mdriftmeyer
Apr 25, 03:57 PM
I'm interested in who funded this research project much to do about nothing and when will this research extend to all the Telcos, corporations and more.
feelthefire
Aug 7, 08:35 AM
We already have a Mac Pro line of products, we are also the owners of AppleLocks, and MacMice. The Tiger thing was silly.
According to a quick search, you have an application in for a service mark in the name of "Mac Pro" (which, by the way, is a service mark belonging to a cosmetics retailer which was granted in 2001) but no trademark on the name mac pro appears in your name. Apple's application states a number of hardware outside of computers, so if you don't already have a trademark to apply to your product line (and I couldn't find one) Apple may be coming after you, and not the other way around.
I'll happily retract my observation if you can document that you own the TRADEMARK and not an application for a service mark.
According to a quick search, you have an application in for a service mark in the name of "Mac Pro" (which, by the way, is a service mark belonging to a cosmetics retailer which was granted in 2001) but no trademark on the name mac pro appears in your name. Apple's application states a number of hardware outside of computers, so if you don't already have a trademark to apply to your product line (and I couldn't find one) Apple may be coming after you, and not the other way around.
I'll happily retract my observation if you can document that you own the TRADEMARK and not an application for a service mark.
littleman23408
Dec 2, 08:43 AM
I hate to link to IGN, but here goes:
GT5 damage explained (http://ps3.ign.com/articles/113/1137446p1.html)
Confusion seems to have stemmed from its differing implementation across the game's extensive garage, a point that Sony further clarified. "Standard models have minor deformation and scratches," said Sony, "Premium cars have greater visible level of damage, and Premium racing models have the highest level of damage."
I can't open the links due to work internet, but they should have done equal damage to all cars. Besides, every real car dents and scratches pretty easily.
GT5 damage explained (http://ps3.ign.com/articles/113/1137446p1.html)
Confusion seems to have stemmed from its differing implementation across the game's extensive garage, a point that Sony further clarified. "Standard models have minor deformation and scratches," said Sony, "Premium cars have greater visible level of damage, and Premium racing models have the highest level of damage."
I can't open the links due to work internet, but they should have done equal damage to all cars. Besides, every real car dents and scratches pretty easily.
11thIndian
Apr 9, 10:07 PM
Uh, except I said "lots of professionals" and then you claimed I meant "professionals that I know" and then you acknowledged that it's not just professionals that I know.
Yes, I agreed there are professionals, but not LOTS of professionals. You don't know, cause... you don't know them, and neither do I. So these "lots" outside of your field of view may or may not be looking to switch. You see the difference, yes?
Yes, I agreed there are professionals, but not LOTS of professionals. You don't know, cause... you don't know them, and neither do I. So these "lots" outside of your field of view may or may not be looking to switch. You see the difference, yes?
qtx43
Mar 31, 05:11 PM
That was a hoot changing the search to Bing. Only thing gutsier would be to somehow replace every admob ad to a competitor.
I wouldn't leave Google completely blameless here. They knew who they were dealing with. They need eyeballs to sell (ad business) so they made their bed. Same reason why the software marketplace on android sucks, they designed it for their bottom line (eyeballs). They aren't making a product for people to use, they're making a channel to deliver a product (eyeballs) to their customers (advertisers).Except Google makes a big deal about how they support open source and aren't evil (presumably other profit seeking corporations are evil). And the open source fanatics lap it up. Take a look over at Groklaw, for example, and it's all a big conspiracy to discredit Google. So, I would change "[not] completely blameless" to "is completely hypocritical", then you'd be right on. I think Free and Open Source is great for many things, and proprietary works too, just don't blow smoke up my butt and tell me it's a rim job.
I wouldn't leave Google completely blameless here. They knew who they were dealing with. They need eyeballs to sell (ad business) so they made their bed. Same reason why the software marketplace on android sucks, they designed it for their bottom line (eyeballs). They aren't making a product for people to use, they're making a channel to deliver a product (eyeballs) to their customers (advertisers).Except Google makes a big deal about how they support open source and aren't evil (presumably other profit seeking corporations are evil). And the open source fanatics lap it up. Take a look over at Groklaw, for example, and it's all a big conspiracy to discredit Google. So, I would change "[not] completely blameless" to "is completely hypocritical", then you'd be right on. I think Free and Open Source is great for many things, and proprietary works too, just don't blow smoke up my butt and tell me it's a rim job.
