Machead III
Aug 31, 02:08 PM
There will are not relay organized at AppleExpo
LMFAO! http://www.starshipbuilder.com/forums/images/smilies/laugh.gif
LMFAO! http://www.starshipbuilder.com/forums/images/smilies/laugh.gif
Prof.
Mar 23, 04:45 PM
You should tell that to my son. Oh wait, you can't, he was murdered someone like you.
I'm terribly sorry, my deepest condolences. *hug*
I'm terribly sorry, my deepest condolences. *hug*
Stella
Sep 12, 02:35 PM
so do I, because I bought a game thinking it would work with my 5th generation ipod and it doesn't :(
It says , on iTunes that you have to update your 5G iPod.
The updater isn't there yet.
It says , on iTunes that you have to update your 5G iPod.
The updater isn't there yet.
zekegri
Mar 23, 05:18 PM
If I am sober enough to go through the process and find out where the checkpoints are then I should be able to use the software.
IJ Reilly
Aug 23, 11:09 PM
Apple could blow a hundred million in legal expenses. It's less of an instance of throwing in the towel, and more of an instance of, "You know, the way idiot judges/juries hand out settlements these days, let's just give them a paltry sum, let them think they've won, and still destroy them in the MP3 market."
Not in 20 years, they couldn't. And no matter how often it's said to the contrary, $100 million is still very serious money.
Reminds me of 1997, when Microsoft was forced to invest $150 million in Apple as part of a settlement of a patent lawsuit, a lot of people couldn't wrap their minds around the idea that Microsoft had actually lost. They did then. Apple did today.
Not in 20 years, they couldn't. And no matter how often it's said to the contrary, $100 million is still very serious money.
Reminds me of 1997, when Microsoft was forced to invest $150 million in Apple as part of a settlement of a patent lawsuit, a lot of people couldn't wrap their minds around the idea that Microsoft had actually lost. They did then. Apple did today.
jav6454
Apr 25, 01:03 AM
The simple fact is that I should not have to obey a 70mph speed limit if I don't want to. Why would I even bother driving a car that can hit 186mph (with the speed governor removed, with the governor top speed is 155mph) at 70 mph? A Ford Fiesta can hit those speeds, what's the point of fast cars if you're going to follow the speed limit in them?
EDIT: @ Rodimus - Had she hit me when I slammed on the brakes, she would have been at fault. All I have to do is tell the cop that I thought I saw an animal run across the road. She is supposed to keep enough distance to be able to stop if I slam on the brakes. Doesn't matter than I cut her off, she has to prove that I did, and she also has to prove that I slammed on the breaks with malice.
-Don
You do realize it's easy for me to prove malice on your braking? Your previous behavior just shows clear evidence. At those high speeds if she would have hit you would have flown out your window or left with a really bad bruise from seatbelt. Eiher way at that point, I could ask that you be subject to a lie detector due to gravity of the possible incident.
You are 16, reckless and crap driver. Stay off the road.
EDIT: @ Rodimus - Had she hit me when I slammed on the brakes, she would have been at fault. All I have to do is tell the cop that I thought I saw an animal run across the road. She is supposed to keep enough distance to be able to stop if I slam on the brakes. Doesn't matter than I cut her off, she has to prove that I did, and she also has to prove that I slammed on the breaks with malice.
-Don
You do realize it's easy for me to prove malice on your braking? Your previous behavior just shows clear evidence. At those high speeds if she would have hit you would have flown out your window or left with a really bad bruise from seatbelt. Eiher way at that point, I could ask that you be subject to a lie detector due to gravity of the possible incident.
You are 16, reckless and crap driver. Stay off the road.
.jpg "Tattoo Designs Heart Knife")
Teddy's
Sep 1, 09:08 AM
If there were a special event like the one described iLounge would have received one.
Maybe is not about iPods.
Who knows for sure? This is a rumor site
Maybe is not about iPods.
Who knows for sure? This is a rumor site
Bibulous
Sep 14, 09:29 AM
Aperture update - definite
MacBook Pro C2D - likely
iPod photo accessory - maybe
Cinema displays - not likely
iPhone - no way
MacBook Pro C2D - likely
iPod photo accessory - maybe
Cinema displays - not likely
iPhone - no way
agmaster
Apr 25, 01:05 PM
Carbon Fiber body... Now that would be amazing!
AdeFowler
Oct 13, 04:22 AM
It amazes me how people can't miss an oportunity to slam Apple, U2 and anyone else related.
