I wonder if there are ways around that, like if you download the sdk and write an app, and then someone else submits it to the store? I wonder if the sdk agreement is worded to transfer like that?
Also I wonder if Apple would be foolish enough to consider actually taking action, surely that would initiate the Streisand Effect?
I've had good luck with sandisk, but the lexar firefly has a few unique features that I'm shocked no one else is trying.
Both are related to the cap, surprisingly. The lanyard attaches not to the flash drive, but to its cap. And the cap isn't the type that can be removed from the drive with a stiff breeze. It LOCKS onto the drive. (on either end) This is of course a requirement if the lanyard attaches to the cap.
But this allows you to actually attach the lanyard down, either around your wrist, neck, or as I do, on my camera/ipod pouch on my belt. I then tuck the drive into the pouch when not in use. You could tie it to a belt loop and drop it into your pocket too.
This creates several advantages. First, you don't have to untangle yourself from the flash drive to plug it in or step back from the computer. Second you don't lose the cap around day 2. Third, and most important for me, is how LOUD the cap is if left to flail around off my camera pouch when I am using the drive. It's made of a hard acrylic plastic, and I can't walk more than about 30 feet away from the computer I plugged the drive into without hearing the cap flapping around. This has saved me from forgetting my flash drive countless times. This single feature alone makes it my drive of choice. Before, my 4gb sandisk cruzer mini had been temporarily lost at least a dozen times, sometimes for days at a time, before I found the computer it was left in. (working at a school)
It's also one of the highest capacity drives available, and is one of the physically smallest. The only thing it leaves me wanting for is a write protect switch.
FWIW it was a newly released 16gb ADATA. At the time the only place they were available was on ebay, being sold by numerous vendors at about the same price. I intended on making a bootable flash drive. At the time their only competition was 40%-300% more expensive, and always physically larger.
This was actually a replacement. My first 16 my cat decided to hide for me. (have yet to find it) Now I'm using a 8gb lexar firefly, love it. Lexar JUST released a 16 firefly, that's on my birthday list. (been waiting 1/2 yr for it!) Not from ebay either. I suspect the reason the myflash were not available in the "usual places" from the start was due to the high failure/doa rate.
From what I've read, the early ADATA "myflash 16" were a crapshoot... either they work great or don't. My first one was fine. Second one would only successfully write to the first 8gb. (and it WAS a 16, just defective)
ADATA had a warranty on it, but I was suckered into mailing it back to the ebay vendor (flashman852), and so I didn't even have that to try to return to the manufacturer. Owell, live and learn. Didn't sting TOO bad.
flashman's feedback is now at over 330,000 so when you get to that point feedback doesn't really matter anymore. Giving someone like that a (-) is like throwing a pebble at a mountain. But when your own feedback is under 100, he can hit you with a pretty pointy stick.
All in hope that the buyer isn't going to rip you off by reversing the charges after pretending they never got the item and you can't leave them negative feedback anymore.
the problem was it was working the other way.
My ONE and only negative as a buyer was when I bought a flash drive, which was defective on arrival, returned it to seller. (hong kong postage) and waited as I was stalled repeatedly by the seller, waiting for manufacturer to receive it, waiting for reply, etc. Until I realized I'd exhausted my ebay appeals time and was almost out of time to leave feedback. The DAY my ebay appeal time ran out he stopped replying to my emails.
So, out the flash drive (now I can't even send it back since I don't have it anymore) and out the $150 for the drive plus postage again to HK, I left him (-). Immediately he retaliated by leaving me (-). So Not only was I out the auction price, I was out additional shipping, AND got a negative on my record.
After this I read through his feedback, and percentage-wise it was very good, 98-99%. But he had so many auctions every week, he was getting 1-2 negatives a week. Every one of them was the same story as me... buyer leaves (-) for defective product no resolution, every time he would retaliate by leaving (-) to the buyer with the same "please contact me for resolution, unfair to leave negative feedback" as though the buyer was being unreasonable. Clearly this was how that seller handled defective product, and was sending a warning to buyers, "leave me a negative and you WILL get a negative for it".
