SeniorGato1
Apr 19, 08:23 AM
I think Apple should sue any cell phone manufacturer that uses a screen and buttons.
asdf542
Apr 22, 02:01 PM
I heard the name HP Envy, but I never bothered looking what it is. So yes, I ignore it.
So, if there's no option to have heated seats in the Audi, that looks bad.
The all new 15" Zacate notebook with an 18W CPU with a **** dispenser totally destroys the usefulness of a 15" MacBook Pro with a 45W CPU without a **** dispenser. The MacBook Pro needs a **** dispenser or else it looks bad.
looks bad
looks bad
looks bad
looks bad
So, if there's no option to have heated seats in the Audi, that looks bad.
The all new 15" Zacate notebook with an 18W CPU with a **** dispenser totally destroys the usefulness of a 15" MacBook Pro with a 45W CPU without a **** dispenser. The MacBook Pro needs a **** dispenser or else it looks bad.
looks bad
looks bad
looks bad
looks bad
Cameront9
Aug 23, 05:32 PM
Steve Jobs knew this was a BS patent and it shows in his comments. Absolutely Stupid. Hell, the LISA had a Hierarchal File System. I'm still angry that this patent was even granted in the first place.
Bottom line: Creative knew this was a BS patent, too, but they figured they had to try. However, when the patent was granted to them, they had a weapon in their war against the iPod. Rather than concentrate on making a better product, they used this weapon as a way to get some quick cash. They bet on Apple settling and not going to court.
In the meantime, MS comes in and announces Zune, which threatens other WMA compatible players like Creative's offerings. Creative now thinks they need a backup plan and decides that during the negotiations with Apple, they can get them to give them a license to produce iPod-approved products. Now they have a fallback incase their own offerings fizzle out.
The question is: Will they go after Microsoft, too? It would be hypocritical not to, after all.
Bottom line: Creative knew this was a BS patent, too, but they figured they had to try. However, when the patent was granted to them, they had a weapon in their war against the iPod. Rather than concentrate on making a better product, they used this weapon as a way to get some quick cash. They bet on Apple settling and not going to court.
In the meantime, MS comes in and announces Zune, which threatens other WMA compatible players like Creative's offerings. Creative now thinks they need a backup plan and decides that during the negotiations with Apple, they can get them to give them a license to produce iPod-approved products. Now they have a fallback incase their own offerings fizzle out.
The question is: Will they go after Microsoft, too? It would be hypocritical not to, after all.
jonhaxor
Mar 30, 12:23 PM
No one refers to McDonald's as Burger Store. Their brand name is so strong that people actually say McDonald's because that logo and name is pretty much seared into everyone head.
i do .. it's kinda catchy .. my 2yo calls it "old mcdonalds" because of .. you know .. that song
language is use .. didn't we learn anything from Wittgenstein?
i do .. it's kinda catchy .. my 2yo calls it "old mcdonalds" because of .. you know .. that song
language is use .. didn't we learn anything from Wittgenstein?
oTaRu
Apr 22, 11:42 AM
hope that won't affect the battery in MBA...
DavPeanut
Aug 28, 01:10 PM
Though, I still think they're coming on the 18th of sept.
That would be way behind everyone else, and also would prevent students from taking advantage of the free iPod Nano with a new computer. Also, if they want to catch the student market (like me) they need to update tomorrow, or at least on September 5. The shipments from asia are probably the best indicator of a release that we have seen to date. Apple would not leave "secret" massive shipments lying around unsold. There are over 150 Apple Stores worldwide, and there is no way there wont be some sort of security breach if hundreds of thousands of boxes are sitting around all around the world. I personally would probably find a way into the nearest Apple Store storage room to see what is in those boxes, though I proably wouldn't have to because an apple employee would blab first.