All I see here is at least somebody somewhere is trying a different angle to help others... is that such a bad thing?
Why not capitalise on a bandwagon product such as the iPod in order to fund something positive?
And those who say yeah yeah donate money directly and get the tax waiver on the donation.. brilliant a great idea but isn't that something that already happens and will continue to happen with or without the iPod.
Oh and how much have those who raised this point donated to this cause?
I really do struggle sometimes to understand some of the sanctimonious comments around here.
All I can say is, kudos to Bono, Apple and anyone else doing anything they can to help people in need.... its more than most of us.
Wish I'd said all that. Great post.
All I see here is at least somebody somewhere is trying a different angle to help others... is that such a bad thing?
Why not capitalise on a bandwagon product such as the iPod in order to fund something positive?
And those who say yeah yeah donate money directly and get the tax waiver on the donation.. brilliant a great idea but isn't that something that already happens and will continue to happen with or without the iPod.
Oh and how much have those who raised this point donated to this cause?
I really do struggle sometimes to understand some of the sanctimonious comments around here.
All I can say is, kudos to Bono, Apple and anyone else doing anything they can to help people in need.... its more than most of us.
Wish I'd said all that. Great post.
Michael383
Apr 17, 05:08 AM
I think Intel's support for both Thunderbolt and USB 3.0 will be a good thing in the end.
shartypants
Mar 22, 03:37 PM
Why not, its best to move production to the newer processor if it costs the same.
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.
iMacZealot
Sep 17, 08:29 PM
And there are several ways to dial abroad using a US carrier.
Cingular (GSM) is $1.29/min in Europe. (About .68 pounds in the UK)
Verizon (CDMA) has dual CDMA/GSM phones that are $1.49 in Europe. (about .79 pounds.)
Sprint (CDMA) also has some dual CDMA/GSM phones that are also $1.49 a minut in Europe.
Although the best deal is with T-Mobile (GSM)> $.99 in Europe. (Or .52 pounds)
So we, too, have international choices.
Cingular (GSM) is $1.29/min in Europe. (About .68 pounds in the UK)
Verizon (CDMA) has dual CDMA/GSM phones that are $1.49 in Europe. (about .79 pounds.)
Sprint (CDMA) also has some dual CDMA/GSM phones that are also $1.49 a minut in Europe.
Although the best deal is with T-Mobile (GSM)> $.99 in Europe. (Or .52 pounds)
So we, too, have international choices.
pika2000
Apr 11, 02:32 AM
There are apps for AirPlay.
Perhaps you have not heard of this thing call the App Store. :rolleyes:
Care to actually show me what app that will actually do what I was talking about? :rolleyes:
I want to play music from iTunes on my Mac as the source, and multiple airplay devices as the target. Currently I can only play to Airport Expresses and Apple TVs (and upcoming Airplay certified speakers). I want Apple to include all iOS devices to that list of target devices.
Perhaps you have not heard of this thing call the App Store. :rolleyes:
Care to actually show me what app that will actually do what I was talking about? :rolleyes:
I want to play music from iTunes on my Mac as the source, and multiple airplay devices as the target. Currently I can only play to Airport Expresses and Apple TVs (and upcoming Airplay certified speakers). I want Apple to include all iOS devices to that list of target devices.
Eidorian
Jul 14, 12:41 PM
Yup, I know Apple's marketing loves to be ridiculous. :p 95% of customers* wouldn't notice the difference. I'm one of the 5% who will notice it but its not like I'm buying one, my iMac G5 will keep me happy for another 2+ years.
*75% of statistics are made up on the spot ;)Yeah, considering we get so many posts about "Will this RAM work?". It seems like the populous is clueless about DDR/DDR2 and FSB.
*75% of statistics are made up on the spot ;)Yeah, considering we get so many posts about "Will this RAM work?". It seems like the populous is clueless about DDR/DDR2 and FSB.
Ommid
Apr 25, 01:12 PM
Let me clarify, i made my decision before this news was posted here. I really dont see nothing wrong with waiting on this refresh especially if it will be a huge step forward(which i believe it will be).
Its fine, but if you need it get it, if you dont then wait, at the end of the day this is a rumor.
Its fine, but if you need it get it, if you dont then wait, at the end of the day this is a rumor.
macbookproi7
Feb 27, 06:09 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.
