Where I keep my spare cats.

In article .com,
Savageduck wrote:


Since I have first hand knowledge of my problem, and some here wish to
provide an answer based upon situation A, when situation A is not the
issue. I will simplify.

All music on my iPod is backed up.
I can easily transfer the existing tracks to my iPhone.

that's not what you said originally:

The original
computer that she used is long gone. I would like to transfer
the music to my iPhone, and add new music. Apple has told me
that it can't be done. I'm sure there is a way.

and based on the revised situation, there is no problem.

My issue is modifying by adding additional music.
(All of which is legally owned.)

also very easy to do and again, not the original stated problem.

Do read the words: "and add new music," that is stated in my original
post, and quoted above by you.
I clearly used the word "and" as a conjunctive. You decided to rant
about only the first part.

I think I finally understand your problem.

at least until he changes it again.

In all you have said on this matter, are you saying that on this gift iPod
from your daughter, you have never added any music?
All you have on this iPod is a collection of your music from other different
media your daughter digitized.

Do you have any idea of the total file size of all the mp3¹s on this iPod
(10-20-60GB)?

Have you ever connected this iPod to your computer, if so, have you ever
backed-up the content?

Does your daughter have the digital/digitized files she added to this iPod?
If she does, have her send you those files in any number of ways from burning
the mp3 files, not the music to a data CD/DVD, or on a Flash memory stick, or
via a cloud service.

he said he has backups.

Once you have those mp3 files on YOUR computer, it will be a simple task to
add that music to your iPhone using iTunes.

yep.

On 7/31/2017 6:50 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jul 31, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 7/31/2017 4:51 PM, nospam wrote:
In , PeterN
wrote:

Realistically, the restrictions creates a problem. Several
years ago my daughter gave me an iPod, about half filled with
some of my favorite music. The source for the music was my
music collection, consisting of some irreplaceable recordings,
including original Louis Armstrong, Toscanini, Caruso, Lanza,
three different versions of Wagner's first, etc. The original
computer that she used is long gone. I would like to transfer
the music to my iPhone, and add new music. Apple has told me
that it can't be done. I'm sure there is a way. The suggestions
on some of the Internet forums has not been very helpful.
Realistically, the reality is that you don't know what the hell
you are talking about. Don't give me that bull about "most."
There are many others who have needs similar to mine.



Since I have first hand knowledge of my problem, and some here wish to
provide an answer based upon situation A, when situation A is not the
issue. I will simplify.

All music on my iPod is backed up.
I can easily transfer the existing tracks to my iPhone.

that's not what you said originally:

The original
computer that she used is long gone. I would like to transfer
the music to my iPhone, and add new music. Apple has told me
that it can't be done. I'm sure there is a way.

and based on the revised situation, there is no problem.

My issue is modifying by adding additional music.
(All of which is legally owned.)

also very easy to do and again, not the original stated problem.

Do read the words: "and add new music," that is stated in my original
post, and quoted above by you.
I clearly used the word "and" as a conjunctive. You decided to rant
about only the first part.

I think I finally understand your problem.

In all you have said on this matter, are you saying that on this gift iPod
from your daughter, you have never added any music?
All you have on this iPod is a collection of your music from other different
media your daughter digitized.

Yes


Do you have any idea of the total file size of all the mp3’s on this iPod
(10-20-60GB)?

Have you ever connected this iPod to your computer, if so, have you ever
backed-up the content?

Yes


Does your daughter have the digital/digitized files she added to this iPod?
If she does, have her send you those files in any number of ways from burning
the mp3 files, not the music to a data CD/DVD, or on a Flash memory stick, or
via a cloud service.

She no longer has them.

Once you have those mp3 files on YOUR computer, it will be a simple task to
add that music to your iPhone using iTunes.

She no longer has them.

Your other option would be to use an app such as iAmazing, which I have
already suggested, to back-up the iPod content to your computer. Then it will
be a simple task to use iTunes to add the music to your iPhone.


That is the one I will probably do. I did a Google search, and saw
several solutions. As I said, I would like to add to the collection and
put the whole collection on my iPhone. My concern is the iPod battery
going before I can do this.


--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

I think I finally understand your problem.

In all you have said on this matter, are you saying that on this gift iPod
from your daughter, you have never added any music?
All you have on this iPod is a collection of your music from other different
media your daughter digitized.

Yes


Do you have any idea of the total file size of all the mp3�s on this iPod
(10-20-60GB)?

Have you ever connected this iPod to your computer, if so, have you ever
backed-up the content?

Yes

then there's no issue.

Does your daughter have the digital/digitized files she added to this iPod?
If she does, have her send you those files in any number of ways from burning
the mp3 files, not the music to a data CD/DVD, or on a Flash memory stick,
or via a cloud service.

She no longer has them.

Once you have those mp3 files on YOUR computer, it will be a simple task to
add that music to your iPhone using iTunes.

She no longer has them.

you said you have backups, so whether she has them does not matter.

Your other option would be to use an app such as iAmazing, which I have
already suggested, to back-up the iPod content to your computer. Then it
will be a simple task to use iTunes to add the music to your iPhone.

That is the one I will probably do. I did a Google search, and saw
several solutions. As I said, I would like to add to the collection and
put the whole collection on my iPhone.

since you claim to have backups, there's no need for that app.

My concern is the iPod battery
going before I can do this.

it has to be connected when transferring, so that isn't an issue, and
as above, the ipod doesn't even need to be in the mix.

In article
XnsA7BC8D649BFDHT1@5Ey7Y0WLaPuERU0A05uPw88DhkqXmR dYH29POSXNQp8t9iyKPynW.
27RaAms, Diesel wrote:

You're contradicting yourself and demonstrating (again) that you
really don't know how the machine in front of you actually works
'under the hood'. You seem to think a varient of UNIX (which is
what mac runs) is completely isolated from the cute GUI mac has.
That's simply, not the case.

it's not a 'varient' of unix nor is there any contradiction.

Yes, actually, it is.

no, actually it isn't.

mac os is *not* a variant. it's certified unix.

mac os is certified unix and it's *much* more than a 'cute gui' on
top of unix.

I was generalizing, but, in all reality, it's a skinned UNIX. Apple
style. Intended for MAC, obviously. But, I thought cute gui seemed
more fitting and less 'technical'

you weren't generalizing, you were talking out your ass about which you
know absolutely nothing whatsoever.

mac os is not a skinned unix. that's not even remotely close to true,
and a mac is as technical as the user wants it to be.

you continue to demonstrate just how little you know about macs and
what's worse, you refuse to learn.

unlike you, i know *very* well what goes on under the hood of a
mac.

So you keep saying, and then contradict your own statements later
on, in the same post. Mind boggling. Truth be told, your need for
bull****ting is giving me a migraine.

more of you vague bull****.

cite examples of these supposed contradictions. you won't, because
there are no such examples.

mac apps are not unix apps. they don't use unix apis.

I didn't say they did...

then they're not unix apps, are they?

what were you saying about contradictions?

A closed source, proprietary varient, I might add.

it's less closed and less proprietary than windows.

A matter of personal opinion there.

nope. a *lot* of mac os is open source, far more than windows. almost
nothing in windows is open source.

*only* the stuff apple added *on* *top* *of* unix is what's
closed. the unix part is open source.

MacOS itself is NOT open source. Some Apple apps are, certainly.
Their idea of giving back I suppose, but, the good stuff, heh, no,
most certainly not.

you have that backwards, as usual.
some of mac os is open source while apple's apps are not.



photoshop is mac/windows only, not unix.

And this has what to do with the price of tea in china? Do you feel
all users have a need for Photoshop?

it's an example of one of the most popular mainstream apps that's
available for mac/win and *not* available for unix, nor will it ever
be.

there are countless other examples.

