iGary
Sep 9, 05:34 PM
Why does it say "MacCentral" when MacWorld did the benchmarks? :confused:
Fukui
Sep 19, 04:16 PM
Erm... that is wrong. All major Hollywood DVDs are encoded as progressive full frames at 23.976fps. The interlacing you are seeing is the result of adding pulldown frames to pad it out to 29.97 interlaced for NTSC. And since they are encoded anamorphically, it uses the full 720x480 and depending on your output display, either gets letterboxed or stretched wide on a real 16:9 HDTV.
Are iTS movies letterboxed? If so, then the quality of iTS movies is closer to 640x360.
Yea, I see. I wouldn't be surprised if they were letterboxed... I would rather wait till a tv show comes out "widescreen" and see for myself for 1.99 then 9.99 and be dissapointed...
Hopefully, over time, the quality will get better. It seems to me, apple is matching video quality of the downloads exactly to what the iPod can handle... so maybe it all depends on the iPod getting a better screen and processor...
Are iTS movies letterboxed? If so, then the quality of iTS movies is closer to 640x360.
Yea, I see. I wouldn't be surprised if they were letterboxed... I would rather wait till a tv show comes out "widescreen" and see for myself for 1.99 then 9.99 and be dissapointed...
Hopefully, over time, the quality will get better. It seems to me, apple is matching video quality of the downloads exactly to what the iPod can handle... so maybe it all depends on the iPod getting a better screen and processor...
Chupa Chupa
Sep 14, 08:30 AM
Not sure why people would get excited about an iCamera. There are many excellent DSLRs out now from companies that have a lot more expertise in building cameras than Apple. I'd rather have a Canon Rebel XT or maybe that new Pentax.
rmwebs
Apr 25, 02:38 PM
I'd like to see something along the lines of carbon fiber. I'm fed up of being shocked by my unearthed mac book pro, and very fed up of the razor sharp edges they seem to like so much. It makes me look like I've tried slitting my wrists :p
The obvious downside with using a non-metal is the heat. They have relied on the aluminium to act as a giant heatsink, and I fear not using aluminium again would result in a thicker, hotter model!
The obvious downside with using a non-metal is the heat. They have relied on the aluminium to act as a giant heatsink, and I fear not using aluminium again would result in a thicker, hotter model!
macintel4me
Sep 4, 09:51 PM
who knows they might release a mini mac style media centre with OSX that will be used to download the movies and allow you to burn it straight to DVD/Blueray lol :cool:
Okay, a FrontRow/AirPort Express/iTunes-downloadable Media Center device is SWEET!! I bet that is EXACTLY what we see Apple delivering!!
Okay, a FrontRow/AirPort Express/iTunes-downloadable Media Center device is SWEET!! I bet that is EXACTLY what we see Apple delivering!!
hyperpasta
Sep 4, 03:10 PM
Although the semi-official word out of Apple Americas is that invitations to the event have "not been sent" out, a seemingly inadvertent leak out of Apple Europe last week pinned the affair for Tuesday, September 12. It will be hosted by Jobs in a yet-to-be disclosed California location and beamed via satellite throughout the world.
Jobs will have much to talk about during the event, sources familiar with the chief executive's plans have said, including new iMacs and a much-anticipated update to the iPod nano. But the real push, they say, will be tied to the big screen.
Read on and be wowed:
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2016
Jobs will have much to talk about during the event, sources familiar with the chief executive's plans have said, including new iMacs and a much-anticipated update to the iPod nano. But the real push, they say, will be tied to the big screen.
Read on and be wowed:
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2016
Glideslope
Apr 19, 07:31 PM
Good Luck. :apple:
munkery
Mar 23, 04:20 PM
http://www.macforensicslab.com/ProductsAndServices/index.php?main_page=document_general_info&products_id=174
Much of the information in the PDF (http://www.macforensicslab.com/Malware_on_Mac_OS_X.pdf) associated with this article (http://www.macforensicslab.com/ProductsAndServices/index.php?main_page=document_general_info&products_id=174) is incorrect. For example:
Page 26
It refers to the bundle architecture as insecure. The argument presented would be true if security sensitive apps were not owned by system. Given that they are owned by system, malware cannot modify the bundle of an app owned by system without authentication when the app is run with user privileges in an admin or standard account.