Maybe the 'antivirus' for iOS.. will be more of a barrier, since they are wireless and bluetooth enabled etc... Isn't it pretty simple for certain programs to scan for vulnerable iOS devices.?
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.
Maybe the 'antivirus' for iOS.. will be more of a barrier, since they are wireless and bluetooth enabled etc... Isn't it pretty simple for certain programs to scan for vulnerable iOS devices.?
clintob
Oct 27, 10:40 AM
There's two things going on here...
1) The user who posted about Apple not running MacExpo directly is dead-on. The Expos are of course related to Apple, but are not run by Apple. So decisions made about the day-to-day operations of booths, patrons, etc, are made in-house by whoever is directing that particular show. It's unfortunate that Apple is being thrown under the bus here because they really don't have anything directly to do with it.
2) More importantly, the big problem is the loud minority that has emerged from within Greenpeace (and other similar organizations). There is a growing problem in this country of people taking the "one person can make a difference" idea and translating it into "act inapporpriately and without moral or social constraint, or you wont get noticed." This is GIANT problem. People aren't being held accountable for their actions anymore, especially when their actions are tied to some sort of noble cause.
It's almost is if you can perform some sort of illegal act, but if you say "I did it for Cancer" then you're off the hook, or somehow not at fault anymore. Getting attention for a good cause is wonderful, nobody denies that. But it has to be done the RIGHT way. Intelligently, and within the confines of what's ethical and legal. Otherwise, these groups that are railing against injustice, environmental negligence, or any other cause-du-jour, are just as bad and hypocritical as what they're railing against.
Amen.
1) The user who posted about Apple not running MacExpo directly is dead-on. The Expos are of course related to Apple, but are not run by Apple. So decisions made about the day-to-day operations of booths, patrons, etc, are made in-house by whoever is directing that particular show. It's unfortunate that Apple is being thrown under the bus here because they really don't have anything directly to do with it.
2) More importantly, the big problem is the loud minority that has emerged from within Greenpeace (and other similar organizations). There is a growing problem in this country of people taking the "one person can make a difference" idea and translating it into "act inapporpriately and without moral or social constraint, or you wont get noticed." This is GIANT problem. People aren't being held accountable for their actions anymore, especially when their actions are tied to some sort of noble cause.
It's almost is if you can perform some sort of illegal act, but if you say "I did it for Cancer" then you're off the hook, or somehow not at fault anymore. Getting attention for a good cause is wonderful, nobody denies that. But it has to be done the RIGHT way. Intelligently, and within the confines of what's ethical and legal. Otherwise, these groups that are railing against injustice, environmental negligence, or any other cause-du-jour, are just as bad and hypocritical as what they're railing against.
Amen.
bjdku
Sep 13, 08:57 PM
This is stated so matter of fact. There is no ? in the title. How certain is arn? He always uses ?
Multimedia
Oct 12, 06:16 PM
Give me a palate of colors to choose from and tell me which one to eleminate from my choices first. My choice would be Red. :mad: :p
afd
Apr 11, 02:15 AM
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)
They'll change the key and force a firmware update on any airport express user who wants to update itunes.
Are the 3rd party AirPlay speakers firmware upgradable?
http://www.apple.com/itunes/airplay/
That will break compatibility with those speakers.
arn
The marantz one is, you have to pay $40 to uPgrade firmware to get AirPlay working at all. At least you did with early versions, not sure about current versions, AirPlay may work without upgrade with those.
They'll change the key and force a firmware update on any airport express user who wants to update itunes.
Are the 3rd party AirPlay speakers firmware upgradable?
http://www.apple.com/itunes/airplay/
That will break compatibility with those speakers.
arn
The marantz one is, you have to pay $40 to uPgrade firmware to get AirPlay working at all. At least you did with early versions, not sure about current versions, AirPlay may work without upgrade with those.
Dalton63841
Apr 25, 02:54 AM
You certainly ain't the only one. Obvious troll is obvious.
And it only took 5 pages and 105 posts to figure that out LOL.
And it only took 5 pages and 105 posts to figure that out LOL.
Joshuarocks
Apr 17, 02:04 PM
Maximizing profits and self enrichment while diminishing the contribution of rank and file workers will be the downfall of this country. You know, the expendable workers who can be replaced in the 3rd world is going to turn us into the 3rd world.
The USA is already on its way to being a 3rd world nation.. we are on our way there.
The USA is already on its way to being a 3rd world nation.. we are on our way there.
0 comments:
Post a Comment