And, mac runs a varient of
Unix, so you can't very well claim it's not unix outright.

learn to read.

what i said was actually the *opposite*: mac os *is* unix, not a
'varient'.

again, photoshop is *not* a unix app and does not run on unix. period.
it's a mac os app (as well as windows) and runs on mac os (or windows).


you have *no* clue. none whatsoever.




that means unix users are stuck with crap like the gimp, which is
so far behind photoshop it's actually sad how bad it is.

Photoshop is a single application that not everyone has any use
for...Photoshop has how many years on gimp in development? It's not
exactly a fair comparison here. But, you don't seem to be known for
trying to play on a level field, anyhow.

photoshop is an *extremely* popular app and just one example of many
where unix users are stuck with lower quality and far less capable
apps.

as for years in development, the gimp started in 1995, according to
wikipedia, yet it still lacks features photoshop had even then. how
long should users wait until they catch up?





macs have thunderbolt which must be included in any comparison.

you don't get to ignore specs that a mac has that other systems
do not.

I didn't ignore it, I stated that it's just not as popular as you
seem to think on the PC platform. Which is why Intel changed
their policy concerning royalties. They'd like to make it more
common by having more manufactuers of PC components adopt it. It
seems to be going very slow, considering how long it's been
available. Intel obviously shares the same opinion, why else
would they forgo royalties in an effort to increase it's
adoption.

popularity does not matter.

Tell that to the creators of Betamax. They had a superior system
than that of VHS. And, that's just one measily example. Many more
exist. Popularity plays a very big role in hardware adoption. You
have to be able to justify supporting the technology. If nobody
cares about it other than mac users, then it's a no go essentially
for the PC world. Again, seeing as how long it's been out, it's
looking like a stalled project on the PC side.

moving the goalposts again.

betamax/vhs is not the topic.

the reality is that macs have features that pcs do not and you don't
get to ignore any of them.

you personally may not care about those features, and if so, don't buy
a mac.

others definitely find those features to be compelling, making a mac
the best choice for them, something which appears to offend you.




windows is closed source, while much of macos is open
source.

Er, no, not much of Macos is open source. Some apps created by
Apple are open source, but, MacOS itself most certainly is not
open source. Neither is the hardware Apple creates to run it.

far more of apple's software is open source than microsoft,
some of which is used by apple's own competitors, including
android.

You stated that much of MacOS was open source, and, that's not
the case, it's never been the case. The only way to have a good
look around is to break copyright/patent laws as you do so. I
wasn't comparing Apple to microsoft, I was correcting your
erroneous statement concerning what is/what isn't 'open source'

as usual, absolutely wrong.

https://opensource.apple.com

Funny, you claim to know so much about Macs, but little about the OS
vs applications...

I don't see any source code to MacOSX present for download via your
link...

https://opensource.apple.com/source/

Or there. Do you understand what opensource actually is? Where can I
download full source code to MacOSX legally then? fork url.

i didn't say full source code.

i said a significant amount of mac os is open source, including the
kernel and quite a bit more, all available via the above link.

you're no better at finding source code than you are finding mac specs.


prices are competitive and macs are the *only* platform that
can run mac, windows *and* unix.

http://emulators.com/

emulation means the host system *can't* run it, it has to emulate
it. you just proved my point.

Actually, I discredited what you wrote.

no you haven't. you don't even *understand* what i wrote.

all you've done is discredit yourself.

if it wasn't for mac os being free, there never would have
been a free upgrade to windows 10 for the first year.

MacOS isn't completely free.

yes it is. mac os is completely free.

ROFL, only if you meet the requirements. Hence, conditions.
Otherwise, it's NOT free.

it's free. period.

Not according to Apples own website it isn't. Link provided
previously. Conditions apply. So, it's not free 'period'

yes, according to apple's own web site:

http://i.imgur.com/3bjzfbo.jpg
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/macos-sierra/id1127487414

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2016/...vailable-as-a-
free-update/
Cupertino, California ‹ Apple today announced that macOS Sierra, the
latest major release of the world's most*advanced desktop operating
system, is now available as a free update.
....
macOS Sierra is available as a free update starting today from the
Mac App Store. macOS Sierra supports all Macs introduced*since late
2009. Some features may not be available in all regions or all
languages.





in less than a decade, apple's own processors are matching
intel in benchmarks, and in some cases, exceeding it.

Some specific processors intended for very specific roles. We're
not talking about desktop cpus here, though. Different design
purpose n all.

nope. what's in ios devices are desktop class processors, which
match or exceed intel's cpus.

*sigh* I should have provided a link to explain what a desktop
processor is in the context we're discussing them. I suppose you'll
tell me there's no difference between a mobile/desktop cpu next, eh?

you don't understand the context at all.

this is what the verge had to say about the now two year old a9 chip:

https://www.theverge.com/2015/9/9/9295923/apple-a9x-ipad-pro-chip
Apple¹s new A9 and A9X processors promise Œdesktop-class performance¹
....
"It is faster than 80 percent of the portable PCs that shipped in the
last 12 months," says Schiller. "In graphics tasks it's faster than
90 percent of them." Apple is pushing the idea that the 12.9-inch
iPad will enable all sorts of new use-cases for Apple tablets,
showing off AutoCAD software running on the device with "buttery
60fps smoothness" and a 3D medical app. Hopefully, this smoothness
will translate into a better gaming experience as well.

and more recently, from this past june, about the a10x chip:
https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/...ly-undersells-
a10x-chip-capabilitie.aspx
At the heart of these new iPads is the company's A10X chip. In a
presentation unveiling the device, Apple said that the CPU
performance of the A10X was 30% better than the CPU performance of
the prior-generation A9X chip.
....
The kind of performance that Apple has managed to cram into the A10X
is no joke. Not only does it utterly shame the performance of last
year's iPad, but it delivers CPU performance that's quite close to
the Intel (NASDAQ:INTC) processors inside of the 15-inch MacBook Pro.

the a11 chip is expected next month.

Apple doesn't make PCs. They make Apple products. Although the
term actually stands for Personal Computer, when an individual
hears the word PC, they aren't thinking about Apple. According to
you, they're thinking about Microsoft. Technically, the coco
series, the commodores, the amigas, original Apples, etc, are all
'PC's, but, nobody thinks of them that way these days. Micro
computers really, but, why split hairs at this point...

steve ballmer considers an *ipad* and other tablets a pc, and that
was when he was still running microsoft, before he got fired for
doing a ****ty job.

Thanks for proving my point.

it didn't.

You really have a deep hatred for Microsoft, don't you?

says the person who hates everything apple. hilarious.

i don't hate microsoft. they're doing some incredibly innovative stuff.
i have a couple of systems running windows here.

meanwhile, *you* have a *very* deep hatred for apple and immediately
dismiss anything they do, without even learning about it.


they're not tiny nor are they a gadget, the battery life is
comparable to most laptops (if not better) and their lifespan
is no different than any other computer.

They are disposable devices.. for a reason.

nonsense. they're no more disposable than any other tech device.

Bull****. Cell phones, tablets, etc are disposable. When the battery
won't charge reliably anymore, you toss the entire device in the
trash (especially if it's Apple; they don't want you replacing the
battery easily in those devices) and get another one.

nonsense.

people replace their devices because they want new features, not
because the battery is dead, and in the unlikely event the battery does
die for some reason, it's easy to replace.

except on the microsoft surface laptop (not apple), which can't have
its battery replaced without destroying the entire laptop.

and there's many other products with internal batteries. here's a dell
laptop, from nearly a decade ago:

https://www.engadget.com/2009/03/23/...t-user-replace
able-says-bearer-of-harsh-tr/
Possibly not surprising, but certainly to be filed under "subtly
disappointing" is the news that has just recently been confirmed:
Adamo's battery is not able to be replaced by the user. No fun, you
say? Well, it is, of course, replaceable, should the need arise, it
just has to be sent into Dell for the procedure, though we don't yet
know how much the company is going to charge for all that. Guess if
you have to get a new juice pack for your laptop your "lifestyle"
will have to be temporarily put on hold, huh?


