Messages In This Digest (11 Messages)
- 1a.
- thumbnails too small From: Kitty
- 1b.
- Re: thumbnails too small From: John Engberg
- 1c.
- Re: thumbnails too small From: Otto Nikolaus
- 1d.
- Re: thumbnails too small From: Kitty
- 1e.
- Re: thumbnails too small From: Kitty
- 1f.
- Re: thumbnails too small From: John Engberg
- 1g.
- Re: thumbnails too small From: Otto Nikolaus
- 1h.
- Re: thumbnails too small From: Anna Larson
- 2a.
- Flashback Malware failure From: Jim Saklad
- 2b.
- Re: Flashback Malware failure From: Bekah
- 3a.
- Re: iMac and external graphics via Thunderbolt From: Jeff
Messages
- 1a.
-
thumbnails too small
Posted by: "Kitty" kquen2008@yahoo.com kquen2008
Sun May 20, 2012 11:12 am (PDT)
This may have already been addressed but I'm too lazy to look and wouldn't know what to even look for in the archives anyway.
How do you enlarge the thumbnails in iphoto so you can see what you're trying to send / share?
Thanks in advance...
- 1b.
-
Re: thumbnails too small
Posted by: "John Engberg" mrbyte@earthlink.net mrbyte
Sun May 20, 2012 11:54 am (PDT)
On May 20, 2012, at 2:12 PM, Kitty wrote:
> This may have already been addressed but I'm too lazy to look and wouldn't know what to even look for in the archives anyway.
>
> How do you enlarge the thumbnails in iphoto so you can see what you're trying to send / share?
>
> Thanks in advance...
>
Why don't you try double clicking on the thumbnail and see what happens.
- 1c.
-
Re: thumbnails too small
Posted by: "Otto Nikolaus" otto.nikolaus@googlemail.com nikyzf
Sun May 20, 2012 12:12 pm (PDT)
In my version there is a slider in the bottom right corner. Do you have
that?
Otto
On 20 May 2012 19:12, Kitty <kquen2008@yahoo.com > wrote:
> This may have already been addressed but I'm too lazy to look and wouldn't
> know what to even look for in the archives anyway.
>
> How do you enlarge the thumbnails in iphoto so you can see what you're
> trying to send / share?
>
> Thanks in advance...
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- 1d.
-
Re: thumbnails too small
Posted by: "Kitty" kquen2008@yahoo.com kquen2008
Sun May 20, 2012 12:58 pm (PDT)
That doesn't work. The moment I select a photo, it transfers to the email as an attachment. I can't see (too small) what it is until its sent (too late). K
--- In macsupportcentral@yahoogroups. , John Engberg <mrbyte@...> wrote:com
>
>
> On May 20, 2012, at 2:12 PM, Kitty wrote:
>
> > How do you enlarge the thumbnails in iPhoto so you can see what you're trying to send / share?
> >
>
> Why don't you try double clicking on the thumbnail and see what happens.
>
- 1e.
-
Re: thumbnails too small
Posted by: "Kitty" kquen2008@yahoo.com kquen2008
Sun May 20, 2012 1:00 pm (PDT)
You mean in your email client or at iPhoto? No, to both. K
--- In macsupportcentral@yahoogroups. , Otto Nikolaus <otto.nikolaus@com ...> wrote:
>
> In my version there is a slider in the bottom right corner. Do you have
> that?
>
> Otto
>
> On 20 May 2012 19:12, Kitty <kquen2008@...> wrote:
>
> > How do you enlarge the thumbnails in iPhoto so you can see what you're
> > trying to send / share?
- 1f.
-
Re: thumbnails too small
Posted by: "John Engberg" mrbyte@earthlink.net mrbyte
Sun May 20, 2012 1:28 pm (PDT)
Select Photos and then couple click on a thumbnail.
On May 20, 2012, at 3:57 PM, Kitty wrote:
> That doesn't work. The moment I select a photo, it transfers to the email as an attachment. I can't see (too small) what it is until its sent (too late). K
>
> --- In macsupportcentral@yahoogroups. , John Engberg <mrbyte@...> wrote:com
>>
>>
>> On May 20, 2012, at 2:12 PM, Kitty wrote:
>>
>>> How do you enlarge the thumbnails in iPhoto so you can see what you're trying to send / share?
>>>
>>
>> Why don't you try double clicking on the thumbnail and see what happens.
>>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------- --------- ------
>
> Group FAQ:
> <http://www.macsupportcentral. >com/policies/
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
- 1g.
-
Re: thumbnails too small
Posted by: "Otto Nikolaus" otto.nikolaus@googlemail.com nikyzf
Sun May 20, 2012 2:54 pm (PDT)
I thought you were asking about iPhoto. Why would I be describing an email
client? My iPhoto is '09 (8.1.2). Which do you have?
