If you're still within the return period on that display (wherever you bought it from, which you hopefully should be if it's only 2 weeks), I'd either:
1.) Get a price adjustment, or
2.) "Return" it, after all it's still within the return period, right? (assuming it is); then, re-buy it
It's DVI. And yes, you can hook it up to any video card that has DVI.
(The 30-inch requires "dual-link DVI", which some PC video cards also support.)
But the general answer is, yes, you can hook them up to PCs.
I'd however recommend looking at Dell's flat panel displays, which are amazingly priced and also feature DVI, VGA, composite, and S-Video inputs, with some models even having built-in media readers for memory cards (e.g., from digital cameras). Apple's displays only have DVI. But if you're going for the 30", it can't be beat.
You'll probably be able to go Mac once the Intel transition is made, as they'll essentially be high-end conventional PCs, and will (very, very likely) be able to natively boot Windows, or run Windows at full speed in a virtual machine type environment while still booted into OS X.
(On another note, where do you live? Nowhere near any Apple Retail store or any CompUSA?)
Single 2.0, single 2.3, or dual 2.5 GHz dual-core IBM PowerPC 970MP (G5) processor 1.0, 1.15, or 1.25 GHz frontside bus per processor 512MB PC2-4200 DDR2 RAM, expandable to 16GB 160GB or 250GB Serial ATA drive 16x dual layer CD-RW/DVD+/-RW SuperDrive Three open PCI Express expansion slots: two four-lane slots and one eight-lane slot NVIDIA GeForce 6600, 6600 LE, 7800 GT, or Quadro FX 4500 video Dual gigabit ethernet USB 2.0, FireWire 400 (IEEE-1394), FireWire 800 (IEEE-1394b) AirPort Extreme (802.11g), Bluetooth 2.0+EDR Analog and optical digital audio in and out Mighty Mouse (Two button scroll mouse)
The new PowerBook highlights include higher resolution screens, longer battery life, and standard SuperDrives:
1.67 GHz Freescale PowerPC 7458[1] (G4) processor, 512MB PC2700 DDR RAM, expandable to 2GB, 80GB or 120GB Ultra ATA/100 drive 8x dual layer CD-RW/DVD+/-RW SuperDrive 1440x960 (15") or 1680x1050 (17") resolution screen ATI Mobility Radeon 9700 with 128MB DDR SDRAM and dual-link DVI (supports 30" display) Gigabit ethernet, 56K V.92 modem, PC Card slot USB 2.0, FireWire 400 (IEEE-1394), FireWire 800 (IEEE-1394b) AirPort Extreme (802.11g), Bluetooth 2.0+EDR Illuminated keyboard Analog and optical digital audio in and out DVI/VGA/composite/S-Video out
Also new is the amazing pro photography software Aperture, as well as new lower pricing on Apple Displays.
I might as well send my writeup on last week's announcements as well, since the submission (and discussion) there were really light on info too...
A new, even thinner, iMac G5 with an integrated 640x480 iSight camera and integrated media center software called Front Row.
1.9 or 2.1 GHz IBM PowerPC 970fx (G5) processor 512MB PC2-4200 RAM, expandable to 2.5GB 160GB or 250GB Serial ATA drive 8x dual layer CD-RW/DVD+/-RW SuperDrive ATI Radeon X600 Pro or XT PCI-Express video Gigabit ethernet, USB 2.0, FireWire 400 (IEEE-1394) AirPort Extreme (802.11g), Bluetooth 2.0+EDR 1/8" stereo audio or optical out, 1/8" line in VGA/composite/S-Video out Mighty Mouse (Two button scroll mouse)
The inclusion of PCI-Express and PC2-4200 RAM in the new iMac bodes well for the upcoming updates to the Power Macs and PowerBooks.
Media center software currently only included with the iMac G5. Allows for seamless interface with music, movies, movie trailers, pictures, TV shows, and so on via either the iMac's screen or an external screen such as a projector or TV. Includes an infrared remote control. A demonstration of Front Row is available here.
It is likely that Front Row will make its way to other products in the near future, such as the Mac mini. It is only available for the iMac G5 "at this time", according to Apple.
The one feature of typical media centers that Front Row does not support is TV recording. But Apple seems to have a different idea for TV shows, as will be seen below. (However, TV recording can be accomplished with a wide variety of third party tuners.)
How many of these vulnerabilities were discovered or aided because of the very fact that the Mozilla family of products are open source, open to the intense peer scrutiny of the community, one of the core, fundamental facets of the Mozilla products, and open source projects in general, that will help quickly make them more secure? Do they even grasp this concept?
How quickly and effectively were the Mozilla/Firefox vulnerabilities patched in comparison to IE?
Is there any consideration given to the fact that Internet Explorer is a decade old and integral to the OS, and STILL routinely has extremely critical vulnerabilities, and may have an untold number of yet-to-be-discovered critical vulnerabilities?
Assuming customer choice is important, a customer can elect to not use Firefox and remove it from their system. Can the customer remove IE? Can the customer even elect to not use IE, or does the OS still force them to use IE for some tasks?
I could go on, but I think it goes without saying that at best this "report" uses extremely flawed logic to draw its conclusions, and at worst, Symantec is shilling for Microsoft.
Bullshit. In an emergency housing situation, the infrastructure at the facility, the facility-wide loudspeaker system, and newsletters/handouts/flyers are *more* than enough to disseminate information. We don't need a bunch of self-righteous radicals inciting people who already believe the government wanted to kill them.
In an alternate reality where this station was allowed, run with the agenda that Houston IndyMedia and Village Voice certainly has, many evacuees would no doubt be incited, and the authorities would *still* be blamed for "not getting them out of temporary housing fast enough" or "not responding to their needs fast enough", even though Texas and Houston have gone completely out of their way to assist in any way possible.
I guess a lot of people can and do look a gift horse in the mouth.
