Charlie Sheen
Mar 13, 10:30 AM
one word: nope.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 10:01 AM
I don't agree. If those groups got organized, their message would eventually get picked up my the media. It's not like LGBT groups were started last weekend and, bam, the media picked up on it. It took decades for them to get to this point of media attention.
And I agree with Heilage: the message from the video doesn't only apply to LGBT folk.
Got organized? Like that sad attempt at a "Fat Acceptance" movement? News flash - nobody likes fat people because they are seen as ugly and gross. Find me a single obesity related story on the news that isn't accompanied by B-roll of headless fat bodies walking around the city holding ice cream cones.
Imagine if every time a gay related story were on the news they showed B-roll of men in darkened gay theaters and closeups of prescription labels for antiretrovirals.
And I agree with Heilage: the message from the video doesn't only apply to LGBT folk.
Got organized? Like that sad attempt at a "Fat Acceptance" movement? News flash - nobody likes fat people because they are seen as ugly and gross. Find me a single obesity related story on the news that isn't accompanied by B-roll of headless fat bodies walking around the city holding ice cream cones.
Imagine if every time a gay related story were on the news they showed B-roll of men in darkened gay theaters and closeups of prescription labels for antiretrovirals.
Edge100
Apr 15, 01:15 PM
So now were placing importance based on what? Suicide is suicide.
We're placing more importance on the bullying of gays because of the historical and widespread discrimination, hatred, and violence that gays have had to endure (and still endure) that obese people have not. We discussed this 8 pages ago.
We're placing more importance on the bullying of gays because of the historical and widespread discrimination, hatred, and violence that gays have had to endure (and still endure) that obese people have not. We discussed this 8 pages ago.
puma1552
Mar 12, 06:16 AM
Ugh, just as soon as I had posted...
Beg to differ. You've been praising Japanese nuclear power plant construction as being superior to the impoverished Soviet ones that go into meltdown. Well, we've all now seen your argument for the 'testament to building codes' by 'experts on Japanese nuclear regulations' totally explode and is now lying in rubble. Unless of course you now insist that the building exploding and cllapsing on the core is part of the building codes? ;):
I haven't "been praising" their construction, I "praised" their construction in one post, if you can even call it that. The Japanese know what they are doing by and large in many of the things they do; that's why Japan has had 30% of its power delivered via well-developed, and well-understood nuclear sources for years, while the west is still outright paranoid of so much as a mention of the word nuclear.
The only thing I did was compare it to Chernobyl, or rather defend against it, as it certainly is not Chernobyl, and was built to higher standards than anything in the USSR during that time, that meaning Chernobyl.
You think they built the plant 40 years ago and have done literally nothing in terms of maintenance and/or upgrades since that time? You don't think regulatory statutes and codes have changed during the time, and they've had to comply with those and be subject to normal regulatory inspections that meet todays 2011 safety and energy protocols?
Just because the plant was built 40 years ago, doesn't mean it is the same plant as what was built 40 years ago. Trust me, I was and am full aware that the plant is older than Chernobyl. But the difference is that Chernobyl ate it during a time of 1980's USSR safety standards, when the international nuclear community wasn't nearly as effective as it is today. Today's plant may be 10 years older than Chernobyl, but it's 30 years further up to date. Nuclear plants in the first world don't exactly get the "build it and forget it" treatment.
I don't want to argue about this, because it's pointless since we are all hoping for the best and fearing the worst. But I do know a thing or two, and it gets tiring correcting false information proliferating throughout thanks to a bunch of people in the media who have no technical training and haven't a clue about anything. The Japan forums are ablaze with misinformation.
Nuclear power is generally pretty safe, and it's a shame the west hasn't been able to embrace it, IMO. That isn't to say tragic accidents can't happen, as they can, but by and large they are extremely, extremely rare.
