0815
Apr 20, 12:51 PM
You have no proof of this.
Innocent until proven guilty ... what happend to that? You cant just claim 'Apple has a centralized database with all your location information' when the only thing that is know is that it is stored locally on your device.
Just claiming a stupid thing and say it is true until you prove it's wrong does not work. There is no evidence whatsoever that it is stored somewhere else.
Innocent until proven guilty ... what happend to that? You cant just claim 'Apple has a centralized database with all your location information' when the only thing that is know is that it is stored locally on your device.
Just claiming a stupid thing and say it is true until you prove it's wrong does not work. There is no evidence whatsoever that it is stored somewhere else.
Chundles
Aug 31, 11:33 AM
I'll believe it when I see the invitation, a proper one, not one of my dodgy photoshopped ones.
cozmot
Mar 18, 12:00 AM
The Safari exploit launched a Mac OSX program. How is that NOT an "OS" issue? The exploit could have just as easily told the Mac to delete a directory on the hard drive, for instance. So it's not just Safari that's an issue but the fact that OSX would let Safari execute a program outside the browser.
I'd like to know where this idea that "many have tried" to create viruses and/or malware for OSX comes from. How do you know what people have done or tried? I'm not saying Unix is easy to exploit, but I know darn well it's not invulnerable. If they held an OS hacking event with a prize, I'm sure someone would prove my point for me.
And this idea that nothing can be done on the Mac until a virus or other malware exploit shows up on a news site is absurd. There are plenty of tools out there, for instance, to point out dangerous web sites that could be a threat to a computer. Most OSX users wouldn't bother to install one if one was offered to them because they believe themselves invulnerable. So why worry about visiting a malware site? Some exploits are potentially cross-platform (adobe flash, for example). Again, I say most OSX users are far too comfortable in a foolish belief that they are not in danger from anything out there.
Before I could even get to this, cwt1nospam and GGJstudios jumped on it. I'll add that a Safari exploit just can't take over an OS X system. It can do some minor things, but doesn't give admin or root access to the OS.
You nervous Windows users -- and you have every right to be -- are used to exploits commandeering your computers. It's your every day reality. For Mac users, it doesn't happen. Never has. But to characterize us as engaging in "foolish belief" that we're not in danger out there is a false argument.
Rather than go through the laborious repeat of my earlier post to you, please re-read it. Mac users don't deny the dangers. Unlike Windows users we're just not lulled into installing expensive, beastly software that drags our systems down that gives us a false sense of security that we're safe and protected. Most exploits come from unsafe computing, including the incomplete list I assembled above. Mac users don't take this dope, and have clearer minds about the proper steps to protect their systems.
I have multiple lines of defense built up against attackers using malware, viruses, worms, Trojan Horses and the like. It starts with the firewall in my wireless router, OpenDNS, safe practices and other methods I've learned from Mac and other forums.
I have never experienced a hack, a virus, a worm, a Trojan Horse or any other exploit in over 20 years because of this. And in the next 20 I will not either, because I'll keep learning and building up my defenses, without wasting a dollar on beastly software that gives me a false sense of security and relieves me of my responsibility for safe computing.
I'd like to know where this idea that "many have tried" to create viruses and/or malware for OSX comes from. How do you know what people have done or tried? I'm not saying Unix is easy to exploit, but I know darn well it's not invulnerable. If they held an OS hacking event with a prize, I'm sure someone would prove my point for me.
And this idea that nothing can be done on the Mac until a virus or other malware exploit shows up on a news site is absurd. There are plenty of tools out there, for instance, to point out dangerous web sites that could be a threat to a computer. Most OSX users wouldn't bother to install one if one was offered to them because they believe themselves invulnerable. So why worry about visiting a malware site? Some exploits are potentially cross-platform (adobe flash, for example). Again, I say most OSX users are far too comfortable in a foolish belief that they are not in danger from anything out there.
Before I could even get to this, cwt1nospam and GGJstudios jumped on it. I'll add that a Safari exploit just can't take over an OS X system. It can do some minor things, but doesn't give admin or root access to the OS.
You nervous Windows users -- and you have every right to be -- are used to exploits commandeering your computers. It's your every day reality. For Mac users, it doesn't happen. Never has. But to characterize us as engaging in "foolish belief" that we're not in danger out there is a false argument.