[1] As an aside, someone said in other post "look at the difference between 9/11 and NOLA...rich white financial district, and help was there within 5 minutes", etc. Um, hello? Who responded to 9/11 in NYC itself? Local authorities. Who *didn't* respond in a satisfactory fashion in NOLA? The same. Oh, wait, let me guess: it's not a state and local municipal responsibility, it was somehow magically a federal one? Just sent thousands of people to a fucking convention center and football stadium with NO PLAN whatever, save "waiting for the feds"? Yeah, real smart, folks.
What you say is correct, but you've missed the point:
Yes, Mac users will click something just as readily that can toast their computer as a Windows user would.
But that's not the point.
How does that spread? How does that spread to other Mac users? If it's not automated, it doesn't make a lick of difference if a few dozen or a few hundred people get nailed. In order to have any real impact, it will need to affect tens or hundreds of thousands, or millions, of machines. And that doesn't happen via manual means: it happens when a piece of malware can spread itself to other vulnerable machines (in this case, Macs) in an automated fashion. Well, there's no open ports on essentially all Mac OS X desktop systems (save for ones that have services like ssh or apache explicitly enabled), so a remote exploit is out. So how would it spread? Web? Email? What ensures its continued spread?
THAT is why there will never be a catastrophic Mac virus or worm: there is no way for it to spread en masse, which has been an absolute hallmark of the heavily publicized windows worms. Will there be a lot of interesting trojans and other standalone malware for Mac OS X? Sure! Will Mac users be just as dumb and click attachments, etc.? Absolutely! But that's not the point: the penetration of such attacks is negligible without a way to mass-spread in an automated fashion.
This assertion - that someone is going to simply decide "I'm going to write a Mac virus" - is very wrongheaded. It's been tried. The most people can come up with are feeble ages-old UNIX/Linux-style rootkits and/or numerous trojans that depend on social engineering. Never a virus or worm with an automated vector of spread. Marketshare is only one very small, albeit very helpful, reason why this is the case.
But this doesn't mean that Mac users shouldn't have current AV/malware protection and use standard computer security best practices.
What follows below is an answer to a query raised during a Chronicle of Higher Education colloquy. Yes, I have posted this to slashdot before, but it is still very much relevant, and I believe it touches on the major issues here.
Question from Lisa L. Spangenberg, UCLA:
Given that there are no viruses or Trojan horses for the current Macintosh system, OS X 10.3, and given that it is essentially UNIX, and given that the most common applications (Microsoft Office Suite, Adobe applications) work very well on OS X, why don't more institutions adopt Macs and encourage faculty to use them?
Gregory A. Jackson:
Well, first of all, there are viruses and Trojans that afflict MacOS, witness Apple's periodic release of security fixes to counteract them.
First, that isn't true, regarding viruses. To date, there are no known viruses that specifically target Mac OS X. Last week's "trojan" was nothing more than an application with a different icon and misleading name that displayed a dialog box (which was an example posted to a USENET Mac programming group to illustrate this fact that has been known and possible on Mac OS for over twenty years; an antivirus vendor apparently thought this an appropriate time to dress it up, incorrectly, as some new, terrible exploit easily adapted for malicious means, when in reality it's nothing more than an application).
If you're referring more broadly to security issues in general, almost all of the security and security-related updates for Mac OS X to date have been updates for primarily server-type services that ship with the OS, all of which are disabled by default, and the lion's share of which are never even enabled, much less touched, on the vast majority of systems. I'm not saying that they should be ignored, but Apple's comprehensive and swift response to the most minor security issues does not rise to the level of the staggeringly numerous, sometimes completely automated, remote exploits, worms, and so on for Windows. It is no longer possible to even get through a full installation Windows XP on a machine connected to a public network without it being exploited before you even have a chance to patch it.
It's definitely possible for Mac OS X to have viruses, worms, trojans, and other malware - Mac OS X is not invulnerable, and no sensible person would claim it to be. But the underlying philosophical design principles are fundamentally more secure than Windows, period. Since the major ingredient for the success of a worm or virus is some ability to spread, witness the fact that there is no way with anything built into Mac OS X to perform automated propagation of a virus, and no current known ways to exploit a machine remotely, not to mention that potentially exploitable network services are disabled to begin with anyway (and remain that way unless explicitly enabled), a stark contrast to Windows. Any hope for automatic propagation would require a comparatively high level of sophistication, and perhaps even its own mail server - not to mention some intrinsic vulnerability to exploit. On the other hand, there are still, to this moment [at the time of this writing], unfixed vulnerabilities in certain versions of Outlook that will spread certain virus variants simply by previewing a message, and nothing more. There is simply no equivalent to this on any other platform. Microsoft's track record and attitude
We're not talking about individual words here, for one, we're talking about phrases.
"Death toll" is the total number of people who die as a result of a disaster or other adverse event.
"Death knell" is a bell rung to announce death, or an omen of death or destruction.
So to say "death toll" in this context is completely and utterly wrong, and the fact that "toll", on its own, also can mean to ring a bell is actually completely unrelated and incidental.
But even if we do, for a moment, accept your assertion that "death toll" is an acceptable use here, the use of "signals" in conjunction with it as also meaningless.
Let's face it: the author meant to say "sounds the death knell" or "rings the death knell" or something to that effect, and just got it horribly, horribly wrong in his mind, likely using the same logic you did ("Hmm, I've heard about a bell tolling before, so "death toll" must be what I'm looking for.").
Wow, how many people did Atom kill? I always liked RSS better anyway. Now that I know not only that RSS isn't a killer, but has also been monitoring Atom's killing, and indeed even signaling its death toll to the authorities, I'm even more in support of it.
Now if only RSS could sound Atom's death knell...
(In case the editors have seen fit to correct it, the original title was "Developers: RSS' Win, Signals Atom's Death Toll".)
None of us want to see humans being bred just to be killed.
Indeed.
To some, destroying a human embryo is the logical equivalent.
