Mattsasa
Apr 2, 07:26 PM
That's funny. Your description lists every apple product you own except the iPad 2 :o
good point, he doesn't have an ipad he is just trolling.
people don't understand that if 1,000 ipads have a problem with backlight bleeding, thats still only .01% of ipad 2s Sold.
And apple will replace any ipad with backlight bleeding
good point, he doesn't have an ipad he is just trolling.
people don't understand that if 1,000 ipads have a problem with backlight bleeding, thats still only .01% of ipad 2s Sold.
And apple will replace any ipad with backlight bleeding
iJohnHenry
Apr 9, 04:59 PM
I know how to drive a manual, but it has been ages since last time I have been in one
Same here.
I've had a flat-head Ford (stearing column shift), Chevy Cavalier, Porsche, Chevy Corvair Corsa :eek:, with some autos in between, and ever since.
When you drive to/from Toronto all the time, standard just makes no sense, now that autos are much more efficient.
Same here.
I've had a flat-head Ford (stearing column shift), Chevy Cavalier, Porsche, Chevy Corvair Corsa :eek:, with some autos in between, and ever since.
When you drive to/from Toronto all the time, standard just makes no sense, now that autos are much more efficient.
markie
Oct 20, 02:01 PM
Consumer Reports has always been corrupt and in it to tear down companies. Look at the Suzuki Samurai, which was a great vehicle and sales dropped when they said it was prone to rollover. Too bad it wasn't, and they had to modify the test course several times to tip the car... designed specifically for that vehicle to exploit it's weakest point.
rtjstevens
Sep 7, 05:11 AM
this surely is good news. but i wont be watching movies on my current 'pod...the window is too small. all this being dependent on wether or not it's gonna be available in the UK. it's a real bummer not to be able to download TV shows i love like you americans can!
S
This can easily be done with the excellent Miglia TV Mini with the latest EyeTV software -it even has an ipod button on it!
BW
Richard
S
This can easily be done with the excellent Miglia TV Mini with the latest EyeTV software -it even has an ipod button on it!
BW
Richard
Abstract
Feb 22, 07:50 PM
A bit off-topic, but why haven't car manufacturers created hybrid cars that use a diesel engine + battery? There are lots of petrol-electric hybrids, but not diesel. :confused:
islanders
Dec 28, 10:41 AM
SeaFox, So what you are saying its that:
�You're comparing apples to oranges now. A cable box is a tuner and a self-contained unit. As far as we know, iTV will not have a tuner. Its only known function at this time is to stream content from a Mac, so that makes iTV like a Slingbox, not a cableco DVR. And Slingboxes don't have hard drives.�
1) the iTV should is not and should not have a harddrive, or any kind of computer capabilities? You say I�m comparing apples to oranges when I said my cable box has a harddrive, assuming I don�t know what a tuner is, when I was just saying a harddive is not that big a deal. And if it doesn�t have one that will be less of a reason to buy one.
2) �The bandwidth problem has already been addressed.�
York Knicks: LeBron James
NBA New York Knicks Amare
knicks logo
new york mets logo wallpaper.
new york times newspaper font.
new york times newspaper font.
new york times newspaper font.
vivienne westwood logo font.
vivienne westwood logo font.
New York Knicks
carmelo anthony new york
new york times font alphabet.
Hess Petroleum logo
Reacent Post
�You're comparing apples to oranges now. A cable box is a tuner and a self-contained unit. As far as we know, iTV will not have a tuner. Its only known function at this time is to stream content from a Mac, so that makes iTV like a Slingbox, not a cableco DVR. And Slingboxes don't have hard drives.�
1) the iTV should is not and should not have a harddrive, or any kind of computer capabilities? You say I�m comparing apples to oranges when I said my cable box has a harddrive, assuming I don�t know what a tuner is, when I was just saying a harddive is not that big a deal. And if it doesn�t have one that will be less of a reason to buy one.
2) �The bandwidth problem has already been addressed.�
gugy
Nov 28, 11:24 AM
Is anybody surprise by this?
Seriously we knew this all along.
Plus, what surprises me is that Microsoft did no TV advertising for the Zune at all. So many people out there have no idea it even exists.
Zune has no chance until they have an integration like ipod and itunes have. Maybe in Vista they will have a chance to get that but my feeling is too late for them.
Apple will not let down and I am pretty sure before spring we'll see updates across the ipod line and maybe finally the widescreen ipod.