For example, show package contents of iTunes, Safari, or Mail and try to create a folder in the bundle. In relation to the example in the article, try renaming iTunes. The argument in the article relies on actions that can not be completed in an OS X admin account; these type of changes are even more restricted in a standard account.
Apps not owned by system are vulnerable but without privilege escalation can not install rootkits or keyloggers. Even apps owned by system run with user privileges and require privilege escalation to install dangerous payloads.
Mac OS X does not prompt for authentication if you install apps in the proper location for that user account type. When installed in the proper location, apps are sandboxed from the system level of Mac OS X by the Unix DAC model used within Mac OS X.
Windows is less secure because most apps (Chrome only exception I can recall) install their associated files in levels of the system that require authentication regardless of user account type (unless Admin in Windows XP because running as superuser - no authentication required to install with elevated privileges - very dangerous). It is easier to trick Windows users to install a trojan with elevated privileges given that almost all apps ask for authentication to install and the user can not distinguish the intent of that authentication.
Page 30
The claim that the Application folder is unprotected is false. Security sensitive apps within the Application folder are owned by system.
Also, security sensitive system binaries are still stored in /bin and /sbin in Mac OS X.
Page 31
The ability to read the contacts stored in Address Book could be used by a worm to propagate. But, malware that uses this to spread is not likely to appear in the wild if the malware is not profitable. It is unlikely that malware will be profitable without being able to hook (this is a specific function) into apps owned by system.
Page 33
Starts off talking about trojans, trojans are easily avoided with user knowledge in Mac OS X because most apps do not require authentication to install if installed in the appropriate location where the Unix DAC model protects the system.
Viruses using the model shown in the article will not be successful without privilege escalation. This is the reason why Mac OS X malware is not successful in the wild.
By default, very few server side services are exposed in Mac OS X and those that are exposed are sandboxed. Vectors for worm propagation are limited to client side. Client side worms require authentication to install and spread if do not include privilege escalation via exploitation because of the Unix DAC model used in Mac OS X. Trojans used to trick users to authenticate are less likely to be successful in Mac OS X as stated above.
Much of the information in the PDF (http://www.macforensicslab.com/Malware_on_Mac_OS_X.pdf) associated with this article (http://www.macforensicslab.com/ProductsAndServices/index.php?main_page=document_general_info&products_id=174) is incorrect. For example:
Page 26
It refers to the bundle architecture as insecure. The argument presented would be true if security sensitive apps were not owned by system. Given that they are owned by system, malware cannot modify the bundle of an app owned by system without authentication when the app is run with user privileges in an admin or standard account.
For example, show package contents of iTunes, Safari, or Mail and try to create a folder in the bundle. In relation to the example in the article, try renaming iTunes. The argument in the article relies on actions that can not be completed in an OS X admin account; these type of changes are even more restricted in a standard account.
Apps not owned by system are vulnerable but without privilege escalation can not install rootkits or keyloggers. Even apps owned by system run with user privileges and require privilege escalation to install dangerous payloads.
Mac OS X does not prompt for authentication if you install apps in the proper location for that user account type. When installed in the proper location, apps are sandboxed from the system level of Mac OS X by the Unix DAC model used within Mac OS X.
Windows is less secure because most apps (Chrome only exception I can recall) install their associated files in levels of the system that require authentication regardless of user account type (unless Admin in Windows XP because running as superuser - no authentication required to install with elevated privileges - very dangerous). It is easier to trick Windows users to install a trojan with elevated privileges given that almost all apps ask for authentication to install and the user can not distinguish the intent of that authentication.
Page 30
The claim that the Application folder is unprotected is false. Security sensitive apps within the Application folder are owned by system.
Also, security sensitive system binaries are still stored in /bin and /sbin in Mac OS X.
Page 31
The ability to read the contacts stored in Address Book could be used by a worm to propagate. But, malware that uses this to spread is not likely to appear in the wild if the malware is not profitable. It is unlikely that malware will be profitable without being able to hook (this is a specific function) into apps owned by system.
Page 33
Starts off talking about trojans, trojans are easily avoided with user knowledge in Mac OS X because most apps do not require authentication to install if installed in the appropriate location where the Unix DAC model protects the system.
Viruses using the model shown in the article will not be successful without privilege escalation. This is the reason why Mac OS X malware is not successful in the wild.