Beg to differ. You've been praising Japanese nuclear power plant construction as being superior to the impoverished Soviet ones that go into meltdown. Well, we've all now seen your argument for the 'testament to building codes' by 'experts on Japanese nuclear regulations' totally explode and is now lying in rubble. Unless of course you now insist that the building exploding and cllapsing on the core is part of the building codes? ;):
I haven't "been praising" their construction, I "praised" their construction in one post, if you can even call it that. The Japanese know what they are doing by and large in many of the things they do; that's why Japan has had 30% of its power delivered via well-developed, and well-understood nuclear sources for years, while the west is still outright paranoid of so much as a mention of the word nuclear.
The only thing I did was compare it to Chernobyl, or rather defend against it, as it certainly is not Chernobyl, and was built to higher standards than anything in the USSR during that time, that meaning Chernobyl.
You think they built the plant 40 years ago and have done literally nothing in terms of maintenance and/or upgrades since that time? You don't think regulatory statutes and codes have changed during the time, and they've had to comply with those and be subject to normal regulatory inspections that meet todays 2011 safety and energy protocols?
Just because the plant was built 40 years ago, doesn't mean it is the same plant as what was built 40 years ago. Trust me, I was and am full aware that the plant is older than Chernobyl. But the difference is that Chernobyl ate it during a time of 1980's USSR safety standards, when the international nuclear community wasn't nearly as effective as it is today. Today's plant may be 10 years older than Chernobyl, but it's 30 years further up to date. Nuclear plants in the first world don't exactly get the "build it and forget it" treatment.
I don't want to argue about this, because it's pointless since we are all hoping for the best and fearing the worst. But I do know a thing or two, and it gets tiring correcting false information proliferating throughout thanks to a bunch of people in the media who have no technical training and haven't a clue about anything. The Japan forums are ablaze with misinformation.
Nuclear power is generally pretty safe, and it's a shame the west hasn't been able to embrace it, IMO. That isn't to say tragic accidents can't happen, as they can, but by and large they are extremely, extremely rare.
ddtlm
Oct 10, 01:10 PM
alex_ant:
Great to see you fighting the good fight!
others:
As true as it is that the G4 is slower than most of its compeditiors, when it is performing as bad as the numbers that some people have posted here then I can just about assure you that the Mac is at a severe software disadvantage. I mean really, look at the specs of a G4, the worst case performance delta between it and a top-of-the-line PC should be maybe 4x or 5x, not these 10x and higher numbers. There are very few situations when a G4 should do less work per clock than a P4.
So lets try to remain realistic here. It is virtually gaurenteed that the actual performance potential of a 1.25ghz G4 falls between that of a 1.3ghz P4 and the 2.8ghz P4.
EDIT:
Almost forgot to talk about SPEC. Some time ago, the only SPEC results that I know of for Macs were obtained by c't:
http://www.heise.de/ct/english/02/05/182/
In these they showed the G4 was more or less the same speed as a P3 of equal clock (1.0ghz) in the integer tests, when both where done done with GCC. Intel's compiler can give the P3 at 30% edge or something, so we know that the quality of compiler is hurting the G4 here. It is not fair to look at SPEC and declare other chips to be a zillion times faster than the G4, simply because they are all using very good compilers whereas Apple is stuck with GCC. Apple is working to improve GCC however, so things may get better.
(In SPEC FP the G4 get beat worse, I might add. Compilers played a role for sure, but can't explain the whole loss.)
Great to see you fighting the good fight!
others:
As true as it is that the G4 is slower than most of its compeditiors, when it is performing as bad as the numbers that some people have posted here then I can just about assure you that the Mac is at a severe software disadvantage. I mean really, look at the specs of a G4, the worst case performance delta between it and a top-of-the-line PC should be maybe 4x or 5x, not these 10x and higher numbers. There are very few situations when a G4 should do less work per clock than a P4.
So lets try to remain realistic here. It is virtually gaurenteed that the actual performance potential of a 1.25ghz G4 falls between that of a 1.3ghz P4 and the 2.8ghz P4.