(Further notes: yes, "they" have accepted that the destruction of embryos is acceptable for purposes of fertility clinics. Possibly they have internally reconciled that it is ok for the goal of allowing a couple to start a family - their own family, biologically - that they wouldn't have been able to start otherwise. Perhaps they would also make the same determination - that is, that the destruction is worthwhile, on balance - if it can be proven with our currently limited lines that embryonic stem cell research is the end-all be-all panacea that its supporters make it out to be.)
I'm not on any side of the fence. I'm simply laying out the arguments.
We already had a societal debate on whether it was worthwhile for the purposes of fertility. The answer is apparently, "yes, it is."
We must also have the debate on whether it's okay, on a potentially much larger scale, for medical research. It's not a foregone conclusion, by the way, that embryonic stem cells are necessarily a magical panacea for all disease. The may in fact be very useful. But to paint them as the end-all be-all (not saying you, personally, are doing that) is just as disingenuous as the opposition.
I already said I, personally, support unrestricted human embryonic stem cell research.
I also support fertility clinics.
My positions are perfectly consistent, so don't try to paint me as some kind of fence sitter. What I'm trying to say is that ethical debate is warranted for new uses of human embryos that require their destruction. The fact they're already discarded (i.e., destroyed) for fertility purposes doesn't negate the need for any debate for new uses. Further, as I said, such use may at some point outstrip supply for fertility clinics. Then what do we do?
I'm not saying I have the universal answers to these questions, just that they're there, and shouldn't be ignored. I know what my own personal opinions are, but that's irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is my assertion that debate on this topic is very valid and warranted.
The moral qualms come from the fact that today, they're discarded as a side effect of trying to help couples start a family; to bring a life into the world that will be cared for and nurtured, and to propagate our species.
Once there is a need for a supply of such embryos, the creation and subsequent destruction of said embryos might be encouraged, and may outstrip today's supply. As I said, we could certainly also farm humans for immense scientific benefit and usefulness. But does that mean we should? Should we potentially start a factory for human embryos that will then be destroyed for research? If it's ok to destroy ones that will already be destroyed, why not make more?
See, those are the kind of questions we need to answer and talk about. Not ignore.
I didn't directly acknowledge in this particular post that the restriction on federal funding does indeed effectively restrict research, but yes, I'd agree with that.
But the discrimination between what is and what isn't funded should be based on objective criteria, not on one man's personal religious beliefs.
Every ethical debate will be colored with the body of our experience. Some will be religious, some will be considered by yourself to be "objective", others will come from different philosophies. That's why it's called debate.
That would mean generating the valuable cells without using a human egg, and without creating a human embryo, which some people, including President George W. Bush, find objectionable.
should read:
That would mean generating the valuable cells without using a human egg, and without destroying a human embryo, which some people, including President George W. Bush, find objectionable.
To echo something I said the other day: personally, speaking as someone whose training has been almost exclusively in medical science, I fully support embryonic stem cell research. We have embryos that are and will continue to be destroyed today, that could absolutely be harvested for research. However, to ignore any ethical debate on such issues is just as ignorant as some would paint the opposition. Scientifically, an embryo is, strictly speaking "human life"; so, when and why is it ok to end such life, regardless of the state it may be in? Why should we not examine the important ethical questions? There is absolutely no doubt that significant scientific benefit could come from cloning or farming of humans in more developed forms. So should we push forward with things such as that, full force? Or should we take pause ask important questions that define our very humanity?
Remember - and admittedly, this was due in part to the timing of discoveries, but is true nonetheless - President Bush is the first president to allow federal funding of any kind to human embryonic stem cell research. Further, there were no "bans" on embryonic stem cell research: there was a restriction on federal funding of research that didn't use approved, preexisting lines. Without regard to the purported scientific use{ful,less}ness of the existing lines, the fact remained that funding was indeed provided, human embryonic stem cell research (including the destruction of embryos) was not banned, and a conservative approach was taken. Further, large research entities - such as the state of California and the University of Wisconsin System - have had little difficulty in establishing research centers to skirt federal funding restrictions and still commit federal-scale research funds to embryonic stem cell research.
The ethical considerations are important: should we also clone humans? After all, aren't you "anti-science" if you oppose unrestricted human cloning?
Just because something is nothing more than an amalgam of cells - or a single cell - doesn't mean it doesn't represent, even if only philosophically, human life. Why is it valid in the macro scale, but not micro? Note I'm not saying that even embryonic stem cell research that involves the destruction of embryos - indeed, embryos that would have been discarded anyway - shouldn't be done; I am saying that there should be ethical debate and discussion: as I'm sure many would agree, just because you can do something doesn't necessarily mean you should.
In any event, I applaud researchers for finding a potential method that may allow embryonic stem cells to be used without the associated destruction of human embryos, thereby removing a significant and valid ethical consideration as a barrier to the further exploration and use of these cells as potentially valuable tools.
Note: I didn't vote for Bush, and don't personally support Bush's current human embryonic stem cell policy.
I wasn't implying they had replied yet, and I fully expected to be one of the first posts, since I was preparing my comments as a subscriber. My statement was merely what I believe to be a correct characterization of the issue that applies to *some* people, not any comment on events that had already transpired in this actual article.
Besides, you're making assumptions one way or another about the sort of life this undifferentiated mass of cells, that is what we're talking about, would have lived.
Actually, I'm not even bringing that into it. You can make arguments that fetuses at some legal abortion stages can "live" (with external aid). And if you argue they can't live without external aid, well, neither can an infant or a premature (wanted) birth. So why is a mother who "aborts" her child in a bathroom stall a murderer, while the one who goes to Planned Parenthood exercising only her "right to choose"? The point is that we, as a society, have sanctioned ending a life under some circumstances for the perceived (and perhaps actual) betterment of society. Namely, abortion, and capital punishment (both of which I support, so again, I at least see myself as consistent on this).
As for your digression (cough*TROLL*cough) into stem cell land, there are two distinct issues: research into a life saving technology and invasion of privacy.
You imply embryonic stem cell research is only "research into a life saving technology", and that this genetic testing is only "invasion of privacy".