Crack the
screen? You could replace it, but, most people won't bother. They'll
toss it in the trash and get another one; usually via some extended
warranty they bought.

crack the screen of a laptop and most people won't replace the screen
either. they'll toss it in the trash and get another one.

did you have a point? no.


nothing lasts forever.

Nobody every said it did. But, when you go out of your way to make
something as simple as changing a dead battery pack out for a new
one a royal pain in the ass, you're intentionally designing a life
expectancy limit in your device. Why should something be tossed
simply because one component has failed? A component that should and
could be made easily replaceable.

nonsense. the battery is one of the most reliable components in the
product.

something *else* will fail first, assuming the user doesn't replace it
because they simply want a newer device that has new features not
possible on their old one.

put simply, the battery *isn't* the limiting factor. it's the hardware.

Do you know how many free ipods I get on a routine basis because the
battery finally **** on it? There's nothing wrong with it aside from
a dead battery pack. If I take the time to replace it (and I have,
many times) I got another portable audio player, for free. When it
would have been tossed into the trash instead. I give them away to
people I know locally who want them once I repair them. I don't even
charge for the battery pack I bought, new. I even load it up on as
much music as it can hold based on what I know the user likes for
music. I don't charge them for that either. Heh. DRM free, high
quality mp3s, no less.

in other words, you're not only pirating music, but you're distributing
it.



since you snipped the list, here it is again:
easy migration, target disk mode, target display mode on
select models, handoff & continuity, airdrop, quicklook,
universal clipboard, touchid, applepay, touchbar, secure element,
unix under the hood, cocoa, metal, multitouch gestures,
forcetouch trackpad, wide gamut display, messages/calls with any
device, versioning, local facial & scene recognition,
differential privacy, machine learning, time machine, snapshots,
higher user productivity, lower cost of ownership and higher
resale value.

those are *features*, not applications.

You may want to take a closer look at those 'features'

i don't need to, since it's my list, and unlike you, i understand
exactly what they are.

you have *no* clue what they even *mean*, let alone what they do or how
they work.

you're completely clueless and digging yourself a deeper hole with
every post.

And with emulation, a PC can
run many of them.. so...

given that none were apps, no it can't, and many of those features
require hardware not available on a pc *and* software support.

Again, you might wanna take a closer look at your list. Other than
lack of physical hardware to run the software itself on, emulation
can do partial list of what you provided.

nothing but vague babble.

cite specific examples of where emulation can do a partial list.

this ought to be very amusing. hilarious, in fact.

sometimes it's a mac, sometimes it's a pc, sometimes it's a
smartphone and sometimes it's a tablet. sometimes it's a
combination. sometimes it's none of those.

Again, I don't disagree with that.

apparently you do, because you continue to make up ****.

I'm not the one making up ****. I leave that to you. I think the
best one so far is that av makes malware. It's an old myth, so you
can't even get credit for originality.

it's not a myth.

again, i know specifics and you do not.

just because you haven't heard about it doesn't mean it didn't occur.

lots of things happen that you don't know about, especially in an
industry you aren't even involved with.

So you don't have any way for anyone else to verify your claim
then?

if you actually worked in the industry you'd learn what
*really* goes on, not what you read about in a google search.

So you don't have any way for anyone else to verify your claim
then?

work in the industry and you'll get all the verification you want
and a whole lot more.

So that's a no to my question then, eh? As, I do work in the
industry and I've been unable to verify your claims, so far.

you don't work in the industry. you said you laid cable for many years
and you're now supposedly retired, which is very different than working
in the software/hardware industry. another one of your numerous
contradictions.

you don't know any of the people involved. simple as that.

you don't want to learn anything. you're ignorant as can be.

ROFL. I'm very ignorant on a wide variety of subjects, as are you,
as is everyone else. However, I do learn new things every single
day. Otherwise, there'd be no point in existing.

so you say, but you flat out refuse to learn anything about apple or
their products, which means you're contradicting yourself once again.

worse, you insist on arguing with those who know more than you do about
assorted topics, particularly apple, even including apple themselves.




you were wrong then, you're wrong now and you refuse to admit
being wrong despite it being explained to you numerous times.

I went by what I viewed on apple.com. As I explained, several times
now. I seriously doubt my script blocker removed any references to
i7 machines when I browsed the page. I didn't see any i7 boxes. If I
had, I would have checked for comparable PC to those offerings as I
did what what I did see available.

as i explained many times, apple has offered macs with an i7 since the
i7 came out.

you ****ed up and refuse to admit it.




it means bump up the clock speed, increase the capacity/speed of
the ssd, etc. of *existing* configurations.

Are you going to overclock the existing cpu to bring up the clock
speed, or, changeout the cpu for one that runs at a higher speed,
natively? I'm not a big fan of overclocking myself. Or, did you
throttle the cpu clock speed back and decide to bring it to the rate
it was originally designed to run and increase cost to consumer for
that 'higher' clock speed? The latter seems shady to me. Almost
dishonest.

nobody said anything about overclocking.

yet another thing about which you know nothing.


the microsoft windows laptop can't even be opened without
destroying it. everything is soldered, glued or otherwise locked
down.

Here we go again with bashing microsoft. Would it be fair to say
you're a Microsoft hater? Not dislike mind you, but actually hate?

says the person who hates apple. crazy.

and as for upgrading, try adding a 10 gig-e nic to a windows
laptop.

It's called an external device. Typically plugs into a USB port,
but, other expansion options exist depending on laptop manufacturer.
You may not achieve full bandwidth though, due to the interface
between the computer and external device. Or, you could just shop
around for a laptop that already has it, built in.

plugging a 10 gig-e nic into a usb port? that's hilarious.

on a mac, there are no compromises when adding a 10 gig-e nic. none. it
will run at full 10g speeds.

one of many reasons why thunderbolt is incredibly useful.

for a mac (laptop or desktop, doesn't matter), connect it with a
cable. no need to even open the computer.

Well, for the PC, if it doesn't already support it, you can easily
add it:

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...?EdpNo=9745843

that won't fit in any laptop from any manufacturer nor will it fit into
many desktops, including the microsoft surface studio.

so no, you can't easily add it.

In article
XnsA7BC8D5E4D2AHT1@5Ey7Y0WLaPuERU0A05uPw88DhkqXmR dYH29POSXNQp8t9iyKPynW.
27RaAms, Diesel wrote:

Apple used DRM and was restrictive in doing so. A claim that's
supported by facts.

nope.

the *actual* facts, which you repeatedly ignore, is that apple's
drm was the least restrictive of any drm at the time, so much so
that it was invisible to the end user unless they were up to no
good.

Those are not facts, those are your personal opinions on the matter.

they are irrefutable facts, which i've backed up with numerous links.

Opinions which are jaded because you worship the ground jobs walked
on...And call anyone who doesn't an apple hater, even if they
aren't.

nonsense.

you can't see past your hatred of apple to see reality.

apple even used an industry standard format, as opposed to what
microsoft did (they too had drm), with their protected wmv.

I wasn't discussing MS. You seem to continually want to discuss them
though.

i bring up microsoft and others because it shows you to be a hypocrite.

you criticize apple, yet give a free pass to everyone else for doing
the same things (or worse).

not only did microsoft have a five computer limit with their drm, but
they dropped support entirely, screwing over their users.

https://betanews.com/2008/04/23/micr...for-msn-music-
drm/
Although the music will continue to play on computers that have been
authorized by that date, users will no longer be able to transfer
tunes to any other machine, or even to play them on the same PC if
they change operating systems, including upgrading from Windows XP to
Windows Vista.

Up to now, Plays For Sure DRM technology has allowed ex-MSN Music
subscribers to switch authorization to new machines and OS, so long
as they keep abiding by a previously imposed limit of five computers.
But as of September, the MSN Music approval servers will fade into
history, and users will need to stick with the machines and OS
they've chosen by then.

