myemailisjustin
Apr 20, 11:23 AM
Plug in your iPhone, open iTunes, and in the SUMMARY window check the box related to backup encryption.
This is why the researchers published this, so people take action. Encrypt your data, it's your choice to do so. Encrypted = safe(r) than not.
**EDIT - And I'd be more worried about RFID in your bag of chips or RFID in the all the new tires that go on your car than a file you have the choice to encrypt. RFID in my tires, you can't encrypt that!
This is why the researchers published this, so people take action. Encrypt your data, it's your choice to do so. Encrypted = safe(r) than not.
**EDIT - And I'd be more worried about RFID in your bag of chips or RFID in the all the new tires that go on your car than a file you have the choice to encrypt. RFID in my tires, you can't encrypt that!
spicyapple
Sep 11, 09:37 PM
Since we are on the eve of the announcement, I thought I'd give my 2 cents. :)
I hoping for downloadable movies to own at either $9.99 or $14.99 and in high definition. It might be in 720P as a download service just can't compete with Netflix or walking to your friendly neighbourhood DVD rental store. And because the movies are in H.264, the download of HD movies should not take any more time than regular DVD, although if they released movies in 480P, it wouldn't be too bad, either, although with DRM and the time to download, doesn't make it competitive against DVD, plus you don't get the fancy packaging or the hard-disc copy.
I hoping for downloadable movies to own at either $9.99 or $14.99 and in high definition. It might be in 720P as a download service just can't compete with Netflix or walking to your friendly neighbourhood DVD rental store. And because the movies are in H.264, the download of HD movies should not take any more time than regular DVD, although if they released movies in 480P, it wouldn't be too bad, either, although with DRM and the time to download, doesn't make it competitive against DVD, plus you don't get the fancy packaging or the hard-disc copy.
kresh
Sep 14, 08:43 AM
What is it with some of you guys? Does hope spring eternal, or what!
Apple could be at a medical convention to promote the new artificial Apple iHeart and some of you would be jumping up and down screaming: "Yahoo, this means MBP updates".
Apple could be at a medical convention to promote the new artificial Apple iHeart and some of you would be jumping up and down screaming: "Yahoo, this means MBP updates".
musiclover137
Aug 23, 10:17 PM
there goes all those iTunes sales:rolleyes:
I hope you're joking about that. iTunes is not about making money for apple
I hope you're joking about that. iTunes is not about making money for apple
guet
Nov 13, 05:08 PM
Obviously the images are copyrighted by Apple, and those images they don't want people using. Ok, well, that is their rights, they designed them and copyrighted them.
For the benefit of others who don't bother to read the article, the images in question are provided by a system API on OS X. The API is *provided* to give developers images they can use to represent the current computer, and is supposed to be used that way. All RA have done is used those same images to transmit from the desktop to the iPhone, to show the user which computer they're connecting to.
Some idiot reviewer at Apple has seen the images and decided that since they're displayed on an iPhone they're infringing one of the many incredibly vague rules in the SDK. Given the completely borked review process, it's unlikely to be rectified, and has wasted a lot of everyone's time - there's no way to know in advance which rules the reviewer may decide to impose - almost every app could be seen to infringe one of them. Like the iPhone book app rejection and many others for different obscure reasons, this is a case of a sensible rule interpreted in an insane way.
Can't blame the developers at all for walking away from the frustrating, capricious waste of time which is iTunes store approvals, and good on them for publicising this; taking three months to even give a firm reason for rejection is a real failure on Apple's part, and the entire process is a train wreck.
If Apple doesn't defend their copyright, then they can lose it, so they HAVE to fight for it.
I think you're confusing copyright and Trademarks. This is not the case with copyright at all.
For the benefit of others who don't bother to read the article, the images in question are provided by a system API on OS X. The API is *provided* to give developers images they can use to represent the current computer, and is supposed to be used that way. All RA have done is used those same images to transmit from the desktop to the iPhone, to show the user which computer they're connecting to.
Some idiot reviewer at Apple has seen the images and decided that since they're displayed on an iPhone they're infringing one of the many incredibly vague rules in the SDK. Given the completely borked review process, it's unlikely to be rectified, and has wasted a lot of everyone's time - there's no way to know in advance which rules the reviewer may decide to impose - almost every app could be seen to infringe one of them. Like the iPhone book app rejection and many others for different obscure reasons, this is a case of a sensible rule interpreted in an insane way.