Seriously we knew this all along.
Plus, what surprises me is that Microsoft did no TV advertising for the Zune at all. So many people out there have no idea it even exists.
Zune has no chance until they have an integration like ipod and itunes have. Maybe in Vista they will have a chance to get that but my feeling is too late for them.
Apple will not let down and I am pretty sure before spring we'll see updates across the ipod line and maybe finally the widescreen ipod.
Mike84
Apr 26, 02:29 PM
You make it sound as though this is such an obvious distinction that Apple could never get a trademark for "app store". But apparently this argument is not so strong in trademark law as Apple actually has the trademark already. If that were not the case how could they sue another entity for trademark infringement?
I think all of you who believe you have trademark law all figured out should keep this in mind. Apple has a trademark for app store. Previously another company had a trademark for "appstore" which is very similar.
You can write about the topic as though you have it all figured out but clearly your interpretation is not definitive as Apple was awarded the trademark.
Now perhaps eventually apple will lose it or have to modify it but the fact that they got the trademark and a legal battle would need to be waged for them to lose proves that your opinion of trademark law in this case is oversimplified.
It was.
Can you please show me the trademark that was granted to Apple for App Store by the USPTO? You won't be able to find it because their trademark has not been approved. An opposition to their application was filed, if you didn't catch that from the text.
Trademark is having property rights in a trade name. Apple, or any other company, can file to protect a trademark they have been using and the USPTO decides if it is too generic to be an actual trademark. I suggest you learn about the process of how trademarks.
"How does a mark qualify for federal registration?
To register a trademark with the PTO, the mark's owner first must put it into use " in commerce that Congress may regulate." This means the mark must be used on a product or service that crosses state, national or territorial lines or that affects commerce crossing such lines--for example, a catalog business or a restaurant or motel that caters to interstate or international customers. Even if the owner files an intent-to-use (ITU) trademark application (ITU applications are discussed in the previous set of questions), the mark will not actually be registered until it is used in commerce."
Source: http://www.inc.com/articles/1999/10/14646.html
Also, take a look at the Lanham Act, which is pretty important when it comes to trademark law ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act <-- particularly Subchapters I and II.
Just because you use a mark does not mean you have been granted the trademark rights in it.
So, as you can see Apple does not have the trademark to App Store. Therefore, your argument fails on that premise alone.
I think all of you who believe you have trademark law all figured out should keep this in mind. Apple has a trademark for app store. Previously another company had a trademark for "appstore" which is very similar.
You can write about the topic as though you have it all figured out but clearly your interpretation is not definitive as Apple was awarded the trademark.
Now perhaps eventually apple will lose it or have to modify it but the fact that they got the trademark and a legal battle would need to be waged for them to lose proves that your opinion of trademark law in this case is oversimplified.
It was.
Can you please show me the trademark that was granted to Apple for App Store by the USPTO? You won't be able to find it because their trademark has not been approved. An opposition to their application was filed, if you didn't catch that from the text.
Trademark is having property rights in a trade name. Apple, or any other company, can file to protect a trademark they have been using and the USPTO decides if it is too generic to be an actual trademark. I suggest you learn about the process of how trademarks.
"How does a mark qualify for federal registration?
To register a trademark with the PTO, the mark's owner first must put it into use " in commerce that Congress may regulate." This means the mark must be used on a product or service that crosses state, national or territorial lines or that affects commerce crossing such lines--for example, a catalog business or a restaurant or motel that caters to interstate or international customers. Even if the owner files an intent-to-use (ITU) trademark application (ITU applications are discussed in the previous set of questions), the mark will not actually be registered until it is used in commerce."
Source: http://www.inc.com/articles/1999/10/14646.html
Also, take a look at the Lanham Act, which is pretty important when it comes to trademark law ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act <-- particularly Subchapters I and II.
Just because you use a mark does not mean you have been granted the trademark rights in it.
So, as you can see Apple does not have the trademark to App Store. Therefore, your argument fails on that premise alone.
macidiot
Jul 19, 04:33 PM
When the "real" machines are out, Vista will be out as well. Unless Leopard has revolutionary improvements, the difference between Windows and OSX+iLife would be much less than that it is today. I would still appreciate the UNIX under the hood, but I doubt most consumers care. If Mac sales or market share starts to come down a bit due to fewer switchers, the share price could easily crash.
