jeff1977
Apr 9, 12:14 AM
Apple doesn't care what you plug into the 30 pin adapter. Go here (http://www.itechnews.net/tag/iphone-controller/) to see all kinds of button-rich controllers for the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad. Some plug into the connector and some operate the game over wifi, and one allows both methods. Before commenting, let Google be your friend. :)
By all kinds did you mean 'all three'? That's all there is on your link. Before exaggerating, let being realistic be your friend. :)
By all kinds did you mean 'all three'? That's all there is on your link. Before exaggerating, let being realistic be your friend. :)
leekohler
Apr 24, 11:55 AM
It's about power and control- nothing more.
Scooterman1
May 5, 01:08 PM
Dropped calls on AT&T are just a thing that you learn to tolerate. Even in our Houston area, where signals are strong on 2 iPhones, my wife and I drop calls each day in her 30 minute drive home. It seems to happen in the same areas so it may be when the calls get handed off to a different tower.
matticus008
Mar 20, 03:14 PM
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
Multimedia
Nov 3, 04:12 AM
Try reading what you are responding too. I'm fully aware of the consumer software that's available, but I also know the general consumer is not going to be archeiving HD broadcast recordings on their iMac.
I clearly was discussing quad core chips' appeal to the masses, and I'm correct that most software out isn't written for more than 2 cores.
Sure you and others have uses for quad core and more processors but don't act like a complete idiot and try and convince us that most people do. It's just stupid.
I'm all for advancing technology but I also understand that most poeple don't ever push their computers to the limit. You are a small niche, stop acting like you are an average Mac consumerI could not disagree with you more. So let's leave it at that.
I clearly was discussing quad core chips' appeal to the masses, and I'm correct that most software out isn't written for more than 2 cores.
Sure you and others have uses for quad core and more processors but don't act like a complete idiot and try and convince us that most people do. It's just stupid.
I'm all for advancing technology but I also understand that most poeple don't ever push their computers to the limit. You are a small niche, stop acting like you are an average Mac consumerI could not disagree with you more. So let's leave it at that.
ddtlm
Oct 7, 03:53 PM
Backtothemac:
Jesus you still don't get it. If you compare Apples to Apples, the 1.6GHZ Dual Athlon is still slower in apps that are multi processor aware. Now, how about the PIV? How does that stack up? The x86 is garbage. Any real IT director would know that.
No, I "get it" fine. Don't bother testing a 1.6ghz dual Athlon when 1.8ghz dual Athlons are readily available. It would do you good to note that this test did not cover all "apps that are multi processor aware", it covered only two apps that are multi-processor aware, and on one of them the Mac looses by a lot. Even on its one win, the dual 1.25 G4 would still loose to a top-of-the-line dual Athlon. Which is slower than a top-of-the-line dual Xeon. Get it?
Jesus you still don't get it. If you compare Apples to Apples, the 1.6GHZ Dual Athlon is still slower in apps that are multi processor aware. Now, how about the PIV? How does that stack up? The x86 is garbage. Any real IT director would know that.
No, I "get it" fine. Don't bother testing a 1.6ghz dual Athlon when 1.8ghz dual Athlons are readily available. It would do you good to note that this test did not cover all "apps that are multi processor aware", it covered only two apps that are multi-processor aware, and on one of them the Mac looses by a lot. Even on its one win, the dual 1.25 G4 would still loose to a top-of-the-line dual Athlon. Which is slower than a top-of-the-line dual Xeon. Get it?
Liquorpuki
Mar 13, 08:11 PM
did you actually read my post? Centralized solar would just be one part.
Yeah I did. Everything you mentioned except tidal is intermittent, cannot be used for base load, and is subject to the grid energy storage problem that I mentioned and you said an 8 hour "battery" will solve (which it won't). Tidal can be used for base load but has a crappy generating capacity, no way could it cover the base load for the entire US.
So basically your plan would cause a lot of blackouts and upset a lot of people.
Yeah I did. Everything you mentioned except tidal is intermittent, cannot be used for base load, and is subject to the grid energy storage problem that I mentioned and you said an 8 hour "battery" will solve (which it won't). Tidal can be used for base load but has a crappy generating capacity, no way could it cover the base load for the entire US.
So basically your plan would cause a lot of blackouts and upset a lot of people.
Eastend
Sep 26, 03:31 AM
Thats an interesting concept but I think someone is a bit ahead of themselves.
