iJawn108
Sep 13, 09:19 PM
I dont' think the "iPhone" would have a traditional keypad at all.
DJTJ
Apr 22, 11:23 AM
Does this mean we will see a resolution downgrade to that of the 13 macbook pro's?
rdowns
Apr 29, 01:37 PM
There is just so much wrong with 100% of your post. I can't even begin, nor will I spend time, contradicting every sentence.
In short, there is no war between Apple and Microsoft...nor has been for decades. Also, you think Apple is not a monopoly? Apple makes the hardware, the OS, the apps, and Appstore, and APPROVES what apps consumers can purchase. No...that's not a monopoly. No, sir.
That is wrong. Apple has no more of a monopoly on the iPhone as Samsung has one for the Galaxy. For Apple to have a monopoly, there would be few to no companies making smart phones. There are dozens of smart phone companies, 5 or so mobile OSs, many App Stores and all exert some control (that they decided on) over your device. So, no, that's not a monopoly.
In short, there is no war between Apple and Microsoft...nor has been for decades. Also, you think Apple is not a monopoly? Apple makes the hardware, the OS, the apps, and Appstore, and APPROVES what apps consumers can purchase. No...that's not a monopoly. No, sir.
That is wrong. Apple has no more of a monopoly on the iPhone as Samsung has one for the Galaxy. For Apple to have a monopoly, there would be few to no companies making smart phones. There are dozens of smart phone companies, 5 or so mobile OSs, many App Stores and all exert some control (that they decided on) over your device. So, no, that's not a monopoly.
Eggtastic
Apr 25, 01:50 PM
not cool. i was hoping to sell my 06' MBP to upgrade to hopefully an updated MBA line. but now this means i have to wait more...
rloechner
Mar 30, 01:28 PM
Actually M$ its:
"App Store"
Take that.
"App Store"
Take that.
hulugu
Apr 11, 12:13 AM
Is all relative. If you take my home country, it'll be around $1.32/hour pay for minimum wage. You get 2 weeks vacation and equivalent pay. Oh and down there they treat you like crap because of the infuriating high 35% unemployment rate. So everyone looks out for their job even if it means sucking up.
Here in the US you can fight it. So yeah. Also Europe has more taxes than the US. Consecuently we get taxed even lower than the US. But still $315.50 a month is barely covering cost of living even for my country.
Care to complain now?
Sure, regardless of the situation in other countries�South America?�the question is whether this is a problem in the U.S. and I think it is, and the comparison of a Swedish company using the US like the US uses Mexico, for cheap labor, should be a wakeup call to the US that our current economic policies are making us Mexico to Europe.
This sounds like IKEA is the one being a bitch.
I can't see how this is "the right's" fault. If so, why doesn't "the left" step in a help out?
As Ugg pointed out, the 'right' has pushed for anti-union policies, including 'right-to-work' status for states like Virginia. That said, I don't think this is a 'right' or 'left' issue per se, but rather a gleeful removal of worker's rights to garner jobs�regardless of the health of a community funded by low-wage, short-term positions.
Here in the US you can fight it. So yeah. Also Europe has more taxes than the US. Consecuently we get taxed even lower than the US. But still $315.50 a month is barely covering cost of living even for my country.
Care to complain now?
Sure, regardless of the situation in other countries�South America?�the question is whether this is a problem in the U.S. and I think it is, and the comparison of a Swedish company using the US like the US uses Mexico, for cheap labor, should be a wakeup call to the US that our current economic policies are making us Mexico to Europe.
This sounds like IKEA is the one being a bitch.
I can't see how this is "the right's" fault. If so, why doesn't "the left" step in a help out?
As Ugg pointed out, the 'right' has pushed for anti-union policies, including 'right-to-work' status for states like Virginia. That said, I don't think this is a 'right' or 'left' issue per se, but rather a gleeful removal of worker's rights to garner jobs�regardless of the health of a community funded by low-wage, short-term positions.
z4n3
Apr 20, 10:56 AM
I do not seem to have this file! :D
guess there are some users that are safe....
guess there are some users that are safe....