EDIT:
Almost forgot to talk about SPEC. Some time ago, the only SPEC results that I know of for Macs were obtained by c't:
http://www.heise.de/ct/english/02/05/182/
In these they showed the G4 was more or less the same speed as a P3 of equal clock (1.0ghz) in the integer tests, when both where done done with GCC. Intel's compiler can give the P3 at 30% edge or something, so we know that the quality of compiler is hurting the G4 here. It is not fair to look at SPEC and declare other chips to be a zillion times faster than the G4, simply because they are all using very good compilers whereas Apple is stuck with GCC. Apple is working to improve GCC however, so things may get better.
(In SPEC FP the G4 get beat worse, I might add. Compilers played a role for sure, but can't explain the whole loss.)
Evangelion
Jul 12, 01:02 AM
Sounds like these new Mac Pros are going to be expensive.
In a way, yes. And I think that ThinkSecret is right as well: I bet that we will see a "MacPro Mini" featuring a mini-tower-design (or maybe pizzabox) that will use Conroe. MacPro would be all quad-core. The Mini would cost $1499 - $1999, whereas MacPro would cost $2499 - $3499. iMac would get Merom.
I made this prediction a while ago, and I still stand by it.
In a way, yes. And I think that ThinkSecret is right as well: I bet that we will see a "MacPro Mini" featuring a mini-tower-design (or maybe pizzabox) that will use Conroe. MacPro would be all quad-core. The Mini would cost $1499 - $1999, whereas MacPro would cost $2499 - $3499. iMac would get Merom.
I made this prediction a while ago, and I still stand by it.
econgeek
Apr 12, 10:54 PM
Of course you do. I agree completely. Obviously the poster is exaggerating. I assume he means that the editors he speaks of aren't techno geeks like a lot of us here on MacRumors.
I seem to have misspoken. I meant they don't need to know the acute technical details of their software.
Right, Apple lowered the barrier to entry so that people can GET STARTED more quickly.... and all the so-called "professionals" (in their own mind) are now declaring that they have removed all depth from the product, eliminated %90 of the features (based on what? their own ignorance about what was shown?)....
and are insisting that if it is easier to GET STARTED, it therefore cannot have the depth of features to do ADVANCED work.
It is nonsense.
It is the kind of nonsense attitude you see whenever Apple introduces something new.
Hell, people were saying the same stuff about iMovie back in 2006 and they are using the nonsense about iMovie as "evidence" that Apple is "doing it again" with Final Cut!
----
you know what?
Someone is always saying something stupid on the internet.
The sad thing is, the people who don't know any better, they believe these "professionals" and think they are "experts".
You can go into any camera store...
You can go into any bar...
You can go to any gun range...
You can go into any hobby or area of mild technical expertise...
and find self important, experts-in-their-own-mind who are derisive of whatever is new.
Guys who think they seem more macho by denigrating things they don't understand.
These people are not cool.
They are not to be admired.
And they certainly aren't worth taking advice from!
After all, they are the same ones who thought Windows was so much better than Mac OS!
I seem to have misspoken. I meant they don't need to know the acute technical details of their software.
Right, Apple lowered the barrier to entry so that people can GET STARTED more quickly.... and all the so-called "professionals" (in their own mind) are now declaring that they have removed all depth from the product, eliminated %90 of the features (based on what? their own ignorance about what was shown?)....
and are insisting that if it is easier to GET STARTED, it therefore cannot have the depth of features to do ADVANCED work.
It is nonsense.
It is the kind of nonsense attitude you see whenever Apple introduces something new.
Hell, people were saying the same stuff about iMovie back in 2006 and they are using the nonsense about iMovie as "evidence" that Apple is "doing it again" with Final Cut!
----
you know what?
Someone is always saying something stupid on the internet.
The sad thing is, the people who don't know any better, they believe these "professionals" and think they are "experts".
You can go into any camera store...
You can go into any bar...
You can go to any gun range...
You can go into any hobby or area of mild technical expertise...
and find self important, experts-in-their-own-mind who are derisive of whatever is new.
Guys who think they seem more macho by denigrating things they don't understand.
These people are not cool.
They are not to be admired.
And they certainly aren't worth taking advice from!
After all, they are the same ones who thought Windows was so much better than Mac OS!