But therein lies the problem: your positioning of the two somewhat reveals your stance.
But embryonic stem cell research is not only about "research into a life saving technology". In order for the research to be conducted, an embryo must be destroyed - even if the embryo was slated for destruction anyway. We could certainly benefit massively, from a scientific standpoint, from farming more developed humans for research. Does that mean we should do it? When is the cutoff for being able to do it? We need to have a frank discussion about those questions. We need to acknowledge that we're willing to end what is technically "human life" for the greater benefit to be gained by society. I do just that, and thus am in support of full, conventional federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
In the same fashion, abortion is not only about a "woman's choice". There is another quite huge factor there; namely, the life that is ended. The societal benefits of allowing options other than bringing unwanted children into the world outweighs other concerns. We, as a society, sanction it for the greater good. For that reason and others, I also support abortion: but not because it is exclusively a "woman's choice", because that's not the only issue.
And finally, the employer genetic testing is not only about "invasion of privacy". It's also about protecting itself from liability, potentially inappropriate liability, reducing exposure to undesirable financial implications, thus enabling it ostensibly to be stronger overall company, and so on. Do the employer's "rights" there outweigh the invasion of privacy? I don't know, but we should certainly have a discussion about it, don't you think? That's all I'm advocating.
Well, as you have laid it out, if the company had followed all relevant procedures relating to workplace safety, they shouldn't be held accountable for a workers injuries, regardless of testing for genetic predisposition. It pains my lil' leftist hippy heart to say that, but it's true.
Ok, thanks for an honest answer.:-)
As for your digression (cough*TROLL*cough) into stem cell land, there are two distinct issues: research into a life saving technology and invasion of privacy. Just because they happen to both be related to genetics in some vague way doesn't mean they are the same.
That's not exactly the parallel I was drawing. I'm saying both have ethical implications. On one hand, some would choose to ignore the clear ethical implications of destroying what is strictly and technically speaking "human life", no matter how undeveloped, yet find troubling ethical implications with genetic testing. On the other hand, some have no problem at all with Big Brother genetic testing, but see grave ethical problems with research using embryos that will be destroyed anyway.
In other words, the parallel I was drawing dealt with ethical considerations, not genetic/medical science ones.
Both "sides" do it. I like to think of myself as nothing if not consistent: I see ethical problems with both, and that both should foster meaningful ethical debate and consideration, but think that both might be able to be used effectively.
Without someone directly acknowledging that they are one of those people now in response to your query (which no one would do), it's a little difficult to "prove" in the fashion you desire. I find it extremely hard to believe that you're honestly asserting that none of the slashdot commenters advocating "one point of view" are also amongst the persons advocating "another (essentially opposite) point of view". I'm not saying all slashdot commenters are like this, but even you must admit that there are plenty. It's not like only people of one mind comment on one article, and a whole other demographic unearths itself and is commenting on this article. It's the same basic core group of people, of which some of the individuals are the same.
Thanks for a thoughtful reply. I'm actually in strong agreement with what you say. What might be worrisome if it eventually happens that such testing becomes specific, routine, and inexpensive enough to allow insurance companies and/or employers to feel they can reasonably make such exclusions. Even in that case, it still might ultimately be that it's just easiest to manage risk overall.
Who are these "those who would"? I don't recall any information on the number of people who fully support all embryonic stem cell research also being troubled by employers engaging in the practices in this article.
There are plenty of those people here; i.e., people who berate and denigrate any opposition on ethical grounds to embryonic stem cell research, but would likely find major "ethical" problems with employer genetic testing, even with consent.
If you're not one of them, congratulations. You're not a hypocrite.
...a company is not culpable for, say, Carpal Tunnel in a particular worker, because it ultimately is shown to have a genetic component, and the company has already taken reasonable, industry- and regulatory agency-accepted, good-faith steps to mitigate it, but can't be prevented with this type of work in this type of employee (except by taking extreme measures and/or changing the person's job completely)?
That makes a lot of assumptions, but in that event, why would/should the employer be responsible? Should an employee have to pay worker's compensation claims for events that it is not primarily responsible; i.e., events that it has already taken steps to prevent? (Sure, you can argue "Well, Person X wouldn't have gotten Carpal Tunnel at all if they weren't in that job, even if they were genetically predisposed to it", assuming that is established at some point, for the sake of argument. But is the employer always, then, responsible? Under what conditions are they not responsible?)
And further, especially for an at-will employer, why would it not want to avoid workers who won't be able to effectively perform certain tasks, or workers who statistically may become liabilities in the future? What is the source for the reasoning that everyone has a "right" to work, and to work for a particular employer, to those who believe that?
I'm most certainly not saying employers should run secret genetic tests without employee consent. I'm also not making an argument that such testing, even with consent, should necessarily become commonplace. These are larger questions.
And on another note, why is every trend always "troubling", every impact "profound"? I find it amusing that those who would, say, be fully in support of embryonic stem cell research, apparently throwing any ethical concerns to the wind, all of a sudden see "troubling" ethical implications for employers trying to use the same essential tools.
Employers aren't always bad; aren't always in the wrong. You can make assertions that they might gravitate that way, and cite examples, but that doesn't automatically mean all employers' decisions are always wrong and worthy of suspicion, and all employees' decisions and actions are always right and worthy of protection. Note again that I am NOT defending Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway's decision, or anything having to do with this specific case. I'm speaking in generalities here, and am honestly curious as to peoples' thoughts.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're still within the return period on that display (wherever you bought it from, which you hopefully should be if it's only 2 weeks), I'd either:
1.) Get a price adjustment, or
2.) "Return" it, after all it's still within the return period, right? (assuming it is); then, re-buy it
...except that the new iMac, introduced just a week ago, uses ATI Radeon X600 and X600 XT PCI Express graphics.
;-)
They're not all the way out of the door yet.
It's DVI. And yes, you can hook it up to any video card that has DVI.
(The 30-inch requires "dual-link DVI", which some PC video cards also support.)