Let's just save time there. I too think their a POS company
and have for a very very long time. Going back to my childhood, I
suspect. They seriously damaged future PC sales when they released
windows 8/8.1 and went in for the kill with Windows 10. They are
shooting themselves in the foot, imho, and I wish they'd just shoot
themselves in the head and get it over with.

windows 8 may have had some problems, but it didn't damage pc sales.

pc sales began to slow down well before windows 8 because mobile is the
future. it's called progress.

windows 10 is actually quite good (other than its design language) and
microsoft is definitely doing some very cool things going forward.

You couldn't just copy drm tracks to all the devices you
wanted at one time.

you could copy to unlimited ipods and burn unlimited audio cds,
so yes.

No decryption key, no playback. itunes wouldn't give the key to
an unlimited number of ipods. Would have defeated drm had it done
so. Or, not bothered using public/private crypto in the first
place.

except that's *exactly* how it worked.

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM...64-A083-FF8610
E66A46.html

iTunes Keys on the iPod Any number of iPods can be used with an
authorized computer running iTunes. Once an iPod is connected, it
downloads all the user keys from iTunes so it can unlock and play
any protected tracks. If that copy of iTunes is authorized to play
songs from multiple accounts, all of the accounts' user keys are
uploaded.

The iPod makes no decisions about which tracks it can play, it
simply is given user keys for all the songs it contains by iTunes.

you clearly don't understand anything you read, blinded by your hate.

did you miss this part:
iTunes Keys on the iPod Any number of iPods can be used with an

just what do you think 'any number of ipods' means?

here's a hint: it means unlimited ipods, exactly as i said.

you argue, yet *your* link confirms what i've been saying!! it doesn't
get any better than that.

and you apparently missed this bit too:
If the keys are backed up, users can*deauthorize their systems, then
restore the keys and authorize a new set of computers, resulting in
more than five machines that can all play the existing purchased
music.*

you are wrong again.

See above.

definitely see above, because you just proved yourself wrong, again.

https://www.apple.com/asia/support/i...torial/aciTune
sPc_t 16.html
You can also download your purchased music to an unlimited
number of iPod devices to take your songs on the road. You can
add the music you purchased from the iTunes Music Store to any
of your playlists. And you can even burn your purchased music to
a CD.

You can *now* you meant to say.

nope. i know what i meant to say.

Originally though, I couldn't take
an ipod to a friends house and just copy his entire library to mine
without trashing what I already had: That also explains why users
can't dock a single iPod with different users’ iTunes and suck up
all their music; the only option available is to replace the music
on the iPod with the music from the new iTunes library.

that's because it's piracy and piracy isn't the topic.

unlimited ipods is the topic.

you're moving the goalposts.

once again, record companies *forced* apple to add drm and to take
steps to prevent piracy to be able to sell the music on the itunes
music store. apple didn't want drm, but they had no choice. the
alternative was no music store.

they did make piracy difficult but they can't make it impossible.
pirates can still find ways, while honest people don't find it to be an
issue.

obviously you have a problem with it, because you pirate content, but
despite that, it's not that hard to circumvent. rather easy, actually.

DRM prevented me from doing that. As DRM doesn't apply anymore, the
second url you provided applies, now but, it didn't then. When DRM
was enforced. It would *replace* what I already had with the music
from the other machine. it didn't let me keep what I had an add
their music collection to my ipod.

nonsense.

you have *no* clue how any of this works and you're talking out your
ass.




my personal favourite is when a mac anti-malware utility
quarantined the virtual memory swap files. needless to say,
that didn't end well. the level of stupidity for that to even
happen, nevermind get past testing, is mind boggling.

I can see how that might have happened, but, that's because I
understand what's involved in the creation and detection of
malware, from first hand experience...

the only reason it happened is because it was written by
incompetent morons and not tested before release.

Heh. As I wrote above, the more you write, the more I learn about
you. Specifically, the more I learn about what you don't know
anything about first hand. You give yourself away without realizing
you are. Back in the day, I used to take advantage of that level of
stupidity. But, I'm retired from blackhat these days.

Case in point here, you don't know a damn thing about what's
involved in antimalware/antivirus creation or whats involved in
definitions/signatures/engine design, etc etc etc. Nor do you seem
to know much of anything about the testing methodologies in play or
that you can't possibly test for every what if scenario out there,
either. You're quick to blame the authors going so far as to call
them incompetent morons when they make a big goof, but..
writing/support av/am isn't like writing a standalone application
that doesn't need to be able to play nice with a wide variety of
hardware and software.

quarantining vm swap files is a major ****up and anyone who writes
software that does that is a moron and any q/a team that doesn't catch
it are also morons.

Yes, by all means, continue discussions with me so that I may learn
more about your knowledge level, or, in this case, lack there of.
You're so arrogant, you just can't help yourself here.

it ain't me who is arrogant.



worse, some anti-malware companies have actually written
their own malware and released it, then bragged that they
were first to 'detect' it.

Heh, that's actually a common myth. I'm surprised someone of
your supposed stature actually bought it. even for a second.
Well, not really, but...

actually, it's a fact, not a myth.

It's a myth. The fact you actually believe it, does speak
volumes.

it's not a myth. once again, i personally *know* several people
who were involved.

And I call bull****. Straight up, bull****. The links you provided
previously don't even support the claim you tried to make when you
shared them. Not one little bit, infact.

call bull**** all you want. i know some of the people involved.

the other links were of *additional* examples that the anti-malware
business is sleazy.

AV companies do NOT create malware in the hopes of being the first
to detect something in an effort to boost their sales or their
ratings with joe public or the competition. That's NOT how it works.

except that one did exactly that, which means that it's extremely
likely they're not the only one who resorts to sleazy tactics.

just because you haven't heard about it doesn't mean it never
happened.

Bull**** again. I already told you, I was on a first/last name basis
with many big players in the av/am scene while being an active vxer.
If what you wrote was ever true (and it wasn't, not ever. Zvi Netiv
and Doren Rosenthal do not count, if that's the 'people' you know)
and it isn't, I would know about it. Hell, I might have been in on
it directly or indirectly via one of the groups I ran with.

they aren't and you weren't.

there's a lot you don't know.

That could be said for any of us on any number of subjects.

With that said though, Malware is a subject I know like the back of
my hand. And I've got the reputation and track record to prove it.
Urls nearly twenty years old now still exist, discussing my work.
And that's just a tiny piece of the stuff I've written since
learning to write software, at a very young (single digit) age.

I've been on a computer of some kind long before they were cool or
most people had a single one let alone a LAN in their homes.

if you mean that coco you had when you were a kid, don't make me laugh.

I'm not some digital age kiddo you're trying to talk down to. On the
subject of Malware and many other aspects of IT, the only thing
you'll gain from your talking down attitude is bitchslapped into the
middle of next week with my superior first hand real world
knowledge on the subject as compared to yours.

oh, you're definitely a kiddo, one who thinks he knows everything,
despite being repeatedly shown to be incredibly wrong.

As you once stated, nothing beats real world experience. And, you're
right about that. For better or worse, nothing does.

which i have *far* more than you do, both in amount and depth.

nospam
Thu, 03 Aug 2017
17:17:59 GMT in rec.photo.digital, wrote:

In article
XnsA7BC8D649BFDHT1@5Ey7Y0WLaPuERU0A05uPw88DhkqXmR dYH29POSXNQp8t9iy
KPynW. 27RaAms, Diesel wrote:

You're contradicting yourself and demonstrating (again) that
you really don't know how the machine in front of you actually
works 'under the hood'. You seem to think a varient of UNIX
(which is what mac runs) is completely isolated from the cute
GUI mac has. That's simply, not the case.

it's not a 'varient' of unix nor is there any contradiction.

Yes, actually, it is.

no, actually it isn't.

mac os is *not* a variant. it's certified unix.

Do you understand what the word unix means?


it's an example of one of the most popular mainstream apps that's
available for mac/win and *not* available for unix, nor will it
ever be.

