Multimedia
Oct 21, 10:03 AM
lmao and just to add, DAMN that is alot of coresNot if you use applications that are Core Hogs. Compressing video with Toast uses up to 4 cores per instance. Compressing video with Handbrake uses up to 3 cores per instance. So, no, it's not a lot of cores at all and I will be buying a 16 core then a 32 core Mac Pro the day they ship as well. :eek:
beniscool
Apr 19, 09:00 PM
What if I just want my top 10 favorites? In Windows I just drag the icon (of whatever I want) to the Start button, then drop it into the list of my favorites (I'm not sure of the actual term for this). Can this be done on a Mac?
Since I open the same 10 or 12 programs or folders or files many times throughout the day, every day, this is pretty important to me. It would absolutely mess up my work flow to lose this feature.
The dock
Since I open the same 10 or 12 programs or folders or files many times throughout the day, every day, this is pretty important to me. It would absolutely mess up my work flow to lose this feature.
The dock
Nicky G
Apr 15, 01:07 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Excellent, moving, admirable video. Adobe just released a fantastic one as well.
Let's get real for a second -- LGBT individuals are still the primary group in our country that in many circles it's still totally alright to **** on, openly. Half the population is fat, I don't think your average fat kid takes as much **** as your average gay or transexual kid. Studies show suicide rates for LGBT teens are much higher than for other groups.
I literally tear up when I watch these It Hets Better videos. I think it's very, very honorable that so many corporations support their staff with these projects.
Oh, and to folks saying Apple should ne careful because they might alienate some bigoted customers? I'm pretty sure they don't give a crap, nor should they.
Ok... It Hets Better is officially the most ironic iPhone typo I've ever made. :-)
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Excellent, moving, admirable video. Adobe just released a fantastic one as well.
Let's get real for a second -- LGBT individuals are still the primary group in our country that in many circles it's still totally alright to **** on, openly. Half the population is fat, I don't think your average fat kid takes as much **** as your average gay or transexual kid. Studies show suicide rates for LGBT teens are much higher than for other groups.
I literally tear up when I watch these It Hets Better videos. I think it's very, very honorable that so many corporations support their staff with these projects.
Oh, and to folks saying Apple should ne careful because they might alienate some bigoted customers? I'm pretty sure they don't give a crap, nor should they.
Ok... It Hets Better is officially the most ironic iPhone typo I've ever made. :-)
MacRumors
Apr 20, 05:10 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/20/apple-on-android-fragmentation-lte-steve-jobs-involvement/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/20/181004-2411563228_ab83a1f05f.jpg
call of duty black ops zombies
lack ops zombies ray gun
call of duty black ops zombies
call of duty black ops zombies ray gun upgraded. If you visit the call of; If you visit the call of duty. aricher. Sep 13, 09:56 AM
call of duty black ops zombies
cod lack ops zombies ray gun.
call of duty black ops zombies
cod lack ops zombies ray gun.
cod lack ops zombies ray gun.
call of duty black ops zombies
call of duty black ops zombies
ray gun from call of duty
lack ops zombies ray gun
Those relentless Zombies
.jpg "lack ops zombies ray gun")
lack ops zombies ray gun
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/20/181004-2411563228_ab83a1f05f.jpg
Peace
Sep 20, 11:05 AM
eyeHome does not support HD and it never will. I got this in an email directly from Elgato. That is the biggest difference. Also, the general consensus is that eyeHome is not in the same league of robustness/intuitiveness as other elgato products or Apple products. eyeHome cannot even play back eyeTV 500 , eyeTV Hybrid recordings.
EyeHome uses 480P and upscales to 720P..There is no high def in the EyeHome.
EyeHome uses 480P and upscales to 720P..There is no high def in the EyeHome.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 07:18 PM
I think it's pretty safe to say that Nicolosi is anti-gay.
What does "anti-gay" mean? Is it a vague synonym for "homophobic?"
But I do think there is a place in this world for therapists to work with people who feel conflicted with their sexual orientation. Heck, we accept that people can change gender ... why not sexual preference as well? In either case it's important that this would come from the patient's desire to change and not from the therapists desire to change them.
I agree: There's a place for that kind of therapy. I even know people who felt conflicted about their sexual orientation. Unfortunately, the conflict caused them some of the severest emotional pain I could imagine.
What does "anti-gay" mean? Is it a vague synonym for "homophobic?"
But I do think there is a place in this world for therapists to work with people who feel conflicted with their sexual orientation. Heck, we accept that people can change gender ... why not sexual preference as well? In either case it's important that this would come from the patient's desire to change and not from the therapists desire to change them.
I agree: There's a place for that kind of therapy. I even know people who felt conflicted about their sexual orientation. Unfortunately, the conflict caused them some of the severest emotional pain I could imagine.