Behavior like this discourages the buyer from leaving a negative against the seller, and does nothing to encourage sellers to work hard for their reputation.
I'm thankful for the policy change personally. I don't have to worry about getting that badly scammed again. A lot of that was my fault for expecting someone with 10k of (+) feedback to be honorable, but the final slap was definitely the mar on my record.
And I'm saying this as a buyer AND a seller on ebay. I just sold a laptop on ebay.
I was thinking Streisand Effect too. Their attempt to get it removed caused it to become legitimately noteworthy. Warrants a "haha" tag here too I think.
I also find it interesting that it's been settled (for now) with a "no consensus" ruling. I wonder if that means "we didn't come to a 100% agreement"? I realize it's not "majority rule" on these things, but there sure are a lot more keepers than deleters, especially once you get past the top 1/4 of the discussion. Actually there are almost no deleters after the halfway point.
over the prospect of all DVRs and DVD players having an internet connection. How long before your DVD player has to phone home to see if you're allowed to watch that DVD?
I don't think you can use mode 2 since bit 1 appears to be an added option to bit 0's behavior. Mode 1 is the one that looks a bit strange. (immediate hibernation on sleep?) I've seen mac pros hibernate which I was not expecting... must have manually set mode 3 on them.
So you're saying that a Mac can resume from a suspend-to-RAM faster than other operating systems can boot?
absolutely! There are very few systems that boot faster than most any OS's reanimation time. I don't believe the OP was considering hibernation as a way to speed boot time because of the possibility of losing ram from an interrupted sleep.
Did you know that other popular operating systems, such as Windows and Linux, can also suspend to RAM?
Sure did. Though since I'm not an expert on all of them I'm only sharing what I know best about.
And will therefore start up at probably about the same speed as a Mac? Or are Macs somehow soooooo much better than other computers?
Y'know, there are very few things more annoying than an Apple-Fanboi, and one of them is an Anti-Apple-Fanboi. Instead of being one, contribute something constructive - why don't you tell us about some alternative OSs and their reanimation times and behaviors that you have experience with, which helps this person.
If the initial odds are estimated at 1 in 100, and there is a failure, the appearance of the failure does not affect the odds of another one just like it failing. It's still a 1 in 100 event.
You may find it necessary to re-evaluate the odds if experience is proving to be grossly different than predicted odds, but experiencing a single expression of an uncommon event should not immediately draw into question the odds of the next occurrence.
If I'm shooting craps, and I know my odds of getting a seven is say, 1 in 4, and I shoot a seven, and then another, and then a third one, what are my odds of getting another seven on my fourth roll? Better than 1 in 4 now would you say? no. Still in 1 in 4 same as it always was. Changing the dice won't make any difference either.
nano replaced pico in OS X somewhat recently. If you try to pico, you get nano. I prefer that above vi.
Tho I suppose if you have your computer simply sleeping or hibernating, that could load fast too. Mac laptops can hibernate (apple calls it "safe sleep") free of battery power by paging memory entirely to HD. They do this anytime they sleep, which is why mac laptops can take up to 20 seconds to spin down the HD when sleeping.
When battery or line power is restored and you press the power button, instead of booting, it takes only a few seconds to reanimate. Wake time varies depending on how much memory you have in the machine. If you only have 512, it wakes REALLY fast. (under 5 seconds?) Once it's completed this process, it is 100% fully awake and ready to rock, with whatever word processor you had launched ready to go. And not running like a drunkard when most OS's are just getting to their desktop and "appear" ready but are really still booting.
If the odds of a specific problem with a shuttle occurring are 1 in 100, the odds of it the same problem occurring on TWO shuttles at the same time is 1 in 10,000, not 1 in 100.
