KnightWRX
May 2, 05:51 PM
Until Vista and Win 7, it was effectively impossible to run a Windows NT system as anything but Administrator. To the point that other than locked-down corporate sites where an IT Professional was required to install the Corporate Approved version of any software you need to do your job, I never knew anyone running XP (or 2k, or for that matter NT 3.x) who in a day-to-day fashion used a Standard user account.
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
archipellago
May 2, 04:50 PM
That's Mac OS X installed base, not the installed base of Macs, as I said. Mac OS X is not the only Mac OS out there. Reading comprehension is fun!
Which means, of course, that you can't back up your claims with facts.
So? That has nothing to do with your baseless claims about hackers.
so theres 50 mill + users of OS 9 out there when its ten years old...?
really...?
hmm, hope its not too windy for straw clutching over there!
zero clue...
Which means, of course, that you can't back up your claims with facts.
So? That has nothing to do with your baseless claims about hackers.
so theres 50 mill + users of OS 9 out there when its ten years old...?
really...?
hmm, hope its not too windy for straw clutching over there!
zero clue...
sangre de toro
Mar 18, 03:04 PM
the more barriers there are the more we get used to them. Give us a break! You pay for it, you use it and if anybody restricts you ... Long live to the many dvd whatever!
eawmp1
Apr 15, 09:13 AM
However, they should be careful. Moves like this have the potential to alienate customers.
Or perhaps enlighten them.
Good on ya, Apple!
Or perhaps enlighten them.
Good on ya, Apple!
Mac'nCheese
Apr 23, 09:21 PM
Maybe because the majority of atheists tend to have an attitude of more "religion sucks, I'm atheist" whereas religious people do not have an "atheism sucks, I'm theistic" attitude for the most part.
.
Wow. I see it completely the other way. The religious people look at the atheists as lost souls, sinners, who need to be saved. They want their beliefs to be the basis for our laws. They need to have god thrown in our faces, on our money, in our pledges, in our courtrooms, etc. etc. And this is in the land of the free where separation of church and state is supposed to be one our most basic rights!
Don't believe me, check any poll about who people in the United States trust or who they would vote for. Atheists are always at the bottom of both lists!
.
Wow. I see it completely the other way. The religious people look at the atheists as lost souls, sinners, who need to be saved. They want their beliefs to be the basis for our laws. They need to have god thrown in our faces, on our money, in our pledges, in our courtrooms, etc. etc. And this is in the land of the free where separation of church and state is supposed to be one our most basic rights!
Don't believe me, check any poll about who people in the United States trust or who they would vote for. Atheists are always at the bottom of both lists!
samcraig
Mar 18, 09:40 AM
Ignorance of the law and/or terms of the contract does not equal being vindicated.
Good luck with that. There's really nothing else for me to add. If you want to rant, post and have your go at a lawsuit - go for it. Have fun. Just don't expect to win.
PS - just because you keep stating things as fact doesn't make it fact. Good luck with that too.
Good luck with that. There's really nothing else for me to add. If you want to rant, post and have your go at a lawsuit - go for it. Have fun. Just don't expect to win.
PS - just because you keep stating things as fact doesn't make it fact. Good luck with that too.
FloatingBones
Apr 28, 09:12 AM
Almost all of that is due to the iPad. They had around 4% of the global market for computers last year.
If you run the numbers, you'll see it's actually closer to 5% than 4%. Call it 4.5%.
If you run the numbers, you'll see it's actually closer to 5% than 4%. Call it 4.5%.
GGJstudios
May 3, 08:09 PM
I just waded through this god-awful thread and almost every single post that said anything positive about Windows in any way, shape or form (truth or nonsense alike) got zapped with negative votes.
You're making a huge assumption that the people who vote on posts are the same people who are posting in a thread. The post voting feature is new and there is no way to know who is using it. People who read the thread can vote, even if they don't post. Personally, I think voting on posts is a waste of time, since you have no idea who votes or why. There have been 240+ posts in this thread, and over 21,900 views, any number of which could be voting on posts. You do the math.
Thank you.
Thank You Songs | Thank You
Free mp3 song downloads and
Download Thank You Mp3 Songs
Download Thank You Mp3 Songs
Movie Thank You Mp3 Song
thank you movie cast and crew.
