Jcoz
Mar 29, 02:28 PM
Now read through the rest of the posts after that and discover that Finder does not support Cut and Paste.
Ok but didn't someone say that CMD + Drag does the same for files?
Ok but didn't someone say that CMD + Drag does the same for files?
beangibbs
Mar 23, 04:33 PM
Funny, I just read in USA Today I beleve it was, that law enforcement officers actually prefer people use the apps...saying that even if the app alerts the driver and they change their driving habits for a short time, say, slowing them down from speeding for a few miles...it's a good thing, and they encourage it.
Besides...who the h*ll is the government to tell Apple what they can and cannot do with their business? Regulations are one thing...such as safety regs and such...those are needed, but Christ...this is over the line.
Besides...who the h*ll is the government to tell Apple what they can and cannot do with their business? Regulations are one thing...such as safety regs and such...those are needed, but Christ...this is over the line.
Cameront9
Aug 24, 12:35 AM
Not Hierarchial File System! Hierarchial MENU System!
Now, we can freely discuss the "merits" of this patent, but fact is that Apple lost, fair 'n square. If Apple thought that Creatives patent was bogus, they would have NOT paid. 100 million dollars is a lot of cash, no matter how you slice it. If the patent was bogus, and they still paid, Apple would be sending other companies a message that said "Want some cash? Sue us with bogus patents, we'll gladly pay!". No, Apple paid because they felt that they were really infringing and that if they had proceedd with the lawsuit, they would have lost a lot more than 100 million.
If it's a BS patent, why did Apple pay? Clearly, it was NOT a BS patent. True, the patent-system might be screwed up, but that is not the point of this discussion.
Alright, Menu system. But it's the same thing. You select songs (files) through groups of albums/artists/etc (folders/directories).
Of COURSE Apple was infringing on the patent if you assume it was a valid patent. I'm saying the patent never should have been granted because it's not something you can patent. I have a feeling that Apple possibly could have won this lawsuit, but it would have taken years of red tape, legal fees, etc, and they would be taking a gamble. Apple's taken gambles in the legal process before and lost (see: Microsoft GUI case). Steve doesn't want to go through that again, so he pays off Creative. Then, being Steve, he somehow uses his RDF to get Creative to join the licensing program, which has the potential to MAKE APPLE MONEY off of this deal.
Did Apple "win" this? Of course not. They're still out 100 million. But they also came out with some interesting deals that make this not a total loss.
And finally, to answer your statement in the first paragraph: This is EXACTLY why the patent system IS messed up. Because it DOES send a message of "hey we filed this patent for something blatantly obvious, give us some money" In most cases, it will be cheaper to settle. Thus companies end up using Patents, rather than products, as a money-maker.
Now, we can freely discuss the "merits" of this patent, but fact is that Apple lost, fair 'n square. If Apple thought that Creatives patent was bogus, they would have NOT paid. 100 million dollars is a lot of cash, no matter how you slice it. If the patent was bogus, and they still paid, Apple would be sending other companies a message that said "Want some cash? Sue us with bogus patents, we'll gladly pay!". No, Apple paid because they felt that they were really infringing and that if they had proceedd with the lawsuit, they would have lost a lot more than 100 million.
If it's a BS patent, why did Apple pay? Clearly, it was NOT a BS patent. True, the patent-system might be screwed up, but that is not the point of this discussion.
Alright, Menu system. But it's the same thing. You select songs (files) through groups of albums/artists/etc (folders/directories).
Of COURSE Apple was infringing on the patent if you assume it was a valid patent. I'm saying the patent never should have been granted because it's not something you can patent. I have a feeling that Apple possibly could have won this lawsuit, but it would have taken years of red tape, legal fees, etc, and they would be taking a gamble. Apple's taken gambles in the legal process before and lost (see: Microsoft GUI case). Steve doesn't want to go through that again, so he pays off Creative. Then, being Steve, he somehow uses his RDF to get Creative to join the licensing program, which has the potential to MAKE APPLE MONEY off of this deal.
Did Apple "win" this? Of course not. They're still out 100 million. But they also came out with some interesting deals that make this not a total loss.
And finally, to answer your statement in the first paragraph: This is EXACTLY why the patent system IS messed up. Because it DOES send a message of "hey we filed this patent for something blatantly obvious, give us some money" In most cases, it will be cheaper to settle. Thus companies end up using Patents, rather than products, as a money-maker.