I've heard that processors have reached some sort of theoretical limit and I'm guessing that multiple cores is getting around this. But why aren't these chips at higher clock speeds? I really don't milti-task that much so I would be more interested in raw power rather then power in numbers. If the prices on the current processors drop I think I'd get the quad 3GHz rather then a 8 core 2.66GHz. But if they had a dual 6GHz that would be even better.;)
Tags: Mortal Kombat, Reptile,
new mortal kombat scorpion
Mortal Kombat 9 - Mortal
mortal kombat 9 scorpion vs
Mortal Kombat 9 Scorpion
mortal kombat 9 wallpaper
scorpion mortal kombat 9
Mortal Kombat 9 2011 scorpion
sub zero mortal kombat 9.
new mortal kombat scorpion
mortal kombat 9 wallpapers hd.
Reacent Post
I've heard that processors have reached some sort of theoretical limit and I'm guessing that multiple cores is getting around this. But why aren't these chips at higher clock speeds? I really don't milti-task that much so I would be more interested in raw power rather then power in numbers. If the prices on the current processors drop I think I'd get the quad 3GHz rather then a 8 core 2.66GHz. But if they had a dual 6GHz that would be even better.;)
digitalbiker
Sep 24, 01:50 AM
I'm 99% sure the machine is intended as an independent hub that can use iTunes libraries on the same network but can also go to the iTS directly and view content straight from there (and possibly other sources, such as Google Video.)
You are going to be sorely disappointed then!.
The iTV most definitely requires a computer. The iTV is a like a suped up Airport extreme for video. It has already been demoed and it requires a computer. The computer streams the iTunes content to the iTV and the iTV receives the stream and translates it into video and audio out via an HDMI or SVGA connection to your TV. The iTV also supports front row and allows remote control of the iTunes source machine.
There maybe more features in the future but those are the reported and demoed features.
You are going to be sorely disappointed then!.
The iTV most definitely requires a computer. The iTV is a like a suped up Airport extreme for video. It has already been demoed and it requires a computer. The computer streams the iTunes content to the iTV and the iTV receives the stream and translates it into video and audio out via an HDMI or SVGA connection to your TV. The iTV also supports front row and allows remote control of the iTunes source machine.
There maybe more features in the future but those are the reported and demoed features.
CompUser
Aug 29, 11:28 AM
You can't always win :rolleyes: :cool: :D
CRT monitors also consume more power than LCDs.
CRT monitors also consume more power than LCDs.
theBB
Sep 12, 07:32 PM
$50 gets me all the standard and HD channels on DirecTV. iTunes is still not at that quality/price point yet.
Off topic, but how do you get your broadband internet? DSL? I guess DSL requires me to pay for a landline phone for another $20 per month, as I currently do not have a landline phone. Then, there is the DSL fee itself. Basic cable, broadband + HDTV is $62 per month right now. If I go with DirecTV, I would end up with DirecTV fees + $40 per month for DSL. Overall more expensive than cable.
Off topic, but how do you get your broadband internet? DSL? I guess DSL requires me to pay for a landline phone for another $20 per month, as I currently do not have a landline phone. Then, there is the DSL fee itself. Basic cable, broadband + HDTV is $62 per month right now. If I go with DirecTV, I would end up with DirecTV fees + $40 per month for DSL. Overall more expensive than cable.
jaseone
Mar 19, 05:59 PM
I wish people would understand that this program is mainly created so that people who use Linux (don't know if you have heard of it, it has a larger market share than Mac OS X if I remember right :rolleyes: ) can listen to the music which they have purchased.
Uhm why is the program Windows only then???
Uhm why is the program Windows only then???