Both songs are available
Free mp3 song downloads and
Online Thank You Picture
Free mp3 song downloads and
You're making a huge assumption that the people who vote on posts are the same people who are posting in a thread. The post voting feature is new and there is no way to know who is using it. People who read the thread can vote, even if they don't post. Personally, I think voting on posts is a waste of time, since you have no idea who votes or why. There have been 240+ posts in this thread, and over 21,900 views, any number of which could be voting on posts. You do the math.
Chundles
Mar 11, 01:11 AM
Yeah that tsunami is massive. There were burning buildings floating on the surge as it rolled inland.
Not good at all.
Not good at all.
techy298
May 2, 08:26 PM
If anyone has information on how to download this file, as well as an apple id, please visit this page (https://discussions.apple.com/message/15116673)
thanks
thanks
Blue Velvet
Mar 25, 03:32 PM
By mainstream Catholic I mean someone who follows all the rules of the Catholic Church.
Then I think you misunderstand what the word 'mainstream' means. The majority of Catholics do not care about the Vatican's line on birth control, for instance.
The Public Religion Research Institute recently published a report based on a survey of Catholics across the United States. Amongst other findings:
Catholics are more supportive of legal recognitions of same-sex relationships than members of any other Christian tradition and Americans overall. Nearly three-quarters of Catholics favor either allowing gay and lesbian people to marry (43%) or allowing them to form civil unions (31%). Only 22% of Catholics say there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple�s relationship.
http://www.publicreligion.org/research/?id=509
When same-sex marriage is defined explicitly as a civil marriage, support is dramatically higher among Catholics. If marriage for gay couples is defined as a civil marriage �like you get at city hall,� Catholic support for allowing gay couples to marry increases by 28 points, from 43% to 71%. A similar pattern exists in the general population, but the Catholic increase is more pronounced.
A small minority of Catholics may support your views, but they would hardly be considered mainstream.
Then I think you misunderstand what the word 'mainstream' means. The majority of Catholics do not care about the Vatican's line on birth control, for instance.
The Public Religion Research Institute recently published a report based on a survey of Catholics across the United States. Amongst other findings:
Catholics are more supportive of legal recognitions of same-sex relationships than members of any other Christian tradition and Americans overall. Nearly three-quarters of Catholics favor either allowing gay and lesbian people to marry (43%) or allowing them to form civil unions (31%). Only 22% of Catholics say there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple�s relationship.
http://www.publicreligion.org/research/?id=509
When same-sex marriage is defined explicitly as a civil marriage, support is dramatically higher among Catholics. If marriage for gay couples is defined as a civil marriage �like you get at city hall,� Catholic support for allowing gay couples to marry increases by 28 points, from 43% to 71%. A similar pattern exists in the general population, but the Catholic increase is more pronounced.
A small minority of Catholics may support your views, but they would hardly be considered mainstream.
CalBoy
Apr 23, 05:45 PM
I don't think many people say they're Catholic to fit in or be trendy... Maybe Jewish, but definitely not Catholic.
How do people make atheism "trendy?"
The very notion of making critical thinking subject to blind fanaticism is contradictory.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
Have you spoken to people born into an atheist household? What evidence do you have to back up this claim? It certainly isn't what I've seen, and it runs counter to who atheists (and more specifically atheist parents) are.
Europeans, moreover, consistently out-perform Americans in scientific literacy. Even if Europeans are being born into atheism, it doesn't seem to have negatively affected their knowledge of the relevant facts (quite the contrary, in fact).
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
I should have put it better: it isn't possible to use pure reason to prove a deity without committing a host of logical fallacies and/or relying on false presumptions.
If you think you can do this, post your argument and let it be put to the test.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
It isn't really logic if you're building faith into your reasoning structure. The "framework" is really just one opinion on the matter. I could conceive of a god that uses a different framework entirely, and it would be just as valid as any existing religion's. All religion ultimately boils down to one consistent rule: Trust us.
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
First of all, photons do not communicate. Humans manipulate them for the purposes of communication. It's no more accurate to say that photons communicate than it is to say that paper does.
Secondly, moving the goal posts is precisely the problem with religion. It's very easy to be "right" if you always mean something different when your prior statement is proved categorically false.