AppliedVisual
Oct 21, 02:06 PM
I've never understood why anyone buys RAM from the more expensive Crucial. Can only be marketing 'cause I have no reason to pay more for RAM from just another supplier of the same thing. :rolleyes:
Crucial makes great stuff (usually). The trick is to not buy direct from Crucial!!! But vendors like newegg and zipzoomfly sell Crucial memory at prices close to all the other "cheap" memory like OCZ, Corsair, Patriot, Kingston -- or all the other makers that make some pretty darn good stuff (usually). Right now, FB-DIMMs are pretty scarce... Most vendors for Mac Pro RAM are shipping the same Samsung modules that Apple is, they are just using different OEM heat spreaders. The price just keeps falling as the Mac Pro and other PC systems use more of this stuff and demand increases. I definitely see an 8-core Mac Pro w/8GB (4x2GB) in my near future. :) I think I'm going to sell one of my G5 Quads though, the resale value on these is really holding strong -- they're going on eBay for just about what I paid for them! May jump on it now or as soon as the 8-core Pro is released because I fear that as soon as Adobe CS3 hits along with a few other universal binary updates people are waiting on, the value of these G5 Quads is going to go in the crapper.
Crucial makes great stuff (usually). The trick is to not buy direct from Crucial!!! But vendors like newegg and zipzoomfly sell Crucial memory at prices close to all the other "cheap" memory like OCZ, Corsair, Patriot, Kingston -- or all the other makers that make some pretty darn good stuff (usually). Right now, FB-DIMMs are pretty scarce... Most vendors for Mac Pro RAM are shipping the same Samsung modules that Apple is, they are just using different OEM heat spreaders. The price just keeps falling as the Mac Pro and other PC systems use more of this stuff and demand increases. I definitely see an 8-core Mac Pro w/8GB (4x2GB) in my near future. :) I think I'm going to sell one of my G5 Quads though, the resale value on these is really holding strong -- they're going on eBay for just about what I paid for them! May jump on it now or as soon as the 8-core Pro is released because I fear that as soon as Adobe CS3 hits along with a few other universal binary updates people are waiting on, the value of these G5 Quads is going to go in the crapper.
Apple OC
Apr 24, 11:57 AM
I believe religious people like that warm fuzzy feeling they get from "the eternal afterlife" ... convinced they will be re-united with past relatives ... living worry free for eternity.
They get so giddy about it that they feel a strong need to convince others that this must be what is in store after "their time on earth"
I personally find that theory just plain ridiculous ... I honestly believe many scientists do know the answers as to how life came to be ... the reason they do not present it as fact is ... religious people would hear none of it as they are so set on this warm fuzzy feeling they get for the afterlife ... they do not want that to ever end.
To set the record straight ... I find religious people to be quite likeable and enjoy their company just fine ... just keep your wild beliefs to yourself and if you want to pray for me ... do not tell me about it ... as I find it pathetic.
They get so giddy about it that they feel a strong need to convince others that this must be what is in store after "their time on earth"
I personally find that theory just plain ridiculous ... I honestly believe many scientists do know the answers as to how life came to be ... the reason they do not present it as fact is ... religious people would hear none of it as they are so set on this warm fuzzy feeling they get for the afterlife ... they do not want that to ever end.
To set the record straight ... I find religious people to be quite likeable and enjoy their company just fine ... just keep your wild beliefs to yourself and if you want to pray for me ... do not tell me about it ... as I find it pathetic.
jav6454
Mar 11, 01:07 AM
I have been seeing the breaking news, I saw a tsunami!:(
It was originally 7.9 then upgraded to 8.8, then 8.9:eek:
It's so devastating! Cars couldn't escape!:eek:
Dam... I hope that damage isn't that bad, but it being 8.9 I won't hold my breathe.
It was originally 7.9 then upgraded to 8.8, then 8.9:eek:
It's so devastating! Cars couldn't escape!:eek:
Dam... I hope that damage isn't that bad, but it being 8.9 I won't hold my breathe.
peharri
Sep 20, 09:59 AM
This is good news. When they announced it, I was pretty convinced they weren't talking about a box that required an additional computer, although USB storage or a dedicated server box seemed likely based upon the absense of evidence for an in-built hard disk.