62tele
Apr 11, 06:02 PM
Disappointing. I can't wait until year's end. I didn't buy the 4 because of the antenna plus lousy ATT coverage in my area. My iPhone 3GS is getting long in the tooth!
Steve is wrong about Google trying kill the iPhone. Apple may beat 'em to it!
Steve is wrong about Google trying kill the iPhone. Apple may beat 'em to it!
Multimedia
Aug 27, 08:57 AM
I want to see:
Mary Poppins in Cherry Tree
cherry tree lane london. mary
Cherry Tree Lane (Part 2)
at 17 Cherry Tree Lane,
cherry tree lane mary poppins.
cherry tree lane mary poppins.
Cherry Tree Lane (Part 1) 2:42
cherry tree lane london.
cherry tree lane london.
17 cherry tree lane london.
Mary Poppins Cherry Tree
cherry tree lane mary poppins.
zero2dash
Sep 18, 01:44 PM
Plenty of people ran NT on their desktops.
Admission of your mistakes is a good step in becoming a better person.
Key word being DESKTOPS.
MP machines were server based long before they were included in desktops. I'd like to see where people had dual Xeon based DESKTOPS 'cause I've never seen it. It's not impossible but it's also not a good cost-based answer either. :p
The server/desktop division with Windows - as with OS X - is one of marketing, not software. Windows "Workstation" and Windows "Server" use the same codebase.
I never said otherwise.
The hardware they run on is where it differentiates.
Most people/corporations run server-based OS on servers and workstation-based OS on desktops (or "workstations" in the business world). It's not impossible to run a server OS on a desktop or a workstation OS on a server but it is incredibly stupid.
Well, if you can't find evidence of Windows running on well on machine with >2 processors, or of the significant low-level changes Microsoft have made to ensure it does, you aren't looking very hard.
Bad dual core support? Citations please. I think this is a case where a Mac fan is simply speaking out of ignorance of their "enemy" platform.
I erronously bundled in "dual core" with "sketchy 64-bit support". Don't know why. From what I hear, 64-bit support in XP64 is sketchy because of device driver issues (and drivers not being natively 64-bit). I don't have any true 'dual core' systems myself but my P4 3.0C HT works fine in XP Pro. I apologize for lumping in "dual core" in.
Similarly, if you're one of the "Vista is just XP with a fancy skin" crowd, you've obviously not done much research. The changes in Vista are on par with the scale of changes Apple made to NeXT to get OS X.
User Account Protection is a big change. I've seen the list of "new features" and it doesn't do anything for me. UAP is nice...it's just really late. I'm sure there's changes "under the hood" like the ones implemented in XP sp2 to prevent buffer/stack overflows, etc. and I'm sure that's what you're referring to.
I think people who say stuff like that are exhibiting a syndrome common to Mac folk who've never spent any time in the PC world -- they take negative comments they remember regarding versions of Windows or the PC experience from about 5 years back and assume they apply to today. XP, for example, really was for the most part a window-dressing of Windows 2000, but that is not the case for Vista. You see similar statements regarding "blue screens of death", overall system stability, etc, which suggest they haven't seen or used a PC since the late 90s/early 00's.
So - are you inferring that Windows 2000 or Windows XP never blue screen? Because (if you are) that's a load of crap. I've seen blue screens in both OS's. Granted it's usually tied to hardware only, but it still happens. I've had an external USB drive blue screen in XP every time I turned it on, tried on 3 XP computers. Hardware fault, no doubt. Lately my HP Laptop dvd drive has been causing XP Pro to blue screen every other time I insert a dvd-r. Again - hardware fault.
Otherwise are both OS's stable? Damn straight. But problems do occur and I hope you're not suggesting otherwise. No OS is without its flaws.
Admission of your mistakes is a good step in becoming a better person.
Key word being DESKTOPS.
MP machines were server based long before they were included in desktops. I'd like to see where people had dual Xeon based DESKTOPS 'cause I've never seen it. It's not impossible but it's also not a good cost-based answer either. :p
The server/desktop division with Windows - as with OS X - is one of marketing, not software. Windows "Workstation" and Windows "Server" use the same codebase.
I never said otherwise.
The hardware they run on is where it differentiates.
Most people/corporations run server-based OS on servers and workstation-based OS on desktops (or "workstations" in the business world). It's not impossible to run a server OS on a desktop or a workstation OS on a server but it is incredibly stupid.
Well, if you can't find evidence of Windows running on well on machine with >2 processors, or of the significant low-level changes Microsoft have made to ensure it does, you aren't looking very hard.
Bad dual core support? Citations please. I think this is a case where a Mac fan is simply speaking out of ignorance of their "enemy" platform.
I erronously bundled in "dual core" with "sketchy 64-bit support". Don't know why. From what I hear, 64-bit support in XP64 is sketchy because of device driver issues (and drivers not being natively 64-bit). I don't have any true 'dual core' systems myself but my P4 3.0C HT works fine in XP Pro. I apologize for lumping in "dual core" in.
Similarly, if you're one of the "Vista is just XP with a fancy skin" crowd, you've obviously not done much research. The changes in Vista are on par with the scale of changes Apple made to NeXT to get OS X.
User Account Protection is a big change. I've seen the list of "new features" and it doesn't do anything for me. UAP is nice...it's just really late. I'm sure there's changes "under the hood" like the ones implemented in XP sp2 to prevent buffer/stack overflows, etc. and I'm sure that's what you're referring to.
I think people who say stuff like that are exhibiting a syndrome common to Mac folk who've never spent any time in the PC world -- they take negative comments they remember regarding versions of Windows or the PC experience from about 5 years back and assume they apply to today. XP, for example, really was for the most part a window-dressing of Windows 2000, but that is not the case for Vista. You see similar statements regarding "blue screens of death", overall system stability, etc, which suggest they haven't seen or used a PC since the late 90s/early 00's.
So - are you inferring that Windows 2000 or Windows XP never blue screen? Because (if you are) that's a load of crap. I've seen blue screens in both OS's. Granted it's usually tied to hardware only, but it still happens. I've had an external USB drive blue screen in XP every time I turned it on, tried on 3 XP computers. Hardware fault, no doubt. Lately my HP Laptop dvd drive has been causing XP Pro to blue screen every other time I insert a dvd-r. Again - hardware fault.
Otherwise are both OS's stable? Damn straight. But problems do occur and I hope you're not suggesting otherwise. No OS is without its flaws.
iSee
Sep 13, 04:38 PM
Damn! That's just cool (well, cool in a very geeky sort of way :rolleyes: ).
Zadillo
Aug 25, 08:30 PM
well im certainly annoyed with Apple's support right now. 3 times my Macbook has been in and now they tell me they cant FIX the problem (the only way I can get my macbook to boot up is to zap the PRAM every time). If I had known it was gonna be this much trouble I would have stuck with my pb or bought a Vaio... :mad:
You do know that Sony is known for having some of the worst support among any notebook manufacturer, right? If you're worried about trouble, you should really look for something besides a VAIO.
-Zadillo
You do know that Sony is known for having some of the worst support among any notebook manufacturer, right? If you're worried about trouble, you should really look for something besides a VAIO.
-Zadillo
JeffDM
Sep 16, 03:56 PM
As for using a Dell, sure they could've used that. Would Windows use the extra 4 cores? Highly doubtful. Microsoft has sketchy 64 bit support let alone dual core support; I'm not saying "impossible" but I haven't read jack squat about any version of Windows working well with quad cores.
Bad dual core support? Citations please. I think this is a case where a Mac fan is simply speaking out of ignorance of their "enemy" platform.
I've been using dual processor Windows computers for a few years now and it works fine, I can't imagine dual core being any different. For quad core, I think THG showed that a Kentsfield showed significant performance benefits over a Conroe for many Windows programs. The media encoders showed very nearly a 2x performance difference.
Bad dual core support? Citations please. I think this is a case where a Mac fan is simply speaking out of ignorance of their "enemy" platform.
I've been using dual processor Windows computers for a few years now and it works fine, I can't imagine dual core being any different. For quad core, I think THG showed that a Kentsfield showed significant performance benefits over a Conroe for many Windows programs. The media encoders showed very nearly a 2x performance difference.
MrCrowbar
Aug 16, 11:13 PM
I did...:D
DIE POWER PC...DIE!!!
ROFL. A true classic. ;)
DIE POWER PC...DIE!!!
ROFL. A true classic. ;)
whatever
Nov 29, 10:45 AM
So they say.... :rolleyes:
Yes, Microsoft went to Universal, because Universal refused to allow their music to be added to the Microsoft Marketplace. Microsoft then offered the dollar to other companies.
Boycotting Universal and these companies is not the answer.
I recommend that we buy more music from the iTunes Music store and when it comes time for the new iTunes contract, Jobs will be able to present the numbers and then threaten to walk away from the table (I hate to call this the Walmart model, but when you selling more product than anyone else, you'll have to play ball). The industry will not risk losing a growing revenue strain.
There are currently over 67 million iPods out there. The music industry's accountants (notice that I specify their accountants) are not that stupid. They now that if 10% of those people buy one .99 song from iTunes a year, they'll make more money than they would if they imposed a $1.00 tax on every new media device sold.
And those are the numbers that Apple will present to them.
Yes, Microsoft went to Universal, because Universal refused to allow their music to be added to the Microsoft Marketplace. Microsoft then offered the dollar to other companies.
Boycotting Universal and these companies is not the answer.
I recommend that we buy more music from the iTunes Music store and when it comes time for the new iTunes contract, Jobs will be able to present the numbers and then threaten to walk away from the table (I hate to call this the Walmart model, but when you selling more product than anyone else, you'll have to play ball). The industry will not risk losing a growing revenue strain.
There are currently over 67 million iPods out there. The music industry's accountants (notice that I specify their accountants) are not that stupid. They now that if 10% of those people buy one .99 song from iTunes a year, they'll make more money than they would if they imposed a $1.00 tax on every new media device sold.
And those are the numbers that Apple will present to them.
dernhelm
Nov 29, 07:24 AM
Perhaps that lost money isn't due to pirating like the execs want you to think.
Sure it is. Its just that the everyday Joe isn't the pirate, the music distribution executives are. And there's only room for one pirate ship in this industry.
Sure it is. Its just that the everyday Joe isn't the pirate, the music distribution executives are. And there's only room for one pirate ship in this industry.
AwakenedLands
Mar 31, 06:46 PM
I bet they tried, but it didn't work well. They're just feigning ignorance. As they themselves said, they cut corners. I read this as they didn't optimize the software-- it's probably very processor and RAM intensive. Just speculation though.
That's just MORE reason to open source it. Cutting corners is the one thing Apple generally doesn't do (or they spin it perfectly). If Google cut corners on Honeycomb to meet some "deadline", that's one thing that could benefit from a community of free coders willing to code for Android.
To me it sounds like there is a flaw with Honeycomb that is pretty serious, but they need to make it available for phones as soon as they can to keep up with Apple. Once fix it becomes open.
That's just MORE reason to open source it. Cutting corners is the one thing Apple generally doesn't do (or they spin it perfectly). If Google cut corners on Honeycomb to meet some "deadline", that's one thing that could benefit from a community of free coders willing to code for Android.
To me it sounds like there is a flaw with Honeycomb that is pretty serious, but they need to make it available for phones as soon as they can to keep up with Apple. Once fix it becomes open.
EagerDragon
Nov 29, 05:12 AM
Just tell them that they are getting the same deal they had before, or they can sell their music elsewhere. Apple is not a new comer to the industry like Microsoft.
Standard response from the music industry, "Our customers are thieves, and have iPods full of illigal music". Tell them to Stick it where .......
Standard response from the music industry, "Our customers are thieves, and have iPods full of illigal music". Tell them to Stick it where .......
KnightWRX
Mar 23, 04:32 AM
Probably someone mentioned before, but "a tablet for professionals" named PLAYbook?
I smell an identity crisis.
Yes, someone did mention it before and that person got told that a PLAYbook is a book of strategies, not some kind of book for kids to play with. Think professional sports, the coach has his "playbook" with him with all the different "plays" in it that he's planning to use.
It translates well to the corporate world where company strategies are made and store on this device and communicated through it.
It's mostly non-english speakers that are trying desperately to find a problem with the name that see any sort of identity crisis. Most of us understand why RIM picked the name.
I smell an identity crisis.
Yes, someone did mention it before and that person got told that a PLAYbook is a book of strategies, not some kind of book for kids to play with. Think professional sports, the coach has his "playbook" with him with all the different "plays" in it that he's planning to use.
It translates well to the corporate world where company strategies are made and store on this device and communicated through it.
It's mostly non-english speakers that are trying desperately to find a problem with the name that see any sort of identity crisis. Most of us understand why RIM picked the name.
radiohead14
Apr 6, 11:45 AM
as long as the new MBAs will have longer battery life (7+ preferably), then i'm cool with the HD 3000 in there, as the MBA's purpose is to be an ultra portable
blahblah100
Mar 31, 03:54 PM
It's because of the Buy One Get One option. Nothing more. People choose that option because it makes financial sense and if they don't really care about the OS or the phone, they will choose the one that fits their check books. If Apple was to OK ATT and VZ to do a Buy One Get One on the iPhone, there would be no comparison. It would be game over for Android.
-LanPhantom
Ironically, most of the people on this forum said iPhone on Verizon would be game over for Android.
This 'game over for Android' reminds me a lot of the 'this is the year of desktop linux' stuff that has been said every year for the last 9.
-LanPhantom
Ironically, most of the people on this forum said iPhone on Verizon would be game over for Android.
This 'game over for Android' reminds me a lot of the 'this is the year of desktop linux' stuff that has been said every year for the last 9.
Multimedia
Sep 13, 11:37 AM
I wouldn't want to say I told you so but... :eek: :p :D Where's Multimedia? This is exciting!
Wow...a user upgradable Mac. Good stuff indeed.
I am anxiously awaiting better utilization of all the cores, but the ability to multitask without hiccups is still great for now!Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...
I'm still gonna wait for the Clovertown option to appear in the BTO page, then price retail Clovertowns a Fry's before I decide if I'll let Apple to my upgrade or do it myself according to which way cost less. But I really don't want to kill my warranty on day one. So it'll be academic since they are going retail in a month prolly before Apple adds the Clovertown option to the BTO page although they were pretty Johnny On The Spot with the C2D iMacs.
Wow...a user upgradable Mac. Good stuff indeed.
I am anxiously awaiting better utilization of all the cores, but the ability to multitask without hiccups is still great for now!Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...
I'm still gonna wait for the Clovertown option to appear in the BTO page, then price retail Clovertowns a Fry's before I decide if I'll let Apple to my upgrade or do it myself according to which way cost less. But I really don't want to kill my warranty on day one. So it'll be academic since they are going retail in a month prolly before Apple adds the Clovertown option to the BTO page although they were pretty Johnny On The Spot with the C2D iMacs.
prady16
Aug 26, 04:13 PM
Yippee.....
Definitely buying a MBP asap.....not gonna wait for santa rosa!
Definitely buying a MBP asap.....not gonna wait for santa rosa!
raymondso
Sep 19, 09:26 AM
Come on APPLE! My pocket is full and ready for a New C2D MacBook! :D
Simiber
Apr 25, 02:17 PM
IANAL, but AFAIK, here in America, having rights infringed upon is reason for sueing. That, in itself, is a "damage". Hence why Apple is being sued. They apparently are infringing upon the consumers' rights to privacy.
But how would a judge or jury quantify the size of the claim..? And surely the settlement should go to everyone who has had their right infringed upon, hence why a regulatory body should be responsible for protecting the people's rights so that any fine imposed by the regulator can be further used to protect peoples right to privacy when using a mobile..?
I understand the fact that the people who sue are taking the risk and costs of the lawsuit, but surely there are times when people's rights are being infringed but because nobody is prepared to sue, nothing ever gets done... If it was primarily the responsibility of a regulatory body to protect the consumer, then people's right to privacy would be protected not only when someone felt they had a case that they could make money out of :/
But how would a judge or jury quantify the size of the claim..? And surely the settlement should go to everyone who has had their right infringed upon, hence why a regulatory body should be responsible for protecting the people's rights so that any fine imposed by the regulator can be further used to protect peoples right to privacy when using a mobile..?
I understand the fact that the people who sue are taking the risk and costs of the lawsuit, but surely there are times when people's rights are being infringed but because nobody is prepared to sue, nothing ever gets done... If it was primarily the responsibility of a regulatory body to protect the consumer, then people's right to privacy would be protected not only when someone felt they had a case that they could make money out of :/
BRLawyer
Aug 20, 02:02 PM
Freescale? Where does Freescale have a 64 -bit spot on their road map? (I want to know) Could this be.. really? Freescale? Now there's a twist I for one, did not see
Are they still around? I thought their business was all about embedded procs for cars and radios... :rolleyes:
Are they still around? I thought their business was all about embedded procs for cars and radios... :rolleyes:
No comments:
Post a Comment