You have no slider in the bottom bar of the iPhoto window?
Otto
On 20 May 2012 21:00, Kitty <kquen2008@yahoo.com > wrote:
> You mean in your email client or at iPhoto? No, to both. K
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- 1h.
-
Re: thumbnails too small
Posted by: "Anna Larson" pix@maksimo.de yovard@ymail.com
Mon May 21, 2012 1:01 am (PDT)
On 20.05.2012, at 20:12, Kitty wrote:
>
>
> How do you enlarge the thumbnails in iphoto so you can see what you're trying to send / share?
> The moment I select a photo, it transfers to the email as an attachment. I can't see (too small) what it is until its sent (too late)
In iPhoto '11 (= version 9.2.3) the slider is in the bottom bar on the *left* side. :-)
If you are in iPhoto then use the slider as Otto said. Simply selecting a photo in iPhoto will certainly not send it as an attachment. You have to do more than that.
If on the other hand you are in Mail, then
1) Create a new message
2) Show the integrated Photo Browser by clicking on the corresponding icon in the upper right corner (see screen shot no. 1)
http://minus.com/mNqtCJb3c/
3) Double-click on one of the thumbnails
4) You should now see a sort of very large preview (see screen shot no. 2)
http://minus.com/mNqtCJb3c/ 2
5) Flip through the enlarged pictures/thumbnails by using the arrow keys.
If you use Mail you don't even have to open iPhoto. Just use the integrated Photo Browser in Mail.
Was this of any help?
Anna
- 2a.
-
Flashback Malware failure
Posted by: "Jim Saklad" jimdoc@me.com jimdoc01
Sun May 20, 2012 9:02 pm (PDT)
Flashback-K malware breaks down; no payment for creators
Sun May 20, 2012
From 600,000 infections to 10,000; ad vendor won't pay
After possibly infecting up to 1.8 percent of the Macintosh population with a click-fraud macro through a Java vulnerability, the Flashback creators won't get paid despite their efforts, reports Computerworld. Following a coordinated security effort between antivirus vendors and security experts, remote malicious orders were blocked or prevented from effecting an estimated peak 600,000 infected computers. Apple joined the fray late, but provided patches and a removal tool for the malware.
"Lots of security companies sinkholed Flashback's domains, and this caused [the hackers] a lot of problems," said Liam O'Murchu, manager of operations at Symantec's security response center. After the combined anti-Flashback efforts, about 10,000 macs remained controlled by the bot-net, but the advertising affiliate that served 98% of the generated clicks isn't paying the creators.
The Flashback malware was designed not to harm the user's own data, but to connect the computer to a botnet that served ads the user wouldn't have normally seen or steal clicks from Google ads generated by users. Across the three weeks that the malware was active, some 10 million ads were served, resulting in about 400,000 click-throughs that would have generated around $14,000 for the malware creators.
"The traffic we've analyzed tells us that they hadn't been paid," said O'Murchu, "They haven't been able to provide the information to the pay-per-click affiliate that [was] required to be paid." Legitimate advertising vendors use a variety of anti-fraud mechanisms, including identity checks and sampling the traffic from the source of the clicks, to insure that the clicks are legitimate. Without these verification steps, advertisers won't pay the advertising vendor.
Apple provided the patch in mid-April for the exploit after it made headlines two weeks prior. The exploit was made public in February. Java patches for Snow Leopard and Lion are available, and a separate removal tool is also downloadable for Leopard, Snow Leopard, and Lion. [via Computerworld]
<http://www.macnn.com/articles/ >12/05/20/ from.600000. infections. to.10000. ad.vendor. wont.pay/ #ixzz1vTPRnGmp
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~
Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@me.com
- 2b.
-
Re: Flashback Malware failure
Posted by: "Bekah" bekah0176@sbcglobal.net bekalex
Mon May 21, 2012 5:33 am (PDT)
That's kind of funny - thanks.
Bek
On May 20, 2012, at 9:02 PM, Jim Saklad wrote:
> Flashback-K malware breaks down; no payment for creators
> Sun May 20, 2012
>
> From 600,000 infections to 10,000; ad vendor won't pay
>
> After possibly infecting up to 1.8 percent of the Macintosh population with a click-fraud macro through a Java vulnerability, the Flashback creators won't get paid despite their efforts, reports Computerworld. Following a coordinated security effort between antivirus vendors and security experts, remote malicious orders were blocked or prevented from effecting an estimated peak 600,000 infected computers. Apple joined the fray late, but provided patches and a removal tool for the malware.
>
> "Lots of security companies sinkholed Flashback's domains, and this caused [the hackers] a lot of problems," said Liam O'Murchu, manager of operations at Symantec's security response center. After the combined anti-Flashback efforts, about 10,000 macs remained controlled by the bot-net, but the advertising affiliate that served 98% of the generated clicks isn't paying the creators.