pmz
Mar 18, 09:24 AM
FAIL
6.2 What Are The Intended Purposes Of The Wireless Data Service?
Print this section | Print this page
Except as may otherwise be specifically permitted or prohibited for select data plans, data sessions may be conducted only for the following purposes: (i) Internet browsing; (ii) email; and (iii) intranet access (including access to corporate intranets, email, and individual productivity applications like customer relationship management, sales force, and field service automation). While most common uses for Internet browsing, email and intranet access are permitted by your data plan, there are certain uses that cause extreme network capacity issues and interference with the network and are therefore prohibited. Examples of prohibited uses include, without limitation, the following: (i) server devices or host computer applications, including, but not limited to, Web camera posts or broadcasts, automatic data feeds, automated machine-to-machine connections or peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing; (ii) as a substitute or backup for private lines, wireline s or full-time or dedicated data connections; (iii) "auto-responders," "cancel-bots," or similar automated or manual routines which generate excessive amounts of net traffic, or which disrupt net user groups or email use by others; (iv) "spam" or unsolicited commercial or bulk email (or activities that have the effect of facilitating unsolicited commercial email or unsolicited bulk email); (v) any activity that adversely affects the ability of other people or systems to use either AT&T's wireless services or other parties' Internet-based resources, including "denial of service" (DoS) attacks against another network host or individual user; (vi) accessing, or attempting to access without authority, the accounts of others, or to penetrate, or attempt to penetrate, security measures of AT&T's wireless network or another entity's network or systems; (vii) software or other devices that maintain continuous active Internet connections when a computer's connection would otherwise be idle or any "keep alive" functions, unless they adhere to AT&T's data retry requirements, which may be changed from time to time. This means, by way of example only, that checking email, surfing the Internet, downloading legally acquired songs, and/or visiting corporate intranets is permitted, but downloading movies using P2P file sharing services, redirecting television signals for viewing on Personal Computers, web broadcasting, and/or for the operation of servers, telemetry devices and/or Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition devices is prohibited. Furthermore, plans (unless specifically designated for tethering usage) cannot be used for any applications that tether the device (through use of, including without limitation, connection kits, other phone/smartphone to computer accessories, BLUETOOTH� or any other wireless technology) to Personal Computers (including without limitation, laptops), or other equipment for any purpose. Accordingly, AT&T reserves the right to (i) deny, disconnect, modify and/or terminate Service, without notice, to anyone it believes is using the Service in any manner prohibited or whose usage adversely impacts its wireless network or service levels or hinders access to its wireless network, including without limitation, after a significant period of inactivity or after sessions of excessive usage and (ii) otherwise protect its wireless network from harm, compromised capacity or degradation in performance, which may impact legitimate data flows. You may not send solicitations to AT&T's wireless subscribers without their consent. You may not use the Services other than as intended by AT&T and applicable law. Plans are for individual, non-commercial use only and are not for resale. AT&T may, but is not required to, monitor your compliance, or the compliance of other subscribers, with AT&T's terms, conditions, or policies.
LOL and you believe that would hold up in court against the significance of the word "Unlimited"?
You are Flat Out Wrong. AT&T would hold up their fine print. The prosecution would wave it away, and so would the judge. It happens every day, and only most uninformed of legal amateurs are unaware of this.
6.2 What Are The Intended Purposes Of The Wireless Data Service?
Print this section | Print this page
Except as may otherwise be specifically permitted or prohibited for select data plans, data sessions may be conducted only for the following purposes: (i) Internet browsing; (ii) email; and (iii) intranet access (including access to corporate intranets, email, and individual productivity applications like customer relationship management, sales force, and field service automation). While most common uses for Internet browsing, email and intranet access are permitted by your data plan, there are certain uses that cause extreme network capacity issues and interference with the network and are therefore prohibited. Examples of prohibited uses include, without limitation, the following: (i) server devices or host computer applications, including, but not limited to, Web camera posts or broadcasts, automatic data feeds, automated machine-to-machine connections or peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing; (ii) as a substitute or backup for private lines, wireline s or full-time or dedicated data connections; (iii) "auto-responders," "cancel-bots," or similar automated or manual routines which generate excessive amounts of net traffic, or which disrupt net user groups or email use by others; (iv) "spam" or unsolicited commercial or bulk email (or activities that have the effect of facilitating unsolicited commercial email or unsolicited bulk email); (v) any activity that adversely affects the ability of other people or systems to use either AT&T's wireless services or other parties' Internet-based resources, including "denial of service" (DoS) attacks against another network host or individual user; (vi) accessing, or attempting to access without authority, the accounts of others, or to penetrate, or attempt to penetrate, security measures of AT&T's wireless network or another entity's network or systems; (vii) software or other devices that maintain continuous active Internet connections when a computer's connection would otherwise be idle or any "keep alive" functions, unless they adhere to AT&T's data retry requirements, which may be changed from time to time. This means, by way of example only, that checking email, surfing the Internet, downloading legally acquired songs, and/or visiting corporate intranets is permitted, but downloading movies using P2P file sharing services, redirecting television signals for viewing on Personal Computers, web broadcasting, and/or for the operation of servers, telemetry devices and/or Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition devices is prohibited. Furthermore, plans (unless specifically designated for tethering usage) cannot be used for any applications that tether the device (through use of, including without limitation, connection kits, other phone/smartphone to computer accessories, BLUETOOTH� or any other wireless technology) to Personal Computers (including without limitation, laptops), or other equipment for any purpose. Accordingly, AT&T reserves the right to (i) deny, disconnect, modify and/or terminate Service, without notice, to anyone it believes is using the Service in any manner prohibited or whose usage adversely impacts its wireless network or service levels or hinders access to its wireless network, including without limitation, after a significant period of inactivity or after sessions of excessive usage and (ii) otherwise protect its wireless network from harm, compromised capacity or degradation in performance, which may impact legitimate data flows. You may not send solicitations to AT&T's wireless subscribers without their consent. You may not use the Services other than as intended by AT&T and applicable law. Plans are for individual, non-commercial use only and are not for resale. AT&T may, but is not required to, monitor your compliance, or the compliance of other subscribers, with AT&T's terms, conditions, or policies.