That would be way behind everyone else, and also would prevent students from taking advantage of the free iPod Nano with a new computer. Also, if they want to catch the student market (like me) they need to update tomorrow, or at least on September 5. The shipments from asia are probably the best indicator of a release that we have seen to date. Apple would not leave "secret" massive shipments lying around unsold. There are over 150 Apple Stores worldwide, and there is no way there wont be some sort of security breach if hundreds of thousands of boxes are sitting around all around the world. I personally would probably find a way into the nearest Apple Store storage room to see what is in those boxes, though I proably wouldn't have to because an apple employee would blab first.
LagunaSol
Apr 20, 07:32 PM
Sorry [/puts on apple shades] WHOA! I see now! Steve Jobs is actually GOD!!!!
Now you're getting it!
Would you guys get a room already?
(The trolling grows tiresome.)
Now you're getting it!
Would you guys get a room already?
(The trolling grows tiresome.)
swingerofbirch
Aug 31, 08:28 PM
These days there aren't a whole lot of morale boosters for living in the United States. You can give us this one.
BlizzardBomb
Jul 14, 12:39 PM
Yes, but to the average consumer. These things aren't very important. They will be looking at Ghz, and Apple's "X times faster" looks at the processor. That is what Apple is marketing, not FSB.
Yup, I know Apple's marketing loves to be ridiculous. :p 95% of customers* wouldn't notice the difference. I'm one of the 5% who will notice it but its not like I'm buying one, my iMac G5 will keep me happy for another 2+ years.
*75% of statistics are made up on the spot ;)
Yup, I know Apple's marketing loves to be ridiculous. :p 95% of customers* wouldn't notice the difference. I'm one of the 5% who will notice it but its not like I'm buying one, my iMac G5 will keep me happy for another 2+ years.
*75% of statistics are made up on the spot ;)
samiwas
Apr 20, 02:47 PM
The free market would suck if it were run in the way your brain imagines it. But imagine if you ran a company, and your chief goal is to make a profit. Having happy employees who are payed fairly and receive vacation days, benefits, etc, is definitely a better business model than working your employees like slaves.
OK, so why don't more businesses do that, instead of doing everything they can to "cut costs" to "generate higher profits"? Obviously, a business needs to make a profit. But instead of just making a profit, it seems that nowadays a business is not considered successful unless that business generates massive profits, or highly increased profits over the previous year. And if a business doesn't make as much as they thought they might (even though they've pulled in billions in profit), they are considered failed and their stock tumbles.
Honestly, I don't believe the "free market" that you or any Republican/Tea Partier/Libertarian believes in would work either, except for funneling even more dough to the top (which I actually think might be the way you want to see it, and thus believe would be successful). If you really believe that without some sort of regulation, all businesses would be spending MORE on their employees, you are hopeless.
Benefits shouldn't be government regulated. However, the slave labor that you describe should most certainly not be allowed, duh. Try cutting back on the straw man argument some.
My example may have been a little over the top, but let's not pretend for one second that plenty of employers out there would think nothing of asking their employees to come in on weekends or stay late nights with no extra compensation.
Benefits should have some sort of MINIMAL regulation. The US has pretty much the fewest benefits of any developed nation, and this is considered a good thing....because it benefits the business and not the worker.
It's humorous that when people imagine a free market, they ignore that in a free market, employers would be fighting for good employees as much as employees are fighting for the employers.
Wait...what?? Employers are currently not trying to get good employees? What does this even mean?
It's sad that the government is the largest charity, because it's just so darn inefficient. I have an idea. Private charity.
Somehow, I can't imagine a private charity large enough to take care of all of America's bottom class or replace existing "entitlement programs". The largest charity in the US is the United Way with $3.8billion in income. As for current government program expenses, even Tenant-based Rental Assistance is at $18.2billion, and that's just a single line item in a portion of one part of programs. I just cannot see how private charity could have the kind of reach that the government does. And I'm guessing that the people who do run the government programs make a little less than the $715,000 salary of the head of the United Way.
For all the bleeding heart liberals I've spoken with over the years, who want crazy amounts taxed in order to support social uplift programs, I never see any of them giving away 50+% of their income to charity. It's a lot easier to ask the government to give other peoples money to charity.