Rather than go through the laborious repeat of my earlier post to you, please re-read it. Mac users don't deny the dangers. Unlike Windows users we're just not lulled into installing expensive, beastly software that drags our systems down that gives us a false sense of security that we're safe and protected. Most exploits come from unsafe computing, including the incomplete list I assembled above. Mac users don't take this dope, and have clearer minds about the proper steps to protect their systems.
I have multiple lines of defense built up against attackers using malware, viruses, worms, Trojan Horses and the like. It starts with the firewall in my wireless router, OpenDNS, safe practices and other methods I've learned from Mac and other forums.
I have never experienced a hack, a virus, a worm, a Trojan Horse or any other exploit in over 20 years because of this. And in the next 20 I will not either, because I'll keep learning and building up my defenses, without wasting a dollar on beastly software that gives me a false sense of security and relieves me of my responsibility for safe computing.
bagelche
Nov 14, 10:23 AM
I'm just a regular iPhone user...not a developer. I just want my phone work. And I want the apps to be fully vetted and tested before they are available for download. RA's action doesn't make me dislike the iPhone, Mac computers, or Apple. In fact, quite the opposite. It makes RA look childish. I say...good riddance. Oh, and I'm also now less likely to purchase other software from RA. Just sayin'
That's a shame, Mike, because RA's mac-based apps are fantastic. I use them all the time at the small community radio station I volunteer at. I admittedly have not tried their iphone app.
Like you, I am also not a developer, just an end user. And as an end user, Apple's mishandled control of the gatekeeper role is incredibly frustrating. As an end user, if a program I'm using has a bug that can impinge on my ability to use it, I like to have a responsive system that fixes that bug. A responsive developer is important, but so is a responsive gatekeeper, if that role exists. Apple has repeatedly shown themselves to be a failure point in a system of their own devising.
To a certain extent the issue isn't even if RA's use of these images was in violation of the SDK (though, of course that is a big issue), but, again as an end user, how is the system that's in place functioning to resolve the issues that matter to the common customer of the developer and Apple? Unfortunately there are very visible breakdowns in the process and I want to see those treated as serious bugs and fixed accordingly.
That's a shame, Mike, because RA's mac-based apps are fantastic. I use them all the time at the small community radio station I volunteer at. I admittedly have not tried their iphone app.
Like you, I am also not a developer, just an end user. And as an end user, Apple's mishandled control of the gatekeeper role is incredibly frustrating. As an end user, if a program I'm using has a bug that can impinge on my ability to use it, I like to have a responsive system that fixes that bug. A responsive developer is important, but so is a responsive gatekeeper, if that role exists. Apple has repeatedly shown themselves to be a failure point in a system of their own devising.
To a certain extent the issue isn't even if RA's use of these images was in violation of the SDK (though, of course that is a big issue), but, again as an end user, how is the system that's in place functioning to resolve the issues that matter to the common customer of the developer and Apple? Unfortunately there are very visible breakdowns in the process and I want to see those treated as serious bugs and fixed accordingly.
Adidas Addict
Apr 25, 01:29 PM
Umm, you do realize the processor can be 10000000x faster, the system is still completely hammed by the 5600rpm hard drive they put in there. Most tasks are faster on an Air then a 17" Pro. And if you're doing heavy lifting get a Mac Pro. People who bought the new processors don't enjoy the benefits 90% of the time.
You must be a spec sheet reader, not someone who intelligently analyzes what they buy.
5600rpm? You're just wrong BTW. I had the 2010 SSD MBA and my current base 13" MBP is as fast at just about everything apart from booting, which only gets done every software update.
You must be a spec sheet reader, not someone who intelligently analyzes what they buy.
5600rpm? You're just wrong BTW. I had the 2010 SSD MBA and my current base 13" MBP is as fast at just about everything apart from booting, which only gets done every software update.
MagnusVonMagnum
Mar 16, 04:49 PM
No, it is the same nonsense that Microsoft and its apologists have been saying for the past decade. It isn't any truer today than it was a decade ago.