You're taking for granted that once a problem occurs, the odds that "it could occur" are no longer 1 in 100, they are 1:1 because it HAS occurred. In other words, the odds of a double failure pre-launch is 1:10,000. The odds of a double failure, once you HAVE a single failure, is 1:100. Until the single failure occurs, the odds remain at 1:10,000.
Direct plagiarism isn't necessary or even a good idea. By looking at plans or seeing insider documentation they could get all sorts of use without leaving any easily traceable path. Might look at the schematics and say oh.. I wonder why they're doing that, we wouldn't have noticed this even if we'd have taken it apart, they're going to great lengths to make sure xxx happens. Oh wait, I wonder that solves this lingering problem we've had for years, that they've never had a problem with. Call up R&D I have an idea for a new approach to deal with a nagging issue...
Re:I don't know if I fully agree with that
on
Fire Your IT Boss
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
While it's certainly helpful to have the management know how things down below work, as the organization or project grows larger this becomes less and less practical, down to downright impossible. The CEO of Ford knows what a carburetor is, but certainly can't identify the parts of one taken apart in front of him. That doesn't make him a bad CEO.
Each step you take up the management ladder, you lose skills and you gain skills. Every very rare now and then you will run across someone that started at the bottom and is now VP or something, and has a very detailed knowledge of how things worked way down at the bottom, ten years ago. Only does him a marginal bit of good now. More often the knowledge they value is of how the people interact and who is responsible for what. This is what makes a good manager - not knowing how you do your job, but knowing how you are important to the company, where you fit in, etc.
I repair computers. My manager tries to repair computers, but isn't very good at it, and I don't expect him to be. That's not his job, and I can't do his job any better than he can do mine. HIS manager knows how to USE a computer, but certainly not how to work on one. This is how it works.
For that matter, why should other people's Windows drivers be allowed to BSD the machine?
No matter how far you kick the ball around, ultimately Windows is responsible for its own stability.
When you have APIs that have notes in them like "be sure to supply a value from 1-5 here (because if you give us a 0 we will crash in flames)" is NOT the driver's fault when it passes Windows a 0 or -58236.75 and it takes a dump.
Full Disclosure: I'm a programmer, and I pride myself in writing user-tolerant code. I've always believed that nothing a user does should be able to crash my code. It may not behave correctly, or may not produce the desired output, garbage in garbage out is acceptable. But it should not crash. If there's something they CAN do to crash my code, I consider it my problem, and I fix it. If you read the documentation on for example, OS X or Linux, the only real excuse a machine has for panicing is a hardware failure. Any example of software being able to incite a panic is considered a bug in the OS, and gets fixed in the OS.
In the bigger scope of things, programs are allowed to crash. OS are NOT. Program bugs that lead to OS crash are not confined to being a program bug, they are a program bug that triggers an OS bug, and BOTH should be fixed.
FYI you may want to look at xmeeting type things. xmeeting is for windows and os x, but it's h.323, and is compatible with other h.323 video systems. It works great with polycoms for example. (ichat I hear is also h.323 but isn't cross-compatible for god-knows-what-reason) There's gotta be an h.323 compatible something for linux.
Note that you will lose some of the frills like buddy lists, text chat, etc, but you do sometimes get new toys... with xmeeting for example, you can aim/zoom the remote polycom. I don't know of any other video chat cross platform anything that lets you do that sort of thing.
Still don't understand why you're writing off skype though. Works spectacularly well on windows and mac, and I thought there was skype for linux also?
It's been my experience that ichat is more reliable and smoother / better quality for video chats, whereas skype does voice much better. Both seem pretty good at automatically working through NAT on both ends, which I'm sure if I saw all the shenanigans they had to do to pull that off, I'd pass out.
if you ignore the obvious insufficient testing, NO app like that should be able to totally tank the OS. The OS shouldn't allow it.