Mainstream? Umm...It's for a specialized market. Not everyone
wants/needs it. And, if they do, they can use it under *NIX in a
VM...Or just purchase a computer that's already capable of running
it with their OS of choice. Be it Windows based or Mac whatever it
is they prefer or are most comfortable using.

there are countless other examples.

Provide some.

And, mac runs a varient of
Unix, so you can't very well claim it's not unix outright.

learn to read.

what i said was actually the *opposite*: mac os *is* unix, not a
'varient'.

Maybe you have trouble understanding what the word, unix means. UNIX
is a family of operating systems. It's not ONE single Operating
system.

https://kb.iu.edu/d/agat

photoshop is an *extremely* popular app and just one example of
many where unix users are stuck with lower quality and far less
capable apps.

Unix users aren't stuck. VMs will run various other operating
systems, including those which Photoshop is designed for. I really
don't know why you think UNIX is so limiting, Apple and other big
vendors obviously find it very useful. As do many small businesses
and a growing amount of home users.

as for years in development, the gimp started in 1995, according
to wikipedia, yet it still lacks features photoshop had even then.
how long should users wait until they catch up?

Again, bad comparison. Gimp isn't commercial software. It's not
supported by a multi million dollar company.

Tell that to the creators of Betamax. They had a superior system
than that of VHS. And, that's just one measily example. Many more
exist. Popularity plays a very big role in hardware adoption. You
have to be able to justify supporting the technology. If nobody
cares about it other than mac users, then it's a no go
essentially for the PC world. Again, seeing as how long it's been
out, it's looking like a stalled project on the PC side.

moving the goalposts again.

betamax/vhs is not the topic.

I didn't move any goalposts, I discounted your claim that popularity
doesn't matter. It does.

prices are competitive and macs are the *only* platform that
can run mac, windows *and* unix.

http://emulators.com/

emulation means the host system *can't* run it, it has to
emulate it. you just proved my point.

Actually, I discredited what you wrote.

no you haven't. you don't even *understand* what i wrote.

Yes I do. You claimed that macs were the only ones that could run
mac, windows and unix, but, that's not true.

Not according to Apples own website it isn't. Link provided
previously. Conditions apply. So, it's not free 'period'

yes, according to apple's own web site:

Not quite.

upgrade/
Compatibility: OS X 10.7.5 or later

if using an older version, you have to be running or upgrade to
atleast 10.7.5 or better before you can upgrade to Sierra. And, as
the previous link I already shared mentioned, that may not be
entirely free.

meanwhile, *you* have a *very* deep hatred for apple and
immediately dismiss anything they do, without even learning about
it.

ROFL. That's not true, but, it's hillarious.

people replace their devices because they want new features, not
because the battery is dead, and in the unlikely event the battery
does die for some reason, it's easy to replace.

ROFL. Again, that depends entirely on the device. And batteries do
have a charge life cycle. A well documented one, for the most part.

crack the screen of a laptop and most people won't replace the
screen either. they'll toss it in the trash and get another one.

That's not true. I've replaced hundreds of them. They tend to cost
quite a bit less than purchasing a new laptop. Unless you opted for
a low cost, piece of **** that wouldn't be worth the trouble.

did you have a point? no.

Yep. Considering what a halfway decent laptop costs as opposed to
many cell phones and tablets, you don't toss out the former for a
busted screen, you replace the damn screen.

Nobody every said it did. But, when you go out of your way to
make something as simple as changing a dead battery pack out for
a new one a royal pain in the ass, you're intentionally designing
a life expectancy limit in your device. Why should something be
tossed simply because one component has failed? A component that
should and could be made easily replaceable.

nonsense. the battery is one of the most reliable components in
the product.

The iphone battery typically lasts less than two years. And, that's
if you take good care of it.

http://www.cio.com/article/2419524/c...death-row.html

put simply, the battery *isn't* the limiting factor. it's the
hardware.

That depends on what the user's needs are. For some, it's probably
not necessary to buy a new portable media player every time a new
one comes out. They might be happy with the one they have, if
the battery is still good. Any battery is going to have a limit on
the charge cycles it can take before it dies. And, it can reach that
limit long before anything else fails in the device.

I'm not the one making up ****. I leave that to you. I think the
best one so far is that av makes malware. It's an old myth, so
you can't even get credit for originality.

it's not a myth.

Yes it is.

again, i know specifics and you do not.

You're writing complete horse**** as you continue propogating an old
and well known myth in the IT industry. AV companies do not write
viruses and release them onto the public in an effort to boost sales
or gain some kind of advantage over their competition. It's
pointless to even try doing so. Samples are easily collected once
they go ITW, samples are shared with the competitors for everyones
benefit. There's nothing for them to gain and much to lose by
writing malware and releasing it onto the public.

lots of things happen that you don't know about, especially in an
industry you aren't even involved with.

You don't seem to be paying much attention here. I am involved in
the av/am industries, it's part of what I do for a living. I never
left the industries, despite retiring from writing malicious code
for the publics consumption.

So that's a no to my question then, eh? As, I do work in the
industry and I've been unable to verify your claims, so far.

you don't work in the industry. you said you laid cable for many
years and you're now supposedly retired, which is very different
than working in the software/hardware industry. another one of
your numerous contradictions.

Umm,

Actually, I retired from active VX; nearly two decades ago now. Had
you the expertise you claimed previously, you'd know what that
means. Since you don't, you easily confused that for being retired
as in no longer working for a living. I'm not retired in that
sense and likely won't ever be. I've laid all kinds of comms/power
cable, certainly. That's part of being in the industries. I'm in
two. Electrical and IT. You'd have known that too, had you
actually done more than desk work.

I've been in the IT industry professionally for several decades with
the certifications to back it up. As well as having nearly a decades
worth of electrical industry experience under my belt.
Certifications to back that up, too.

And, despite all the access to information I have and people I run
across performing BOTH trades, I've yet to be able to confirm a damn
thing you've claimed in so far as the antivirus companies wrote and
released viruses in an effort to gain a sales advantage over their
competition. That is a well known, bull****, myth.

you don't know any of the people involved. simple as that.

You have no way of knowing who I do/don't know. Simple as that,
really. I routinely traded samples for legit regged software in my
own real name with many AV companies. Many of my VX contacts did as
well, and some of them went to work for those companies you
mistakenly think contribute to the virus problem, without providing
any evidence to support it.

Fact is, your claim that AV companies created viruses to boost sales
of their own products is complete and utter bull****. They don't
need to do that, they've never needed to do that and it wouldn't
give them ANY real advantage for doing it. Once something is ITW
(and it needs to be for them to take interest), collecting a viable
sample for any company is an easy process. It was part of my job
duties when I worked for malwarebytes in fact. I could easily
collect several THOUSAND fresh 0day samples in a few hours, with
very little effort.

There's NOTHING to be gained by wasting in house resources to try to
one up your competition that way. And, if your competition ever
figured out you were behind even a single outbreak, it's curtains
for your company. Lose public trust, and you would thanks to the
press reports by your competition, you lose the game. Contract
cancellations, etc. Not fun times for your rogue company. And that's
what you'd be the moment you got caught. AV takes that very
seriously, they always have.

If you don't think it's possible to determine the source of malware
family down to the author in many cases, especially if you have
legit code bases to compare against, you don't have the programming
background you claim to have, either. And know next to nothing about
reverse engineering or how it's performed or what you learn when you
do it.

While you may infact be an HLL programmer and possibly a decent one
at that, It doesn't mean you actually have a clue how your program
works at the low level. Or, what you're giving about yourself away
as you churn out program after program.

it means bump up the clock speed, increase the capacity/speed
of the ssd, etc. of *existing* configurations.

Are you going to overclock the existing cpu to bring up the clock
speed, or, changeout the cpu for one that runs at a higher speed,
natively? I'm not a big fan of overclocking myself. Or, did you
throttle the cpu clock speed back and decide to bring it to the
rate it was originally designed to run and increase cost to
consumer for that 'higher' clock speed? The latter seems shady to
me. Almost dishonest.

nobody said anything about overclocking.

yet another thing about which you know nothing.