It this utter ignorance and false sense of security in the Mac user base that I would use to my advantage if I were a cyber-criminal. While I completely appreciate the lack of malware OSX has enjoyed thus far, I've seen more than enough evidence over the past few years to tell me that it's far from safe. The latest Safari/Webkit hacking contest result alone should be enough to cause any reasonable person to take notice. I think a few people will be changing their tunes the day the crap finally hits the fan.
For some reason, a certain famous quote from The Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy about the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation comes to mind regarding certain people who will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.... ;)
It this utter ignorance and false sense of security in the Mac user base that I would use to my advantage if I were a cyber-criminal. While I completely appreciate the lack of malware OSX has enjoyed thus far, I've seen more than enough evidence over the past few years to tell me that it's far from safe. The latest Safari/Webkit hacking contest result alone should be enough to cause any reasonable person to take notice. I think a few people will be changing their tunes the day the crap finally hits the fan.
For some reason, a certain famous quote from The Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy about the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation comes to mind regarding certain people who will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.... ;)
Shenaniganz08
Mar 23, 07:12 PM
If you're sober enough to have presence of mind to check an app for a sobriety checkpoint, you're probably sober enough to drive.
umm no
umm no
toddybody
Apr 22, 11:18 AM
Woot Woot! Its a little sad though, about the SB IGP :(
Dmac77
Apr 25, 12:00 AM
Sure, your entire post just screams at what a safe driver you are. :rolleyes:I bet if your parents saw a post like this they would take away your car. You are a menace.
See above. A parent was in the car and actively encouraged me to cut the idiot off. My family's general philosophy (in regards to driving) is be aggressive and intimidate people who try to screw with you; it always results in you winning (it also helps when your uncle presides over the traffic court in town).
-Don
See above. A parent was in the car and actively encouraged me to cut the idiot off. My family's general philosophy (in regards to driving) is be aggressive and intimidate people who try to screw with you; it always results in you winning (it also helps when your uncle presides over the traffic court in town).
-Don
MacinDoc
Sep 9, 11:23 AM
Is one of the 512MB RAM on the iMac soldered on?? :confused:
It was on a previous version of the iMac, not the current one.
It was on a previous version of the iMac, not the current one.
cgmpowers
May 3, 01:12 PM
The thing I'm most impressed with is the 2GB video card. I have the 2008 MacPro w/ 3.0 dual core xeon, 12 GB of ram, an ATI 1900 w/ 512 ram. I just purchased Portal 2 over the weekend and cannot run it as it doesn't meet the specs. I'll have to purchase a new video card. A bit depressing...
Chris Powers
Chris Powers
eNcrypTioN
Feb 24, 10:06 AM
People still use McAfee lol... :eek: Apple is smart, I doubt anything bad will come of this.
EagerDragon
Sep 10, 08:47 AM
Is the 24" as quiet as the MacPro? Have you been able to compare to the 20"?
The store is noisy, so it is hard to say. To me neither was making a sound.
The store is noisy, so it is hard to say. To me neither was making a sound.
MacRumors
Sep 15, 05:27 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
ThinkSecret claims (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0609phone.html) that Apple will finally be releasing the long awaited Apple Phone in early 2007.
The rumor site claims that after scrapping a ground-up design, they've decided to go with "several off-the-shelf parts for what will be the first of at least two or three different phones" in the first part of 2007.
The phones are said to include high-end features such as a 3-megapixel camera, 2.2-inch display and complete iTunes/iPod integration. As well, the phone will not be limited to 100 songs as current iTunes phones are.
Earlier this week we posted an artist rendition (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060913215342.shtml) of one of Apple's phone prototypes.
ThinkSecret claims (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0609phone.html) that Apple will finally be releasing the long awaited Apple Phone in early 2007.
The rumor site claims that after scrapping a ground-up design, they've decided to go with "several off-the-shelf parts for what will be the first of at least two or three different phones" in the first part of 2007.
The phones are said to include high-end features such as a 3-megapixel camera, 2.2-inch display and complete iTunes/iPod integration. As well, the phone will not be limited to 100 songs as current iTunes phones are.
Earlier this week we posted an artist rendition (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060913215342.shtml) of one of Apple's phone prototypes.
aristotle
Nov 13, 07:07 PM
As a professional developer, I do need to point a couple of items out…
The link that DARING FIREBALL points to (mentioned earlier in this thread) sighting "Public APIs" is not an ADC documentation site.