Can't blame the developers at all for walking away from the frustrating, capricious waste of time which is iTunes store approvals, and good on them for publicising this; taking three months to even give a firm reason for rejection is a real failure on Apple's part, and the entire process is a train wreck.
If Apple doesn't defend their copyright, then they can lose it, so they HAVE to fight for it.
I think you're confusing copyright and Trademarks. This is not the case with copyright at all.
aohus
Apr 19, 08:01 PM
This is just another pissing contest to result in a settlement and some bizarre technology sharing or nothing in particular.
It's posturing.
this is the only comment that made sense in this entire thread.
It's posturing.
this is the only comment that made sense in this entire thread.
gnasher729
Mar 30, 01:12 PM
If Apple wins this argument, obviously that would prevent MS from calling theirs the "App Store" - but can they still use the phrase descriptively? I.e. "Welcome to App Market, Microsoft's app store."
If they can't (and Microsoft, Google, Blackberry etc. all trademark the others, App Shop, App Market etc.), then how do you describe what the App Store/App Shop is? I can't think of a more generic variant which could be used to describe it. "Windows" is an OS. "Internet Explorer" is a browser. "Office" is an application suite. "App Store" is...errr... an app store.
Application store. Software store. If you want to use the word store. But there is no need to. App Market is clear enough, isn't it? A market is a friendly, open place where you buy a variety of things at good prices, not walled in and regulated like a store. I'd say "Welcome to App Market, the place where you find all the software you need".
If they can't (and Microsoft, Google, Blackberry etc. all trademark the others, App Shop, App Market etc.), then how do you describe what the App Store/App Shop is? I can't think of a more generic variant which could be used to describe it. "Windows" is an OS. "Internet Explorer" is a browser. "Office" is an application suite. "App Store" is...errr... an app store.
Application store. Software store. If you want to use the word store. But there is no need to. App Market is clear enough, isn't it? A market is a friendly, open place where you buy a variety of things at good prices, not walled in and regulated like a store. I'd say "Welcome to App Market, the place where you find all the software you need".
mcrain
Apr 20, 08:54 AM
Always makes me lol to see someone attribute slavery to the "right". The mysteries of 7th grade history class, revealed for you:
"The Republican Presidential Candidate Abraham Lincoln thought no price was too great for the abolition of slavery and the creation of a society in which a man was not judged by the color of his skin."
"The Democratic Party Platform presented a plan of "Compromise with the South", which ... would be to agree to make permanent the institution of slavery in exchange for an end to the Civil War and restoration of the Union. In other words, the Democratic party was ready to "Sell Out" the enslaved, in order to stop further loss of white lives."
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/democratic-party-platform.htm
"an exclusively partisan Democratic organization in the South" ... "the southern Klan remained Democratic, closely allied with Democratic police, sheriffs, and other functionaries of local government. With continuing disfranchisement of most African Americans and many poor whites, the only political activity took place within the Democratic Party."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#Political_influence
You are right, but there is a great big asterick. The republicans a long, long time ago were the party that opposed slavery, and the southern democrats were the party more representative of slave owners.
What might have changed since the days of Abe Lincoln? Considering his museum is about 200 steps from where I'm sitting right now, I'll offer an answer. The positions of the two parties shifted when the Republicans adopted the southern strategy.
I find it funny (LOL) whenever Republicans point to Honest Abe as a standard bearer for their party when they turned their backs on what he stood for. If he were alive today, he would be a Democrat, and he would be ashamed of the efforts of his party to divide the nation into those who have vs. those who do not.
Southern Strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy)
(edit) So, depending on how you look at it, both arguments are correct. Yesterday's Democrats were responsible for slavery, but todays "right" sounds an awful lot like yesterday's southern Democrats. In other words, the "right" by today's standards would have been yesterday's Democrats.
From a 5 second google search - a different view of the same issue...
I find it extrememely hard to believe that Abe Lincoln would be a Republican today since the Republican Party of the 1860s was a completeley different animal than today's conservative GOP. Even though he was a moderate, his party's base of support was in the Northeast/New England and was made up of former Whigs, Free Soilers, Radical Republicans and abolitionists (i.e., America's first "bleeding-heart liberals"). The Democratic Party was the party of "states rights", wealthy plantation owners and slave-holders, and rather arch-conservative elements.