But the general answer is, yes, you can hook them up to PCs.
I'd however recommend looking at Dell's flat panel displays, which are amazingly priced and also feature DVI, VGA, composite, and S-Video inputs, with some models even having built-in media readers for memory cards (e.g., from digital cameras). Apple's displays only have DVI. But if you're going for the 30", it can't be beat.
You'll probably be able to go Mac once the Intel transition is made, as they'll essentially be high-end conventional PCs, and will (very, very likely) be able to natively boot Windows, or run Windows at full speed in a virtual machine type environment while still booted into OS X.
(On another note, where do you live? Nowhere near any Apple Retail store or any CompUSA?)
As usual, the submission leaves out critical details.
The new Power Mac G5 highlights include dual core G5 processors (IBM PowerPC 970MP), PCI Express, DDR2 RAM, and dual gigabit ethernet on all models:
Single 2.0, single 2.3, or dual 2.5 GHz dual-core IBM PowerPC 970MP (G5) processor
1.0, 1.15, or 1.25 GHz frontside bus per processor
512MB PC2-4200 DDR2 RAM, expandable to 16GB
160GB or 250GB Serial ATA drive
16x dual layer CD-RW/DVD+/-RW SuperDrive
Three open PCI Express expansion slots: two four-lane slots and one eight-lane slot
NVIDIA GeForce 6600, 6600 LE, 7800 GT, or Quadro FX 4500 video
Dual gigabit ethernet
USB 2.0, FireWire 400 (IEEE-1394), FireWire 800 (IEEE-1394b)
AirPort Extreme (802.11g), Bluetooth 2.0+EDR
Analog and optical digital audio in and out
Mighty Mouse (Two button scroll mouse)
The new PowerBook highlights include higher resolution screens, longer battery life, and standard SuperDrives:
1.67 GHz Freescale PowerPC 7458[1] (G4) processor, 512MB PC2700 DDR RAM, expandable to 2GB, 80GB or 120GB Ultra ATA/100 drive
8x dual layer CD-RW/DVD+/-RW SuperDrive
1440x960 (15") or 1680x1050 (17") resolution screen
ATI Mobility Radeon 9700 with 128MB DDR SDRAM and dual-link DVI (supports 30" display)
Gigabit ethernet, 56K V.92 modem, PC Card slot
USB 2.0, FireWire 400 (IEEE-1394), FireWire 800 (IEEE-1394b)
AirPort Extreme (802.11g), Bluetooth 2.0+EDR
Illuminated keyboard
Analog and optical digital audio in and out
DVI/VGA/composite/S-Video out
Also new is the amazing pro photography software Aperture, as well as new lower pricing on Apple Displays.
I might as well send my writeup on last week's announcements as well, since the submission (and discussion) there were really light on info too...
---
iMac G5
A new, even thinner, iMac G5 with an integrated 640x480 iSight camera and integrated media center software called Front Row.
1.9 or 2.1 GHz IBM PowerPC 970fx (G5) processor
512MB PC2-4200 RAM, expandable to 2.5GB
160GB or 250GB Serial ATA drive
8x dual layer CD-RW/DVD+/-RW SuperDrive
ATI Radeon X600 Pro or XT PCI-Express video
Gigabit ethernet, USB 2.0, FireWire 400 (IEEE-1394)
AirPort Extreme (802.11g), Bluetooth 2.0+EDR
1/8" stereo audio or optical out, 1/8" line in
VGA/composite/S-Video out
Mighty Mouse (Two button scroll mouse)
The inclusion of PCI-Express and PC2-4200 RAM in the new iMac bodes well for the upcoming updates to the Power Macs and PowerBooks.
---
Front Row
Media center software currently only included with the iMac G5. Allows for seamless interface with music, movies, movie trailers, pictures, TV shows, and so on via either the iMac's screen or an external screen such as a projector or TV. Includes an infrared remote control. A demonstration of Front Row is available here.
It is likely that Front Row will make its way to other products in the near future, such as the Mac mini. It is only available for the iMac G5 "at this time", according to Apple.
The one feature of typical media centers that Front Row does not support is TV recording. But Apple seems to have a different idea for TV shows, as will be seen below. (However, TV recording can be accomplished with a wide variety of third party tuners.)
---
iPod (iPod video)
Apple introduced two new iPods to completely replace the existing "larger" iPods. The same height and width as the older i
How many of these vulnerabilities were discovered or aided because of the very fact that the Mozilla family of products are open source, open to the intense peer scrutiny of the community, one of the core, fundamental facets of the Mozilla products, and open source projects in general, that will help quickly make them more secure? Do they even grasp this concept?
How quickly and effectively were the Mozilla/Firefox vulnerabilities patched in comparison to IE?
Is there any consideration given to the fact that Internet Explorer is a decade old and integral to the OS, and STILL routinely has extremely critical vulnerabilities, and may have an untold number of yet-to-be-discovered critical vulnerabilities?
Assuming customer choice is important, a customer can elect to not use Firefox and remove it from their system. Can the customer remove IE? Can the customer even elect to not use IE, or does the OS still force them to use IE for some tasks?
I could go on, but I think it goes without saying that at best this "report" uses extremely flawed logic to draw its conclusions, and at worst, Symantec is shilling for Microsoft.
Or both.
Um, come on, guys.
You want a radio station catering to the evacuees run by people who literally believe things like the Bush administration is not only responsible for the poor response[1], but is actually responsible for the hurricane itself? Or who would invite those who believe the levees were blown up by the government as a plot to remove all of the black people from New Orleans so the rich whites could take it over? (After all, they needed more room!)
Yeah, that'll really help the situation!
Bullshit. In an emergency housing situation, the infrastructure at the facility, the facility-wide loudspeaker system, and newsletters/handouts/flyers are *more* than enough to disseminate information. We don't need a bunch of self-righteous radicals inciting people who already believe the government wanted to kill them.