By default, very few server side services are exposed in Mac OS X and those that are exposed are sandboxed. Vectors for worm propagation are limited to client side. Client side worms require authentication to install and spread if do not include privilege escalation via exploitation because of the Unix DAC model used in Mac OS X. Trojans used to trick users to authenticate are less likely to be successful in Mac OS X as stated above.
entwife
Apr 4, 12:21 PM
How sad,
I mean a person lost his life because of his actions, and the guard now has to live with the fact that he took a life. All for what - some iToys? Doesn't seem worth it. :(
Exactly.
What a waste.
I mean a person lost his life because of his actions, and the guard now has to live with the fact that he took a life. All for what - some iToys? Doesn't seem worth it. :(
Exactly.
What a waste.
MacRumors
Jul 14, 09:14 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
DailyTech reports (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3228) that the Non-Disclosure for performance benchmarks on Intel's upcoming Intel Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme processors was lifted today. The new processors, code named Conroe, are the desktop versions of the Core Duo processors which currently reside in Apple's MacBook, MacBook Pro and iMac computers.
Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme processors have a plethora of new features including Intel Wide Dynamic Execution, Intel Smart Memory Access, Intel Advanced Smart Cache and Intel Advanced Digital Media Boost.
The Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme could make their Mac debut in Apple's PowerMac computers which are rumored to be released on August 7th 2006 at the World Wide Developers Conference.
Intel is expected to start shipping the new processors on July 23rd with an official announcement on July 27th. The Core 2 Duo will have clock speeds of 1.86GHz, 2.13GHz, 2.4GHz and 2.67GHz while the Core 2 Extreme will clock in at 2.93GHz. All share a 1066MHz front side bus with between 2-4MB of L2 cache. Pricing for the chips range from $183 to $999 per chip.
As mentioned above, a number of benchmarks of the new chips have been released today, with DailyTech providing a roundup (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3319) of many reviews.
DailyTech reports (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3228) that the Non-Disclosure for performance benchmarks on Intel's upcoming Intel Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme processors was lifted today. The new processors, code named Conroe, are the desktop versions of the Core Duo processors which currently reside in Apple's MacBook, MacBook Pro and iMac computers.
Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme processors have a plethora of new features including Intel Wide Dynamic Execution, Intel Smart Memory Access, Intel Advanced Smart Cache and Intel Advanced Digital Media Boost.
The Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme could make their Mac debut in Apple's PowerMac computers which are rumored to be released on August 7th 2006 at the World Wide Developers Conference.
Intel is expected to start shipping the new processors on July 23rd with an official announcement on July 27th. The Core 2 Duo will have clock speeds of 1.86GHz, 2.13GHz, 2.4GHz and 2.67GHz while the Core 2 Extreme will clock in at 2.93GHz. All share a 1066MHz front side bus with between 2-4MB of L2 cache. Pricing for the chips range from $183 to $999 per chip.
As mentioned above, a number of benchmarks of the new chips have been released today, with DailyTech providing a roundup (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3319) of many reviews.
toddybody
Mar 22, 02:19 PM
Brian Tong could announce a 30inch 300dpi + 6 Core SB i7 + 24GB RAM + 500GB SSD + crossfired 6970 iMac for 500.00...and he'd still be totally worthless (unintelligent + NOT funny + unattractive + annoying as hell + probably hides cameras in the CNET women's bathrooms).
...Now Brian Cooley on the other hand, THAT DUDE ROCKS!
...Now Brian Cooley on the other hand, THAT DUDE ROCKS!
cmaier
Nov 14, 12:14 AM
LOL. Please tell us which law firm you work for. That was quite funny. Are you a historian now too? Would the real cmaier please stand up?
So the arbitration system comes from the roman law as well? Do tell.
I'm not interested in what revisionist historians have come up with the justify this perversion of justice that you call "law". The roman empire fell a long time ago and while Roman law may have influenced much of our legal proceedings, including the structure of civil cases, I was talking about how civil disputes are generally dealt with. Lawyers arguing a case are supposed to be the last resort, not the first.
This process is based on Judeo-christian principles on how you settle disputes over land or labour. It has nothing to do with criminal law.
Here is how disputes were supposed to be dealt with.