Multimedia
Oct 25, 11:20 PM
I think price will be the key. These are pricey chips. Apple will have to work their magic.
I wonder how many current Mac Pro owners will just buy the new chips off pricewatch.com and pop them in.Not pricy at all. 2.33GHz Clovertown are same price as 3GHz Woodies $851. 2.66GHz Clovertown's only $1172 each.
So premium for 2.66GHz 8-Core will likely not be more than + $1100 - $3599. That's down to just over $450 per same speed core from the current price of four 2.66GHz Xeon cores for $625 each.
I wonder how many current Mac Pro owners will just buy the new chips off pricewatch.com and pop them in.Not pricy at all. 2.33GHz Clovertown are same price as 3GHz Woodies $851. 2.66GHz Clovertown's only $1172 each.
So premium for 2.66GHz 8-Core will likely not be more than + $1100 - $3599. That's down to just over $450 per same speed core from the current price of four 2.66GHz Xeon cores for $625 each.
dante@sisna.com
Sep 12, 06:54 PM
Have fun sitting down to your computer to record shows. I get the vision, I reallly do, and I wanted Apple to pull it off better than anyone. But having to record HD content from one piece of hardware, convert it on my computer, load it onto iTunes and stream it to another piece of hardware (iTV) isn't exactly user friendly. The fact of the matter is, Apple doesn't really want you recording TV. So, while not impossible, you do have to jump through a few hoops. Having used TiVo for years, I would never convert to such a complicated system. If Apple had a DVR, they'd also have my business.
You are making a lot of Assumptions regarding complications. The addition of USB to iTV makes a host of third party addons possible that could easily surpass Tivo.
Wait and see -- it happened quickly with the iPod 4 years ago. It will be cheaper too -- no monthly fees and all managed by Front Row.
Now that is EASY!
You are making a lot of Assumptions regarding complications. The addition of USB to iTV makes a host of third party addons possible that could easily surpass Tivo.
Wait and see -- it happened quickly with the iPod 4 years ago. It will be cheaper too -- no monthly fees and all managed by Front Row.
Now that is EASY!
dudemac
Mar 20, 10:23 AM
from what i see on it's website tis a *nix programme... ie not windows.. ;)
it runs on windows too you just to have the GTK installed also. Its on the website. see my post to page 3 first post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=115997&page=3&pp=25)
But as of yesterday morning I could no longer purchase songs this way, I can log in and browse, but it will not finalize the sale.
it runs on windows too you just to have the GTK installed also. Its on the website. see my post to page 3 first post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=115997&page=3&pp=25)
But as of yesterday morning I could no longer purchase songs this way, I can log in and browse, but it will not finalize the sale.
iJohnHenry
Mar 14, 04:34 PM
Does a partial melt-down equate with being a little bit pregnant?
of course things could still go South, but hopefully they won't
Inscrutable cat says
of course things could still go South, but hopefully they won't
Inscrutable cat says
Sheebahawk
Aug 29, 02:16 PM
that needs to be accounted for... the lifespan of an apple computer. Its about 3 times that of a dell, at least in my experiance. I've saved all my old macs cuz they still work.
digitalbiker
Sep 12, 04:10 PM
If this is all iTV is going to offer for $249 then forget it.
I'll just use a cable to hook my laptop to my TV.
Voila! I just replaced iTV for less than $5.00.
I'll just use a cable to hook my laptop to my TV.
Voila! I just replaced iTV for less than $5.00.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:03 PM
I agree with your pro-nuclear, pro energy independence stance, Fivepoint.
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
Lord Blackadder
Mar 13, 02:21 PM
Most of the major power sources in use today come with major safety/environmental risks. Nuclear is in some ways potentially the most risky. However, people will continue to use it because it works.
We are only as safe as the weakest nuclear power plant, and some of the old Soviet designs still operating are truly scary. But I see a discussion over whether or not to use nuclear power as being 60 years too late - nuclear power is here to stay, due to pressure to satisfy civil power demands that will require them to remain in operation and even expand in numbers. At this point in time renewable energy sources are producing only a fraction of the energy they must produce if we are to start decommissioning nuclear plants.
We are only as safe as the weakest nuclear power plant, and some of the old Soviet designs still operating are truly scary. But I see a discussion over whether or not to use nuclear power as being 60 years too late - nuclear power is here to stay, due to pressure to satisfy civil power demands that will require them to remain in operation and even expand in numbers. At this point in time renewable energy sources are producing only a fraction of the energy they must produce if we are to start decommissioning nuclear plants.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 14, 03:11 PM
Then, "burn cleanly" is a dubious concept. Even if you can clean it up, how much does that cost, how much energy dies it take to clean it up, and how much do you lose from the coal's potential energy? Industry touts clean coal, others claim the very concept is a myth, I am not sure who is closer to the practical reality of the situation.