In an alternate reality where this station was allowed, run with the agenda that Houston IndyMedia and Village Voice certainly has, many evacuees would no doubt be incited, and the authorities would *still* be blamed for "not getting them out of temporary housing fast enough" or "not responding to their needs fast enough", even though Texas and Houston have gone completely out of their way to assist in any way possible.
I guess a lot of people can and do look a gift horse in the mouth.
[1] As an aside, someone said in other post "look at the difference between 9/11 and NOLA...rich white financial district, and help was there within 5 minutes", etc. Um, hello? Who responded to 9/11 in NYC itself? Local authorities. Who *didn't* respond in a satisfactory fashion in NOLA? The same. Oh, wait, let me guess: it's not a state and local municipal responsibility, it was somehow magically a federal one? Just sent thousands of people to a fucking convention center and football stadium with NO PLAN whatever, save "waiting for the feds"? Yeah, real smart, folks.
What you say is correct, but you've missed the point:
Yes, Mac users will click something just as readily that can toast their computer as a Windows user would.
But that's not the point.
How does that spread? How does that spread to other Mac users? If it's not automated, it doesn't make a lick of difference if a few dozen or a few hundred people get nailed. In order to have any real impact, it will need to affect tens or hundreds of thousands, or millions, of machines. And that doesn't happen via manual means: it happens when a piece of malware can spread itself to other vulnerable machines (in this case, Macs) in an automated fashion. Well, there's no open ports on essentially all Mac OS X desktop systems (save for ones that have services like ssh or apache explicitly enabled), so a remote exploit is out. So how would it spread? Web? Email? What ensures its continued spread?
THAT is why there will never be a catastrophic Mac virus or worm: there is no way for it to spread en masse, which has been an absolute hallmark of the heavily publicized windows worms. Will there be a lot of interesting trojans and other standalone malware for Mac OS X? Sure! Will Mac users be just as dumb and click attachments, etc.? Absolutely! But that's not the point: the penetration of such attacks is negligible without a way to mass-spread in an automated fashion.
But this doesn't mean that Mac users shouldn't have current AV/malware protection and use standard computer security best practices.
What follows below is an answer to a query raised during a Chronicle of Higher Education colloquy. Yes, I have posted this to slashdot before, but it is still very much relevant, and I believe it touches on the major issues here.
Question from Lisa L. Spangenberg, UCLA:
Given that there are no viruses or Trojan horses for the current Macintosh system, OS X 10.3, and given that it is essentially UNIX, and given that the most common applications (Microsoft Office Suite, Adobe applications) work very well on OS X, why don't more institutions adopt Macs and encourage faculty to use them?
Gregory A. Jackson:
Well, first of all, there are viruses and Trojans that afflict MacOS, witness Apple's periodic release of security fixes to counteract them.
First, that isn't true, regarding viruses. To date, there are no known viruses that specifically target Mac OS X. Last week's "trojan" was nothing more than an application with a different icon and misleading name that displayed a dialog box (which was an example posted to a USENET Mac programming group to illustrate this fact that has been known and possible on Mac OS for over twenty years; an antivirus vendor apparently thought this an appropriate time to dress it up, incorrectly, as some new, terrible exploit easily adapted for malicious means, when in reality it's nothing more than an application).
If you're referring more broadly to security issues in general, almost all of the security and security-related updates for Mac OS X to date have been updates for primarily server-type services that ship with the OS, all of which are disabled by default, and the lion's share of which are never even enabled, much less touched, on the vast majority of systems. I'm not saying that they should be ignored, but Apple's comprehensive and swift response to the most minor security issues does not rise to the level of the staggeringly numerous, sometimes completely automated, remote exploits, worms, and so on for Windows. It is no longer possible to even get through a full installation Windows XP on a machine connected to a public network without it being exploited before you even have a chance to patch it.
It's definitely possible for Mac OS X to have viruses, worms, trojans, and other malware - Mac OS X is not invulnerable, and no sensible person would claim it to be. But the underlying philosophical design principles are fundamentally more secure than Windows, period. Since the major ingredient for the success of a worm or virus is some ability to spread, witness the fact that there is no way with anything built into Mac OS X to perform automated propagation of a virus, and no current known ways to exploit a machine remotely, not to mention that potentially exploitable network services are disabled to begin with anyway (and remain that way unless explicitly enabled), a stark contrast to Windows. Any hope for automatic propagation would require a comparatively high level of sophistication, and perhaps even its own mail server - not to mention some intrinsic vulnerability to exploit. On the other hand, there are still, to this moment [at the time of this writing], unfixed vulnerabilities in certain versions of Outlook that will spread certain virus variants simply by previewing a message, and nothing more. There is simply no equivalent to this on any other platform. Microsoft's track record and attitude
No, you're actually wrong.
We're not talking about individual words here, for one, we're talking about phrases.
"Death toll" is the total number of people who die as a result of a disaster or other adverse event.
"Death knell" is a bell rung to announce death, or an omen of death or destruction.
So to say "death toll" in this context is completely and utterly wrong, and the fact that "toll", on its own, also can mean to ring a bell is actually completely unrelated and incidental.
But even if we do, for a moment, accept your assertion that "death toll" is an acceptable use here, the use of "signals" in conjunction with it as also meaningless.
Let's face it: the author meant to say "sounds the death knell" or "rings the death knell" or something to that effect, and just got it horribly, horribly wrong in his mind, likely using the same logic you did ("Hmm, I've heard about a bell tolling before, so "death toll" must be what I'm looking for.").
Wow, how many people did Atom kill? I always liked RSS better anyway. Now that I know not only that RSS isn't a killer, but has also been monitoring Atom's killing, and indeed even signaling its death toll to the authorities, I'm even more in support of it.
Now if only RSS could sound Atom's death knell...
(In case the editors have seen fit to correct it, the original title was "Developers: RSS' Win, Signals Atom's Death Toll".)
None of us want to see humans being bred just to be killed.
Indeed.
To some, destroying a human embryo is the logical equivalent.