>
> The Flashback malware was designed not to harm the user's own data, but to connect the computer to a botnet that served ads the user wouldn't have normally seen or steal clicks from Google ads generated by users. Across the three weeks that the malware was active, some 10 million ads were served, resulting in about 400,000 click-throughs that would have generated around $14,000 for the malware creators.
>
> "The traffic we've analyzed tells us that they hadn't been paid," said O'Murchu, "They haven't been able to provide the information to the pay-per-click affiliate that [was] required to be paid." Legitimate advertising vendors use a variety of anti-fraud mechanisms, including identity checks and sampling the traffic from the source of the clicks, to insure that the clicks are legitimate. Without these verification steps, advertisers won't pay the advertising vendor.
>
> Apple provided the patch in mid-April for the exploit after it made headlines two weeks prior. The exploit was made public in February. Java patches for Snow Leopard and Lion are available, and a separate removal tool is also downloadable for Leopard, Snow Leopard, and Lion. [via Computerworld]
>
> <http://www.macnn.com/articles/ >12/05/20/ from.600000. infections. to.10000. ad.vendor. wont.pay/ #ixzz1vTPRnGmp
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~
> Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@me.com
>
>
>
> --------------------- --------- ------
>
> Group FAQ:
> <http://www.macsupportcentral. >com/policies/
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
- 3a.
-
Re: iMac and external graphics via Thunderbolt
Posted by: "Jeff" jbturof@yahoo.com jbturof
Mon May 21, 2012 6:30 am (PDT)
Thanks a ton for all of the great info.
I'll have to investigate it over my lunch break today.
Once you said 'card cage' that rang a bell in my memory. Haven't heard it in a while. I figured it would be expensive though being such a new technology still.
I'd prefer to get the Mac Pro and just put a different card in it, but just can't justify the cash right now. Getting the top-end iMac will get me by for a couple of years until I can afford something better.
Thanks again Dan. Much appreciated!
Jeff
--- In macsupportcentral@yahoogroups. , Denver Dan <denver.dan@com ...> wrote:
>
> Howdy Jeff.
>
> I've been trying to post Thunderbolt news here from time-to-time. The
> technology may finally be taking off.
>
> Currently the Thunderbolt cables available are copper based but we are
> seeing news that Intel may almost have ready a Thunderbolt cable with
> fiber optic plus a copper line for power transmission.
>
> This is an interesting topic to learn about in case Apple decides to
> never make a tower computer again. Shame shame shame if that is the
> case (as it were).
>
> The cables are also expensive due to limited production and because of
> a required chip in each plug end.
>
> What you are asking about is sometimes called a "card cage." Card
> cages (under various other names also) have been around for many years
> but are aimed at higher end and professional users.
>
> I think there are now several brands of Thunderbolt card cages
> available.
>
> Try a search with these terms:
>
> card cage
> card case
> expansion case
> PCIe expansion case
> PCIe card adapter expansion
>
> Check this Sonnet site for some information.
>
> <http://www.sonnettech.com/product/ >thunderbolt/
>
> Also check this Magma site:
>
> <http://www.magma.com/thunderbolt. >asp
>
> MLogic may also have a card cage but I'm not sure whether it's actually
> shipping.
>
> <http://www.mlogic.com >
>
> WHOOPS! Just read a little more on mLogic's mLink device and it
> apparently doesn't accept video cards.
>
> At this time these devices are not cheap.
>
> However, the flexibility of adding other cards, of switching cards, and
> upgrading cards is an important thing to consider.
>
> It's also a very good idea to check on potential driver requirements.
> It may be the situation that a driver is not required for a current Mac
> with a Thunderbolt port built in. I don't know about a MacPro or
> Windows system where Thunderbolt is still a foreign topic but this
> would be worth a message to the makers's tech service/customer support
> prior to purchase.
>
> The Magma device, more expensive, has 3 slots for full length cards
> while the Sonnet device has 2 slots for the smaller card but only
> supports 1 full length card.
>
> Denver Dan
>
>
> On Fri, 18 May 2012 13:50:32 +0000, Jeff wrote:
> > I've posted recently about purchasing a Mac Pro vs PC workstation and
> > now I'm considering buying an 27" i7 iMac instead, but I have a
> > question regarding Thunderbolt.
> > I know nothing about it except roughly how it works. I have a real
> > need to have a better graphics card than the Radeon 6970 that comes
> > with the iMac as the 3d software I use works best with nVidia
> > cards---specifically Quadro cards.
> > Someone told me recently that there is a way to hook up an external
> > video card via Thunderbolt and use it as the primary instead of the
> > internal Radeon.
> > Is this true? And what's involved with doing it?
> >
> > Any light you all can shed on this for me would be appreciated.
> >
> > Thank you in advance!
> >
> > Jeff T.
>
Need to Reply?
Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the Daily Digest.
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Individual | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