Okay. I'll play along with this. Explain how you bumped up the clock
speed if you didn't do anything I described?

the microsoft windows laptop can't even be opened without
destroying it. everything is soldered, glued or otherwise
locked down.

Here we go again with bashing microsoft. Would it be fair to say
you're a Microsoft hater? Not dislike mind you, but actually
hate?

says the person who hates apple. crazy.

Except that I don't hate Apple. Crazy, indeed.

and as for upgrading, try adding a 10 gig-e nic to a windows
laptop.

It's called an external device. Typically plugs into a USB port,
but, other expansion options exist depending on laptop
manufacturer. You may not achieve full bandwidth though, due to
the interface between the computer and external device. Or, you
could just shop around for a laptop that already has it, built
in.

plugging a 10 gig-e nic into a usb port? that's hilarious.

trying to get full bandwidth out of a device when most people and
most small companies don't have the required switch gear OR internet
connection is what's hillarious.

on a mac, there are no compromises when adding a 10 gig-e nic.
none. it will run at full 10g speeds.

Only if you have the required supporting hardware connected. And
even then, it might still be restricted to local network use at full
speed, because your outbound feed to the net probably isn't going to
be cruising that fast in all areas. Atleast, not here in the states.

for a mac (laptop or desktop, doesn't matter), connect it with
a cable. no need to even open the computer.

Well, for the PC, if it doesn't already support it, you can
easily add it:

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...item-details.a
sp?EdpNo=9745843

that won't fit in any laptop from any manufacturer nor will it fit
into many desktops, including the microsoft surface studio.

Funny, as it's not intended to be installed in a laptop or a tiny
wannabe desktop. it's intended for actual full size desktop/tower
computers that typically do have the room, as they were built with
upgrading in mind.



--
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

The seafood is always fresh, even in Nebraska.

nospam
Thu, 03 Aug 2017
17:18:01 GMT in rec.photo.digital, wrote:

And I call bull****. Straight up, bull****. The links you
provided previously don't even support the claim you tried to
make when you shared them. Not one little bit, infact.

call bull**** all you want. i know some of the people involved.

Sure you do...

AV companies do NOT create malware in the hopes of being the
first to detect something in an effort to boost their sales or
their ratings with joe public or the competition. That's NOT how
it works.

except that one did exactly that, which means that it's extremely
likely they're not the only one who resorts to sleazy tactics.

Except that the article you cited specifically stated the 'malware'
was a dud. IE: bull**** file. NOT Malware. Maybe you should re-read
the material you're going to share, before doing so.

Bull**** again. I already told you, I was on a first/last name
basis with many big players in the av/am scene while being an
active vxer. If what you wrote was ever true (and it wasn't, not
ever. Zvi Netiv and Doren Rosenthal do not count, if that's the
'people' you know) and it isn't, I would know about it. Hell, I
might have been in on it directly or indirectly via one of the
groups I ran with.

they aren't and you weren't.

You'd never know. You didn't even know I'm a former known vxer until
I mentioned it. When I posted the rolling stone article about me, you
shut the **** up for a bit though. ROFL!

there's a lot you don't know.

That could be said for any of us on any number of subjects.

With that said though, Malware is a subject I know like the back
of my hand. And I've got the reputation and track record to prove
it. Urls nearly twenty years old now still exist, discussing my
work. And that's just a tiny piece of the stuff I've written
since learning to write software, at a very young (single digit)
age.

I've been on a computer of some kind long before they were cool
or most people had a single one let alone a LAN in their homes.

if you mean that coco you had when you were a kid, don't make me
laugh.

I didn't. But, I do have to laugh quite a bit at your arrogance. You
don't have enough first hand knowledge to support it.


--
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

If you do a job too well, you'll get stuck with it.

In article
XnsA7C92F447162HT1@riJ9H1L6NiW1FGIZR598GPmILP99j3 .LRb1j68L0JxF59kI37d9A
Fds3, Diesel wrote:


AV companies do NOT create malware in the hopes of being the
first to detect something in an effort to boost their sales or
their ratings with joe public or the competition. That's NOT how
it works.

except that one did exactly that, which means that it's extremely
likely they're not the only one who resorts to sleazy tactics.

Except that the article you cited specifically stated the 'malware'
was a dud. IE: bull**** file. NOT Malware. Maybe you should re-read
the material you're going to share, before doing so.

i did not cite any article about that, nor is there an article to cite.
it's all word of mouth.

you should read what i wrote more carefully before spouting.

Bull**** again. I already told you, I was on a first/last name
basis with many big players in the av/am scene while being an
active vxer. If what you wrote was ever true (and it wasn't, not
ever. Zvi Netiv and Doren Rosenthal do not count, if that's the
'people' you know) and it isn't, I would know about it. Hell, I
might have been in on it directly or indirectly via one of the
groups I ran with.

they aren't and you weren't.

You'd never know. You didn't even know I'm a former known vxer until
I mentioned it. When I posted the rolling stone article about me, you
shut the **** up for a bit though. ROFL!

i don't give a **** about that article or any other article. you keep
mentioning it as if it's some sort of accomplishment. it's not, nor
does it impress me at all.

there's a lot you don't know.

That could be said for any of us on any number of subjects.

With that said though, Malware is a subject I know like the back
of my hand. And I've got the reputation and track record to prove
it. Urls nearly twenty years old now still exist, discussing my
work. And that's just a tiny piece of the stuff I've written
since learning to write software, at a very young (single digit)
age.

I've been on a computer of some kind long before they were cool
or most people had a single one let alone a LAN in their homes.

if you mean that coco you had when you were a kid, don't make me
laugh.

I didn't. But, I do have to laugh quite a bit at your arrogance. You
don't have enough first hand knowledge to support it.

you're not one to talk about arrogance.

you think you're hot ****. you're not. there's a lot you *don't* know
and you refuse to learn.

i noticed you snipped all of the parts where i proved you wrong. that
was wise.

In article
XnsA7C92F3B9936HT1@riJ9H1L6NiW1FGIZR598GPmILP99j3 .LRb1j68L0JxF59kI37d9A
Fds3, Diesel wrote:


photoshop is an *extremely* popular app and just one example of
many where unix users are stuck with lower quality and far less
capable apps.

Unix users aren't stuck. VMs will run various other operating
systems, including those which Photoshop is designed for. I really
don't know why you think UNIX is so limiting, Apple and other big
vendors obviously find it very useful. As do many small businesses
and a growing amount of home users.

once again, mac apps are not unix apps and most people buy macs for the
wide range of mac apps, not because there's unix underneath. some do
buy it for unix, but relatively few, and those that do want unix *and*
mac not just unix.

as for years in development, the gimp started in 1995, according
to wikipedia, yet it still lacks features photoshop had even then.
how long should users wait until they catch up?

Again, bad comparison. Gimp isn't commercial software. It's not
supported by a multi million dollar company.

it's a very good comparison and exactly why unix apps are second rate.
there's no incentive to fix any of the problems.

Tell that to the creators of Betamax. They had a superior system
than that of VHS. And, that's just one measily example. Many more
exist. Popularity plays a very big role in hardware adoption. You
have to be able to justify supporting the technology. If nobody
cares about it other than mac users, then it's a no go
essentially for the PC world. Again, seeing as how long it's been
out, it's looking like a stalled project on the PC side.

moving the goalposts again.

betamax/vhs is not the topic.

I didn't move any goalposts, I discounted your claim that popularity
doesn't matter. It does.

only for mindless sheep does popularity matter.

they buy whatever is popular without determining whether it's the best
solution to their needs.

savvy users choose the best tool for the job, no matter what it is and
no matter how popular or unpopular it may be.

that's why apple bashers keep citing the 90% market share as if it's an
indication of quality. it's not.

as for beta/vhs, tv stations used betacam (the pro version of betamax),
not vhs. they chose that because it was the only system that did what
they needed, not because it was popular, so your example doesn't even
prove what you thought it did.


prices are competitive and macs are the *only* platform that
can run mac, windows *and* unix.

http://emulators.com/

emulation means the host system *can't* run it, it has to
emulate it. you just proved my point.