(Further notes: yes, "they" have accepted that the destruction of embryos is acceptable for purposes of fertility clinics. Possibly they have internally reconciled that it is ok for the goal of allowing a couple to start a family - their own family, biologically - that they wouldn't have been able to start otherwise. Perhaps they would also make the same determination - that is, that the destruction is worthwhile, on balance - if it can be proven with our currently limited lines that embryonic stem cell research is the end-all be-all panacea that its supporters make it out to be.)
I'm not on any side of the fence. I'm simply laying out the arguments.
We already had a societal debate on whether it was worthwhile for the purposes of fertility. The answer is apparently, "yes, it is."
We must also have the debate on whether it's okay, on a potentially much larger scale, for medical research. It's not a foregone conclusion, by the way, that embryonic stem cells are necessarily a magical panacea for all disease. The may in fact be very useful. But to paint them as the end-all be-all (not saying you, personally, are doing that) is just as disingenuous as the opposition.
I already said I, personally, support unrestricted human embryonic stem cell research.
I also support fertility clinics.
My positions are perfectly consistent, so don't try to paint me as some kind of fence sitter. What I'm trying to say is that ethical debate is warranted for new uses of human embryos that require their destruction. The fact they're already discarded (i.e., destroyed) for fertility purposes doesn't negate the need for any debate for new uses. Further, as I said, such use may at some point outstrip supply for fertility clinics. Then what do we do?
I'm not saying I have the universal answers to these questions, just that they're there, and shouldn't be ignored. I know what my own personal opinions are, but that's irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is my assertion that debate on this topic is very valid and warranted.
No, it's not correct; up until this new possible method, the only way to obtain human embryonic stem cells was to destroy the embryo.
You can indeed get many kinds of stem cells (not embryonic stem cells) from various sources, including cord blood, without destroying the embryo.
It's not that simple.
The moral qualms come from the fact that today, they're discarded as a side effect of trying to help couples start a family; to bring a life into the world that will be cared for and nurtured, and to propagate our species.
Once there is a need for a supply of such embryos, the creation and subsequent destruction of said embryos might be encouraged, and may outstrip today's supply. As I said, we could certainly also farm humans for immense scientific benefit and usefulness. But does that mean we should? Should we potentially start a factory for human embryos that will then be destroyed for research? If it's ok to destroy ones that will already be destroyed, why not make more?
See, those are the kind of questions we need to answer and talk about. Not ignore.
I didn't directly acknowledge in this particular post that the restriction on federal funding does indeed effectively restrict research, but yes, I'd agree with that.
But the discrimination between what is and what isn't funded should be based on objective criteria, not on one man's personal religious beliefs.
Every ethical debate will be colored with the body of our experience. Some will be religious, some will be considered by yourself to be "objective", others will come from different philosophies. That's why it's called debate.
That would mean generating the valuable cells without using a human egg, and without creating a human embryo, which some people, including President George W. Bush, find objectionable.
should read:
That would mean generating the valuable cells without using a human egg, and without destroying a human embryo, which some people, including President George W. Bush, find objectionable.
To echo something I said the other day: personally, speaking as someone whose training has been almost exclusively in medical science, I fully support embryonic stem cell research. We have embryos that are and will continue to be destroyed today, that could absolutely be harvested for research. However, to ignore any ethical debate on such issues is just as ignorant as some would paint the opposition. Scientifically, an embryo is, strictly speaking "human life"; so, when and why is it ok to end such life, regardless of the state it may be in? Why should we not examine the important ethical questions? There is absolutely no doubt that significant scientific benefit could come from cloning or farming of humans in more developed forms. So should we push forward with things such as that, full force? Or should we take pause ask important questions that define our very humanity?
Remember - and admittedly, this was due in part to the timing of discoveries, but is true nonetheless - President Bush is the first president to allow federal funding of any kind to human embryonic stem cell research. Further, there were no "bans" on embryonic stem cell research: there was a restriction on federal funding of research that didn't use approved, preexisting lines. Without regard to the purported scientific use{ful,less}ness of the existing lines, the fact remained that funding was indeed provided, human embryonic stem cell research (including the destruction of embryos) was not banned, and a conservative approach was taken. Further, large research entities - such as the state of California and the University of Wisconsin System - have had little difficulty in establishing research centers to skirt federal funding restrictions and still commit federal-scale research funds to embryonic stem cell research.
The ethical considerations are important: should we also clone humans? After all, aren't you "anti-science" if you oppose unrestricted human cloning?
Just because something is nothing more than an amalgam of cells - or a single cell - doesn't mean it doesn't represent, even if only philosophically, human life. Why is it valid in the macro scale, but not micro? Note I'm not saying that even embryonic stem cell research that involves the destruction of embryos - indeed, embryos that would have been discarded anyway - shouldn't be done; I am saying that there should be ethical debate and discussion: as I'm sure many would agree, just because you can do something doesn't necessarily mean you should.
In any event, I applaud researchers for finding a potential method that may allow embryonic stem cells to be used without the associated destruction of human embryos, thereby removing a significant and valid ethical consideration as a barrier to the further exploration and use of these cells as potentially valuable tools.
Note: I didn't vote for Bush, and don't personally support Bush's current human embryonic stem cell policy.
Actually, the conservatives would give it a private retirement account. :-P
I wasn't implying they had replied yet, and I fully expected to be one of the first posts, since I was preparing my comments as a subscriber. My statement was merely what I believe to be a correct characterization of the issue that applies to *some* people, not any comment on events that had already transpired in this actual article.
Besides, you're making assumptions one way or another about the sort of life this undifferentiated mass of cells, that is what we're talking about, would have lived.
Actually, I'm not even bringing that into it. You can make arguments that fetuses at some legal abortion stages can "live" (with external aid). And if you argue they can't live without external aid, well, neither can an infant or a premature (wanted) birth. So why is a mother who "aborts" her child in a bathroom stall a murderer, while the one who goes to Planned Parenthood exercising only her "right to choose"? The point is that we, as a society, have sanctioned ending a life under some circumstances for the perceived (and perhaps actual) betterment of society. Namely, abortion, and capital punishment (both of which I support, so again, I at least see myself as consistent on this).
