pengu
Sep 18, 08:34 AM
You are right. I make a call. i expect to pay for it. i dont expect the person im calling to get billed for the damn call.
and. as for pricing. yes, vodafone have a 1c/sec flat rate on calls. but. i pay $79/month and at the end of the my account has a automatic refund (of sorts) applied, so anything up to $500 in calls/txt/etc is included in the $79.
i DO use my mobile for most calls. i use my landline maybe once a week, because it has a better speakerphone if im using it for a long time.
and. as for pricing. yes, vodafone have a 1c/sec flat rate on calls. but. i pay $79/month and at the end of the my account has a automatic refund (of sorts) applied, so anything up to $500 in calls/txt/etc is included in the $79.
i DO use my mobile for most calls. i use my landline maybe once a week, because it has a better speakerphone if im using it for a long time.
Warbrain
Oct 12, 10:01 PM
All I can say is this...
I would buy a red iPod regardless of if the money went to a good cause. I think red would look sexy as ****.
I would buy a red iPod regardless of if the money went to a good cause. I think red would look sexy as ****.
cgc
Apr 19, 09:23 AM
Samsung is going to wrap Apple up in a cocoon of pain...
(quote from Tommy Morrison before the Tyson fight that never happened)
(quote from Tommy Morrison before the Tyson fight that never happened)
cmaier
Nov 14, 12:08 AM
Dude. You have a double standard. If Apple were to infringe on the copyright of someone else, you would be here pitchfork in hand screaming for blood.
If you look on other sites like macnn, you will see that the airfoil app does not only display Apple icons but rather the icon of whatever browser is configured as the main browser. They cannot make the claim that they have to right to use the Firefox, Camino or Omniweb icon in their app. It is not "streaming" the icon data, it is copied over and displayed superimposed on another icon which is presumably an internal OS X bundle. The audio is streamed but those icons are copied over and superimposed on each other on the phone. That is a clear violation of the IP of other programs in a manner that is not consistent with use on the mac it was pulled from.
Mozilla's trademark policy appears to allow this sort of use:
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html
More importantly, each of these companies is likely to argue for trademark infringement/unfair competition, not copyright infringement, particularly when the icon is trademarked (which is a different case than the Mac icons we are talking about).
It is permissible to use a trademark so long as there is no confusion as to source. That is, if people using the RA software are likely to think that somehow Mozilla (or the other companies) are the source of the software, this would be impermissible. It is permissible to use trademarks in a descriptive sense - i.e.: this icon means that the thing you are connecting to is the product Mozilla. There is also a fair use/non-trademark use defense. As long as the message I am sending is not "this product IS mozilla" it probably is not trademark infringement.
If you look on other sites like macnn, you will see that the airfoil app does not only display Apple icons but rather the icon of whatever browser is configured as the main browser. They cannot make the claim that they have to right to use the Firefox, Camino or Omniweb icon in their app. It is not "streaming" the icon data, it is copied over and displayed superimposed on another icon which is presumably an internal OS X bundle. The audio is streamed but those icons are copied over and superimposed on each other on the phone. That is a clear violation of the IP of other programs in a manner that is not consistent with use on the mac it was pulled from.
Mozilla's trademark policy appears to allow this sort of use:
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html
More importantly, each of these companies is likely to argue for trademark infringement/unfair competition, not copyright infringement, particularly when the icon is trademarked (which is a different case than the Mac icons we are talking about).
It is permissible to use a trademark so long as there is no confusion as to source. That is, if people using the RA software are likely to think that somehow Mozilla (or the other companies) are the source of the software, this would be impermissible. It is permissible to use trademarks in a descriptive sense - i.e.: this icon means that the thing you are connecting to is the product Mozilla. There is also a fair use/non-trademark use defense. As long as the message I am sending is not "this product IS mozilla" it probably is not trademark infringement.
Omniblast
Mar 30, 12:04 PM
By that argument, aren't windows and office generic terms???
I don't think Microsoft sues or claims to send cease and desist letters to people who make actual windows. I think they know the difference between software and a actual window.
I don't think Microsoft sues or claims to send cease and desist letters to people who make actual windows. I think they know the difference between software and a actual window.
macadam212
Mar 29, 11:58 AM
I believe Windows Phone market share gains will come largely at the expense of Android. I think iOS will do just fine, as they have great hardware software integration which differentiates them from what Microsoft and Google are doing.
arcite
Apr 28, 03:28 PM
Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.... Oh and beat Microsoft in first Quarter profits. :cool:
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!