So it's actually confirmed it can be used standalone. The missing piece is complete. This is iTunes for the rest of us. For those who don't want cable, who want to be able to subscribe to (and fund) specific TV shows and order movies on demand, this is for you. No computer required. Go home, flop on the couch, and watch what you want. Want something more powerful? Well, it'll integrate with your computers and presumably if someone wants to create devices that export iTunes libraries, like some sort of networked DVR, then it'll work with that too.
Wonderful. This deserves to be a success.
So it's actually confirmed it can be used standalone. The missing piece is complete. This is iTunes for the rest of us. For those who don't want cable, who want to be able to subscribe to (and fund) specific TV shows and order movies on demand, this is for you. No computer required. Go home, flop on the couch, and watch what you want. Want something more powerful? Well, it'll integrate with your computers and presumably if someone wants to create devices that export iTunes libraries, like some sort of networked DVR, then it'll work with that too.
Wonderful. This deserves to be a success.
weitzner
Sep 20, 01:42 PM
I think it's pretty obvious that iTV will NOT have DVR functionality- The iTunes store is a competitor to DVR. This thing is a means of connecting your computer (iTunes) to your TV- not about connecting your TV to your computer. It's a completely different take on watch-your-show-whenever-you-feel-like-it mentality.
pdjudd
Oct 7, 03:31 PM
Just like Mac OS X would gain market share if you could install it on any PC.
No, they most likely wouldn't. There is no reason to think that it would - it's conjecture. (http://daringfireball.net/2004/08/parlay)
No, they most likely wouldn't. There is no reason to think that it would - it's conjecture. (http://daringfireball.net/2004/08/parlay)
neiltc13
Apr 9, 06:00 PM
The point is the line between these two camps is being blurred. It's a feature of the post-PC era. Look at what the App Store games section is evolving into - daily, monthly, yearly. It's pretty astounding. Soon, "hardcore gaming" will characterize other devices in addition to consoles. THIS is the real revolution that's going on when it comes to the gaming market. Apple is redefining it.
You mean game developers are redefining it. What was the last game Apple released? Texas Hold'Em with no online multiplayer? Riiight.
You mean game developers are redefining it. What was the last game Apple released? Texas Hold'Em with no online multiplayer? Riiight.
Aduntu
Apr 22, 11:55 PM
The whole point is that it is not a single "bang." You're trying to conflate how most people view their god with how people conceptualize science. They simply aren't the same.
It's easy to relate to a single term for everything when that one thing, according to your beliefs, is the answer to everything. It's nearly impossible to do that when the answers to your questions are varied and specific.
Only the scientifically illiterate relate "bang" to "origin of life."
No one is concluding that there was a single "bang," and I'm certainly not conflating anything. "Bang" is a metaphor, and no one is relating it to the "origin of life." You're trying inflate your own ego and place your "scientific literacy" on display here by arguing a point that no one is questioning.
It's easy to relate to a single term for everything when that one thing, according to your beliefs, is the answer to everything. It's nearly impossible to do that when the answers to your questions are varied and specific.
Only the scientifically illiterate relate "bang" to "origin of life."
No one is concluding that there was a single "bang," and I'm certainly not conflating anything. "Bang" is a metaphor, and no one is relating it to the "origin of life." You're trying inflate your own ego and place your "scientific literacy" on display here by arguing a point that no one is questioning.
ddtlm
Oct 10, 03:50 PM
MacCoaster:
(Don't be offended if I repeat myself a few times, I want to make sure everyone gets it. Not trying to say anything about you in particular.)
Anyway, you missed my point. I know very well that the G4 is at a hardware disadvantage. I pretty much said that when you see a G4 being beat by margins greater than 4x or 5x, then you can be pretty sure there is ALSO, note ALSO, a software disadvantage. Hopefully everyone will see what I meant that time. :)
I'm glad to see that many people here agree that the G4 isn't really a faster chip than the x86 competition, but I want to see moderation and understanding of the "benchmarks" that have popped up showing an unbelievably bad situation for the G4.