1. You go to the person in question and try to talk it out.
2. If that does not work, you meet in front a mediator such as as priest, local official, magistrate or arbitrator.
3. If that does not work, you hire an advocate and make your case in front of the community.
4. If that does not work, you take your case before the court which would usually have been a king back in the day.
Now you are just making things up. And are you even aware of the difference between law and equity, and the role of the chancellor in old English common law? There were no "arbitrators." What on earth are you even talking about?
I hate to rely on wikipedia, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law might be a good place for you to start. You'll note the section on the influence of Roman law. You'll also see quotes like this:
"Well into the 19th century, ancient maxims played a large role in common law adjudication. Many of these maxims had originated in Roman Law, migrated to England before the introduction of Christianity to the British Isles, and were typically stated in Latin even in English decisions."
You'll also note that "arbitrator" and "arbitration" doesn't appear anywhere in that article because these are not principles of English common law. The word "Christian" appears only in the above quote.
And I'm not a historian, but lawyers are actually taught about the history of common law, since we rely on precedent dating all the way back, and we still have distinctions and rules that come from the 1400's.
You are just making stuff up.
p.s.: and where in the bible does this come from:
To put in a modern context:
1. Go for coffee.
2. Arbitration.
3. Public Hearing.
4. Court case.
So the arbitration system comes from the roman law as well? Do tell.
I'm not interested in what revisionist historians have come up with the justify this perversion of justice that you call "law". The roman empire fell a long time ago and while Roman law may have influenced much of our legal proceedings, including the structure of civil cases, I was talking about how civil disputes are generally dealt with. Lawyers arguing a case are supposed to be the last resort, not the first.
This process is based on Judeo-christian principles on how you settle disputes over land or labour. It has nothing to do with criminal law.
Here is how disputes were supposed to be dealt with.
1. You go to the person in question and try to talk it out.
2. If that does not work, you meet in front a mediator such as as priest, local official, magistrate or arbitrator.
3. If that does not work, you hire an advocate and make your case in front of the community.
4. If that does not work, you take your case before the court which would usually have been a king back in the day.
Now you are just making things up. And are you even aware of the difference between law and equity, and the role of the chancellor in old English common law? There were no "arbitrators." What on earth are you even talking about?
I hate to rely on wikipedia, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law might be a good place for you to start. You'll note the section on the influence of Roman law. You'll also see quotes like this:
"Well into the 19th century, ancient maxims played a large role in common law adjudication. Many of these maxims had originated in Roman Law, migrated to England before the introduction of Christianity to the British Isles, and were typically stated in Latin even in English decisions."
You'll also note that "arbitrator" and "arbitration" doesn't appear anywhere in that article because these are not principles of English common law. The word "Christian" appears only in the above quote.
And I'm not a historian, but lawyers are actually taught about the history of common law, since we rely on precedent dating all the way back, and we still have distinctions and rules that come from the 1400's.
You are just making stuff up.
p.s.: and where in the bible does this come from:
To put in a modern context:
1. Go for coffee.
2. Arbitration.
3. Public Hearing.
4. Court case.
silentnite
Jan 31, 07:27 PM
What apple has to do is beef up security all the way around, because a lot of people are going to see apple as a cash cow now. A lot of these so called cyber security companies are going to be the main problem just to continue to make a buck by putting fear in us all.
Ganymede
Sep 5, 01:34 PM
OH PLEEASE let it be the phone...i need a new one now!!!
I've been hoping for this for a long, long time. I would love for this to be in the cards, but it just seems too different from iTMS to be announced. But hope springs eternal....
I've been hoping for this for a long, long time. I would love for this to be in the cards, but it just seems too different from iTMS to be announced. But hope springs eternal....
hamis92
Apr 25, 01:27 PM
If this involves matte displays that don't look like they've been retrofitted, I can't wait to see what they have in store for us :cool:
addicted44
Apr 25, 02:07 PM
"which is already under development at Quanta in Taiwan"
And I was naive enough to think that Apple developed their cases themselves. And if they don't it means that they do not design any hardware at all.
Ummm...that doesn't mean what you are saying at all.
Apple has stated before, in one of their Keynote videos (possibly the one about the Unibody MBP), that they send their designers to Taiwan, and China, where the factories are actually located, to the designing, so they have a complete feel for the entire life of the product. So they have an idea of what the manufacturing facilities will look like, and have quick/easy access to the raw materials, and can easily test the manufacturing capabilities themselves.
Just because the design might be happening at Quanta (still a rumor) doesn't mean Apple is not doing the designing (if it wasn't their designs, why hasn't anyone else been able to make a unibody laptop yet?).