Vista vs. Leopard is a moot point. There is enough pent up demand for high end desktops to fuel growth for some time. Switchers aren't material in this market. Besides, desktop buyers aren't waiting for Leopard, they are waiting for universal binaries from Adobe.
Vista will have zero near term effect. The simple truth is that you won't see widespread adoption of Vista for at least 12-18 months. And that is assuming Vista actually ships when it is supposed to. Which is no sure thing.
As for the consumer, what they care about is stability and security. imo, that is what is getting switchers. Your right that they don't care how it's being done. However, Vista will be far more secure than xp when it comes out. At least for a month or so. It will take at least a few weeks for good malware to come out for it...
Vista vs. Leopard is a moot point. There is enough pent up demand for high end desktops to fuel growth for some time. Switchers aren't material in this market. Besides, desktop buyers aren't waiting for Leopard, they are waiting for universal binaries from Adobe.
Vista will have zero near term effect. The simple truth is that you won't see widespread adoption of Vista for at least 12-18 months. And that is assuming Vista actually ships when it is supposed to. Which is no sure thing.
As for the consumer, what they care about is stability and security. imo, that is what is getting switchers. Your right that they don't care how it's being done. However, Vista will be far more secure than xp when it comes out. At least for a month or so. It will take at least a few weeks for good malware to come out for it...
macbookairman
Apr 12, 09:34 PM
Better yet, 9 to 5 mac has a video stream.
http://www.9to5mac.com/61109/nab-2011/
http://www.9to5mac.com/61109/nab-2011/
danbirchall
Jan 12, 07:09 AM
Aluminum is much harder to recycle than plastic
Say what? It may have a higher melting point than plastic, but it's the most recyclable material out there. Plastic often can't even be used in the same application multiple times, and ends up being "downcycled" into something completely different. Wikipedia says recycling aluminum is 95% more efficient than making it from ore; recycling plastic is only 70% more efficient than making it new.
Say what? It may have a higher melting point than plastic, but it's the most recyclable material out there. Plastic often can't even be used in the same application multiple times, and ends up being "downcycled" into something completely different. Wikipedia says recycling aluminum is 95% more efficient than making it from ore; recycling plastic is only 70% more efficient than making it new.
oracle_ab
Apr 27, 10:03 AM
Context doesn't impact a trademark either. The only thing that would permit anyone to use the "App Store" trademark if it was granted would be outside of Apple's selected field of trade.
I could call my restaurant "App Store" because Apple did not trademark App Store as it relates to restoration and food. I could call my new Car model the "GM App Store", as it does not relate to the field in which Apple trademarked it.
I can't however call my store that sells Applications "App Store" or use "App Store" in a portion of its name, or for the slogan "KnightMarket : The best darn App Store!"
That is why descriptive trademarks aren't usually awarded and granted. Because it gives too much power to a single entity in a certain field of trade. We'll see how the USPTO decides this when they hand in their final decision in Apple's request, especially now that Microsoft filed in the opposition phase (which is exactly why the USPTO has an opposition phase to begin with).
This I totally agree with. In regard to written language, context makes a difference. Context may be substituted for your more correct language of "field of trade." One wouldn't be in violation of the trademark if presenting it in general terms (outside of the field or in reference to something w/in the field, much like Windows OS vs. GUI windows), but would be if they wanted to use the term w/in their own title w/in the same field.
I think we're saying the same things, but perhaps my original post wasn't clear and relied to heavily on implied understanding....
I could call my restaurant "App Store" because Apple did not trademark App Store as it relates to restoration and food. I could call my new Car model the "GM App Store", as it does not relate to the field in which Apple trademarked it.
I can't however call my store that sells Applications "App Store" or use "App Store" in a portion of its name, or for the slogan "KnightMarket : The best darn App Store!"
That is why descriptive trademarks aren't usually awarded and granted. Because it gives too much power to a single entity in a certain field of trade. We'll see how the USPTO decides this when they hand in their final decision in Apple's request, especially now that Microsoft filed in the opposition phase (which is exactly why the USPTO has an opposition phase to begin with).
This I totally agree with. In regard to written language, context makes a difference. Context may be substituted for your more correct language of "field of trade." One wouldn't be in violation of the trademark if presenting it in general terms (outside of the field or in reference to something w/in the field, much like Windows OS vs. GUI windows), but would be if they wanted to use the term w/in their own title w/in the same field.
I think we're saying the same things, but perhaps my original post wasn't clear and relied to heavily on implied understanding....