LightSpeed1
Mar 24, 10:15 PM
Do you guys see Thunderbolt replacing maybe the firewire ports one day?
Mal67
Apr 22, 08:44 PM
C'mon Apple give us some new machines to actually talk about - like SB mini; like SB imac; like SB air.
Penfold2711
Apr 11, 05:37 AM
You can bet they are working on a new Firmware/Update to close this loophole Ole Stevie boy will not be a happy bunny today
toddybody
Apr 25, 01:00 PM
Oh gosh, let's have a black liquid metal .65inch thick, standard ssd, and boosted dpi displays. Hoo yah
iMikeT
Oct 27, 04:40 PM
This is just what we need, more hippies....
Mattie Num Nums
Apr 19, 02:13 PM
No they don't. These 8 billion dollars is just a drop in a bucket for Samsung. Their annual revenue is well above $100 billion. As I said, Apple represents just 4% of Samsung sales.
Yeah but Apple has XXX Billions in "Cash" and a higher Market Cap! They should buy Samsung!!!!
:eek::rolleyes::apple:
Yeah but Apple has XXX Billions in "Cash" and a higher Market Cap! They should buy Samsung!!!!
:eek::rolleyes::apple:
Gasu E.
Apr 22, 08:34 AM
I'm amazed that no-one is seeing the very dangerous path we could be heading down here. Will people only see it when it's too late?
Are we looking into the jaws of the future where you pay, but never OWN anything? Music, Movies, Apps.
You pay to have the right to listen/watch/use the data.
The data is never downloaded to your device to do as you wish, it's always held by the owners. or distributors.
I can see this coming like a flashing red warning sign.
You never OWNED any of this stuff. You owned the physical media, and you had an unlimited license to you. The technology is just clarifying this.
If you had actually owned it, you could have copied it as much as you wanted-- legally-- and resold the copies to others. You have been capable of doing this, but it was illegal; it also was difficult to enforce the law. Now the technology is actually starting to match your legal rights. It's actually wonderful. You are not losing anything you had legally, but the true owners (the content creators and the people who support them financially) can stop getting ripped off by criminals.
Are we looking into the jaws of the future where you pay, but never OWN anything? Music, Movies, Apps.
You pay to have the right to listen/watch/use the data.
The data is never downloaded to your device to do as you wish, it's always held by the owners. or distributors.
I can see this coming like a flashing red warning sign.
You never OWNED any of this stuff. You owned the physical media, and you had an unlimited license to you. The technology is just clarifying this.
If you had actually owned it, you could have copied it as much as you wanted-- legally-- and resold the copies to others. You have been capable of doing this, but it was illegal; it also was difficult to enforce the law. Now the technology is actually starting to match your legal rights. It's actually wonderful. You are not losing anything you had legally, but the true owners (the content creators and the people who support them financially) can stop getting ripped off by criminals.
nefan65
Mar 30, 11:44 AM
His name is Butters? :D
I suspect Cartman is part of it as well...somewhere...somehow.
I suspect Cartman is part of it as well...somewhere...somehow.
direzz
Aug 28, 04:12 PM
this goes to show how behind apple is in updating.
clearly they arent ready to adapt to an intel platform. the cant even make simple processor adjustments on time!
all the major companies have made this transition.
apple needs to stop being so secretive. they need to start acting like a real computer company, and let there customers know when upgrades are coming.
i wouldnt be surprised if we didnt see these upgrades till october.. no.. january.
this is ridiculous.
/end rant
clearly they arent ready to adapt to an intel platform. the cant even make simple processor adjustments on time!
all the major companies have made this transition.
apple needs to stop being so secretive. they need to start acting like a real computer company, and let there customers know when upgrades are coming.
i wouldnt be surprised if we didnt see these upgrades till october.. no.. january.
this is ridiculous.
/end rant
Number 41
Mar 23, 05:11 PM
Hopefully DWI checkpoints yield such low benefits from these apps that they become extinct although I doubt it. Hassling thousands of honest, sober citizens to catch the 1-2% legally intoxicated drivers isn't worth the price we all pay. I question our freedom in America each time I drive up to a checkpoint. If you're wondering, no I've never received a DWI nor driven intoxicated and I still hate these checkpoints. They don't make me feel safer on the road.
Lobbying money from MADD and SADD pretty much ensures that random OVI checkpoints will never go away.
There's no political capital in being perceived as "not tough enough" on drunk drivers.
Lobbying money from MADD and SADD pretty much ensures that random OVI checkpoints will never go away.