LOL and you believe that would hold up in court against the significance of the word "Unlimited"?
You are Flat Out Wrong. AT&T would hold up their fine print. The prosecution would wave it away, and so would the judge. It happens every day, and only most uninformed of legal amateurs are unaware of this.
MacRumors
May 2, 08:49 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/02/new-macdefender-malware-threat-for-mac-os-x/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/05/02/094840-macdefender.jpg
Antivirus firm Intego today noted (http://blog.intego.com/2011/05/02/macdefender-rogue-anti-malware-program-attacks-macs-via-seo-poisoning/) the discovery of new malware known as "MACDefender" targeting Mac OS X users via Safari. According to the report, the malware appears to be being deployed via JavaScript as a compressed ZIP file reached through Google searches.When a user clicks on a link after performing a search on a search engine such as Google, this takes them to a web site whose page contains JavaScript that automatically downloads a file. In this case, the file downloaded is a compressed ZIP archive, which, if a specific option in a web browser is checked (Open "safe" files after downloading in Safari, for example), will open.More information is available in Apple's support communities (1 (https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3029144), 2 (https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3029310)), where users report that the malware is popping up directly in Google image searches.
Users running administrator accounts and with the Safari option to open "safe" files automatically checked appear to be most at risk, with some claiming that no notification of installation was seen or password required. Only when a screen popped up asking for a credit card number to sign up for virus protection did they realize that malware had been installed on their systems.
For those infected with the MACDefender malware, the following steps are recommended:
1. Open Applications > Utilities > Activity Monitor and quit any processes linked to MACDefender.
2. Delete MACDefender from the Applications folder.
3. Check System Preferences > Accounts > Login Items for suspicious entries
4. Run a Spotlight search for "MACDefender" to check for any associated files that might still be lingering.
Full details on the malware and the simplest steps needed for its complete removal are still being investigated.
Users are of course reminded that day-to-day system usage with standard accounts rather than administrator ones, as well as unchecking the Safari option for automatically opening "safe" files, are two of the simplest ways users can enhance their online security, adding extra layers of confirmation and passwords in the way of anything being installed on their systems.
Article Link: New 'MACDefender' Malware Threat for Mac OS X (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/02/new-macdefender-malware-threat-for-mac-os-x/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/05/02/094840-macdefender.jpg
Antivirus firm Intego today noted (http://blog.intego.com/2011/05/02/macdefender-rogue-anti-malware-program-attacks-macs-via-seo-poisoning/) the discovery of new malware known as "MACDefender" targeting Mac OS X users via Safari. According to the report, the malware appears to be being deployed via JavaScript as a compressed ZIP file reached through Google searches.When a user clicks on a link after performing a search on a search engine such as Google, this takes them to a web site whose page contains JavaScript that automatically downloads a file. In this case, the file downloaded is a compressed ZIP archive, which, if a specific option in a web browser is checked (Open "safe" files after downloading in Safari, for example), will open.More information is available in Apple's support communities (1 (https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3029144), 2 (https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3029310)), where users report that the malware is popping up directly in Google image searches.
Users running administrator accounts and with the Safari option to open "safe" files automatically checked appear to be most at risk, with some claiming that no notification of installation was seen or password required. Only when a screen popped up asking for a credit card number to sign up for virus protection did they realize that malware had been installed on their systems.
For those infected with the MACDefender malware, the following steps are recommended:
1. Open Applications > Utilities > Activity Monitor and quit any processes linked to MACDefender.
2. Delete MACDefender from the Applications folder.
3. Check System Preferences > Accounts > Login Items for suspicious entries
4. Run a Spotlight search for "MACDefender" to check for any associated files that might still be lingering.
Full details on the malware and the simplest steps needed for its complete removal are still being investigated.