Remember folks, if the test shows a G4 slower than a P4 per clock cycle then the test probably is handing the software advantage to the P4. Note, for perfect clarity, that I said per clock cycle performance and not overall performance.
(Don't be offended if I repeat myself a few times, I want to make sure everyone gets it. Not trying to say anything about you in particular.)
Anyway, you missed my point. I know very well that the G4 is at a hardware disadvantage. I pretty much said that when you see a G4 being beat by margins greater than 4x or 5x, then you can be pretty sure there is ALSO, note ALSO, a software disadvantage. Hopefully everyone will see what I meant that time. :)
I'm glad to see that many people here agree that the G4 isn't really a faster chip than the x86 competition, but I want to see moderation and understanding of the "benchmarks" that have popped up showing an unbelievably bad situation for the G4.
Remember folks, if the test shows a G4 slower than a P4 per clock cycle then the test probably is handing the software advantage to the P4. Note, for perfect clarity, that I said per clock cycle performance and not overall performance.
Hellhammer
Mar 13, 02:18 PM
How do you proponents of nuclear power discount the very real risks it poses to mankind itself?
I rather take the risks than go back to stone age.
Decades ago more research and money should of been thrown at alternative energy's. Innovations from that could of put us more safely further ahead.
There is a better way, timely and costly to find them and that takes away from the profits the already rich make from the 'nuclear industry', while they continue to brainwash the citizens of the world how safe it is .... "snap out of it I say"....
That is just speculation. How do you know, for sure, that there is something better? So far every option has its tradeoffs. Although I'm with you that there must be other sources of energy, it's not that simple to find them. Fossil fuels are running out so something must be used in order to keep up with the growing demand of energy. Even if you discover a new source of energy, it will require years, even decades, of testing before it is safe to use it in massive quantities.
I rather take the risks than go back to stone age.
Decades ago more research and money should of been thrown at alternative energy's. Innovations from that could of put us more safely further ahead.
There is a better way, timely and costly to find them and that takes away from the profits the already rich make from the 'nuclear industry', while they continue to brainwash the citizens of the world how safe it is .... "snap out of it I say"....
That is just speculation. How do you know, for sure, that there is something better? So far every option has its tradeoffs. Although I'm with you that there must be other sources of energy, it's not that simple to find them. Fossil fuels are running out so something must be used in order to keep up with the growing demand of energy. Even if you discover a new source of energy, it will require years, even decades, of testing before it is safe to use it in massive quantities.
furqan8421
Apr 9, 10:58 AM
Why are people being defensive and bringing up a few examples like final fantasy 3? These games are not the norm. Look at the top downloads list in the app store to get a good idea of what most games are.
iOS games are fine, but the majority of them really are time wasters. The only real advantage most iOS games have is that they are much cheaper than on portable systems or console games.
For most popular games though the experience isn't nearly good enough. The most popular games on consoles are FPS, Racing games, and Sports. Without physical buttons iOS can't compete with the same genres of games. iOS is better at puzzle games where touching is preferable to moving a mouse/controller, and can be fine on RPG games especially if they are turn based.
Real racing can be fun, but enthusiasts buy steering wheels to play gran turismo and forza. It's just not the same.
iOS games are fine, but the majority of them really are time wasters. The only real advantage most iOS games have is that they are much cheaper than on portable systems or console games.
For most popular games though the experience isn't nearly good enough. The most popular games on consoles are FPS, Racing games, and Sports. Without physical buttons iOS can't compete with the same genres of games. iOS is better at puzzle games where touching is preferable to moving a mouse/controller, and can be fine on RPG games especially if they are turn based.
Real racing can be fun, but enthusiasts buy steering wheels to play gran turismo and forza. It's just not the same.
makinao
Mar 11, 01:50 AM
I'm in the Philippines, and one side of the country is facing the epicenter. Right now, we are on tsunami alert level 1. This was the advisory an hour and a half ago. http://ndcc.gov.ph/attachments/article/165/Tsunami%20Bulletin%20No.%201%2011%20March2011,%202PM.pdf
We pray it doesn't get here.