Actually, I discredited what you wrote.

no you haven't. you don't even *understand* what i wrote.

Yes I do. You claimed that macs were the only ones that could run
mac, windows and unix, but, that's not true.

it is true.

running mac os on a hackintosh is a violation of the eula, plus a
hackintosh doesn't do most of the things a genuine mac can do, even if
violating the eula wasn't a concern.



Nobody every said it did. But, when you go out of your way to
make something as simple as changing a dead battery pack out for
a new one a royal pain in the ass, you're intentionally designing
a life expectancy limit in your device. Why should something be
tossed simply because one component has failed? A component that
should and could be made easily replaceable.

nonsense. the battery is one of the most reliable components in
the product.

The iphone battery typically lasts less than two years. And, that's
if you take good care of it.

complete utter nonsense. not even close to reality.

http://www.cio.com/article/2419524/c...ow-if-your-iph
one-battery-is-on-death-row.html

bogus article.

http://www.macworld.com/article/1058916/smartphones/iphonebattery.html
A true statement, as far as it goes. Batteries die. But many media
reports this week have gone further. Take, for example, CNET¹s review
of the iPhone, which states that ³Apple is estimating one battery
will last for 400 charges ‹ probably about two years¹ worth of use.²

Two years of use, the review says, and your iPhone dies. Or
disappears in a puff of smoke, like those old tape recordings on
³Mission Impossible.² Sounds pretty awful, right?

Too bad it¹s completely wrong.

Apple estimates that the iPhone will lose 20 percent of its capacity
‹ a darn sight less than 100 percent ‹ ³after 400 full charge and
discharge cycles.²

....

³After 400 complete cycles, the iPhone¹s battery still has 80 percent
of its charged capacity,² Joswiak said. ³And by a complete charge
cycle, I mean completely draining the battery, a full chemical
cycle.² In other words, using a little battery and then putting your
iPhone back in its dock doesn¹t count as a charge cycle. If you use a
quarter of your iPhone¹s battery and then re-charge it, Joswiak said,
that¹s the equivalent of a quarter of a charge cycle.


the reality is that an iphone battery lasts many *years* with minimal
degradation.

anyone who claims that an iphone battery dies in two years is at best
grossly misinformed. they've never had an iphone and are just spouting
anti-apple propaganda, hoping that people are stupid enough to believe
it.

I've been in the IT industry professionally for several decades with
the certifications to back it up. As well as having nearly a decades
worth of electrical industry experience under my belt.
Certifications to back that up, too.

big deal. certs don't mean much of anything, other than being able to
memorize answers and pass a test.

those tests are so ridiculously easy that anyone with a room
temperature iq can pass one.

most of the it people i've known over the years aren't all that smart.
the few who know their **** don't stay there, they move up to
engineering in short order. they took an it job to get a foot in the
door.




Fact is, your claim that AV companies created viruses to boost sales
of their own products is complete and utter bull****. They don't
need to do that, they've never needed to do that and it wouldn't
give them ANY real advantage for doing it. Once something is ITW
(and it needs to be for them to take interest), collecting a viable
sample for any company is an easy process. It was part of my job
duties when I worked for malwarebytes in fact. I could easily
collect several THOUSAND fresh 0day samples in a few hours, with
very little effort.

it's not bull****. anti-malware companies have a vested interest for
malware to exist. without malware, there's no need for their products.

they need people to feel threatened by malware so that their sales
continue.


While you may infact be an HLL programmer and possibly a decent one
at that, It doesn't mean you actually have a clue how your program
works at the low level. Or, what you're giving about yourself away
as you churn out program after program.

yet another feeble attempt at an insult and you demonstrate just how
little you actually know about software development at all levels.

it means bump up the clock speed, increase the capacity/speed
of the ssd, etc. of *existing* configurations.

Are you going to overclock the existing cpu to bring up the clock
speed, or, changeout the cpu for one that runs at a higher speed,
natively? I'm not a big fan of overclocking myself. Or, did you
throttle the cpu clock speed back and decide to bring it to the
rate it was originally designed to run and increase cost to
consumer for that 'higher' clock speed? The latter seems shady to
me. Almost dishonest.

nobody said anything about overclocking.

yet another thing about which you know nothing.

Okay. I'll play along with this. Explain how you bumped up the clock
speed if you didn't do anything I described?

you haven't a clue.

nowhere did anyone say the end user bumped the specs.



on a mac, there are no compromises when adding a 10 gig-e nic.
none. it will run at full 10g speeds.

Only if you have the required supporting hardware connected. And
even then, it might still be restricted to local network use at full
speed, because your outbound feed to the net probably isn't going to
be cruising that fast in all areas. Atleast, not here in the states.

for someone who brags about their certs, you know very little.

10 gig is not for a connection to the internet, but rather for the
internal lan.

a single desktop/laptop can *easily* saturate a gigabit link without
much effort, making gigabit the bottleneck.

removing that bottleneck is generally a wise investment, one which will
pay for itself fairly quickly in increased productivity. it might not
matter that much for a home user, but it would for smb.

the fact is that existing macs can easily support 10 gig, whereas most
pcs cannot. pc users will need a new computer. mac users won't.

for a mac (laptop or desktop, doesn't matter), connect it with
a cable. no need to even open the computer.

Well, for the PC, if it doesn't already support it, you can
easily add it:

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...item-details.a
sp?EdpNo=9745843

that won't fit in any laptop from any manufacturer nor will it fit
into many desktops, including the microsoft surface studio.

Funny, as it's not intended to be installed in a laptop or a tiny
wannabe desktop. it's intended for actual full size desktop/tower
computers that typically do have the room, as they were built with
upgrading in mind.

you said popularity is what matters and what's popular are not full
size desktop/towers, but rather laptops.

furthermore, few people actually upgrade anyway.

nospam
Tue, 08 Aug 2017
20:33:00 GMT in rec.photo.digital, wrote:

it's a very good comparison and exactly why unix apps are second
rate. there's no incentive to fix any of the problems.

Horse ****.

only for mindless sheep does popularity matter.

That would be the majority of the general public.

that's why apple bashers keep citing the 90% market share as if
it's an indication of quality. it's not.

I'm not an Apple basher, either.

as for beta/vhs, tv stations used betacam (the pro version of
betamax), not vhs. they chose that because it was the only system
that did what they needed, not because it was popular, so your
example doesn't even prove what you thought it did.

Talk about moving goal posts. For the end user, betamax lost out to
vhs, and, it wasn't because vhs was better technology or video
quality wise. TV stations are not the typical end user, and, they
usually have much nicer gear; specialized gear for the work they do.


prices are competitive and macs are the *only* platform
that can run mac, windows *and* unix.

http://emulators.com/

emulation means the host system *can't* run it, it has to
emulate it. you just proved my point.

Actually, I discredited what you wrote.

no you haven't. you don't even *understand* what i wrote.

Yes I do. You claimed that macs were the only ones that could run
mac, windows and unix, but, that's not true.

it is true.

No, it isn't. As the url I provided shows.

running mac os on a hackintosh is a violation of the eula, plus a
hackintosh doesn't do most of the things a genuine mac can do,
even if violating the eula wasn't a concern.

what exactly is a hackintosh? You keep spouting that mac does things
a PC cannot do, aside from running some very specific apple software
or including some very specific Apple hardware; what specifically can
a mac do that a PC cannot? This is your chance to try and sell me on
a mac, btw. Or, perhaps another individual reading our 'discussion'
if you want to stretch the words meaning that far. I'll give you some
leeway on that.

The iphone battery typically lasts less than two years. And,
that's if you take good care of it.

complete utter nonsense. not even close to reality.

http://www.cio.com/article/2419524/c...gy/how-to-know
-if-your-iph one-battery-is-on-death-row.html

bogus article.