SciFrog
Dec 13, 06:09 PM
Thanks.
I was over at kakaostats and saw there is someone new this week "elena" (http://kakaostats.com/usum.php?u=1604130), up only since tuesday and they already have over 4M points! Must be an institution with a wicked fast cluster? Some serious players out there...
You are #103 cruncher for the whole project, whao!
And actually #1 and #2 are default user, not real...
Impressive.
Can't wait for Gulftown Mac Pros and SMP2 (maybe 60k PPD with one machine?).
I was over at kakaostats and saw there is someone new this week "elena" (http://kakaostats.com/usum.php?u=1604130), up only since tuesday and they already have over 4M points! Must be an institution with a wicked fast cluster? Some serious players out there...
You are #103 cruncher for the whole project, whao!
And actually #1 and #2 are default user, not real...
Impressive.
Can't wait for Gulftown Mac Pros and SMP2 (maybe 60k PPD with one machine?).
PeterQVenkman
Mar 25, 10:53 AM
Bye bye Nvidia. Twas interesting whilst it lasted.
While professionals can say bye bye to nVidia's CUDA processing and PhysX.
:-(
ATI/AMD is doing what they can, developing an OpenCL driven bullet physics port to Maya but they always seem to be one step behind - announcing a plugin for Maya 2011 in the same week that Autodesk announced that nVidia Physx is being integrated directly into Maya 2012 with real time physx cloth deformation, rigid body dynamics, and physx accelerated calculations for DMM destruction.
On the windows side, 3ds Max is getting Physx integration, too. Open CL is cool but it's got some ground to make up in the application world.
While professionals can say bye bye to nVidia's CUDA processing and PhysX.
:-(
ATI/AMD is doing what they can, developing an OpenCL driven bullet physics port to Maya but they always seem to be one step behind - announcing a plugin for Maya 2011 in the same week that Autodesk announced that nVidia Physx is being integrated directly into Maya 2012 with real time physx cloth deformation, rigid body dynamics, and physx accelerated calculations for DMM destruction.
On the windows side, 3ds Max is getting Physx integration, too. Open CL is cool but it's got some ground to make up in the application world.
smugDrew
Apr 1, 01:36 AM
I assume Safari 5.1 is in this refresh of Lion Preview?
Is it faster? How is memory the resource usage? :cool:
Is it faster? How is memory the resource usage? :cool:
v66jack
Mar 1, 06:04 PM
Yep all of them are hard drives, i have 2TB in each one and then a RAID-0 with 2x2TB. I keep most for back ups of Photos, Music and Movies and OS clones (i'm fairly meticulous with back ups and having them on more than just one drive..but most duplicated clones are taken offline and stored after back up).
One is used as my external iTunes library as there isnt enough space on the SSD and the others are free space, diagnostic drives, work drives used to do audio/video or photo storage/editing
I must say, your array of hard drives / back up system is mightily impressive
One is used as my external iTunes library as there isnt enough space on the SSD and the others are free space, diagnostic drives, work drives used to do audio/video or photo storage/editing
I must say, your array of hard drives / back up system is mightily impressive
rasmasyean
Mar 27, 11:56 PM
There is no such thing as a European Command run by Europeans, any more than there is an African Command run by an African. They are both branches of the US military command. Your comment that "even" the European Command was run by an American was foolish in the extreme.
So now that I pwned you you still try to twist words to get weasle your way out.
Scroll up and this is what I said:
"He even says that European Command is headed by a US Admiral."
That's a lot different than:
"Even the European Command was run by an American"
In other words...it's NOT handed over to NATO.
Why don't you just face it. The US blows crap up and all of the "NATO" nations expect the US to handle the brunt of the decisions AND the work behind the scenes and that YOUR nation shoots 2 tomahawks and takes credit for the "massive assault" even though it hurts your pride to believe so or some crap! :D
You see, beneath all of that hippie exterior of yours, you are secretly a warmonger, you just don't like it when most of the damage is done by the US instead of by someone more close to home! I knew it! ;)
So now that I pwned you you still try to twist words to get weasle your way out.
Scroll up and this is what I said:
"He even says that European Command is headed by a US Admiral."
That's a lot different than:
"Even the European Command was run by an American"
In other words...it's NOT handed over to NATO.