"Clean coal" is 100% myth, marketing-speak invented by coal companies to fool people. At best, we can have "less dirty coal". Scrubbers, filters, and other "clean coal" technology reduce pollution but also efficiency, so the cost of the equipment is not the only tradeoff. The only truly "clean coal" is the stuf you don't burn.
With that being said, it is incumbent on us to use the lowest-polluting process for burning coal that is practicable, so "clean coal" technology is important in that sense. But the notion that we can some how burn coal "cleanly" is false.
"Clean coal" is 100% myth, marketing-speak invented by coal companies to fool people. At best, we can have "less dirty coal". Scrubbers, filters, and other "clean coal" technology reduce pollution but also efficiency, so the cost of the equipment is not the only tradeoff. The only truly "clean coal" is the stuf you don't burn.
With that being said, it is incumbent on us to use the lowest-polluting process for burning coal that is practicable, so "clean coal" technology is important in that sense. But the notion that we can some how burn coal "cleanly" is false.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 11:58 AM
Not so much hate as intolerance.
Since you insist on not telling the whole story I'll then do it for you.
The CCC (CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH):
Your quote (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12397686&postcount=184) above from paragraph 2358 is bracketed by:
If the Catholic Church was truly accepting, please tell why only homosexuals are called to chastity?
I am genuinely interested to hear.
ALL Catholics are called to chastity. 100% of them. It's too bad you don't know what the word means.
Since you insist on not telling the whole story I'll then do it for you.
The CCC (CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH):
Your quote (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12397686&postcount=184) above from paragraph 2358 is bracketed by:
If the Catholic Church was truly accepting, please tell why only homosexuals are called to chastity?
I am genuinely interested to hear.
ALL Catholics are called to chastity. 100% of them. It's too bad you don't know what the word means.
GroundLoop
Sep 12, 03:49 PM
As long as I can use the USB port on it to hook up my printer (thereby replacing the Airport Express), then I will likely get one of these.
Hickman
Hickman
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)
stainlessliquid
May 2, 11:15 AM
WOW! Malware that requires the user to do a Google search, then download, and install. For all of this, it asks for your credit card number.
How can we ever defend our computers against such a diabolical threat?!
and we have our first victim!
remember kids, you can only get this by google searching for it so dont worry
How can we ever defend our computers against such a diabolical threat?!
and we have our first victim!
remember kids, you can only get this by google searching for it so dont worry
diamornte
Apr 13, 02:50 AM
Wait, what happened to all that talk of iPad integration? Another Macrumorfanboy wet dream?
Don't panic
Mar 14, 10:29 PM
authorities just expanded evacuation steps, reflecting worsening situations/new leaks
CorvusCamenarum
Mar 25, 10:58 AM
Ah yes, the old, call it a privilege when you try to deny it to a class of people and not a right trick. :rolleyes:
No, it's a right. The United States continues to violate human rights. Not a new phenomenon, your opinion or how this country is.
Are you speaking religiously or legally? By law, it is a right. However if the church doesn't want to marry gay couples, that's their own stupid business.
As marriage is licensed by the state, it is in fact a privilege. The fact that it is near-universally granted doesn't make it any more a right.
No, it's a right. The United States continues to violate human rights. Not a new phenomenon, your opinion or how this country is.
Are you speaking religiously or legally? By law, it is a right. However if the church doesn't want to marry gay couples, that's their own stupid business.
As marriage is licensed by the state, it is in fact a privilege. The fact that it is near-universally granted doesn't make it any more a right.
goobot
May 5, 11:50 AM
I blame the iphone. Its a hog and kills atts network. If it was a diff phone this wount be happening. Apple needs to make it work with the network better.
gnasher729
May 2, 12:28 PM
I haven't seen this malware first hand, but a zip file can be made with absolute paths, making "unzipping" the file put everything where it needs to be to start up automatically on next log in/reboot.
Who's the brainiac who made zip files "safe" ?
What makes you think MacOS X still contains directory traversal vulnerabilities that were reported in 2005? Do you really think MacOS X hasn't included the known fixes that were added six years ago? Opening a zip file on MacOS X _is_ safe. Of course that zip file can contain malware, which will then by on your Mac, exactly as if you had downloaded it directly. You still have to start the malware yourself, and you will still be asked by the OS if you really, really want to run the malware.
Who's the brainiac who made zip files "safe" ?
What makes you think MacOS X still contains directory traversal vulnerabilities that were reported in 2005? Do you really think MacOS X hasn't included the known fixes that were added six years ago? Opening a zip file on MacOS X _is_ safe. Of course that zip file can contain malware, which will then by on your Mac, exactly as if you had downloaded it directly. You still have to start the malware yourself, and you will still be asked by the OS if you really, really want to run the malware.