Still on the front page:
The Microsoft source blamed bad drivers from GPU companies and printer companies for the majority of Vista's early stability problems and described User Account Control as poorly implemented but defended it as necessary for the continued health of the Windows platform. He assailed OEM system builders for including bad, buggy, or just plain useless apps on their machines in exchange for a few bucks on the back end. Finally he conceded that Apple appeals to more and more consumers because the hardware is slick, the price is OK, and Apple doesn't annoy its customers (or allow third parties to).
I'd call a BSD pretty annoying, wouldn't you? 3rd parties (Apple or otherwise) shouldn't be capable of bringing a solid system to its knees. Trying to get the 3rd parties to behave is a waste of time and is trying to redirect the blame.
Considering that, the most likely scenario is for the thief to steal the car, drive it to a "chop shop" that already specializes in rapid disassembly and dissemination of auto parts, pull out the batteries and anything else handy they can get their hands on like the cat, and then dump it somewhere.
So you find your shiny new hybrid a few days later abandoned on a sidestreet in the bad end of town, light four tires, a cat, stereo, AND a battery pack.
The battery pack in that case would fetch more than the entire rest of the loot, making a hybrid a MUCH juicier target for such thiefs. 110% effort for 240% the reward. Thieves are stupid, but that math they understand.
Really can they do that? Code Red (admittedly a worm not a virus) took what, 8 minutes, to do most of its propagation. I don't think they can do anything useful in terms of speedy. Getting out the defs a few days faster protects me from 20% more viruses. That's about meaningless. Unless you're going to knock it down a few orders, you're not helping the situation very much.
Sounds like something whose response may change over time. Won't that be fun if the tags start drifting sufficiently over a few years to start becoming unusable.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if there are ways around that, like if you download the sdk and write an app, and then someone else submits it to the store? I wonder if the sdk agreement is worded to transfer like that?
Also I wonder if Apple would be foolish enough to consider actually taking action, surely that would initiate the Streisand Effect?
I've had good luck with sandisk, but the lexar firefly has a few unique features that I'm shocked no one else is trying.
Both are related to the cap, surprisingly. The lanyard attaches not to the flash drive, but to its cap. And the cap isn't the type that can be removed from the drive with a stiff breeze. It LOCKS onto the drive. (on either end) This is of course a requirement if the lanyard attaches to the cap.
But this allows you to actually attach the lanyard down, either around your wrist, neck, or as I do, on my camera/ipod pouch on my belt. I then tuck the drive into the pouch when not in use. You could tie it to a belt loop and drop it into your pocket too.
This creates several advantages. First, you don't have to untangle yourself from the flash drive to plug it in or step back from the computer. Second you don't lose the cap around day 2. Third, and most important for me, is how LOUD the cap is if left to flail around off my camera pouch when I am using the drive. It's made of a hard acrylic plastic, and I can't walk more than about 30 feet away from the computer I plugged the drive into without hearing the cap flapping around. This has saved me from forgetting my flash drive countless times. This single feature alone makes it my drive of choice. Before, my 4gb sandisk cruzer mini had been temporarily lost at least a dozen times, sometimes for days at a time, before I found the computer it was left in. (working at a school)
It's also one of the highest capacity drives available, and is one of the physically smallest. The only thing it leaves me wanting for is a write protect switch.
FWIW it was a newly released 16gb ADATA. At the time the only place they were available was on ebay, being sold by numerous vendors at about the same price. I intended on making a bootable flash drive. At the time their only competition was 40%-300% more expensive, and always physically larger.
This was actually a replacement. My first 16 my cat decided to hide for me. (have yet to find it) Now I'm using a 8gb lexar firefly, love it. Lexar JUST released a 16 firefly, that's on my birthday list. (been waiting 1/2 yr for it!) Not from ebay either. I suspect the reason the myflash were not available in the "usual places" from the start was due to the high failure/doa rate.