Ace R.
Apr 4, 12:57 PM
ITT:
People do not READ. It was self defense. Those robbers were BLASTING. 40 rounds exchanged.
Sucks someone had to die but that's the price you pay when you decide to commit a crime and use deadly force.. aka we're going to rob the Apple store and if anyone tries to stop us we're shooting.
I'm just glad the security guard survived this ordeal. Imagine if the headline read "Security guard dead in Apple store robbery"
This could easily of been the case.
People do not READ. It was self defense. Those robbers were BLASTING. 40 rounds exchanged.
Sucks someone had to die but that's the price you pay when you decide to commit a crime and use deadly force.. aka we're going to rob the Apple store and if anyone tries to stop us we're shooting.
I'm just glad the security guard survived this ordeal. Imagine if the headline read "Security guard dead in Apple store robbery"
This could easily of been the case.
OneMammoth
Mar 8, 11:51 AM
I am constantly amazed at the number of people who buy into this crap!
Here, I'll try to spell it out for you:
Apple has no antivirus for IOS because it would be completely useless. In order for a virus to get through to an IOS device it has to get past Apple's reviewers. That's the only way to install software of any kind on IOS, including malware.
Safari!
Here, I'll try to spell it out for you:
Apple has no antivirus for IOS because it would be completely useless. In order for a virus to get through to an IOS device it has to get past Apple's reviewers. That's the only way to install software of any kind on IOS, including malware.
Safari!
KingYaba
Oct 27, 03:29 PM
Effin hippies bug off.
relimw
Sep 14, 10:11 AM
New version of Aperture!.. Saweeet
or more likely a new Apple iSLR
16 Megapixels
full frame sensor
Adaptive lens mount supports all Canon and Nikon Lenses
60gb removeable 1.8" hard drive
3" OLED screen
...
And all for a low, low price of $599.
or more likely a new Apple iSLR
16 Megapixels
full frame sensor
Adaptive lens mount supports all Canon and Nikon Lenses
60gb removeable 1.8" hard drive
3" OLED screen
...
And all for a low, low price of $599.
tekmoe
Aug 28, 12:52 PM
I think my new rule will be to automatically place anyone using that line on my ignore list.
It lost its funny a long time ago.:rolleyes:
ditto.
It lost its funny a long time ago.:rolleyes:
ditto.
munkery
Mar 3, 05:40 PM
This is the downside of "Open Source". I have both Android & iP4. I have to watch what I install on my Android but not with my iP4 (The plus side to "Closed Walled Garden".
It has nothing to do with open source. Most of Mac OS X and iOS is open source (http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html). Open source projects tend to have much better security records than closed source projects.
The issue is that the Android Market is an open market. Google does not audit the items prior to their inclusion in the Android Market. If Google curated the Android Market, it would be just as secure as the iOS app store.
It has nothing to do with open source. Most of Mac OS X and iOS is open source (http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html). Open source projects tend to have much better security records than closed source projects.
The issue is that the Android Market is an open market. Google does not audit the items prior to their inclusion in the Android Market. If Google curated the Android Market, it would be just as secure as the iOS app store.
JAT
Mar 30, 12:02 PM
Yes, but that doesn't matter. The word Windows is no generic IT word, while app(lication) is. That's the difference.
"Apple" can't be used to trademark a fruit, but it can be used to trademark a computer. "Windows" can't be used to trademark "windows of a house" but it can be for an operating system. "App store" can be trademarked for a brothel but not for a store that sells computer applications.
One, windows is a generic IT word. Yes, it is. That's WHY M$ named it Windows, because it was a term that described what you see on screen. Personally, I was annoyed when they called it that for their 2bit crap OS shell. Two, that doesn't matter today, M$ is not going after people for usage of "windows". Three, Apple can certainly attempt to trademark a term. That's why we have trademarks. All these arguments are circular. "You can't because you can't." Silly.
Yeah -- makes you wonder why the American Revolution ever happened. We replaced somebody who ruled by birthright with somebody who ruled by the merits of being a better lawyer. I guess you can't win. If only all political leaders could have been like George Washington who hated political parties.
Yes, military rulers have always been so wonderful in human history. :rolleyes:
I'll say it again "App Store" is a generic term, I think everyone should be able to use it.. I hope Apple doesn't win this one.. If someone used "Mac App Store", completely understandable..