Mattie Num Nums
Apr 19, 11:15 AM
Samsung is a slightly larger company than Apple.
Slightly?
Samsung is a huge Conglomerate.
In fact they built one of these.
Slightly?
Samsung is a huge Conglomerate.
In fact they built one of these.
vitaboy
Aug 24, 03:49 AM
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about just exactly what the settlement means. But I would like to remind people not to take things at face value - Apple is smarter than that.
I suspect that it was Apple who proposed the settlement to Creative. More than that, I suspect it was Apple who dictated the actual terms. Creative had no choice but to accept, which was just as well because at first appearance, they look like the winner.
However, I believe Apple is playing corporate jujitsu here. The settlement is a strategic move that greatly benefits Apple in the long term even as Apple is willing to suffer an apparent loss of face.
Why?
Because the settlement gives Creative much needed ammunition (in both cash and legal standing) to go after every one of the iPod's competitors. You can be sure Creative is getting ready to send out letters to Sandisk, which has raced past them in the music player space this year. You can be sure Creative will be sending letters to iRiver.
And most certainly, you can be certain that Creative will be sending letters to Microsoft with regards to Zune.
Really, Apple was not playing from a weak position. There's no other way to say it, but that's a simplistic and naive interpretation. Patent battles are very, very expensive, lasting years and thousands of man-months of time. Creative not only had to fight Apple over its original patents, but simultaneously defends itself against Apple's countersuit (which were filed in a different state, just to make life more difficult for Creative's legal team).
Without any effort at all, Apple could drag the case through the courts for 5+ years and force Creative to cough up tens of millions of dollars in legal expenses. Creative simply does not have that kind of money, after blowing through $100 million in cash to write of unsold inventory last year. The company's cash position is very weak and the company was undoubtedly sweating blood trying to determine if it would have enough cash to see things through the end - an end which was far from guaranteed. Even if Creative won its original patent suit, they would have lost the countersuit for the same reasons.
The prospect of blowing $50 million over 5 years to pay lawyers for a net gain of nothing was weighing heavily on their minds, I'm sure.
I think what really motivated the settlement is the sudden appearance of Zune. That basically gave Apple the ace it needed to give it a four-of-a-kind. Why? Because while Creative might have been able to tough it out before Zune, the existence of Zune would basically kill the company before the case could wind through the court system.
I mean, we saw Creative's share of the music player market dive from 8% to just 4% in about a year. Sandisk, which was a virtually unknown brand in the music player space, went from nothing to 8% in a short time.
Even if Zune is far from being an "iPod killer", with Microsoft's marketing machine backing it up, I think any reasonable person could see that it is quite likely that Creative's marketshare would be dropping to nothing a year from now.
So Apple basically gave Creative an offer it couldn't refuse.
Settle with us now and forget this silly patent threat of yours. We'll give you $100 million to license your patents, if only because you got them first. And now that we're all family, why don't you go after some of our competitors. You'll probably be able to get just as much, if not more, which is a lot better than what you were getting trying to fight us with that Zen thing.
And if you want to let your pride get in the way, I don't think we need to remind you that Zune is just a few months away from demolishing what little is left of your company. A year from now, it will be iPod, Sandisk, Zune....everyone will have forgotten about Creative because frankly, you don't have any loyal customers like we do.
In fact, we'll be nice and help you gain some loyal customers, too. By making great iPod accessories, you'll be truly a welcome part of the family and more importantly, you'll have products that people actually buy. How about that!
Just remember, the $100 million is a kind of loan, of sorts. When you talk to that Microsoft fella, remember to share some of the payments you extract with us. We're all family, right?
Given that the writing was on the wall, I figure Creative realized that if you can't beat 'em, it was far, far better to join Apple.
I suspect that it was Apple who proposed the settlement to Creative. More than that, I suspect it was Apple who dictated the actual terms. Creative had no choice but to accept, which was just as well because at first appearance, they look like the winner.
However, I believe Apple is playing corporate jujitsu here. The settlement is a strategic move that greatly benefits Apple in the long term even as Apple is willing to suffer an apparent loss of face.
Why?