The point really is that after debunking supernatural beliefs for so long, we shouldn't really stand by any one of them without some evidence. God is no different. Without evidence, the idea is just as absurd as believing that killing a young virgin every spring will result in a bountiful harvest. Religion gets a free pass because the indoctrination occurs early, often, and with a very large bankroll.
How do people make atheism "trendy?"
The very notion of making critical thinking subject to blind fanaticism is contradictory.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
Have you spoken to people born into an atheist household? What evidence do you have to back up this claim? It certainly isn't what I've seen, and it runs counter to who atheists (and more specifically atheist parents) are.
Europeans, moreover, consistently out-perform Americans in scientific literacy. Even if Europeans are being born into atheism, it doesn't seem to have negatively affected their knowledge of the relevant facts (quite the contrary, in fact).
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
I should have put it better: it isn't possible to use pure reason to prove a deity without committing a host of logical fallacies and/or relying on false presumptions.
If you think you can do this, post your argument and let it be put to the test.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
It isn't really logic if you're building faith into your reasoning structure. The "framework" is really just one opinion on the matter. I could conceive of a god that uses a different framework entirely, and it would be just as valid as any existing religion's. All religion ultimately boils down to one consistent rule: Trust us.
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
First of all, photons do not communicate. Humans manipulate them for the purposes of communication. It's no more accurate to say that photons communicate than it is to say that paper does.
Secondly, moving the goal posts is precisely the problem with religion. It's very easy to be "right" if you always mean something different when your prior statement is proved categorically false.
The point really is that after debunking supernatural beliefs for so long, we shouldn't really stand by any one of them without some evidence. God is no different. Without evidence, the idea is just as absurd as believing that killing a young virgin every spring will result in a bountiful harvest. Religion gets a free pass because the indoctrination occurs early, often, and with a very large bankroll.
skunk
Mar 27, 02:37 PM
What he's saying is that sometimes its the person thats the issue not the article, and using the word homo is funny because that also refers to homosexual.
There's probably a phrase which sums it up more concisely.It's a homonym... :)
There's probably a phrase which sums it up more concisely.It's a homonym... :)
FX120
May 2, 01:22 PM
This is partially because due to a design flaw in Windows, many third-party applications won't even run unless they have administrator access (silly, no?).
So outdated software or poor programming = Design flaw in Windows?
Don't get me wrong, I have some legacy applications that won't run without elevated permissions, but they're just that, legacy applications. I suppose Microsoft could just take Apples approach and forcibly antiquate software.
So outdated software or poor programming = Design flaw in Windows?
Don't get me wrong, I have some legacy applications that won't run without elevated permissions, but they're just that, legacy applications. I suppose Microsoft could just take Apples approach and forcibly antiquate software.
dejo
Oct 7, 11:55 AM
- SDK that can execute on other platforms like Windows or Linux and that uses a more user-friendly and intuitive language than Objective-C
Curious. Why do you think Objective-C is not user-friendly and intuitive?
Curious. Why do you think Objective-C is not user-friendly and intuitive?
Peterkro
Mar 12, 07:08 PM
Number three reactor at the same plant has cooling and containment issues hopefully they can get it under control.
sth
Apr 13, 04:20 AM
Some pro-style questions that have been left unanswered
Some of those questions actually were answered (for example that full keyboard control has been retained) and others are more or less no-brainers (like the stabilization question - you can enable/disable and even fine-tune that even in the dumbed-down iMovie, so why shouldn't you be able to do that in Final Cut).
Some of those questions actually were answered (for example that full keyboard control has been retained) and others are more or less no-brainers (like the stabilization question - you can enable/disable and even fine-tune that even in the dumbed-down iMovie, so why shouldn't you be able to do that in Final Cut).
nsjoker
Sep 20, 06:51 PM
either i'm missing the point of this iTV thing or people in america have ridiculous amounts of money to throw away and are willing to pay for tv shows which are free so they can stream them to their iTV box and watch them that way. it's a super efficient way to burn money, but not to watch tv shows. dvr please.
i mean.. i do understand people want frontrow on their tv's, but it seems like an inital craze thing. i'm not going to completely knock this product though, because if anything it's a starting point for apple to infiltrate your living room, and then releasing dvr functionality in the future. we'll see.
i mean.. i do understand people want frontrow on their tv's, but it seems like an inital craze thing. i'm not going to completely knock this product though, because if anything it's a starting point for apple to infiltrate your living room, and then releasing dvr functionality in the future. we'll see.
ugahairydawgs
Mar 18, 08:03 AM
How exactly are they able to tell if someone is tethering or not?
aristobrat
Mar 18, 01:25 PM
No in the TOS it states there is a limit to unlimited (5gb), deceptive.