See, that's really the point. Apple was the first to use this term. It doesn't matter what letters it uses, it's the combination that is at stake, here. I don't care who wins, they could certainly trademark this no problem. That's what a trademark is, if your term was so strange and unrelated to your industry, you wouldn't need legal backup.
"Apple" can't be used to trademark a fruit, but it can be used to trademark a computer. "Windows" can't be used to trademark "windows of a house" but it can be for an operating system. "App store" can be trademarked for a brothel but not for a store that sells computer applications.
One, windows is a generic IT word. Yes, it is. That's WHY M$ named it Windows, because it was a term that described what you see on screen. Personally, I was annoyed when they called it that for their 2bit crap OS shell. Two, that doesn't matter today, M$ is not going after people for usage of "windows". Three, Apple can certainly attempt to trademark a term. That's why we have trademarks. All these arguments are circular. "You can't because you can't." Silly.
Yeah -- makes you wonder why the American Revolution ever happened. We replaced somebody who ruled by birthright with somebody who ruled by the merits of being a better lawyer. I guess you can't win. If only all political leaders could have been like George Washington who hated political parties.
Yes, military rulers have always been so wonderful in human history. :rolleyes:
I'll say it again "App Store" is a generic term, I think everyone should be able to use it.. I hope Apple doesn't win this one.. If someone used "Mac App Store", completely understandable..
See, that's really the point. Apple was the first to use this term. It doesn't matter what letters it uses, it's the combination that is at stake, here. I don't care who wins, they could certainly trademark this no problem. That's what a trademark is, if your term was so strange and unrelated to your industry, you wouldn't need legal backup.
dejo
Nov 13, 02:52 PM
Just to be clear, if RA had made an application for a Macbook that displayed these images, that's ok. Because they made the application for an iPhone instead, it's not ok.
Does that make sense to anyone?
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. :)
Does that make sense to anyone?
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. :)
TangoCharlie
Jul 14, 10:03 AM
Perhaps some kind of high performance consumer-oriented/gaming-oriented tower?
(Just pure speculation...)
-Terry
Exactly!!! Here's hoping! :D
(Just pure speculation...)
-Terry
Exactly!!! Here's hoping! :D
Peace
Jul 19, 07:58 PM
http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-6096192.html?part=rss&tag=6096192&subj=news
Cloverton and Kentsfield coming 4th quarter 2006
Cloverton and Kentsfield coming 4th quarter 2006
AppleScruff1
Apr 20, 02:10 AM
The logo on the center of the record is an apple sliced in half. Again, it looks nothing like Apple's logo.
You're right. Apple doesn't use an Apple for their logo. :rolleyes:
You're right. Apple doesn't use an Apple for their logo. :rolleyes:
Silentwave
Sep 10, 06:12 PM
Maybe Steve will be using the new iChat Theater features of Leopard to do his keynote presentation ;)
agmaster
Apr 14, 02:59 PM
I really hope Intel delays USB 3. I have a mid 2007 MBP, even though I use FW800, I have resorted to using my ExpressCard slot with an eSata adapter which is even faster than FW800. If anything, the difference will be made with the companies who make the external HDD to implement thunderbolt technology into their products. I just hate usb in general, I only use it for flash drives and my mouse.
Sydde
Apr 11, 12:15 PM
Which is why the US
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/18/global-2000-10_The-Global-2000-United-States_10Rank.html
and Sweden
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/18/global-2000-10_The-Global-2000-Sweden_10Rank.html
What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/18/global-2000-10_The-Global-2000-United-States_10Rank.html
and Sweden
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/18/global-2000-10_The-Global-2000-Sweden_10Rank.html
What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
steviem
Apr 11, 03:47 PM
How many pints to a league does your car do?
lmalave
Sep 27, 09:56 AM
Geez, I hope it doesn't look like that. Rotary looks kool, but imagine trying to text or dial without looking.
Yeah, seriously - there's no way!!!
Text Messaging is way too popular now to mess with the key layout.
Really, the only viable options are:
1) standard numeric keypad
2) QWERTY keyboard
3) Hybrid QWERTY keyboard (a la Blackberry 7100 or Blackberry Pearl, though RIM probably has a patent on this...)