From what I've read, the early ADATA "myflash 16" were a crapshoot... either they work great or don't. My first one was fine. Second one would only successfully write to the first 8gb. (and it WAS a 16, just defective)
ADATA had a warranty on it, but I was suckered into mailing it back to the ebay vendor (flashman852), and so I didn't even have that to try to return to the manufacturer. Owell, live and learn. Didn't sting TOO bad.
flashman's feedback is now at over 330,000 so when you get to that point feedback doesn't really matter anymore. Giving someone like that a (-) is like throwing a pebble at a mountain. But when your own feedback is under 100, he can hit you with a pretty pointy stick.
there are other places to buy and sell online. ebay isn't the only one. Several other alternatives are mentioned in this thread.
just what I was thinking... if they're going to do that then they should waive the paypal fee on payments for ebay items.
Don't want the paypal fee? oh then just, oh wait that's right, you CAN'T do that now can you? Tough luck there bud. Pay up.
All in hope that the buyer isn't going to rip you off by reversing the charges after pretending they never got the item and you can't leave them negative feedback anymore.
the problem was it was working the other way.
My ONE and only negative as a buyer was when I bought a flash drive, which was defective on arrival, returned it to seller. (hong kong postage) and waited as I was stalled repeatedly by the seller, waiting for manufacturer to receive it, waiting for reply, etc. Until I realized I'd exhausted my ebay appeals time and was almost out of time to leave feedback. The DAY my ebay appeal time ran out he stopped replying to my emails.
So, out the flash drive (now I can't even send it back since I don't have it anymore) and out the $150 for the drive plus postage again to HK, I left him (-). Immediately he retaliated by leaving me (-). So Not only was I out the auction price, I was out additional shipping, AND got a negative on my record.
After this I read through his feedback, and percentage-wise it was very good, 98-99%. But he had so many auctions every week, he was getting 1-2 negatives a week. Every one of them was the same story as me... buyer leaves (-) for defective product no resolution, every time he would retaliate by leaving (-) to the buyer with the same "please contact me for resolution, unfair to leave negative feedback" as though the buyer was being unreasonable. Clearly this was how that seller handled defective product, and was sending a warning to buyers, "leave me a negative and you WILL get a negative for it".
Behavior like this discourages the buyer from leaving a negative against the seller, and does nothing to encourage sellers to work hard for their reputation.
I'm thankful for the policy change personally. I don't have to worry about getting that badly scammed again. A lot of that was my fault for expecting someone with 10k of (+) feedback to be honorable, but the final slap was definitely the mar on my record.
And I'm saying this as a buyer AND a seller on ebay. I just sold a laptop on ebay.
I was thinking Streisand Effect too. Their attempt to get it removed caused it to become legitimately noteworthy. Warrants a "haha" tag here too I think.
I also find it interesting that it's been settled (for now) with a "no consensus" ruling. I wonder if that means "we didn't come to a 100% agreement"? I realize it's not "majority rule" on these things, but there sure are a lot more keepers than deleters, especially once you get past the top 1/4 of the discussion. Actually there are almost no deleters after the halfway point.
over the prospect of all DVRs and DVD players having an internet connection. How long before your DVD player has to phone home to see if you're allowed to watch that DVD?
I don't think you can use mode 2 since bit 1 appears to be an added option to bit 0's behavior. Mode 1 is the one that looks a bit strange. (immediate hibernation on sleep?) I've seen mac pros hibernate which I was not expecting... must have manually set mode 3 on them.
So you're saying that a Mac can resume from a suspend-to-RAM faster than other operating systems can boot?
absolutely! There are very few systems that boot faster than most any OS's reanimation time. I don't believe the OP was considering hibernation as a way to speed boot time because of the possibility of losing ram from an interrupted sleep.
Did you know that other popular operating systems, such as Windows and Linux, can also suspend to RAM?
Sure did. Though since I'm not an expert on all of them I'm only sharing what I know best about.
And will therefore start up at probably about the same speed as a Mac? Or are Macs somehow soooooo much better than other computers?