Users are of course reminded that day-to-day system usage with standard accounts rather than administrator ones, as well as unchecking the Safari option for automatically opening "safe" files, are two of the simplest ways users can enhance their online security, adding extra layers of confirmation and passwords in the way of anything being installed on their systems.
Article Link: New 'MACDefender' Malware Threat for Mac OS X (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/02/new-macdefender-malware-threat-for-mac-os-x/)
dgree03
Apr 28, 08:56 AM
Ahh. Any proof, or just making up stuff?
Best thing I could find
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Gadgets/Report/Desktop-and-Laptop-Computers.aspx
Best thing I could find
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Gadgets/Report/Desktop-and-Laptop-Computers.aspx
blevins321
Mar 18, 10:55 AM
Here's a screenshot of a section that says they can add necessary services to your contract. From my online customer service summary (the thing you actually 'signed').
Edge100
Apr 15, 12:30 PM
I realize this is off topic, but I felt compelled to reply.
You've taken that completely out of context. The point is that a person being raped, while conscious and aware of the situation, would do everything they could to stop it from happening. By not screaming, did she do all she could to keep it from happening? The verse right after that gives an example of a woman in the country, instead of in the city. She is raped, but makes an effort to scream in order to attract help from someone, but there is no one else around to hear her screams. If a person is being raped but doesn't try to resist or call for help, can she really be compared to the one that did call for help?
This is by no means intended to be all inclusive, but demonstrates that there were in fact protections in the law for those who were raped and not those having sex while not married and claiming to be raped.
My jaw just hit the floor. Did you just make excuses for certain forms of rape? You couldn't have.
Let's get to the bottom of this: is there any circumstance for which the Bible dictates that a woman who is raped should be put to death?
You've taken that completely out of context. The point is that a person being raped, while conscious and aware of the situation, would do everything they could to stop it from happening. By not screaming, did she do all she could to keep it from happening? The verse right after that gives an example of a woman in the country, instead of in the city. She is raped, but makes an effort to scream in order to attract help from someone, but there is no one else around to hear her screams. If a person is being raped but doesn't try to resist or call for help, can she really be compared to the one that did call for help?
This is by no means intended to be all inclusive, but demonstrates that there were in fact protections in the law for those who were raped and not those having sex while not married and claiming to be raped.
My jaw just hit the floor. Did you just make excuses for certain forms of rape? You couldn't have.
Let's get to the bottom of this: is there any circumstance for which the Bible dictates that a woman who is raped should be put to death?
neko girl
Apr 26, 10:14 PM
Thread topic reminds me of:
http://gurugilbert.com/wp-content/jerry_seinfeld.jpg
http://gurugilbert.com/wp-content/jerry_seinfeld.jpg
Daveoc64
Apr 15, 11:31 AM
I've never encountered discrimination of LSBT in ether Scotland, Germany, or Thailand. But i did encounter it a lot in the USA it was very surreal and with my partner living in the USA just now studying i hear he gets bullied a lot in college just for being transgendered which is just absolutely crazy and he'll is glad to coming back to Europe in the next few months.
This is a real issue i feel that needs to be tackled in the USA as before i went i had assumed that people would be a lot more open there than they were.
I think this thread clearly demonstrates how far the US is behind Europe with social issues like these.
At the UK Election last year, you didn't see any real mention of Gay rights or Abortion. Even the "Conservative" party put out a Gay rights manifesto.
Topics like that are still huge in the US (and regularly dominate the headlines).
This is a real issue i feel that needs to be tackled in the USA as before i went i had assumed that people would be a lot more open there than they were.
I think this thread clearly demonstrates how far the US is behind Europe with social issues like these.
At the UK Election last year, you didn't see any real mention of Gay rights or Abortion. Even the "Conservative" party put out a Gay rights manifesto.
Topics like that are still huge in the US (and regularly dominate the headlines).
Bill McEnaney
Apr 26, 10:11 PM
And this lady just likely has glossitis or could even be a squamous cell carcinoma of her tongue. These people are mental.
I would have liked to have seen her tongue before the priest put the host on it.
I would have liked to have seen her tongue before the priest put the host on it.
M-O
Apr 28, 08:21 AM
It's no. 1 with PCs excluded.
javajedi
Oct 9, 08:03 PM
Someone inquired about the benchmark Java console program I created:
It's located at http://members.ij.net/javajedi
I've also included the source (FPMathTest.java) for the curious.