I can tell you right now that my family gives >50% of its total income.
However, if you think that taxes = charity, what incentive do you have to give? (to the organizations that are 90+% efficient rather than whatever the crap the government is)
So, AFTER paying 30% in federal and state income taxes, whatever percentage in sales and property tax, you are still able give away an additional 50% or more to charity? So you are able to live on like 3% of your earnings? I would LOVE to be in that position! It's very admirable, but hardly reachable for the average person. I try to give whenever I can, but I can admit that's it's usually around $2k a year.
Anyway, the topic is about the influx of low-wage, no-benefit jobs with no worker protections during times of high profitability and skyrocketing leadership pay. Some people actually see this as good. Some see it as bad. If you see this as a good thing, then we're at an impasse.
OK, so why don't more businesses do that, instead of doing everything they can to "cut costs" to "generate higher profits"? Obviously, a business needs to make a profit. But instead of just making a profit, it seems that nowadays a business is not considered successful unless that business generates massive profits, or highly increased profits over the previous year. And if a business doesn't make as much as they thought they might (even though they've pulled in billions in profit), they are considered failed and their stock tumbles.
Honestly, I don't believe the "free market" that you or any Republican/Tea Partier/Libertarian believes in would work either, except for funneling even more dough to the top (which I actually think might be the way you want to see it, and thus believe would be successful). If you really believe that without some sort of regulation, all businesses would be spending MORE on their employees, you are hopeless.
Benefits shouldn't be government regulated. However, the slave labor that you describe should most certainly not be allowed, duh. Try cutting back on the straw man argument some.
My example may have been a little over the top, but let's not pretend for one second that plenty of employers out there would think nothing of asking their employees to come in on weekends or stay late nights with no extra compensation.
Benefits should have some sort of MINIMAL regulation. The US has pretty much the fewest benefits of any developed nation, and this is considered a good thing....because it benefits the business and not the worker.
It's humorous that when people imagine a free market, they ignore that in a free market, employers would be fighting for good employees as much as employees are fighting for the employers.
Wait...what?? Employers are currently not trying to get good employees? What does this even mean?
It's sad that the government is the largest charity, because it's just so darn inefficient. I have an idea. Private charity.
Somehow, I can't imagine a private charity large enough to take care of all of America's bottom class or replace existing "entitlement programs". The largest charity in the US is the United Way with $3.8billion in income. As for current government program expenses, even Tenant-based Rental Assistance is at $18.2billion, and that's just a single line item in a portion of one part of programs. I just cannot see how private charity could have the kind of reach that the government does. And I'm guessing that the people who do run the government programs make a little less than the $715,000 salary of the head of the United Way.
For all the bleeding heart liberals I've spoken with over the years, who want crazy amounts taxed in order to support social uplift programs, I never see any of them giving away 50+% of their income to charity. It's a lot easier to ask the government to give other peoples money to charity.
I can tell you right now that my family gives >50% of its total income.
However, if you think that taxes = charity, what incentive do you have to give? (to the organizations that are 90+% efficient rather than whatever the crap the government is)
So, AFTER paying 30% in federal and state income taxes, whatever percentage in sales and property tax, you are still able give away an additional 50% or more to charity? So you are able to live on like 3% of your earnings? I would LOVE to be in that position! It's very admirable, but hardly reachable for the average person. I try to give whenever I can, but I can admit that's it's usually around $2k a year.
Anyway, the topic is about the influx of low-wage, no-benefit jobs with no worker protections during times of high profitability and skyrocketing leadership pay. Some people actually see this as good. Some see it as bad. If you see this as a good thing, then we're at an impasse.
CJM
Sep 5, 02:22 PM
Why isn't Mr. Incredible on that logo? Am I the only one who thinks he should be?
ciTiger
Apr 19, 07:59 AM
The normal reaction... Counter lawsuit, however Samsung will have a hard time justifying it given it's "deep" knowledge of Apple products to which it provides displays...