Because the settlement gives Creative much needed ammunition (in both cash and legal standing) to go after every one of the iPod's competitors. You can be sure Creative is getting ready to send out letters to Sandisk, which has raced past them in the music player space this year. You can be sure Creative will be sending letters to iRiver.
And most certainly, you can be certain that Creative will be sending letters to Microsoft with regards to Zune.
Really, Apple was not playing from a weak position. There's no other way to say it, but that's a simplistic and naive interpretation. Patent battles are very, very expensive, lasting years and thousands of man-months of time. Creative not only had to fight Apple over its original patents, but simultaneously defends itself against Apple's countersuit (which were filed in a different state, just to make life more difficult for Creative's legal team).
Without any effort at all, Apple could drag the case through the courts for 5+ years and force Creative to cough up tens of millions of dollars in legal expenses. Creative simply does not have that kind of money, after blowing through $100 million in cash to write of unsold inventory last year. The company's cash position is very weak and the company was undoubtedly sweating blood trying to determine if it would have enough cash to see things through the end - an end which was far from guaranteed. Even if Creative won its original patent suit, they would have lost the countersuit for the same reasons.
The prospect of blowing $50 million over 5 years to pay lawyers for a net gain of nothing was weighing heavily on their minds, I'm sure.
I think what really motivated the settlement is the sudden appearance of Zune. That basically gave Apple the ace it needed to give it a four-of-a-kind. Why? Because while Creative might have been able to tough it out before Zune, the existence of Zune would basically kill the company before the case could wind through the court system.
I mean, we saw Creative's share of the music player market dive from 8% to just 4% in about a year. Sandisk, which was a virtually unknown brand in the music player space, went from nothing to 8% in a short time.
Even if Zune is far from being an "iPod killer", with Microsoft's marketing machine backing it up, I think any reasonable person could see that it is quite likely that Creative's marketshare would be dropping to nothing a year from now.
So Apple basically gave Creative an offer it couldn't refuse.
Settle with us now and forget this silly patent threat of yours. We'll give you $100 million to license your patents, if only because you got them first. And now that we're all family, why don't you go after some of our competitors. You'll probably be able to get just as much, if not more, which is a lot better than what you were getting trying to fight us with that Zen thing.
And if you want to let your pride get in the way, I don't think we need to remind you that Zune is just a few months away from demolishing what little is left of your company. A year from now, it will be iPod, Sandisk, Zune....everyone will have forgotten about Creative because frankly, you don't have any loyal customers like we do.
In fact, we'll be nice and help you gain some loyal customers, too. By making great iPod accessories, you'll be truly a welcome part of the family and more importantly, you'll have products that people actually buy. How about that!
Just remember, the $100 million is a kind of loan, of sorts. When you talk to that Microsoft fella, remember to share some of the payments you extract with us. We're all family, right?
Given that the writing was on the wall, I figure Creative realized that if you can't beat 'em, it was far, far better to join Apple.
nightcap965
Apr 20, 10:02 AM
With respect to all the "view with alarm" postings that will follow, this really doesn't mean anything. I leave my home at the same time every morning. The transponder in my car records my passage and debits my account with the state highway department. Traffic cameras record my license plate at several points during my journey. Once out of the car, my smiling phiz can be seen on any number of CCTVs en route to my office, whose door I open with a card that automatically records my entry. The IP address of this posting will reveal that I am sitting in my living room as I write. Even without the GPS turned on, my phone regularly initiates a conversation with the local cell tower. I can be found with almost pinpoint accuracy.
So I'm not exactly going to panic to learn that my computer and phone keep a record of my latitude and longitude that they don't share with anyone else.
The government already knows where I live, where I work, where I bank, and all kinds of other interesting information. It's how they collect their taxes and send me my mail.
If there were the slightest indication that liberals, atheists, and other enemies of the state were being tracked by their GPSes and rounded up, I'd be the first to the barricades. But there isn't. Our privacy is not based on "nobody knows", it's based on "nobody cares."
So I'm not exactly going to panic to learn that my computer and phone keep a record of my latitude and longitude that they don't share with anyone else.
The government already knows where I live, where I work, where I bank, and all kinds of other interesting information. It's how they collect their taxes and send me my mail.