And I was naive enough to think that Apple developed their cases themselves. And if they don't it means that they do not design any hardware at all.
Ummm...that doesn't mean what you are saying at all.
Apple has stated before, in one of their Keynote videos (possibly the one about the Unibody MBP), that they send their designers to Taiwan, and China, where the factories are actually located, to the designing, so they have a complete feel for the entire life of the product. So they have an idea of what the manufacturing facilities will look like, and have quick/easy access to the raw materials, and can easily test the manufacturing capabilities themselves.
Just because the design might be happening at Quanta (still a rumor) doesn't mean Apple is not doing the designing (if it wasn't their designs, why hasn't anyone else been able to make a unibody laptop yet?).
OdduWon
Sep 26, 11:25 AM
i'm sure glad i didn't renew my contract with cingular yet now i can use my upgrade to get the new telepod! :D
Ingot
Apr 20, 01:17 PM
This is great for my alcoholic blackouts. Fire up the program and find out where I've been. Although on my last trip to San Diego it put me across the border and into a Tijuana cat house.
SEE? A positive use for this. Keep it up Pollyana! I love it!
SEE? A positive use for this. Keep it up Pollyana! I love it!
e28
Oct 12, 01:46 PM
Check out DeaPeaJay's mockup at AppleInsider. Me want.
http://www.exit42design.com/stuffDirectory/redNano.jpg
No, this is the Target special edition nano that comes with a Target gift card.
http://www.exit42design.com/stuffDirectory/redNano.jpg
No, this is the Target special edition nano that comes with a Target gift card.
JRM PowerPod
Sep 9, 09:03 AM
Now that they are 64bit all i need to do is find two 8 exactabyte DDR2 dimms and i'll be sweet
Astro7x
Mar 22, 01:47 PM
Can they PLEASE enable Jumbo Frames on the new iMacs? It's ridiculous that in order to properly run a SAN at work we need to buy refurbished iMac Intel Core 2 Duos
What about the Mac Pro? It's way past due, would that come first, before the iMac?
Don't look at the Buyers Guide average release time. The past two Mac Pro upgrades have been around the 15 month mark in between releases. At the current rate we'd be lucky to see one around October.
What about the Mac Pro? It's way past due, would that come first, before the iMac?
Don't look at the Buyers Guide average release time. The past two Mac Pro upgrades have been around the 15 month mark in between releases. At the current rate we'd be lucky to see one around October.
Indiana82
Sep 14, 04:41 PM
If Jobs is realy taking a plane to the whole way down to germany, I think he is presenting more than a software update. But is he realy comming? Or is it again a live-streaming kinda thing? Or might someone else be leading through the show?
WHO KNOWS!
WHO KNOWS!
JAT
Mar 30, 12:35 PM
I thought the poster I was referencing referring to the word "App"... apparently he wasn't. Yes, I know Apple are trading marking "App store".
My point is that any post referencing "app" and its usage is pointless to this topic, because that is not the term in question with this legal battle. If M$ and their linguist work on "app", they should lose.
Frankly, I don't care who wins this battle. I guess I lean towards Apple, but that's mostly just bias against M$, to a lesser extent the fact that Apple was the first to use this particular term, AFAIK.
I always call them all "store", honestly. My mom has a Storm, dad has a Droid, several close people including me have iDevices, friend has some ancient Sprint device (Win, maybe). So I say, "go to the/your store [meaning appstore in the phone] and look for xxx."
My point is that any post referencing "app" and its usage is pointless to this topic, because that is not the term in question with this legal battle. If M$ and their linguist work on "app", they should lose.
Frankly, I don't care who wins this battle. I guess I lean towards Apple, but that's mostly just bias against M$, to a lesser extent the fact that Apple was the first to use this particular term, AFAIK.
I always call them all "store", honestly. My mom has a Storm, dad has a Droid, several close people including me have iDevices, friend has some ancient Sprint device (Win, maybe). So I say, "go to the/your store [meaning appstore in the phone] and look for xxx."
Lynxpoint
Sep 14, 02:54 PM
aperture update aside, what do the "pro photographers" on here see as something missing in their workflow or that could critically change their workflow?
I like the sound of a monitor that self colour corrects, for example.
I like the sound of a monitor that self colour corrects, for example.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar