wizard
Apr 7, 11:05 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Guys Apple is not to blame for this one. Well other than doing business with a sleazy business like Best Buy.
Honestly it has been like eight years since I've entered a Best Buy, everything about the place just feels undesirable and corrupt. The fact that many here are surprised at this non-sense highlights a marginal expectation for ethical behavior. No one really needs to shop at Best Buy, there are plenty of alternatives.
Guys Apple is not to blame for this one. Well other than doing business with a sleazy business like Best Buy.
Honestly it has been like eight years since I've entered a Best Buy, everything about the place just feels undesirable and corrupt. The fact that many here are surprised at this non-sense highlights a marginal expectation for ethical behavior. No one really needs to shop at Best Buy, there are plenty of alternatives.
CaoCao
Mar 1, 05:00 PM
^^ Well maybe, but the Obama administration doesn't believe that law is constitutional.
Gov't seeks to uphold DOMA in gay lawyer's lawsuit
SAN FRANCISCO
The Justice Department says a lesbian federal employee should still be denied permission to add her wife to her health insurance despite the Obama administration's refusal to defend a federal law banning recognition of same-sex marriages.
Government lawyers told a federal judge Monday in San Francisco that the administration will still enforce the Defense of Marriage Act until it is struck down by a court or repealed by Congress. They say its new position on the act's unconstitutionality is irrelevant.
Karen Golinski is a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lawyer suing the Office of Personnel Management for not authorizing family health coverage for her wife. The circuit's chief judge has twice ordered the office to allow it.
The Justice Department says the rulings were not binding because they were made in the judge's role as Golinski's boss.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9LMIFS80.htm
I can't help it if you live in a backward country. I was talking about civilised norms. And whatever your cockeyed definition, it is still not equality.
Right, that's why England is preventing a married couple from adopting.
Gov't seeks to uphold DOMA in gay lawyer's lawsuit
SAN FRANCISCO
The Justice Department says a lesbian federal employee should still be denied permission to add her wife to her health insurance despite the Obama administration's refusal to defend a federal law banning recognition of same-sex marriages.
Government lawyers told a federal judge Monday in San Francisco that the administration will still enforce the Defense of Marriage Act until it is struck down by a court or repealed by Congress. They say its new position on the act's unconstitutionality is irrelevant.
Karen Golinski is a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lawyer suing the Office of Personnel Management for not authorizing family health coverage for her wife. The circuit's chief judge has twice ordered the office to allow it.
The Justice Department says the rulings were not binding because they were made in the judge's role as Golinski's boss.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9LMIFS80.htm
I can't help it if you live in a backward country. I was talking about civilised norms. And whatever your cockeyed definition, it is still not equality.
Right, that's why England is preventing a married couple from adopting.
kdarling
Apr 19, 01:49 PM
One of the three basics that must be proven in order to win a trade dress case, is the likelihood of confusion.
In other words, would someone think they're buying one thing but really getting another, such as might happen with shoes or pills or whatever.
Does anyone think that a normal person would actually confuse a Samsung Galaxy (especially with that huge "Samsung" on it) with an Apple iPhone when they're buying it?
I mean, is Apple going to claim that they're losing sales because the Galaxy is so close to the iPhone that people can't tell the difference? If so, that sure doesn't say much for the iPhone. Or it says a lot for the Galaxy.
In other words, would someone think they're buying one thing but really getting another, such as might happen with shoes or pills or whatever.
Does anyone think that a normal person would actually confuse a Samsung Galaxy (especially with that huge "Samsung" on it) with an Apple iPhone when they're buying it?
I mean, is Apple going to claim that they're losing sales because the Galaxy is so close to the iPhone that people can't tell the difference? If so, that sure doesn't say much for the iPhone. Or it says a lot for the Galaxy.
gnasher729
Apr 27, 11:13 AM
News on slashdot.org:
77 Million Accounts Stolen From Playstation Network.
Earth will not stop turning, but I think this is just slightly, slightly worse than a file that shows where you haven't exactly been at some point in the past if someone steals your iPhone.
It clearly is an issue if they have a federal lawsuit on it. The fact that Apple are rolling out an update that changes the way it works alone shows that there is clearly a problem. Apple vary rarely roll out updates that change things, even if consumers are screaming for it (mouse acceleration in OS X for example).
You refuse to accept there is a problem. You refuse to see the breech of privacy. Why? The government and Apple have clearly accepted it.
See title of the thread: "Apple addresses controversy". There is and there never was a problem, but the idiocracy forced Apple to act to end the controversy. Right now, who do you think should worry more, iPhone owners or PS3 owners?
77 Million Accounts Stolen From Playstation Network.
Earth will not stop turning, but I think this is just slightly, slightly worse than a file that shows where you haven't exactly been at some point in the past if someone steals your iPhone.
It clearly is an issue if they have a federal lawsuit on it. The fact that Apple are rolling out an update that changes the way it works alone shows that there is clearly a problem. Apple vary rarely roll out updates that change things, even if consumers are screaming for it (mouse acceleration in OS X for example).
You refuse to accept there is a problem. You refuse to see the breech of privacy. Why? The government and Apple have clearly accepted it.
See title of the thread: "Apple addresses controversy". There is and there never was a problem, but the idiocracy forced Apple to act to end the controversy. Right now, who do you think should worry more, iPhone owners or PS3 owners?
whatever
Nov 29, 12:42 PM
I'm certainly not on the record label's side on this, and I'm someone who almost never downloads anything online (not even free, MP3 of the week type tracks), but I think two important things we're glossing over are:
1 It is illegal to pirate music, regardless of whether or not a label gives their artists their fair share of profits.
2 Like it or not, most of the music on most people's portable music players is downloaded off of P2P. We "affluent" Mac users, who stay on the cutting edge of technology and come to places like MacRumors for heated exchanges about Apple news are not a typical cross section of music consumers.
I'd reckon most iPods are owned by the under 21 crowd, who've grown up with P2P as an ever-present option for music, and who swap songs with friends without thinking twice about it.
And as this generation gets older, things will only get worse for the labels, I figure.
On the other hand, at some point in time, this same generation will be in our courtrooms running the judicial system and in our capitol running our government, so it could be that some of these antiquated laws get modified for the digital age, but until then, refer back to Points 1 and 2 above and realize that despite how we may feel about the issue, it's illegal to download music freely and most people are doing it...
For starters, it's not illegal to download music freely. There are quite a few artists that allow free downloads of their music, so the first part of your statement "it's illegal to download music freely" is not correct. The second half of your statement ".... people are doing it....", assumes that everyone is guilty until they prove themselves innocent. Which is wrong.
I've been re-thinking my stance here. And if Apple decides to give a portion of their future iPod revenue to the music industry, then let them. I personally would never do it, but again, we're only talking a couple of dollars per iPod. Would Apple raise their prices on current models, most likely not. I would rather have Apple pay the iPod tax, instead of changing the iTunes Music Store's pricing model.
1 It is illegal to pirate music, regardless of whether or not a label gives their artists their fair share of profits.
2 Like it or not, most of the music on most people's portable music players is downloaded off of P2P. We "affluent" Mac users, who stay on the cutting edge of technology and come to places like MacRumors for heated exchanges about Apple news are not a typical cross section of music consumers.
I'd reckon most iPods are owned by the under 21 crowd, who've grown up with P2P as an ever-present option for music, and who swap songs with friends without thinking twice about it.
And as this generation gets older, things will only get worse for the labels, I figure.
On the other hand, at some point in time, this same generation will be in our courtrooms running the judicial system and in our capitol running our government, so it could be that some of these antiquated laws get modified for the digital age, but until then, refer back to Points 1 and 2 above and realize that despite how we may feel about the issue, it's illegal to download music freely and most people are doing it...
For starters, it's not illegal to download music freely. There are quite a few artists that allow free downloads of their music, so the first part of your statement "it's illegal to download music freely" is not correct. The second half of your statement ".... people are doing it....", assumes that everyone is guilty until they prove themselves innocent. Which is wrong.
I've been re-thinking my stance here. And if Apple decides to give a portion of their future iPod revenue to the music industry, then let them. I personally would never do it, but again, we're only talking a couple of dollars per iPod. Would Apple raise their prices on current models, most likely not. I would rather have Apple pay the iPod tax, instead of changing the iTunes Music Store's pricing model.
BoyBach
Nov 29, 06:20 AM
My initial reservations about this story (the Zune/Universal payment) was much like eveybody's elses on these forums - very bad for us and screw 'em. But now that I've had time to think it through I actually think it's a fantastic idea.
Fantastic for the consumer and the artist, and potentially catastrophic for Universal Music.
Allow me to explain! Somebody buys a Zune or iPod that has had the 'Universal Tax' applied to it and then fills it with 30GB of stolen Universal music. It goes to court and the 'Pirate' successfully argues that he/she has already compensated UMG by buying the iPod/Zune. The judge agrees and piracy of Universal music becomes legal so long as it's for the 'UMG taxed' iPod or Zune. UMG collapses overnight and the artists get to release music on their terms and get more of the money that they deserve, not the faceless corporations and shareholders.
Why is this good for us? Because every entertainment company would become very wary of labelling us all 'pirates' and might actually realise that digital distribution at a fair price is their future.
D'oh somebody has already written something to this effect whilst I was typing!!
Fantastic for the consumer and the artist, and potentially catastrophic for Universal Music.
Allow me to explain! Somebody buys a Zune or iPod that has had the 'Universal Tax' applied to it and then fills it with 30GB of stolen Universal music. It goes to court and the 'Pirate' successfully argues that he/she has already compensated UMG by buying the iPod/Zune. The judge agrees and piracy of Universal music becomes legal so long as it's for the 'UMG taxed' iPod or Zune. UMG collapses overnight and the artists get to release music on their terms and get more of the money that they deserve, not the faceless corporations and shareholders.
Why is this good for us? Because every entertainment company would become very wary of labelling us all 'pirates' and might actually realise that digital distribution at a fair price is their future.
D'oh somebody has already written something to this effect whilst I was typing!!
milo
Jul 27, 04:07 PM
They will not replace the dual core version, they will exist as an additional product offering.
I never said otherwise. My point is they are the follow-ups to conroe and woodcrest and will use the same sockets as those two. Which means they can be swapped in, which I believe was the original question.
I never said otherwise. My point is they are the follow-ups to conroe and woodcrest and will use the same sockets as those two. Which means they can be swapped in, which I believe was the original question.
Gelfin
Mar 4, 04:37 PM
She rephrased what he had said which implied similar meaning
If you are suggesting she edited her post, the version quoted in your reply matches what she posted, and neither one of them seem to imply any such thing. I didn't ask you to restate the claim. I asked you to explain it.
If you are suggesting she edited her post, the version quoted in your reply matches what she posted, and neither one of them seem to imply any such thing. I didn't ask you to restate the claim. I asked you to explain it.
Joe2000
Aug 6, 06:08 AM
What about TV Show downloads in the UK? Pleeeeaaaase!!! :rolleyes:
Looking foward to these Mac Pros though, my Dad is definatley going to buy one. :D
Thanks, Joe.
Looking foward to these Mac Pros though, my Dad is definatley going to buy one. :D
Thanks, Joe.
Jerry Spoon
Aug 5, 03:39 PM
I think 10 AM would be a more likely time for the Stevenote?
Uh...I hope so. If not, I'll be up at midnight getting ready to watch the keynote. I don't think I'd be worth much at work the next day.
Of course, I won't be worth much watching it at 10 am on Monday either.:D
Uh...I hope so. If not, I'll be up at midnight getting ready to watch the keynote. I don't think I'd be worth much at work the next day.
Of course, I won't be worth much watching it at 10 am on Monday either.:D
jonnysods
Mar 31, 02:43 PM
Suckaz. What a mess.
sittnick
Apr 19, 01:50 PM
BREAKING NEWS --- 1979 --
http://www.thetelemediagroup.com/images/monitors/pg5/3_ab121w.jpghttp://www.thetelemediagroup.com/images/monitors/pg5/4_gebw.jpg
RCA Launches Suit Against General Electric for infringement of 9" b&w television interface and "look and feel."
Spokesmen for RCA maintain that GE's misappropriation of the LīfLīk� Trūwūd� woodgrain finish, leading consumers to confuse the GE imitation with the RCA original.
Also note GE's nearly identical VHF and UHF controllers ... placed in the same location on the chassis as the RCA original. Even the speaker is located in the same way.
RCA patented the use of separate VHF and UHF knobs in 1958, the click-stop UHF knob in 1972, and the ergonomically efficient upper right location of tuner knobs in 1952. The characteristics are innovations that help the consumer recognize an RCA television, and any use of these unique features without RCA's explicit permission is a breach of patent, trademark and copyright.
http://www.thetelemediagroup.com/images/monitors/pg5/3_ab121w.jpghttp://www.thetelemediagroup.com/images/monitors/pg5/4_gebw.jpg
RCA Launches Suit Against General Electric for infringement of 9" b&w television interface and "look and feel."
Spokesmen for RCA maintain that GE's misappropriation of the LīfLīk� Trūwūd� woodgrain finish, leading consumers to confuse the GE imitation with the RCA original.
Also note GE's nearly identical VHF and UHF controllers ... placed in the same location on the chassis as the RCA original. Even the speaker is located in the same way.
RCA patented the use of separate VHF and UHF knobs in 1958, the click-stop UHF knob in 1972, and the ergonomically efficient upper right location of tuner knobs in 1952. The characteristics are innovations that help the consumer recognize an RCA television, and any use of these unique features without RCA's explicit permission is a breach of patent, trademark and copyright.
Silentwave
Sep 14, 11:00 PM
One thing's for sure, Intel appears to have learnt a great deal from the Netburst fiasco -- how not to do things, if nothing else. Unfortunately, they still estimate ~50% of processors shipping in 1Q2007 will be netburst-based (mostly Pentium-D).
It is a shame, but sadly those are the real cheap chips right now. The good news is that they'll change those over soon enough with more Allendales, then millville and so on and so on taking on more segments of the market.
I think as they transition to 45nm we'll see more and more Core chips, simply because they'll want as much manufacturing to be on the new process as possible, and they don't need to scale the D's etc. down to it.
It is a shame, but sadly those are the real cheap chips right now. The good news is that they'll change those over soon enough with more Allendales, then millville and so on and so on taking on more segments of the market.
I think as they transition to 45nm we'll see more and more Core chips, simply because they'll want as much manufacturing to be on the new process as possible, and they don't need to scale the D's etc. down to it.
Lollypop
Jul 20, 08:12 AM
seems the tragic days of the P4 are gone for intel, good for us! :p With all the high end stuff from intel thats apparently going into the mac im a bit worried about the price of the systems though!
netdog
Aug 11, 02:51 PM
I really think the time is coming soon where any phone that does not have Wifi that is easy to switch on and off will be considered obsolete.
iScott428
Mar 22, 02:04 PM
well, if you are going to tell people their posts make them look stupid, perhaps you should consider your own, and read a dictionary before throwing around three syllable words. Your use of the word "eloquent" is incorrect. "eloquent" is not a word that applies to a software operating system.
Eloquent: The quality of artistry and persuasiveness in speech or writing; the practice or art of using language with fluency and aptness; fluent, forcible, elegant or persuasive speaking in public.
As in; "your post was not eloquent".
pwn
Eloquent: The quality of artistry and persuasiveness in speech or writing; the practice or art of using language with fluency and aptness; fluent, forcible, elegant or persuasive speaking in public.
As in; "your post was not eloquent".
pwn
Bill McEnaney
Feb 28, 11:56 AM
On Friday, though, the college issued a statement accusing him not only of being gay, which it called contrary to traditional Catholic doctrine, but also of misrepresenting before he was hired that he was a member of an independent branch of Catholicism.
He denied both accusations Saturday, saying he never hid his sexuality or his affiliation with the Old Catholic Apostolic Church of the Americas from school officials.
Does he feel same-sex attractions or doesn't he? The reporter says that the priest is "gay." The article tells me that the priest denied both accusations. If he denied both accusations, he denied that he was gay.
The reporter or the college goofed. Being "gay" isn't contrary to Catholic teachings. Living a "gay lifestyle" is contrary to them.
He denied both accusations Saturday, saying he never hid his sexuality or his affiliation with the Old Catholic Apostolic Church of the Americas from school officials.
Does he feel same-sex attractions or doesn't he? The reporter says that the priest is "gay." The article tells me that the priest denied both accusations. If he denied both accusations, he denied that he was gay.
The reporter or the college goofed. Being "gay" isn't contrary to Catholic teachings. Living a "gay lifestyle" is contrary to them.
dsnort
Mar 31, 09:03 PM
[SIZE=1] The very fact that the Gingerbread source is available has given my Orange UK branded ZTE Blade Gingerbread before other phones had official builds.
Could you re-write the sentence so that it has a subject and a predicate?
Could you re-write the sentence so that it has a subject and a predicate?
NJRonbo
Jun 23, 02:37 PM
Let's be frank...
Whether totally Radio Shack's fault or
not this was a very sloppy launch for the
company.
Quite frankly, I think they were just given
the ******** end of the stick by Apple who
obviously is throwing them whatever leftovers
they have which now must be distributed
across all their stores.
I'm stuck. This phone is costing me $650
and I will not spend that kind of money without
getting $200 off on my trade-in. So I am
sitting here just waiting it out. It may work
out well for me because I may luck out on a
White iPhone by the time my store gets stock.
Whether totally Radio Shack's fault or
not this was a very sloppy launch for the
company.
Quite frankly, I think they were just given
the ******** end of the stick by Apple who
obviously is throwing them whatever leftovers
they have which now must be distributed
across all their stores.
I'm stuck. This phone is costing me $650
and I will not spend that kind of money without
getting $200 off on my trade-in. So I am
sitting here just waiting it out. It may work
out well for me because I may luck out on a
White iPhone by the time my store gets stock.
BornAgainMac
Aug 17, 09:39 AM
I don't like Adobe anymore. :mad:
Dont Hurt Me
Jul 14, 02:40 PM
I hope this is just smoke and mirrors for a brand new enclosure that brings back some coolness,style, and great looks. There shouldnt be any reason a new pro Mac cant hold more then 1 optical drive? My 2 yr old Aurora can hold 4. The G5 Powermacs didnt use space very well if you ask me, Im sure Jobs will have a all new enclosure otherwise it will be a ho humm WWDC.
twoodcc
Sep 19, 12:18 AM
well i hope that this happens....and that they make more changes with the MBP
logandzwon
Apr 19, 02:51 PM
The First Commercial GUI
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/5659/star1vg.gif
Xerox's Star workstation was the first commercial implementation of the graphical user interface. The Star was introduced in 1981 and was the inspiration for the Mac and all the other GUIs that followed.
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7892/leopardpreviewdesktop4.jpghttp://img714.imageshack.us/img714/5733/xerox8010star.gif
-The Star was not a commercial product. Xerox didn't sell them. (Well eventually they did, but not as PCs. they were to be similar to what we'd call a terminal today.)
-the middle image is actually of an Apple Lisa. I think you were just showing as a comparison, but some people might think your saying it's a Star. It's not. It's a Lisa.
-Apple compensated Xerox for the ideas borrowed from the Star. SJ and the mac team were already working on the GUI before any of them ever saw the Star though. Also, Macintosh 1 wasn't a copy of the Star. In fact a lot of the stables of a modern GUI today were innovated by Apple for the Macintosh.
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/5659/star1vg.gif
Xerox's Star workstation was the first commercial implementation of the graphical user interface. The Star was introduced in 1981 and was the inspiration for the Mac and all the other GUIs that followed.
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7892/leopardpreviewdesktop4.jpghttp://img714.imageshack.us/img714/5733/xerox8010star.gif
-The Star was not a commercial product. Xerox didn't sell them. (Well eventually they did, but not as PCs. they were to be similar to what we'd call a terminal today.)
-the middle image is actually of an Apple Lisa. I think you were just showing as a comparison, but some people might think your saying it's a Star. It's not. It's a Lisa.
-Apple compensated Xerox for the ideas borrowed from the Star. SJ and the mac team were already working on the GUI before any of them ever saw the Star though. Also, Macintosh 1 wasn't a copy of the Star. In fact a lot of the stables of a modern GUI today were innovated by Apple for the Macintosh.
netdog
Aug 11, 02:55 PM
I wonder what carrier they'll go with?
I think the question is more likely to be this...
What providers will meet Steve's qualifications to offer the Apple phone bundled with their service?
One of the primary factors may very well be that the provider is not allowed to cripple the phone (as some love to do).
If there is enough demand for the phone, network providers will have to meet his terms.
I think the question is more likely to be this...
What providers will meet Steve's qualifications to offer the Apple phone bundled with their service?
One of the primary factors may very well be that the provider is not allowed to cripple the phone (as some love to do).
If there is enough demand for the phone, network providers will have to meet his terms.