We pray it doesn't get here.
Gabriel GR
Feb 11, 09:10 PM
Honestly. The only things I want from an internet empowered phone is to work well with my email (gmail) and calendar.
So far my blackberry serves me alright. But it sucks in everything else.
So far my blackberry serves me alright. But it sucks in everything else.
RebootD
Apr 12, 10:54 PM
So exactly what "pro" features were removed with this release?
I don't understand the outrage at this announcement UNLESS this means Color, Motion etc are going to be 'dumbed down' and integrated as extras into FCPX. That will upset a lot of people.
I don't understand the outrage at this announcement UNLESS this means Color, Motion etc are going to be 'dumbed down' and integrated as extras into FCPX. That will upset a lot of people.
WilliamBos
Apr 14, 05:34 PM
After getting a new mini for my b-day, I have to wait until tomorrow to use it, as I need the apple only DVI-VGA adapter. Aftermarket stuff don't work... :(
miles01110
May 2, 10:48 AM
So what's your solution? Sounds like it's half "LOL Mac fanboiz r stupid" and half "Users are morons so lets keep them uninformed, and complacent on using antivirus software they don't need".
Which would be especially genius advice since this latest malware pretends to be software that will protect their Mac.
I'm not sure how youdrew that conclusion from my statements, but maybe things are different in your little world.
Don't spread FUD about what the actual situation is. Practice safe computing habits like not installing cracked software or special porn codecs. Don't put your administrator password into random app installers that popup. Participate on Mac community sites to stay informed about possible threats.
And finally - Don't install antivirus/malware software for no reason because most of them are **** anyway and will do more bad than good for your Mac.
That's fine, but that's not what most fanboys espouse. "THERE ARE NO VIRUSES FOR OS X!!!" is not the same as "There is no malware for OS X," which confuses the uninformed user.
Which would be especially genius advice since this latest malware pretends to be software that will protect their Mac.
I'm not sure how youdrew that conclusion from my statements, but maybe things are different in your little world.
Don't spread FUD about what the actual situation is. Practice safe computing habits like not installing cracked software or special porn codecs. Don't put your administrator password into random app installers that popup. Participate on Mac community sites to stay informed about possible threats.
And finally - Don't install antivirus/malware software for no reason because most of them are **** anyway and will do more bad than good for your Mac.
That's fine, but that's not what most fanboys espouse. "THERE ARE NO VIRUSES FOR OS X!!!" is not the same as "There is no malware for OS X," which confuses the uninformed user.
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 04:32 PM
In the EU there will soon be WEEE directive that governs the disposal of so called "E-waste" (televisions, computers, phones, etc), that will seriously affect manufacturers and retailers. So will Apple continue along their current trend of simply not selling products in these territories or will they redesign them? Because, eventually these sorts of laws will be passed all around the world, including the US.
Apple needs to abide by the laws of whatever country it sells products in (I know, I ended with a preposition, I'm tired). In order to survive, Apple will need to adapt along with changine environmental law....I'm certainly not suggesting that Apple break the law.
I'm only saying that as of right now, Apple's not actually doing anything legally wrong.
EDIT: And as far as being "proactive," Apple is somewhat bound by its suppliers, at least in a manufacturing sense. Batteries from Sony, processors from Motorola, IBM and Intel, hard drives from Toshiba, etc.
Apple needs to abide by the laws of whatever country it sells products in (I know, I ended with a preposition, I'm tired). In order to survive, Apple will need to adapt along with changine environmental law....I'm certainly not suggesting that Apple break the law.
I'm only saying that as of right now, Apple's not actually doing anything legally wrong.
EDIT: And as far as being "proactive," Apple is somewhat bound by its suppliers, at least in a manufacturing sense. Batteries from Sony, processors from Motorola, IBM and Intel, hard drives from Toshiba, etc.