I seriously doubt that.

http://www.macworld.com/article/1058.../iphonebattery.
html

Oh, that wouldn't have any bias towards it. None at all. /sarcasm.

the reality is that an iphone battery lasts many *years* with
minimal degradation.

That isn't reality.

I've been in the IT industry professionally for several decades
with the certifications to back it up. As well as having nearly a
decades worth of electrical industry experience under my belt.
Certifications to back that up, too.

big deal. certs don't mean much of anything, other than being able
to memorize answers and pass a test.

If you think all certs are setup that way, then I'd question what/if
any you actually have yourself...

those tests are so ridiculously easy that anyone with a room
temperature iq can pass one.

So which one(s) do you possess? I'll try not to laugh too much if you
evade my question or respond with none and provide some silly reason
to justify having none.

most of the it people i've known over the years aren't all that
smart. the few who know their **** don't stay there, they move up
to engineering in short order. they took an it job to get a foot
in the door.

I'm not like the IT people you've known over the years. Nor are the
majority of my peers. IT has become such a generalized term, it's
almost insulting to even use it, even when describing yourself.
Computer science doesn't have the same 'sales' potential either. And,
engineer sadly, is approaching the same.

Fact is, your claim that AV companies created viruses to boost
sales of their own products is complete and utter bull****. They
don't need to do that, they've never needed to do that and it
wouldn't give them ANY real advantage for doing it. Once
something is ITW (and it needs to be for them to take interest),
collecting a viable sample for any company is an easy process. It
was part of my job duties when I worked for malwarebytes in fact.
I could easily collect several THOUSAND fresh 0day samples in a
few hours, with very little effort.

it's not bull****. anti-malware companies have a vested interest
for malware to exist. without malware, there's no need for their
products.

That's a crock of horse ****, too. There's more than enough malware
to last for years from now, without a single actual new one being
created from scratch. AV companies would LOVE it if they could re
dedicate resources to more productive tasks rather than reverse
samples on a daily basis; automation only gets you so far in that
aspect.

they need people to feel threatened by malware so that their sales
continue.

That's why almost every player has free versions of their products
that use the same detection/removal engine and shared definitions as
the commercial counterparts, right? Do you even believe the bull****
you're trying to peddle here yourself?


While you may infact be an HLL programmer and possibly a decent
one at that, It doesn't mean you actually have a clue how your
program works at the low level. Or, what you're giving about
yourself away as you churn out program after program.

yet another feeble attempt at an insult and you demonstrate just
how little you actually know about software development at all
levels.

I made no effort to insult you. I was on point though with my
assumption concerning your programming expertise though, wasn't I.
You *are* an HLL level programmer, correct?

it means bump up the clock speed, increase the
capacity/speed of the ssd, etc. of *existing*
configurations.

Are you going to overclock the existing cpu to bring up the
clock speed, or, changeout the cpu for one that runs at a
higher speed, natively? I'm not a big fan of overclocking
myself. Or, did you throttle the cpu clock speed back and
decide to bring it to the rate it was originally designed to
run and increase cost to consumer for that 'higher' clock
speed? The latter seems shady to me. Almost dishonest.

nobody said anything about overclocking.

yet another thing about which you know nothing.

Okay. I'll play along with this. Explain how you bumped up the
clock speed if you didn't do anything I described?

you haven't a clue.

Oh, yes, I most certainly do. You've entered a discussion with me
where you have no chance. You might as well have tried to bluff your
knowledge concerning assembler and/or machine code at this point. The
result for you would be the same. a thorough arse kicking by me.

nowhere did anyone say the end user bumped the specs.

I said nothing about the end user bumping anything. You claimed the
vendor (apple) bumped the clock spec. If they didn't do any of the
aforementioned things, what did they do to achieve it?



on a mac, there are no compromises when adding a 10 gig-e nic.
none. it will run at full 10g speeds.

Only if you have the required supporting hardware connected. And
even then, it might still be restricted to local network use at
full speed, because your outbound feed to the net probably isn't
going to be cruising that fast in all areas. Atleast, not here in
the states.

for someone who brags about their certs, you know very little.

Which certs do you hold? It's a valid question at this point.

10 gig is not for a connection to the internet, but rather for the
internal lan.

I believe I covered that with 'local network' You know what LAN means
right? LOCAL AREA NETWORK. Doh! 10gig is possible via fibre, btw.

And you *still* require 10gigabit friendly switchgear to do it, and
every device you expect to run that fast must also support it. As
well as the cabling (shudder, yes I said it, the cabling); something
you obviously snub your nose at pulling.

And incidently, depending upon your internet based connection, it's
more than possible to pull 10gigabits from it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber-optic_communication

a single desktop/laptop can *easily* saturate a gigabit link
without much effort, making gigabit the bottleneck.

If you're moving some rather large files around using multiple
computers, sure. A single machine isn't that likely to saturate the
entire 1gigabit switchgear, though. A NAS system oth, is another
beastie outright and that's not exactly a fair comparison, either.

And most home users are not going to move enough data from machine to
machine at one time to saturate a gigabit based LAN. Many small
businesses depending on the type of business won't even do that.
Digital movie production, serious photographic work, maybe. And the
latter is pushing it. I've setup audio recording studios that
wouldn't tax 1gigabit based LAN. And that's working with RAW audio
files.

removing that bottleneck is generally a wise investment, one which
will pay for itself fairly quickly in increased productivity. it
might not matter that much for a home user, but it would for smb.

Of course it won't for a home user. A home user isn't going to have
multiple computers taxing a 1gigabit link. It may matter for an smb,
depending on what the network is actually being used for and how many
users are actually using it at one time as well as file server/work
station configurations. However, to claim automatically that it would
for smb is a foolish claim to make that isn't supported by facts.

the fact is that existing macs can easily support 10 gig, whereas
most pcs cannot. pc users will need a new computer. mac users
won't.

Actually, some pcs have had 10gigabit cards built into the mainboard
for several years now. Gigabyte and supermicro are two such vendors.
It's not a mac only 'feature' PC users have choices, where as with
Apple, you get what Apple offers and only what Apple offers. It's
proprietary hardware, after all. You can't pick and choose the
mainboard you want to use, or the feature set based on the mainboard
selection because that's not an option Apple offers you. It's Apple
or nothing.



for a mac (laptop or desktop, doesn't matter), connect it
with a cable. no need to even open the computer.

Well, for the PC, if it doesn't already support it, you can
easily add it:

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...ls/item-detail
s.a sp?EdpNo=9745843

that won't fit in any laptop from any manufacturer nor will it
fit into many desktops, including the microsoft surface studio.

Funny, as it's not intended to be installed in a laptop or a tiny
wannabe desktop. it's intended for actual full size desktop/tower
computers that typically do have the room, as they were built
with upgrading in mind.

you said popularity is what matters and what's popular are not
full size desktop/towers, but rather laptops.

And as I said, some PC based systems have had 10gigabit built in for
several years now. The add on card I mentioned is for the older or
less cost upfront machines that do not have it presently, but, for
whatever reason, the user may wish to add it. Users that have serious
LANs that actually do have a reason/need for it, that is. LAN setups
with one or more dedicated and serious storage capable NAS devices,
primarily. Not your typical home users.

furthermore, few people actually upgrade anyway.

That's nothing more than your own personal opinion. One of which I do
not share, because the experience I have in the field doesn't support
your opinion. Apple users likely don't do much in the way of hardware
upgrades because they are rather limited in what upgrades they can
actually do. PC users are a different animal.

--
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php
http://picpaste.com/m9WZ0KrA.jpg - David and Trisha
http://picpaste.com/U5np7XvN.jpg - How to contact David and Trisha
David and Trisha love meeting new interests for sexual exploration.
If this sounds like something you might be interested in knowing more
about or participating in - feel free to reach around and contact
them. As David once put it, "We might be older, but we're not dead."


What you perceive, exists.