Abe Lincoln first made a name of himself by speaking out against the Mexican-American War in the Illinois legistlature, as a war that was only meant to expand slavery westward (can you say "ANTI-WAR LIBERAL")
Abe Lincoln was also hated in the South (he didn't recieve a SINGLE VOTE in the South!), was even accused to being half-black, even though he was not as radical as some other Republicans.
"The Republican Presidential Candidate Abraham Lincoln thought no price was too great for the abolition of slavery and the creation of a society in which a man was not judged by the color of his skin."
"The Democratic Party Platform presented a plan of "Compromise with the South", which ... would be to agree to make permanent the institution of slavery in exchange for an end to the Civil War and restoration of the Union. In other words, the Democratic party was ready to "Sell Out" the enslaved, in order to stop further loss of white lives."
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/democratic-party-platform.htm
"an exclusively partisan Democratic organization in the South" ... "the southern Klan remained Democratic, closely allied with Democratic police, sheriffs, and other functionaries of local government. With continuing disfranchisement of most African Americans and many poor whites, the only political activity took place within the Democratic Party."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#Political_influence
You are right, but there is a great big asterick. The republicans a long, long time ago were the party that opposed slavery, and the southern democrats were the party more representative of slave owners.
What might have changed since the days of Abe Lincoln? Considering his museum is about 200 steps from where I'm sitting right now, I'll offer an answer. The positions of the two parties shifted when the Republicans adopted the southern strategy.
I find it funny (LOL) whenever Republicans point to Honest Abe as a standard bearer for their party when they turned their backs on what he stood for. If he were alive today, he would be a Democrat, and he would be ashamed of the efforts of his party to divide the nation into those who have vs. those who do not.
Southern Strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy)
(edit) So, depending on how you look at it, both arguments are correct. Yesterday's Democrats were responsible for slavery, but todays "right" sounds an awful lot like yesterday's southern Democrats. In other words, the "right" by today's standards would have been yesterday's Democrats.
From a 5 second google search - a different view of the same issue...
I find it extrememely hard to believe that Abe Lincoln would be a Republican today since the Republican Party of the 1860s was a completeley different animal than today's conservative GOP. Even though he was a moderate, his party's base of support was in the Northeast/New England and was made up of former Whigs, Free Soilers, Radical Republicans and abolitionists (i.e., America's first "bleeding-heart liberals"). The Democratic Party was the party of "states rights", wealthy plantation owners and slave-holders, and rather arch-conservative elements.
Abe Lincoln first made a name of himself by speaking out against the Mexican-American War in the Illinois legistlature, as a war that was only meant to expand slavery westward (can you say "ANTI-WAR LIBERAL")
Abe Lincoln was also hated in the South (he didn't recieve a SINGLE VOTE in the South!), was even accused to being half-black, even though he was not as radical as some other Republicans.
puuukeey
Sep 5, 02:03 PM
Good move but I bet its riddled with DRM:mad:
iMacZealot
Sep 15, 09:13 PM
If, for example, someone is using Verizon Wireless, would the Apple Phone work for them? In other words, how "universal" would this phone truly be? Would it be able to compete in international markets?
(edited: clarification)
There are two main types of cell phone system: CDMA and GSM. The Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) was created in France throughout the 80's and the EU endorsed it as their official system, which caused it to spread globally. Meanwhile, across the pond, we were sitting on our little keisters and our brick analog phones and then a company called Quallcomm decided to do something six years after GSM had publically been out and they created a popular version of CDMA. CDMA is currently used by Sprint and Verizon (and I think a few Canadian carriers) and is pretty much only existent here in America. GSM is present in 78% of the world's markets.
With that said, GSM phones will not work on CDMA networks and vice versa. If Apple does make a phone, I think it would be GSM in order to capture most of the international market as well as the US. CDMA is very limited because it is not used anywhere besides a few carriers here in America.
(edited: clarification)
There are two main types of cell phone system: CDMA and GSM. The Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) was created in France throughout the 80's and the EU endorsed it as their official system, which caused it to spread globally. Meanwhile, across the pond, we were sitting on our little keisters and our brick analog phones and then a company called Quallcomm decided to do something six years after GSM had publically been out and they created a popular version of CDMA. CDMA is currently used by Sprint and Verizon (and I think a few Canadian carriers) and is pretty much only existent here in America. GSM is present in 78% of the world's markets.