AidenShaw
Sep 10, 10:28 AM
Once again, all signs point towards that Conroe Mini-tower... :eek: ;) :D
What mini-tower? ;)
What mini-tower? ;)
BRLawyer
Apr 28, 04:03 PM
"Awesome?"
*jumps into Windows 7 in Parallels to check it out again*
"Awesome???" :confused:
Awesome to those used to sub-par products...
The perfect analogy would be you and your lazy cousin: you pass school every year with excellent grades and get normal Christmas presents since this is your expected performance.
But when your lazy/stupid cousin, who has failed school two or three years in a row, passes with reasonable grades, he gets a Ferrari...get it? :rolleyes:
*jumps into Windows 7 in Parallels to check it out again*
"Awesome???" :confused:
Awesome to those used to sub-par products...
The perfect analogy would be you and your lazy cousin: you pass school every year with excellent grades and get normal Christmas presents since this is your expected performance.
But when your lazy/stupid cousin, who has failed school two or three years in a row, passes with reasonable grades, he gets a Ferrari...get it? :rolleyes:
bigandy
Oct 27, 10:27 AM
and nobody noticed this?
The group had purchased a small both with contract terms to only hand out leaflets within their assigned area and to not take photographs at other stands.
booth! not both! :rolleyes:
The group had purchased a small both with contract terms to only hand out leaflets within their assigned area and to not take photographs at other stands.
booth! not both! :rolleyes:
relimw
Sep 14, 10:34 AM
My 2 cents worth of predictions as to what will be announced at this event
Apterture update (going out on a limb there)
iSight update (since ship times have slipped to October, it seem like Photokina would be a logical place to announce new iSight cameras)
new Cinema Displays (they were discounted at WWDC over a month ago, so perhaps that's an inventory clearance strategy to make room for new, larger displays that might incorporate built in, adjustable iSights)
Actually that could be possible. Maybe upgrade the 23" LCD to 24", and introduce a 42" LCD. :eek:
Apterture update (going out on a limb there)
iSight update (since ship times have slipped to October, it seem like Photokina would be a logical place to announce new iSight cameras)
new Cinema Displays (they were discounted at WWDC over a month ago, so perhaps that's an inventory clearance strategy to make room for new, larger displays that might incorporate built in, adjustable iSights)
Actually that could be possible. Maybe upgrade the 23" LCD to 24", and introduce a 42" LCD. :eek:
DeathChill
Apr 30, 11:59 PM
I was wondering why so many people are so opposed to Apple offering Blu-Ray as a BTO option. I have read where Steve Jobs spoke negatively about Blu-Ray, I wonder if these same people would be all gung-ho for BR if Jobs had spoken positively about it?
This is true; a lot of people will side with Jobs/Apple without understanding the issue. However, I think that there are valid reasons for the current Blu-Ray issue as I understand it. I think to allow playback of Blu-Ray content, Apple is forced to lock down certain aspects of software (apparently at kernel level?) and it's a hard-sell, I guess.
Here's a translated article:
http://www.hardmac.com/news/2009/10/14/native-blu-ray-playback-in-mac-os-x-right-owners-block-implementation
This is true; a lot of people will side with Jobs/Apple without understanding the issue. However, I think that there are valid reasons for the current Blu-Ray issue as I understand it. I think to allow playback of Blu-Ray content, Apple is forced to lock down certain aspects of software (apparently at kernel level?) and it's a hard-sell, I guess.
Here's a translated article:
http://www.hardmac.com/news/2009/10/14/native-blu-ray-playback-in-mac-os-x-right-owners-block-implementation
Mal
Apr 4, 12:29 PM
Interesting how a security guard is allowed to have a gun. Interesting to see what happens to him.
Why shouldn't he be allowed to carry a gun? If you're supposed to be guarding something and those you're guarding against are statistically likely to be carrying weapons, then you should definitely be carrying yourself, for your own personal protection if nothing else.