Yeah, seriously - there's no way!!!
Text Messaging is way too popular now to mess with the key layout.
Really, the only viable options are:
1) standard numeric keypad
2) QWERTY keyboard
3) Hybrid QWERTY keyboard (a la Blackberry 7100 or Blackberry Pearl, though RIM probably has a patent on this...)
peeInMyPantz
Sep 14, 07:02 AM
Okay, check out this phone and then tell me what you would like to see on your iPhone.
http://www.vodafone.jp/mb/en/product/3G/905sh/index.html
http://www.vodafone.jp/mb/en/product/3G/905sh/images/sub_image02.jpg
this is ugly. i hope iphone is nowhere near this
http://www.vodafone.jp/mb/en/product/3G/905sh/index.html
http://www.vodafone.jp/mb/en/product/3G/905sh/images/sub_image02.jpg
this is ugly. i hope iphone is nowhere near this
Multimedia
Sep 10, 09:29 PM
Well here at work I could replace 4 PC draughting workstations with a Conroe based system. We already have 23" monitors so we are not going to purchase iMacs, and while Mac Pro's are nice they are too expensive for us... A $1500 headless system would do wonders! (and yes the mini is too little).
If Apple cannot release such a system we will have to continue purchasing PCs... :(You are the market Apple has got to be planning on winning. I have been using two monitors since 1986 when the Mac II made that possible. I might consider a mini - just for fooling around - if it had two moniotr ports.
This I see as the primary problem with the iMac as well. Although it does now allow spanning, the screens are going to outlast contemporary power levels over time thus making the idea of all-in-one very unattractive to those of us who want state-of-the-art power every 12-18 months or so and don't like the idea of a computer behind our screens. I like my computers on the floor.
What I want is the ability to have significant power along with the ability to hook up to 4 screens to that power not one or two - especially not the computer married to any displays.
I guess there are three types of people in the world:
1. Someone who only wants one screen hooked to a separate small computer that can only hook to one screen.
2. Someone who wants a screen married to the computer with the option of adding only one more.
3. Someone who wants one or more screens hooked to a computer on the floor with room for two dual display video cards.
I can see the mobile MacBook Pros as justifiably containing a computer married to a screen - but only with a Dual Link DVI port - unlike the mini and iMacs. Price of the MacBook explains the missing Dual Link DVI.
If Apple cannot release such a system we will have to continue purchasing PCs... :(You are the market Apple has got to be planning on winning. I have been using two monitors since 1986 when the Mac II made that possible. I might consider a mini - just for fooling around - if it had two moniotr ports.
This I see as the primary problem with the iMac as well. Although it does now allow spanning, the screens are going to outlast contemporary power levels over time thus making the idea of all-in-one very unattractive to those of us who want state-of-the-art power every 12-18 months or so and don't like the idea of a computer behind our screens. I like my computers on the floor.
What I want is the ability to have significant power along with the ability to hook up to 4 screens to that power not one or two - especially not the computer married to any displays.
I guess there are three types of people in the world:
1. Someone who only wants one screen hooked to a separate small computer that can only hook to one screen.
2. Someone who wants a screen married to the computer with the option of adding only one more.
3. Someone who wants one or more screens hooked to a computer on the floor with room for two dual display video cards.
I can see the mobile MacBook Pros as justifiably containing a computer married to a screen - but only with a Dual Link DVI port - unlike the mini and iMacs. Price of the MacBook explains the missing Dual Link DVI.
mazola
Sep 14, 10:05 AM
It could be no other thing.
fishcove
May 3, 10:20 AM
So is it safe to assume that with 2 external monitors one can have a 3-monitor eyefinity-like extended desktop?
And would the same setup work in bootcamp (ie using eyefinity)?
BTW, Canadian prices are the same as US! Never thought I'd see the day.
And would the same setup work in bootcamp (ie using eyefinity)?
BTW, Canadian prices are the same as US! Never thought I'd see the day.
vand0576
Sep 5, 01:03 PM
The reason for the 1-3 week delay in the Extreme Base Station is due to the new European regulations on certain chemicals going into effect.
But the online store that I linked to (www.apple.com/store) reflects products that are sold for U.S. customers. What are European regulations going to do in the States?
But the online store that I linked to (www.apple.com/store) reflects products that are sold for U.S. customers. What are European regulations going to do in the States?