If there were the slightest indication that liberals, atheists, and other enemies of the state were being tracked by their GPSes and rounded up, I'd be the first to the barricades. But there isn't. Our privacy is not based on "nobody knows", it's based on "nobody cares."
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.
jiggie2g
Jul 14, 02:41 PM
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2648&p=1
Compare Core Duo vs. AMD. At least until someone does a Core Duo vs. Core 2 Duo benchmark.
AMD 64 , Core 1 , G5 all perform similar , Core 2 on the other hand is a different beast with a 20% boost clock per clock. so a good measure of performance would be to take a clock seed number then add 20% to get the equalivilancy performance. For the 2MB C2D's we can lower figure this to say
14%. Based on what i see on Anandtech.
Example :
Core 2 Duo E6300 @ 1.86ghz + 14% = 2.12ghz G5/X2/CD
Core 2 Duo E6600 @2.4ghz + 20% = 2.88ghz G5/X2/CD
Core 2 Extreme X6800 @ 2.93ghz + 20% = 3.51ghz G5/X2/CD
Now u see why Steve wet his pants when he saw these chips over a year ago. Then Decided to switch , He knew if he had not. Apple's platform would be dead in the water.
Compare Core Duo vs. AMD. At least until someone does a Core Duo vs. Core 2 Duo benchmark.
AMD 64 , Core 1 , G5 all perform similar , Core 2 on the other hand is a different beast with a 20% boost clock per clock. so a good measure of performance would be to take a clock seed number then add 20% to get the equalivilancy performance. For the 2MB C2D's we can lower figure this to say
14%. Based on what i see on Anandtech.
Example :
Core 2 Duo E6300 @ 1.86ghz + 14% = 2.12ghz G5/X2/CD
Core 2 Duo E6600 @2.4ghz + 20% = 2.88ghz G5/X2/CD
Core 2 Extreme X6800 @ 2.93ghz + 20% = 3.51ghz G5/X2/CD
Now u see why Steve wet his pants when he saw these chips over a year ago. Then Decided to switch , He knew if he had not. Apple's platform would be dead in the water.
w00master
Nov 17, 03:33 PM
Boom:
http://twitter.com/kickingbear/status/5803909520
To quote:
"Good question raised by Guy English: Why is it OK for the new Star Wars: Trench Run iPhone game to include this image of an iPhone, when many other apps, like for example Instapaper, have been rejected for including original icon artwork that merely resembles an iPhone?"
Boom. So what now apologists?
w00master
http://twitter.com/kickingbear/status/5803909520
To quote:
"Good question raised by Guy English: Why is it OK for the new Star Wars: Trench Run iPhone game to include this image of an iPhone, when many other apps, like for example Instapaper, have been rejected for including original icon artwork that merely resembles an iPhone?"
Boom. So what now apologists?
w00master
GGJstudios
Apr 4, 04:52 PM
ClamXav only detects Windows viruses.
http://www.clamxav.com
ClamXav is a free virus scanner for Mac OS X. It uses the very popular ClamAV open source antivirus engine as a back end and has the ability to detect both Windows and Mac threats.
http://www.clamxav.com
ClamXav is a free virus scanner for Mac OS X. It uses the very popular ClamAV open source antivirus engine as a back end and has the ability to detect both Windows and Mac threats.
Meandmunch
Apr 25, 07:08 PM
Other than shaving a few millimeters of the case, a few grams of weight what amount of change isn't incremental at this point?
Burnsey
Apr 10, 11:33 PM
Canada is sounding awfully good to me right now.
Taxes, cell phone fees, gas and car prices are higher here. Pay for professional jobs also seems relatively lower compared to the US.
Taxes, cell phone fees, gas and car prices are higher here. Pay for professional jobs also seems relatively lower compared to the US.
Chupa Chupa
Sep 4, 07:55 PM
Insiders can only presume the device will take up the form of a video-enabled version of Apple's existing AirPort Express wireless base station, which lets users stream their iTunes music tracks from their computers to their home stereo receivers. It also acts as a wireless 802.11 router and printing hub.