One of the Desktop APIs being used (sited via the Public API link) is being used in a manner that is specifically reaching into "/System/Library/CoreServices/CoreTypes.bundle/Contents/Resources", this is a very large red flag… Your reaching
into someone else's bundle here.
The other Desktop API is requesting the icon of a document type - I would sure be peeved if I found someone else's Desktop application broadcasting one of *MY* hand made graphics or icons out to their iPhone application.
Regardless, Both of the API being used to obtain the graphics/icons are being called are from the Mac OS X Desktop SDK, not from the iPhone SDK. In addition, the result is being broadcast out to another machine (the phone), an image they don't hold rights to.
Just because you can get hold of an arbitrary image (including a users document) via a "Public" API, doesn't give you the right to use it without permission.
Thank you. You said it better that I could right now as I'm trying to fight off a cold. :o
I'm also a professional developer for that other platform with a monopoly in the desktop market (windows client/server). I've only dabbled with OS X but the general principles are the same regardless of whether you are using OS X APIs or Win32. Just because an API can give you access to an image, it does not mean that you can use it wherever however you wish.
If I was an icon artist, I might be upset if my icons were being used on an iPhone app which were only licensed for use in a specific desktop app whether directly or indirectly because it was set as the default icon for a data type on the server.
The link that DARING FIREBALL points to (mentioned earlier in this thread) sighting "Public APIs" is not an ADC documentation site.
One of the Desktop APIs being used (sited via the Public API link) is being used in a manner that is specifically reaching into "/System/Library/CoreServices/CoreTypes.bundle/Contents/Resources", this is a very large red flag… Your reaching
into someone else's bundle here.
The other Desktop API is requesting the icon of a document type - I would sure be peeved if I found someone else's Desktop application broadcasting one of *MY* hand made graphics or icons out to their iPhone application.
Regardless, Both of the API being used to obtain the graphics/icons are being called are from the Mac OS X Desktop SDK, not from the iPhone SDK. In addition, the result is being broadcast out to another machine (the phone), an image they don't hold rights to.
Just because you can get hold of an arbitrary image (including a users document) via a "Public" API, doesn't give you the right to use it without permission.
Thank you. You said it better that I could right now as I'm trying to fight off a cold. :o
I'm also a professional developer for that other platform with a monopoly in the desktop market (windows client/server). I've only dabbled with OS X but the general principles are the same regardless of whether you are using OS X APIs or Win32. Just because an API can give you access to an image, it does not mean that you can use it wherever however you wish.
If I was an icon artist, I might be upset if my icons were being used on an iPhone app which were only licensed for use in a specific desktop app whether directly or indirectly because it was set as the default icon for a data type on the server.
justflie
Sep 26, 09:25 AM
You know, I'm thinking people really want an iPhone. And I'm also thinking that they want it so bad they won't even consider the source of this information.
Usually, a rumor like this wouldn't get three pages of comments without somebody mentioning that this story comes from ThinkSecret. In case you're new here, MR readers have a habbit of panning ThinkSecret. It's worse than panning really, it's more like slaughtering any news that comes from ThinkSecret.
It's fun to watch members battle out mobile providers.
Ford! No, Chevy!
I mean...
Sony! No, Sony sucks, buy Panasonic.
I mean...
Verizon! Nooooooo, Verizon drips off donkey b*lls, go with Cingular!
You folk crack me up. Thank you.
HAHA! I was reading all of this and, at about the 2nd page, I thought the same thing as you did. ThinkSecret has really sucked at life lately, they probably got this rumor wrong. And besides, I want Verizon anyways.
Usually, a rumor like this wouldn't get three pages of comments without somebody mentioning that this story comes from ThinkSecret. In case you're new here, MR readers have a habbit of panning ThinkSecret. It's worse than panning really, it's more like slaughtering any news that comes from ThinkSecret.
It's fun to watch members battle out mobile providers.
Ford! No, Chevy!
I mean...
Sony! No, Sony sucks, buy Panasonic.
I mean...
Verizon! Nooooooo, Verizon drips off donkey b*lls, go with Cingular!
You folk crack me up. Thank you.