With that said, GSM phones will not work on CDMA networks and vice versa. If Apple does make a phone, I think it would be GSM in order to capture most of the international market as well as the US. CDMA is very limited because it is not used anywhere besides a few carriers here in America.
Spanky Deluxe
May 3, 10:32 AM
Wow, the dual screen output is what could some day push me over the edge. A 27" display + 2 27" Apple screens either side sounds pretty nice. Still not enough to make me part with my 30" ACD right now though.
TheKrillr
Aug 28, 04:11 PM
So order it.
I was talking about people who buy a machine and immediately consider returning it.
Speaking of returns, is there a possibility of buying the machine and if they don't auto-upgrade me to the new one, return it and buy a new one?
I was talking about people who buy a machine and immediately consider returning it.
Speaking of returns, is there a possibility of buying the machine and if they don't auto-upgrade me to the new one, return it and buy a new one?
Squonk
Sep 26, 10:21 AM
I can't wait to get my hands on an iPhone- I'm getting tired of my SLVR. As soon as the iPhone launches I'm throwing my SLVR in to a river. This is starting to become tradition, there must be a half dozen old cell phones of mine which have been cast in to the briny deep. What a liberating experience.
Dude! The Sierra Club would appreciate if you donated the phones to them instead! :D
Dude! The Sierra Club would appreciate if you donated the phones to them instead! :D
iJawn108
Sep 14, 05:09 PM
The invitation suggests Aperture, but could it also be an extreme closeup of an isight camera on a black anodized MBP? ;) :cool: :D :eek: :confused:
i honestly don't think they will pull the black(top model) stuff into the pro line.
i honestly don't think they will pull the black(top model) stuff into the pro line.
mobi
Mar 29, 11:23 AM
Thank you for the chuckle during the lunch hour :D
milo
Sep 5, 05:58 PM
Yes I have..The only difference is I'm including the recording part.
The recording can be done by the computer. What reason is there to have it done where the TV is located?
The recording can be done by the computer. What reason is there to have it done where the TV is located?
jsarrasinjr
Aug 23, 05:14 PM
You have to wonder how tenuous Apple's position was considering that they have settled so early (in huge lawsuit time). 100 million dollars is a lot of money to spend to get Creative off their back.
z4n3
Apr 20, 01:06 PM
Is your backup encrypted???
yep! and takes the Pwnage Tool vitamin :D
yep! and takes the Pwnage Tool vitamin :D
ericinboston
Apr 28, 07:56 PM
Microsoft is DEAD.
This is all you ever say and is a waste of text/space on this site.
MacRumors...how do we ban this guy?
Sheeeeeez.
This is all you ever say and is a waste of text/space on this site.
MacRumors...how do we ban this guy?
Sheeeeeez.
Auax
Apr 11, 09:50 PM
In fact, i hope one day i can use it to stream video. possible?
munkery
Mar 19, 04:35 PM
A few examples: Look up Leap-A and Inqtana-A on OSX (very real OSX worms), MusMinim-A (recent trojan).
Leap-a required authentication to infect and spread via iChat given that iChat is owned by System but is only run with user privileges. It did NOT achieve privilege escalation via exploitation.
Inqtana-a was a proof of concept that could only modify the user level of the system because didn't achieve privilege escalation via exploitation. Malware can NOT install rootkits or keyloggers that can hook into apps owned by System (such as Safari, Mail, & etc) with only user level access.
MusMinim-a is also a beta proof of concept based of a legitimate piece of software ported from Windows (http://www.darkcomet-rat.com/). It requires authentication to install given that it does NOT achieve privilege escalation via exploitation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_malware#Threats (List of Malware threats on Linux; why not pretend they don't even exist?)