Also, to everyone saying he should have just wounded the man: If I ever fire a weapon at someone (and I hope I never have to), I will only do so if I am willing to kill them. There is no such thing as "shoot to wound", because no one is a good enough shot at range with a handgun to insure they will only wound and not kill. You aim for the largest target, which is center of mass, and you only fire if you're willing to kill the person you're firing at. That doesn't mean you would prefer if they didn't die, because the loss of any life is a sad event, even scum like this, but you don't try to do that. Especially in the heat of the moment as you're being shot at.
jW
Why shouldn't he be allowed to carry a gun? If you're supposed to be guarding something and those you're guarding against are statistically likely to be carrying weapons, then you should definitely be carrying yourself, for your own personal protection if nothing else.
Also, to everyone saying he should have just wounded the man: If I ever fire a weapon at someone (and I hope I never have to), I will only do so if I am willing to kill them. There is no such thing as "shoot to wound", because no one is a good enough shot at range with a handgun to insure they will only wound and not kill. You aim for the largest target, which is center of mass, and you only fire if you're willing to kill the person you're firing at. That doesn't mean you would prefer if they didn't die, because the loss of any life is a sad event, even scum like this, but you don't try to do that. Especially in the heat of the moment as you're being shot at.
jW
aristotle
Nov 13, 05:08 PM
So I guess this puts every iPhone VNC client in violation of Apple's terms as it would be displaying Apple copyrighted images...
I'm on RA's side on this one!
No, VNC displaying the entire screen from the computer and Apple has a built in VNC server in their OS. This is a matter of taking the icon images themselves and using them for another purpose in a client/server application rather than in an app running on the mac itself. It is a clear case of copyright infringement. RA could have avoided all of this by simply providing their own licensed icons.
@guet: You should read what you wrote. You are proving yourself wrong with your own points. They are licensed for use on a mac, not for distribution to a client machine be it an iphone, Blackberry or Android.
I'm on RA's side on this one!
No, VNC displaying the entire screen from the computer and Apple has a built in VNC server in their OS. This is a matter of taking the icon images themselves and using them for another purpose in a client/server application rather than in an app running on the mac itself. It is a clear case of copyright infringement. RA could have avoided all of this by simply providing their own licensed icons.
@guet: You should read what you wrote. You are proving yourself wrong with your own points. They are licensed for use on a mac, not for distribution to a client machine be it an iphone, Blackberry or Android.
auxplage
Sep 26, 07:20 AM
I may have to break down and buy my first cell phone. I feel so out of place being 18 and in college without a cell phone. Well, at least when I do get the "iPhone" I can be "cool" for three months? :o :rolleyes: :)
iMikeT
Oct 27, 04:40 PM
This is just what we need, more hippies....
CylonGlitch
Nov 13, 03:58 PM
In a sense, yes. The rules for iPhone development are different than for Mac OS X. I may not always agree with it but there you have it. :)
Exactly, they are technically different operating systems. But even so, just because an OS gives you access to specific images, doesn't give you the rights to take them and use them for something else. Obviously RA had to pull the image from the API and then save it to another file and use it in their iPhone application. Just because it is accessible via API doesn't mean it is free to use. The API is free to use, the data is not.
Example. You buy a CD of a song, you can play it on your CD player. You can use it all you want in your CD player, but try ripping that song off (ie copying the image from the API) and using it in a movie you're making.. Guess what, you can't.
Exactly, they are technically different operating systems. But even so, just because an OS gives you access to specific images, doesn't give you the rights to take them and use them for something else. Obviously RA had to pull the image from the API and then save it to another file and use it in their iPhone application. Just because it is accessible via API doesn't mean it is free to use. The API is free to use, the data is not.
Example. You buy a CD of a song, you can play it on your CD player. You can use it all you want in your CD player, but try ripping that song off (ie copying the image from the API) and using it in a movie you're making.. Guess what, you can't.
Full of Win
Mar 30, 11:27 AM
App may be generic, but does that also make App Store generic ?
BoyBach
Aug 28, 12:27 PM
I expect to see a speed bump across the entire range (excluding the Mac Pro) within the coming weeks.