Why don't you just face it. The US blows crap up and all of the "NATO" nations expect the US to handle the brunt of the decisions AND the work behind the scenes and that YOUR nation shoots 2 tomahawks and takes credit for the "massive assault" even though it hurts your pride to believe so or some crap! :D
You see, beneath all of that hippie exterior of yours, you are secretly a warmonger, you just don't like it when most of the damage is done by the US instead of by someone more close to home! I knew it! ;)
timmillwood
Oct 23, 07:49 AM
sorry to quote myself, but i just realized that the UK Mac Expo is this week, and that would be a good venue for releasing new MBPs
so my prediction is Oct 26 at the UK MacExpo.
cheers
i think they will stick with Tuesday then just show it off at the EXPO, this will be a silent update because no invites have been sent so there is no reason to wait for friday when they can do it Monday.
I hope to have it order Tuesday and delivered by the end of the week?
Any chance?
so my prediction is Oct 26 at the UK MacExpo.
cheers
i think they will stick with Tuesday then just show it off at the EXPO, this will be a silent update because no invites have been sent so there is no reason to wait for friday when they can do it Monday.
I hope to have it order Tuesday and delivered by the end of the week?
Any chance?
imac_japan
Mar 28, 08:04 AM
reasons your wrong
1. he didnt make up a word of it
2. apple made safari before ms pulled ie
3.the ipod has a long time to go their not going to just say screw it when its selling
4.ITMS is making them money after the record companies are paid back for the use of the songs every cent is profit
5. less than 20 people have signed your petition and do you really think its going to get apple to change their entire strategyi can see it now steve jobs sees our online pettion and immediatly calls a meating "i just had an appihany some kid said to make a cheap computer that hooks up to your tv weve been completely wrong all theese yearsapple is now only going to make web tv type systems and nothing else my god what have i been doing"
I'm not getting into a "your right and Im wrong" discussion. The whole point of this thread is to get Apple to make a cheap Mac so they can tackle the cheap $500 market. Its killing them
1. he didnt make up a word of it
2. apple made safari before ms pulled ie
3.the ipod has a long time to go their not going to just say screw it when its selling
4.ITMS is making them money after the record companies are paid back for the use of the songs every cent is profit
5. less than 20 people have signed your petition and do you really think its going to get apple to change their entire strategyi can see it now steve jobs sees our online pettion and immediatly calls a meating "i just had an appihany some kid said to make a cheap computer that hooks up to your tv weve been completely wrong all theese yearsapple is now only going to make web tv type systems and nothing else my god what have i been doing"
I'm not getting into a "your right and Im wrong" discussion. The whole point of this thread is to get Apple to make a cheap Mac so they can tackle the cheap $500 market. Its killing them
Small White Car
Apr 12, 09:03 PM
It's always the users fault. :rolleyes:
Why are you rolly-eying your own opinion?
I didn't say anything like that, so if it's what you think then you shouldn't be so hard on yourself.
Not even sure why you quoted me, honestly.
Why are you rolly-eying your own opinion?
I didn't say anything like that, so if it's what you think then you shouldn't be so hard on yourself.
Not even sure why you quoted me, honestly.
OttawaGuy
Aug 24, 06:47 PM
minis sure seem to garner a lot of goodwill. :)
Mr-Stabby
Apr 12, 09:36 PM
BETA! We no GET
Yeah BETA sounds like we won't be getting it for a while :(
Yeah BETA sounds like we won't be getting it for a while :(
BenRoethig
Sep 6, 06:08 PM
probably supply reasons and cost reasons.
if they bumped it to core 2, at least the base model would still have been core duo, the c2d one would have been more expensive, and i'm willing to bet we may see the 1.83 C2D in more than just the 17" imac soon.
I'm guessing that Apple probably had a bunch of yonahs sitting around and hoped they could sell some off.
Bet the combo and Superdrives are all unchanged-the suppliers the same as February's model.
Considering Panasonic and Pioneer are the only ones who make slot loading notebook drives, I'd guess so.
if they bumped it to core 2, at least the base model would still have been core duo, the c2d one would have been more expensive, and i'm willing to bet we may see the 1.83 C2D in more than just the 17" imac soon.
I'm guessing that Apple probably had a bunch of yonahs sitting around and hoped they could sell some off.
Bet the combo and Superdrives are all unchanged-the suppliers the same as February's model.
Considering Panasonic and Pioneer are the only ones who make slot loading notebook drives, I'd guess so.
chaosbunny
May 3, 12:54 AM
Might be nice for people who actually use the App Store.
0 comments:
Post a Comment