HAHA! I was reading all of this and, at about the 2nd page, I thought the same thing as you did. ThinkSecret has really sucked at life lately, they probably got this rumor wrong. And besides, I want Verizon anyways.
braddouglass
Apr 19, 12:57 PM
Yep, he's the only iPhone user in the world who wants a better notication system, and a built in radio so he doesnt have to stream it over the internet. :rolleyes:
+1 on the notifications
Who would want to have a s*itty radio tuner on their iphone? that's why I download music So I can listen to the music I want at good quality. with no commercials? And you can multi task any ways so what the big deal of streaming music? at least streaming is the genre you like haha
+1 on the notifications
Who would want to have a s*itty radio tuner on their iphone? that's why I download music So I can listen to the music I want at good quality. with no commercials? And you can multi task any ways so what the big deal of streaming music? at least streaming is the genre you like haha
OllyW
Mar 30, 12:11 PM
Just for those that insist Microsoft only ever uses the term 'program' . XP dates back to 2001.
Spoilsport.
Fancy bringing up facts to ruin their argument. :D
Spoilsport.
Fancy bringing up facts to ruin their argument. :D
javaGuru
Apr 22, 11:43 AM
I've been debating whether to get the iPad 2 or a 11.6" MBA. I currently own the original iPad but thought I would invest a little more and get a nice MBA instead of the iPad 2. I hope they add illuminated keyboards along with this upgrade.
globalhemp
Mar 30, 11:54 AM
I believe Microsoft's #1 problem is that they are the king of generic names for products:
Word for word processing.
Windows for a graphical user interface that has content stores in windows.
Perhaps the only "cool" names Microsoft has are Excel and Xbox?
Damit! They want App Store for selling apps and Apple's already taken it.
Perhaps their argument will be, "How come Apple did not just name their online store the iApp Store, geez...."
Perhaps Microsoft will be left with no alternative but to use the mokier, "Microsoft Store," "Software Store," or "Soft Store?" They could even just call their store "M$ Store."
Word for word processing.
Windows for a graphical user interface that has content stores in windows.
Perhaps the only "cool" names Microsoft has are Excel and Xbox?
Damit! They want App Store for selling apps and Apple's already taken it.
Perhaps their argument will be, "How come Apple did not just name their online store the iApp Store, geez...."
Perhaps Microsoft will be left with no alternative but to use the mokier, "Microsoft Store," "Software Store," or "Soft Store?" They could even just call their store "M$ Store."
jglavin
Mar 29, 11:49 AM
That other thing that sucks in the folder view. I want folders first in A to Z, then files A to Z like in Windows... Not a default option....Well I like the OSX way, and showing it that way is not an option in Windows.... so.... what's the difference? It's just down to what one is used to.
Edit: Although you could list by type, which would accomplish what you're looking for, FYI.
Edit: Although you could list by type, which would accomplish what you're looking for, FYI.
bigbossbmb
Aug 28, 12:50 PM
If your right i'll give you hugs untill you can''t breath!
I did say the may just announce them tomorrow, but that rumor of a large shipment coming in from overseas seems like a better indication of when they may be shipping.
I did say the may just announce them tomorrow, but that rumor of a large shipment coming in from overseas seems like a better indication of when they may be shipping.
ericmooreart
Mar 30, 01:46 PM
But they don't sell rooms. They sell furniture. The app store sells apps.
In the world of legal mumbo jumbo MicroEvil has a point. app is a term not generic to apple
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APP_(file_format)
The should just call it the iApp Store
In the world of legal mumbo jumbo MicroEvil has a point. app is a term not generic to apple
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APP_(file_format)
The should just call it the iApp Store
fetchmebeers
Sep 12, 03:45 PM
Take it back!! They will give you another one with NO questions asked!! See upper posts!
O MY GAWD..... are you sure????
that'd be totally awesome dude..... if it were the case
but what about an extra fee that some else mentioned??
so are you saying that it's only possible within that 10 day period??
well then i'm eligible for it.... i might try that asap, hmm
O MY GAWD..... are you sure????
that'd be totally awesome dude..... if it were the case
but what about an extra fee that some else mentioned??
so are you saying that it's only possible within that 10 day period??
well then i'm eligible for it.... i might try that asap, hmm