike or are afraid of air travel asking what do I think of it after that engine explosion on the A380. I say it makes me more sure of the safety, not less, as in that case just like this the safety features prevented catastrophic failure even when pushed beyond the expected.

This is no longer the case Hector , same CPU , same stupid Intel Chipset , a custom design Mac Mobo is no different from an Asus / DFI / MSI board , in a sense they are all customized however all derived from the same chipset. So this make no difference other then small tweaks apple might make , just like the other vendors make thiers through bios updates. Apple is not going to get a custom Core 2 /Xenon , aside from the case / mainboard / OSX , there is nothing in a mac i can't buy on newegg.

each motherboard uses it's own caps, chips, fets, IO controllers, port config, firmware ect, if you think asus ect just magically get a design from intel and print them off your patently wrong, allot of work goes into designing a motherboard all intel does is provide a north and southbridge. i'm not saying apple is all that different with their choice of parts (though they do tend to make more educated choices) it's more the fact that they have to choose parts and design the boards which will end up vasty different if they have both a conroe and woodcrest mac pro.

go take courses in electronics/computer science/cisco certs/apple certs/buissness then come back when you actually know anything rather than making stupid assumptions.

do you even think at all when you post, you spurt BS to prove a point i was not contesting.

we start out argueing weather mac users are acting snooty about conroe, now your talking about how you can buy the same parts that will go in a mac pro and to that i say "whoppty do"


anyway to get back OT, the point is that conroe makes no sense for apple to use in the mac pro, woodcrest is only slightly more expensive and even cheaper when you consider the 3GHz version compared to the extreme edition conroe, though i'd like an all quad line they will probably have a single dual core tower but it still makes sense to keep it using woodcrest due to economies of scale, that 50 bucks to so saved is more than made back up on logic board design, support, education of technicians and the costs of having separate production lines.

I found it easy to move to Mac. I picked it up very quickly. I guess I just thought in terms of what I wanted to do in English and then searched the internets/mac for the command.

Also lot of it was easy because I found the Mac to be well organized and streamlined.

Not alot of tedious or unecessary clicks. Nothing seems to be as buried as it is in Windows.

The biggest thing I don't like about OSX is the tiny buttons and scrollbars and windows that can come up. Like the Finder Viewing Options window.

I find Windows easier to use in that aspect. Bigger buttons are just easier to mouse over and click. May look less refined, but easier to work with.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)



Gotta agree with you there. Im sure they get bullied like everyone else, but I remember in high school an experience where I was harassed and picked on, beat up, hit in the head with a chair, etc, etc, and the administration did nothing. I was bigger than this guy, but I really didn't want to fight him, violence doesn't solve violence, finally the principal gave him a warning, which he laughed about.

You know, while I'm loathe to actually suggest violence, the few times I actually did hit someone it really had a profound effect. In one instance I actually was on friendly terms with the bully after I socked him in the nose.

Not saying this should be encouraged, but it's an interesting insight. Some bullies were sadistic and cruel and sick, no doubt. But I wonder if there isn't some instinct to "test" you out, to see if you're worthy to tag along on the caribou hunt or something... and you get a little respect back when you prove yourself with a little friendly violence.

So they can't do it to you, but you can do it to them?

Remind me how that makes one different from them?

That's hypocritical at best. :rolleyes:

1. I'm not gay. Just putting that out there. :D

2. I guess it is hypocritical in a sense: They hate gays for being gay and I hate bigots for being bigoted. Whether or not that puts me on the same level as them is up to you, I guess.

As cool as that poster might be..

3. Don't wear sunglasses for nothing. :cool:

Things I miss from Windows:

Select an item, push shift, and select another to select those two items and everything between them.



Mac OS X does do this. Did you even try it?

In case anyone was wondering. ;)

"China syndrome", not "Japan" syndrome.

I agree: There's a place for that kind of therapy. I even know people who felt conflicted about their sexual orientation. Unfortunately, the conflict caused them some of the severest emotional pain I could imagine.

The goal of any ethical psychological treatment is only to treat the conflict that causes pain. The patient is considered healthy when his thoughts and behaviors do not interfere with his ability to lead a fulfilling life, not when he changes his thoughts and behaviors to ones endorsed by the therapist. Anything else is abuse of the patient and psychological malpractice.

To tell someone who is in conflict over his sexual orientation that he must change it to be well is no different than telling an anorexic to lose more weight so she doesn't feel so fat. It is indulging the conflict to produce conforming behavior rather than treating the conflict to produce a healthy patient.

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.

it might be morally okay to use songs in your wedding video, but it's not morally okay to break the law in order to put them there when you have legal means of either doing so (which is the case--buy the CD)As I understand it, the issue of using music in your wedding video has nothing to do with breaking DRM, but instead with violating copyright. Even you get the music off of a CD, it would still be illegal.

Please don't confuse SMP with multi-socket. You must have an SMP (or even an ASMP) operating system to use any computer with more than one core.

It doesn't matter if the two cores are in one socket or two - both require SMP in order to manage the cores.

Saying that a dual-socket system is "SMP" and a single-socket dual-core system is "not SMP" shows that you don't quite understand the computer technology required to do multi-processing.

I know what Symetrical Multi-Processing is. Thanks.

The fight can't be won, it's useless... there will always be those people who go, "Oh my god... random email, you need my credit card, social security number, and my youngest child? Sure thing! Here you go!"

And then freak out because their bank accounts are all empty and their kid's running off with some 40 year old. It'll never end.

That's never been a reason to give up. I was raised on Shonen Anime. I don't know the meaning of the words "giving up". ;)

Have we answered the question of why there are so many atheists here?

Was the answer: 'It's Easter weekend, all the theists are off celebrating Zombie Jesus day'?