Hmm...I think Belkin calls this 802.11n. This isn't new. Gimme a break. People are really scrounging around deep now.
Look Apple has been keeping secrets it wants to be secret very secret for over a year now. The rumor sites have been so off this year, except for the obvious, that they'd need a power plant to get them back to being on. I'm not buying any of it. I'll be sorely disapponted if all we get is a Disney movie store, a 80GB iPod, a 23" iMac, and an array of colorful nanos. Zzzzz. Put me to sleep.
The nano was the last buzzworthy product Apple has put out in a year (I'll spare you the MPB jokes). Apple is due with something cool; something to compete with PS3 dollars this Xmas.
Hmm...I think Belkin calls this 802.11n. This isn't new. Gimme a break. People are really scrounging around deep now.
Look Apple has been keeping secrets it wants to be secret very secret for over a year now. The rumor sites have been so off this year, except for the obvious, that they'd need a power plant to get them back to being on. I'm not buying any of it. I'll be sorely disapponted if all we get is a Disney movie store, a 80GB iPod, a 23" iMac, and an array of colorful nanos. Zzzzz. Put me to sleep.
The nano was the last buzzworthy product Apple has put out in a year (I'll spare you the MPB jokes). Apple is due with something cool; something to compete with PS3 dollars this Xmas.
peharri
Sep 18, 09:00 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.
The other way of looking at it is that the mobile user has made a technology choice. They shouldn't expect other people to pay for their technology choice. A system where each person pays to connect to the network and decides how they want to pay for that is inherently fairer, even if it makes it harder for people to choose to subsidize the systems of others.
(Remember too that in the majority of cases, most US users have a fixed bill because of the high number of bundled minutes coupled with the huge unmetered portions of their bills. It's not the case that we get billed for the incoming call in the majority of cases. If it's made at peak time, from a different network, then yeah, we'll use bundled minutes, but most of us end up with large amounts of bundled minutes free at the end of the month despite this. And you never have to accept an incoming 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.
That doesn't sound like a bad plan, that's unusually good outside of the US from what I've researched, though most of my research has been limited to the UK.
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.
If I were back in Britain, I couldn't substitute a cellphone for a landline because of the incoming calls issue. It's simply not fair to my family or friends to make them pay through the nose to contact me. I might use one for the bulk of my outgoing calls, but for incoming calls, it wouldn't be right.
An ideal compromise, in my view, would be for the operators to provide two numbers on every phone, a caller pays and a mobile party pays (with the latter being treated as ordinary airtime, or unmetered according to a fixed monthly charge), but alas I don't think the operators would ever do something that could potentially undermine their interconnect revenues like that.
Neither solution is perfect. The US seems better at the moment because of the emphasis on unmetered usage. At least unmetered incoming calls are an option here. But the downside is the lack of a practical PAYG system.
The other way of looking at it is that the mobile user has made a technology choice. They shouldn't expect other people to pay for their technology choice. A system where each person pays to connect to the network and decides how they want to pay for that is inherently fairer, even if it makes it harder for people to choose to subsidize the systems of others.
(Remember too that in the majority of cases, most US users have a fixed bill because of the high number of bundled minutes coupled with the huge unmetered portions of their bills. It's not the case that we get billed for the incoming call in the majority of cases. If it's made at peak time, from a different network, then yeah, we'll use bundled minutes, but most of us end up with large amounts of bundled minutes free at the end of the month despite this. And you never have to accept an incoming 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.
That doesn't sound like a bad plan, that's unusually good outside of the US from what I've researched, though most of my research has been limited to the UK.
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.
If I were back in Britain, I couldn't substitute a cellphone for a landline because of the incoming calls issue. It's simply not fair to my family or friends to make them pay through the nose to contact me. I might use one for the bulk of my outgoing calls, but for incoming calls, it wouldn't be right.
An ideal compromise, in my view, would be for the operators to provide two numbers on every phone, a caller pays and a mobile party pays (with the latter being treated as ordinary airtime, or unmetered according to a fixed monthly charge), but alas I don't think the operators would ever do something that could potentially undermine their interconnect revenues like that.