There's no political capital in being perceived as "not tough enough" on drunk drivers.
cere
Apr 14, 03:25 PM
The above text contains:
Strawman argument/claiming what I said wasn't true without providing any proof/Insults
Here's another recap for you:
Person 1: Thunderbolt = Mac Only
You: Bingo
Me: Post to an article showing that it won't be Mac only
You: Claim you were talking metaphorically to save your ass
Myself and Econgeek: Explain to you why what you saved your ass with won't be true
You: Go on a rampage of insults
Pot, meet kettle.
I'll respond to you one last time, to try to clarify your confusion.
Strawman argument/claiming what I said wasn't true without providing any proof/Insults No. You are confusing these with facts. I've pointed out to you each time you have made something up in my reply.
Person 1: Thunderbolt = Mac Only True. In the same way FW is 'Mac only'. You perhaps don't understand the difference between speaking literally and effectively. Effectively, FW is considered 'Mac only' yet is available to any vendor that wants to implement it. But the lack of interest has resulted in it being considered 'Mac only'. Not literally, but effectively. See the difference?
You: Bingo True.
Me: Post to an article showing that it won't be Mac only False. You posted an article that said others could use it. Nowhere in your article did it say others would use it. I explained this to you, but again, you missed the point. Firewire isn't literally Mac only either.
You: Claim you were talking metaphorically to save your ass False. I don't think you understand what a metaphor is, because you aren't using it right. I claimed, and the OP later explained, it was meant, in context, effectively Mac only. Seriously, this is highschool english.
Myself and Econgeek: Explain to you why what you saved your ass with won't be trueFalse. Econogeek did well in explaining how the situations differ. You explained nothing.
You: Go on a rampage of insults False. No insults. Just observations. If you made a lot of spelling errors and I pointed them out, that would be an observation, not an insult. You both misunderstood posts and made up claims of statements that did not exist. I pointed that out. If you felt insulted, you are being overly sensitive.
Strawman argument/claiming what I said wasn't true without providing any proof/Insults
Here's another recap for you:
Person 1: Thunderbolt = Mac Only
You: Bingo
Me: Post to an article showing that it won't be Mac only
You: Claim you were talking metaphorically to save your ass
Myself and Econgeek: Explain to you why what you saved your ass with won't be true
You: Go on a rampage of insults
Pot, meet kettle.
I'll respond to you one last time, to try to clarify your confusion.
Strawman argument/claiming what I said wasn't true without providing any proof/Insults No. You are confusing these with facts. I've pointed out to you each time you have made something up in my reply.
Person 1: Thunderbolt = Mac Only True. In the same way FW is 'Mac only'. You perhaps don't understand the difference between speaking literally and effectively. Effectively, FW is considered 'Mac only' yet is available to any vendor that wants to implement it. But the lack of interest has resulted in it being considered 'Mac only'. Not literally, but effectively. See the difference?
You: Bingo True.
Me: Post to an article showing that it won't be Mac only False. You posted an article that said others could use it. Nowhere in your article did it say others would use it. I explained this to you, but again, you missed the point. Firewire isn't literally Mac only either.
You: Claim you were talking metaphorically to save your ass False. I don't think you understand what a metaphor is, because you aren't using it right. I claimed, and the OP later explained, it was meant, in context, effectively Mac only. Seriously, this is highschool english.
Myself and Econgeek: Explain to you why what you saved your ass with won't be trueFalse. Econogeek did well in explaining how the situations differ. You explained nothing.
You: Go on a rampage of insults False. No insults. Just observations. If you made a lot of spelling errors and I pointed them out, that would be an observation, not an insult. You both misunderstood posts and made up claims of statements that did not exist. I pointed that out. If you felt insulted, you are being overly sensitive.
MacPhreak
Oct 12, 01:00 PM
there is no way apple would make a product release on a pre recorded program with an audiance. Thanks to the internet the release would no longer be a surprise!
Sure there is. They released the 4g iPod in Newsweek. Think of the 100's-1000's of people who handled the Newsweeks who weren't covered by an NDA (and that announcement leaked, too, including the cover of the magazine...one day early; sounds familiar, eh?). Apple did say to expect more announcements in unconventional ways, and less at keynotes.
Sure there is. They released the 4g iPod in Newsweek. Think of the 100's-1000's of people who handled the Newsweeks who weren't covered by an NDA (and that announcement leaked, too, including the cover of the magazine...one day early; sounds familiar, eh?). Apple did say to expect more announcements in unconventional ways, and less at keynotes.