You do realize most of those are proof-of-concepts generated through research. Most were never present in the wild and did NOT achieve privilege escalation via exploitation. Two that were in the wild are Bliss (1997 - ineffective as did not include privilege escalation) and Stoag (1996). https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Linuxvirus
It sounds good at first except for one giant pothole of a flaw. I mean why do things that are difficult to trace when you can just set up a sign on a server somewhere that says "Here's my bank account! Come and arrest me!" (i.e. the money is being redirected...follow the money trail!) :rolleyes:
You do realize that the redirection of ad revenue is one of the primary means of profit generation of what has been referred to as the most advanced Windows rootkit. BTW, some variants achieve privilege escalation via exploitation (see the second link).
http://www.brighthub.com/internet/google/articles/66090.aspx
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/16/tdl_rootkit_does_64_bit_windows/
Trojans are particularly a problem since a lot of programs ask for root password permission to be installed (including Apple software).
Untrue. Mac apps rarely ask for authentication to install if you install the app in the appropriate folder for the user account type.
Leap-a required authentication to infect and spread via iChat given that iChat is owned by System but is only run with user privileges. It did NOT achieve privilege escalation via exploitation.
Inqtana-a was a proof of concept that could only modify the user level of the system because didn't achieve privilege escalation via exploitation. Malware can NOT install rootkits or keyloggers that can hook into apps owned by System (such as Safari, Mail, & etc) with only user level access.
MusMinim-a is also a beta proof of concept based of a legitimate piece of software ported from Windows (http://www.darkcomet-rat.com/). It requires authentication to install given that it does NOT achieve privilege escalation via exploitation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_malware#Threats (List of Malware threats on Linux; why not pretend they don't even exist?)
You do realize most of those are proof-of-concepts generated through research. Most were never present in the wild and did NOT achieve privilege escalation via exploitation. Two that were in the wild are Bliss (1997 - ineffective as did not include privilege escalation) and Stoag (1996). https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Linuxvirus
It sounds good at first except for one giant pothole of a flaw. I mean why do things that are difficult to trace when you can just set up a sign on a server somewhere that says "Here's my bank account! Come and arrest me!" (i.e. the money is being redirected...follow the money trail!) :rolleyes:
You do realize that the redirection of ad revenue is one of the primary means of profit generation of what has been referred to as the most advanced Windows rootkit. BTW, some variants achieve privilege escalation via exploitation (see the second link).
http://www.brighthub.com/internet/google/articles/66090.aspx
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/16/tdl_rootkit_does_64_bit_windows/
Trojans are particularly a problem since a lot of programs ask for root password permission to be installed (including Apple software).
Untrue. Mac apps rarely ask for authentication to install if you install the app in the appropriate folder for the user account type.
Doctor Q
Oct 12, 01:07 PM
I'm considering canceling an iPod order I placed yesterday and switching it to the red one. Not that I'd know the difference.
TerryJ
Jul 14, 09:48 AM
Note that if I'm right (trust me!), then there's a gap.... no Apple box with a Conroe? I don't think so.... Apple will introduce a new system with support for a single Conroe. Hopefully it won't be the MacPro with a different mobo, but a completely new box (fingers crossed).
Perhaps some kind of high performance consumer-oriented/gaming-oriented tower?
(Just pure speculation...)
-Terry
Perhaps some kind of high performance consumer-oriented/gaming-oriented tower?
(Just pure speculation...)
-Terry
strwrsfrk
Apr 22, 12:53 PM
If ditching the 320M and switching to an i-processor boosts battery life even 10%, I think it will be worth it.
People who want to play modern games on these systems should already be aware of their limitations; sure, a graphics downgrade is a bummer, but the Intel IGP is good enough for most general productivity needs. And it's already been proven to handle 1080p out.
The general sentiment that the 2012 will be an improvement on 100% of the internals is likely accurate. However, there are four changes that will make this a 100% buy for me:
1) Backlit keyboard (my biggest hope).
2) Larger SSD. 90+ GB base (128 would be most likely, I reckon), 380+ GB BTO.
3) +10% Battery life. An extra 30 minutes to an hour would be spectacular.
4) Core i ULM processor.
People who want to play modern games on these systems should already be aware of their limitations; sure, a graphics downgrade is a bummer, but the Intel IGP is good enough for most general productivity needs. And it's already been proven to handle 1080p out.
The general sentiment that the 2012 will be an improvement on 100% of the internals is likely accurate. However, there are four changes that will make this a 100% buy for me:
1) Backlit keyboard (my biggest hope).
2) Larger SSD. 90+ GB base (128 would be most likely, I reckon), 380+ GB BTO.
3) +10% Battery life. An extra 30 minutes to an hour would be spectacular.
4) Core i ULM processor.