Y'know, there are very few things more annoying than an Apple-Fanboi, and one of them is an Anti-Apple-Fanboi. Instead of being one, contribute something constructive - why don't you tell us about some alternative OSs and their reanimation times and behaviors that you have experience with, which helps this person.
If the initial odds are estimated at 1 in 100, and there is a failure, the appearance of the failure does not affect the odds of another one just like it failing. It's still a 1 in 100 event.
You may find it necessary to re-evaluate the odds if experience is proving to be grossly different than predicted odds, but experiencing a single expression of an uncommon event should not immediately draw into question the odds of the next occurrence.
If I'm shooting craps, and I know my odds of getting a seven is say, 1 in 4, and I shoot a seven, and then another, and then a third one, what are my odds of getting another seven on my fourth roll? Better than 1 in 4 now would you say? no. Still in 1 in 4 same as it always was. Changing the dice won't make any difference either.
nano replaced pico in OS X somewhat recently. If you try to pico, you get nano. I prefer that above vi.
Tho I suppose if you have your computer simply sleeping or hibernating, that could load fast too. Mac laptops can hibernate (apple calls it "safe sleep") free of battery power by paging memory entirely to HD. They do this anytime they sleep, which is why mac laptops can take up to 20 seconds to spin down the HD when sleeping.
When battery or line power is restored and you press the power button, instead of booting, it takes only a few seconds to reanimate. Wake time varies depending on how much memory you have in the machine. If you only have 512, it wakes REALLY fast. (under 5 seconds?) Once it's completed this process, it is 100% fully awake and ready to rock, with whatever word processor you had launched ready to go. And not running like a drunkard when most OS's are just getting to their desktop and "appear" ready but are really still booting.
If the odds of a specific problem with a shuttle occurring are 1 in 100, the odds of it the same problem occurring on TWO shuttles at the same time is 1 in 10,000, not 1 in 100.
You're taking for granted that once a problem occurs, the odds that "it could occur" are no longer 1 in 100, they are 1:1 because it HAS occurred. In other words, the odds of a double failure pre-launch is 1:10,000. The odds of a double failure, once you HAVE a single failure, is 1:100. Until the single failure occurs, the odds remain at 1:10,000.
be sure you put it in the bottom drawer of the cabinet, just to be sure.
Asking CEOs what should be done about the economy is like asking criminals for legal advice.
I love that quote about CEOs. I'd phrase it slightly different however. Maybe:
"Asking CEOs what should be done about the economy is like asking criminals for suggestions for modernizing laws."
Direct plagiarism isn't necessary or even a good idea. By looking at plans or seeing insider documentation they could get all sorts of use without leaving any easily traceable path. Might look at the schematics and say oh.. I wonder why they're doing that, we wouldn't have noticed this even if we'd have taken it apart, they're going to great lengths to make sure xxx happens. Oh wait, I wonder that solves this lingering problem we've had for years, that they've never had a problem with. Call up R&D I have an idea for a new approach to deal with a nagging issue...
While it's certainly helpful to have the management know how things down below work, as the organization or project grows larger this becomes less and less practical, down to downright impossible. The CEO of Ford knows what a carburetor is, but certainly can't identify the parts of one taken apart in front of him. That doesn't make him a bad CEO.
Each step you take up the management ladder, you lose skills and you gain skills. Every very rare now and then you will run across someone that started at the bottom and is now VP or something, and has a very detailed knowledge of how things worked way down at the bottom, ten years ago. Only does him a marginal bit of good now. More often the knowledge they value is of how the people interact and who is responsible for what. This is what makes a good manager - not knowing how you do your job, but knowing how you are important to the company, where you fit in, etc.
I repair computers. My manager tries to repair computers, but isn't very good at it, and I don't expect him to be. That's not his job, and I can't do his job any better than he can do mine. HIS manager knows how to USE a computer, but certainly not how to work on one. This is how it works.
For that matter, why should other people's Windows drivers be allowed to BSD the machine?