If you can actually find the TOS specific to the unlimited iPhone data plan, it doesn't mention a 5GB cap.
Old unlimited DataConnect Plans, and old unlimited smartphone/BlackBerry plans had that wording, but the unlimited iPhone data plan didn't.
I will always continue to use tethering with my unlimited. They will never make me switch and they can accuse all they want.
They don't have to make you switch. They can switch you plan automatically without you. If they do, you can probably cancel without paying an EFT since they changed the plan terms you originally agreed to.
If you can actually find the TOS specific to the unlimited iPhone data plan, it doesn't mention a 5GB cap.
Old unlimited DataConnect Plans, and old unlimited smartphone/BlackBerry plans had that wording, but the unlimited iPhone data plan didn't.
I will always continue to use tethering with my unlimited. They will never make me switch and they can accuse all they want.
They don't have to make you switch. They can switch you plan automatically without you. If they do, you can probably cancel without paying an EFT since they changed the plan terms you originally agreed to.
levitynyc
Apr 9, 04:46 AM
SOOO??? Apple didn't fricken BUY Activision. They only hired a PR guy. Jeeez!! Read the article before posting such lame drivel.
Activision has lousy PR....thats all i was saying.
Activision has lousy PR....thats all i was saying.
danredwing
Oct 7, 11:26 AM
I don't mean to be rude here. I would never claim that Android isn't a good, interesting and open platform, but I've used both and will definitely say that the Android Platform is no iPhone. It feels like software in a shell and is missing the elegant integration of software and hardware that Apple and the iPhone are known for.
There may be more of them out there at some point because they are easier to get and work with more carriers and there are more companies making their version, so through competition, the prices will be lower.....sound familiar?
There may be more of them out there at some point because they are easier to get and work with more carriers and there are more companies making their version, so through competition, the prices will be lower.....sound familiar?
Clive At Five
Sep 20, 07:44 PM
We need a way to record our own TV shows from our cable subscription.
Is that legal? If it's not - even if it's blurry - Apple won't do it.
Secondly, if Apple allows you to do that, then you wouldn't buy content from the iTS. That's not what Apple wants.
-Clive
Is that legal? If it's not - even if it's blurry - Apple won't do it.
Secondly, if Apple allows you to do that, then you wouldn't buy content from the iTS. That's not what Apple wants.
-Clive
CuttyShark
Apr 12, 11:08 PM
Hard to take anyone seriously as a professional who uses Adobe. Avid, sure, but the industry has moved to Final Cut Pro, at least the part of the industry I interface with.
You calling this Final Cut a "toy" after it was just presented to a room full of professionals who loved it seems odd. Why the need to diminish it when it is clear that if you werent' there, there's much we don't yet know?
Adobe Photoshop and After Effects are not 'pro'? Please explain that to me. I never said Premiere. I made the switch to FCP in 2005 after 10 years of solid AVID work, yet I still use them both - just depends what job I'm on and who I'm working for. I stand by what I say - It looks like a fun 'toy' to play with. I have my doubts when it comes to some serious sound track organization and color correction. Reminds me a lot of when someone gave me a demo of Speed Edit by Newtek. It's really interesting how alike these seem to be.
Cheers!
You calling this Final Cut a "toy" after it was just presented to a room full of professionals who loved it seems odd. Why the need to diminish it when it is clear that if you werent' there, there's much we don't yet know?
Adobe Photoshop and After Effects are not 'pro'? Please explain that to me. I never said Premiere. I made the switch to FCP in 2005 after 10 years of solid AVID work, yet I still use them both - just depends what job I'm on and who I'm working for. I stand by what I say - It looks like a fun 'toy' to play with. I have my doubts when it comes to some serious sound track organization and color correction. Reminds me a lot of when someone gave me a demo of Speed Edit by Newtek. It's really interesting how alike these seem to be.
Cheers!
0 comments:
Post a Comment