Download the class file and invoke it from Terminal via "java FPMathTest"
I must warn you in advance my PowerBook G4 performs miserabily. It does not utilize Altivec(G4), SSE2(P4), or other vector processing extensions.
Enjoy :)
Kevin
It's located at http://members.ij.net/javajedi
I've also included the source (FPMathTest.java) for the curious.
Download the class file and invoke it from Terminal via "java FPMathTest"
I must warn you in advance my PowerBook G4 performs miserabily. It does not utilize Altivec(G4), SSE2(P4), or other vector processing extensions.
Enjoy :)
Kevin
balamw
Apr 6, 03:21 PM
Frankly I'm a little bummed, since I was quite tempted to get a Mac -- pretty soon, in fact. Now I'm really not so sure. I (personally) might be better off with Windows 7. Not sure.
Is your name Joe? :p
What are you bummed about. Specifically.
And why is this all or nothing? Any current Mac you buy would be a decent Windows 7 box, but your Windows 7 box won't be able to run OS X.
As I said before I'm not a "switcher" as many folks around here I use both OSes. My preference for most purposes is for OS X on a Mac, yet I understand that there are things I want to do that may be better done under Windows or even in Linux (though most of that I can actually do on OS X with a bit more effort or a quick trip to MacPorts).
alust2013's idea to pick up an older Mac to play with is a good one as nothing you do is particularly demanding. My 2006 iMac is still a very decent machine for most purposes.
B
Is your name Joe? :p
What are you bummed about. Specifically.
And why is this all or nothing? Any current Mac you buy would be a decent Windows 7 box, but your Windows 7 box won't be able to run OS X.
As I said before I'm not a "switcher" as many folks around here I use both OSes. My preference for most purposes is for OS X on a Mac, yet I understand that there are things I want to do that may be better done under Windows or even in Linux (though most of that I can actually do on OS X with a bit more effort or a quick trip to MacPorts).
alust2013's idea to pick up an older Mac to play with is a good one as nothing you do is particularly demanding. My 2006 iMac is still a very decent machine for most purposes.
B
Don't panic
Mar 15, 03:14 PM
Well, not that I hope he's right, but words like these from people of high up places don't give any comfort.
Europe's energy commissioner Guenther Oettinger dubs Japan's nuclear disaster an "apocalypse,"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110315/wl_afp/japanquakelivereport
yes, but it's a figure of speech.
however bad a realistic worst case scenario would be, it will not require permanent evacuation of anything but a few tens of square miles, if that.
for example, this is not going to be as bad as chernobyl by any stretch of imagination, since the design and built of the plant is much safer, and this uses water for cooling instead of graphite which is itself flammable. And in chernobyl, only the immediate surroundings and another area where the fallout was massive are still off-limits.
In addition, this plant is on the seashore, so about half of the contamination will be dispersed into the ocean.
on a separate note, i can confirm takao's post that many japanese cities have built "tsunami walls" including one of the cities shown in one of the videos (where you can clearly see the water coing over a wall and waterfalling into the city. It might have been inefective in a tsunami this massive, but I am sure they can work on smaller ones. One of the California nuclear power plant on the coast also has a similar 25 feet wall.
I also agree with takao on the bizarre design of putting the spent rods in a pool on top of the reactor and without any containment other than the cooling water and the roof.
it seems clearly a design flaw which hopefully will be/has been taken care of in other designs and fixes
Europe's energy commissioner Guenther Oettinger dubs Japan's nuclear disaster an "apocalypse,"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110315/wl_afp/japanquakelivereport
yes, but it's a figure of speech.
however bad a realistic worst case scenario would be, it will not require permanent evacuation of anything but a few tens of square miles, if that.
for example, this is not going to be as bad as chernobyl by any stretch of imagination, since the design and built of the plant is much safer, and this uses water for cooling instead of graphite which is itself flammable. And in chernobyl, only the immediate surroundings and another area where the fallout was massive are still off-limits.
In addition, this plant is on the seashore, so about half of the contamination will be dispersed into the ocean.
on a separate note, i can confirm takao's post that many japanese cities have built "tsunami walls" including one of the cities shown in one of the videos (where you can clearly see the water coing over a wall and waterfalling into the city. It might have been inefective in a tsunami this massive, but I am sure they can work on smaller ones. One of the California nuclear power plant on the coast also has a similar 25 feet wall.
I also agree with takao on the bizarre design of putting the spent rods in a pool on top of the reactor and without any containment other than the cooling water and the roof.
it seems clearly a design flaw which hopefully will be/has been taken care of in other designs and fixes
0 comments:
Post a Comment