No matter how far you kick the ball around, ultimately Windows is responsible for its own stability.
When you have APIs that have notes in them like "be sure to supply a value from 1-5 here (because if you give us a 0 we will crash in flames)" is NOT the driver's fault when it passes Windows a 0 or -58236.75 and it takes a dump.
Full Disclosure: I'm a programmer, and I pride myself in writing user-tolerant code. I've always believed that nothing a user does should be able to crash my code. It may not behave correctly, or may not produce the desired output, garbage in garbage out is acceptable. But it should not crash. If there's something they CAN do to crash my code, I consider it my problem, and I fix it. If you read the documentation on for example, OS X or Linux, the only real excuse a machine has for panicing is a hardware failure. Any example of software being able to incite a panic is considered a bug in the OS, and gets fixed in the OS.
In the bigger scope of things, programs are allowed to crash. OS are NOT. Program bugs that lead to OS crash are not confined to being a program bug, they are a program bug that triggers an OS bug, and BOTH should be fixed.
someone has bats in their Belfast
FYI you may want to look at xmeeting type things. xmeeting is for windows and os x, but it's h.323, and is compatible with other h.323 video systems. It works great with polycoms for example. (ichat I hear is also h.323 but isn't cross-compatible for god-knows-what-reason) There's gotta be an h.323 compatible something for linux.
Note that you will lose some of the frills like buddy lists, text chat, etc, but you do sometimes get new toys... with xmeeting for example, you can aim/zoom the remote polycom. I don't know of any other video chat cross platform anything that lets you do that sort of thing.
Still don't understand why you're writing off skype though. Works spectacularly well on windows and mac, and I thought there was skype for linux also?
It's been my experience that ichat is more reliable and smoother / better quality for video chats, whereas skype does voice much better. Both seem pretty good at automatically working through NAT on both ends, which I'm sure if I saw all the shenanigans they had to do to pull that off, I'd pass out.
if you ignore the obvious insufficient testing, NO app like that should be able to totally tank the OS. The OS shouldn't allow it.
Still on the front page:
The Microsoft source blamed bad drivers from GPU companies and printer companies for the majority of Vista's early stability problems and described User Account Control as poorly implemented but defended it as necessary for the continued health of the Windows platform. He assailed OEM system builders for including bad, buggy, or just plain useless apps on their machines in exchange for a few bucks on the back end. Finally he conceded that Apple appeals to more and more consumers because the hardware is slick, the price is OK, and Apple doesn't annoy its customers (or allow third parties to).
I'd call a BSD pretty annoying, wouldn't you? 3rd parties (Apple or otherwise) shouldn't be capable of bringing a solid system to its knees. Trying to get the 3rd parties to behave is a waste of time and is trying to redirect the blame.
Considering that, the most likely scenario is for the thief to steal the car, drive it to a "chop shop" that already specializes in rapid disassembly and dissemination of auto parts, pull out the batteries and anything else handy they can get their hands on like the cat, and then dump it somewhere.
So you find your shiny new hybrid a few days later abandoned on a sidestreet in the bad end of town, light four tires, a cat, stereo, AND a battery pack.
The battery pack in that case would fetch more than the entire rest of the loot, making a hybrid a MUCH juicier target for such thiefs. 110% effort for 240% the reward. Thieves are stupid, but that math they understand.
Really can they do that? Code Red (admittedly a worm not a virus) took what, 8 minutes, to do most of its propagation. I don't think they can do anything useful in terms of speedy. Getting out the defs a few days faster protects me from 20% more viruses. That's about meaningless. Unless you're going to knock it down a few orders, you're not helping the situation very much.
Sounds like something whose response may change over time. Won't that be fun if the tags start drifting sufficiently over a few years to start becoming unusable.
oh that is good to know. I was going to ask around for jukebox software recommendations, but if front row works, that's just fine.
I wonder when Disk Utility will support burning VIDEO_TS folders?