FreeState
Sep 19, 02:36 PM
couldn't apple develop something into itunes that lets you watch while it is downloading? is this possible?
It already works that way:
http://www.apple.com/itunes/store/movies.html
Shop the iTunes Store for hot new releases such as Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, and download them for $12.99 the week they�re released on DVD. Or buy Disney library titles for $9.99 to $14.99. All your favorites are here: The Princess Diaries, The Incredibles, Cinderella, Toy Story, The Rock, The Rookie, and more. Search for movies just as you would for music, and watch a free trailer before you download. Or, if you can�t wait for the next blockbuster to hit shelves, feel free to pre-order upcoming releases. iTunes will let you know the minute they�re ready to download. Can�t wait to start the show? You can even watch your movie as it downloads.
It already works that way:
http://www.apple.com/itunes/store/movies.html
Shop the iTunes Store for hot new releases such as Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, and download them for $12.99 the week they�re released on DVD. Or buy Disney library titles for $9.99 to $14.99. All your favorites are here: The Princess Diaries, The Incredibles, Cinderella, Toy Story, The Rock, The Rookie, and more. Search for movies just as you would for music, and watch a free trailer before you download. Or, if you can�t wait for the next blockbuster to hit shelves, feel free to pre-order upcoming releases. iTunes will let you know the minute they�re ready to download. Can�t wait to start the show? You can even watch your movie as it downloads.
iJays
Apr 19, 07:24 AM
So what? They're already getting sued by Apple, so what's another lawsuit? Point is, contract breach or not, Samsung could cripple Apple's whole ecosystem within days by halting all processor shipments. Apple makes the vast majority on iDevices and this would kill Apple's whole economic model. And this doesn't even account for Samsungs components that go into their Macs. As a result, Apple would have no hardware to sell. They would dip into their treasure chest. It could be devastating to Apple.
and someone thinking again that Apple and Samsung didn't sign into a contract.
and someone thinking again that Apple and Samsung didn't sign into a contract.
Cougarcat
Sep 14, 08:08 AM
Wow, Steve wasn't kidding when he said "see you soon." Apple is on a roll...
flynz4
Apr 30, 11:42 PM
I absolutely agree. This is the same reason why I was hoping the USB 3.0 would be on this version. I realize now that is almost certainly not going to happen. I just thought that with so many PC's (including some PC laptops) already offering USB 3.0 that maybe the brand spankin' new iMac might be so equipped.
I was wondering why so many people are so opposed to Apple offering Blu-Ray as a BTO option. I have read where Steve Jobs spoke negatively about Blu-Ray, I wonder if these same people would be all gung-ho for BR if Jobs had spoken positively about it? I realize that he is a very smart man, but he isn't God! I always thought that BR would have been a great thing to have on a Mac for things like backing up your iTunes library. Imagine that, being able to back up your entire iTunes library on two or three BR discs. That would have been really nice. I read somewhere the other day that they either have or are getting ready to have BR discs that have a 100GB capacity. What in the world would have been wrong with that?
Backing up to optical media is generally a poor decision. The longevity of the media is suspect. While I understand that improvements continue, I have seen many CDs and DVDs just quit working over time.
The reply immediately after your's is good advice in my opinion. Backing up to the cloud is my preferred primary backup. I use crashplan+. I also keep a 2nd local backup in the house using Time Machine/Time Capsule. I backup locally every hour... and I back up to the cloud every 15 minutes.
/Jim
I was wondering why so many people are so opposed to Apple offering Blu-Ray as a BTO option. I have read where Steve Jobs spoke negatively about Blu-Ray, I wonder if these same people would be all gung-ho for BR if Jobs had spoken positively about it? I realize that he is a very smart man, but he isn't God! I always thought that BR would have been a great thing to have on a Mac for things like backing up your iTunes library. Imagine that, being able to back up your entire iTunes library on two or three BR discs. That would have been really nice. I read somewhere the other day that they either have or are getting ready to have BR discs that have a 100GB capacity. What in the world would have been wrong with that?
Backing up to optical media is generally a poor decision. The longevity of the media is suspect. While I understand that improvements continue, I have seen many CDs and DVDs just quit working over time.
The reply immediately after your's is good advice in my opinion. Backing up to the cloud is my preferred primary backup. I use crashplan+. I also keep a 2nd local backup in the house using Time Machine/Time Capsule. I backup locally every hour... and I back up to the cloud every 15 minutes.
/Jim