I forgot to mention one critical thing, here:
As for your digression (cough*TROLL*cough) into stem cell land, there are two distinct issues: research into a life saving technology and invasion of privacy.
You imply embryonic stem cell research is only "research into a life saving technology", and that this genetic testing is only "invasion of privacy".
But therein lies the problem: your positioning of the two somewhat reveals your stance.
But embryonic stem cell research is not only about "research into a life saving technology". In order for the research to be conducted, an embryo must be destroyed - even if the embryo was slated for destruction anyway. We could certainly benefit massively, from a scientific standpoint, from farming more developed humans for research. Does that mean we should do it? When is the cutoff for being able to do it? We need to have a frank discussion about those questions. We need to acknowledge that we're willing to end what is technically "human life" for the greater benefit to be gained by society. I do just that, and thus am in support of full, conventional federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
In the same fashion, abortion is not only about a "woman's choice". There is another quite huge factor there; namely, the life that is ended. The societal benefits of allowing options other than bringing unwanted children into the world outweighs other concerns. We, as a society, sanction it for the greater good. For that reason and others, I also support abortion: but not because it is exclusively a "woman's choice", because that's not the only issue.
And finally, the employer genetic testing is not only about "invasion of privacy". It's also about protecting itself from liability, potentially inappropriate liability, reducing exposure to undesirable financial implications, thus enabling it ostensibly to be stronger overall company, and so on. Do the employer's "rights" there outweigh the invasion of privacy? I don't know, but we should certainly have a discussion about it, don't you think? That's all I'm advocating.
Hi spun,
:-)
Well, as you have laid it out, if the company had followed all relevant procedures relating to workplace safety, they shouldn't be held accountable for a workers injuries, regardless of testing for genetic predisposition. It pains my lil' leftist hippy heart to say that, but it's true.
Ok, thanks for an honest answer.
As for your digression (cough*TROLL*cough) into stem cell land, there are two distinct issues: research into a life saving technology and invasion of privacy. Just because they happen to both be related to genetics in some vague way doesn't mean they are the same.
That's not exactly the parallel I was drawing. I'm saying both have ethical implications. On one hand, some would choose to ignore the clear ethical implications of destroying what is strictly and technically speaking "human life", no matter how undeveloped, yet find troubling ethical implications with genetic testing. On the other hand, some have no problem at all with Big Brother genetic testing, but see grave ethical problems with research using embryos that will be destroyed anyway.
In other words, the parallel I was drawing dealt with ethical considerations, not genetic/medical science ones.
Both "sides" do it. I like to think of myself as nothing if not consistent: I see ethical problems with both, and that both should foster meaningful ethical debate and consideration, but think that both might be able to be used effectively.
Without someone directly acknowledging that they are one of those people now in response to your query (which no one would do), it's a little difficult to "prove" in the fashion you desire. I find it extremely hard to believe that you're honestly asserting that none of the slashdot commenters advocating "one point of view" are also amongst the persons advocating "another (essentially opposite) point of view". I'm not saying all slashdot commenters are like this, but even you must admit that there are plenty. It's not like only people of one mind comment on one article, and a whole other demographic unearths itself and is commenting on this article. It's the same basic core group of people, of which some of the individuals are the same.
Hello,
Thanks for a thoughtful reply. I'm actually in strong agreement with what you say. What might be worrisome if it eventually happens that such testing becomes specific, routine, and inexpensive enough to allow insurance companies and/or employers to feel they can reasonably make such exclusions. Even in that case, it still might ultimately be that it's just easiest to manage risk overall.
Who are these "those who would"? I don't recall any information on the number of people who fully support all embryonic stem cell research also being troubled by employers engaging in the practices in this article.
There are plenty of those people here; i.e., people who berate and denigrate any opposition on ethical grounds to embryonic stem cell research, but would likely find major "ethical" problems with employer genetic testing, even with consent.
If you're not one of them, congratulations. You're not a hypocrite.
...a company is not culpable for, say, Carpal Tunnel in a particular worker, because it ultimately is shown to have a genetic component, and the company has already taken reasonable, industry- and regulatory agency-accepted, good-faith steps to mitigate it, but can't be prevented with this type of work in this type of employee (except by taking extreme measures and/or changing the person's job completely)?
That makes a lot of assumptions, but in that event, why would/should the employer be responsible? Should an employee have to pay worker's compensation claims for events that it is not primarily responsible; i.e., events that it has already taken steps to prevent? (Sure, you can argue "Well, Person X wouldn't have gotten Carpal Tunnel at all if they weren't in that job, even if they were genetically predisposed to it", assuming that is established at some point, for the sake of argument. But is the employer always, then, responsible? Under what conditions are they not responsible?)
And further, especially for an at-will employer, why would it not want to avoid workers who won't be able to effectively perform certain tasks, or workers who statistically may become liabilities in the future? What is the source for the reasoning that everyone has a "right" to work, and to work for a particular employer, to those who believe that?
I'm most certainly not saying employers should run secret genetic tests without employee consent. I'm also not making an argument that such testing, even with consent, should necessarily become commonplace. These are larger questions.
And on another note, why is every trend always "troubling", every impact "profound"? I find it amusing that those who would, say, be fully in support of embryonic stem cell research, apparently throwing any ethical concerns to the wind, all of a sudden see "troubling" ethical implications for employers trying to use the same essential tools.
Employers aren't always bad; aren't always in the wrong. You can make assertions that they might gravitate that way, and cite examples, but that doesn't automatically mean all employers' decisions are always wrong and worthy of suspicion, and all employees' decisions and actions are always right and worthy of protection. Note again that I am NOT defending Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway's decision, or anything having to do with this specific case. I'm speaking in generalities here, and am honestly curious as to peoples' thoughts.