Neither solution is perfect. The US seems better at the moment because of the emphasis on unmetered usage. At least unmetered incoming calls are an option here. But the downside is the lack of a practical PAYG system.
clintob
Oct 12, 03:49 PM
You do realize HIV effects women differently than men? It also effects children differently than adults.
Do yourself a favor and do a quick google on how much money has been spent on HIV research and prevention for children and women, compare that to men with HIV. Then do a search on children/women with HIV and mortality rates compared to men w/HIV.
We live in a very sexist society. HIV research was never funded or taken seriously by society at large until heterosexual white men started to develop AIDS.
I don't want to pick a fight, because that wasn't the intention of my post, but I'm sorry - this statement is, if not patently false, at very least highly misguided and irresponsible.
The mortality rate of HIV is far higher in men than in women - and it always has been. You look this up very easily all over the web, on the CDC's website, and any number of other places... it's very clear. But if you really want to go there, here's an empirical medical fact: at its worst levels of infection (in the mid 1990s), HIV mortality rates were nearly 30 per 100,000 for men, and barely over 5 per 100,000 in women. Look it up.
As for the disease affecting men/women/children differently, sure that's true, but it's true for pretty much every disease. Children's mortality rates are almost always higher than healthy adults. They are smaller, weaker, and have less developed immune systems. That's got nothing to do with HIV.
And as for when HIV research was taken seriously, I think to make a sexist claim against that is pretty unfounded. You can certainly make the heterosexual part of the argument - that's been well documented. But to say that science discriminates between male and female disease affliction rates is completely irresponsible. Our society is sexist in many ways, no argument there, but to say that scientific research is based on the proportion of male afflictions to female afflictions is insane. If that were true, breast cancer (which, by the way, affects FAR less women than prostate cancer does men) wouldn't be on every commercial and in every fundraiser known to man.
Do yourself a favor and do a quick google on how much money has been spent on HIV research and prevention for children and women, compare that to men with HIV. Then do a search on children/women with HIV and mortality rates compared to men w/HIV.
We live in a very sexist society. HIV research was never funded or taken seriously by society at large until heterosexual white men started to develop AIDS.
I don't want to pick a fight, because that wasn't the intention of my post, but I'm sorry - this statement is, if not patently false, at very least highly misguided and irresponsible.
The mortality rate of HIV is far higher in men than in women - and it always has been. You look this up very easily all over the web, on the CDC's website, and any number of other places... it's very clear. But if you really want to go there, here's an empirical medical fact: at its worst levels of infection (in the mid 1990s), HIV mortality rates were nearly 30 per 100,000 for men, and barely over 5 per 100,000 in women. Look it up.
As for the disease affecting men/women/children differently, sure that's true, but it's true for pretty much every disease. Children's mortality rates are almost always higher than healthy adults. They are smaller, weaker, and have less developed immune systems. That's got nothing to do with HIV.
And as for when HIV research was taken seriously, I think to make a sexist claim against that is pretty unfounded. You can certainly make the heterosexual part of the argument - that's been well documented. But to say that science discriminates between male and female disease affliction rates is completely irresponsible. Our society is sexist in many ways, no argument there, but to say that scientific research is based on the proportion of male afflictions to female afflictions is insane. If that were true, breast cancer (which, by the way, affects FAR less women than prostate cancer does men) wouldn't be on every commercial and in every fundraiser known to man.
jav6454
Apr 10, 11:03 AM
LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ikea-union-20110410,0,4172495,full.story)
Well, the right has gotten what it wants. Low wages, no benefits, non-union jobs.
What next? Reintroduction of slavery?
Is all relative. If you take my home country, it'll be around $1.32/hour pay for minimum wage. You get 2 weeks vacation and equivalent pay. Oh and down there they treat you like crap because of the infuriating high 35% unemployment rate. So everyone looks out for their job even if it means sucking up.
Here in the US you can fight it. So yeah. Also Europe has more taxes than the US. Consecuently we get taxed even lower than the US. But still $315.50 a month is barely covering cost of living even for my country.
Care to complain now?
Well, the right has gotten what it wants. Low wages, no benefits, non-union jobs.
What next? Reintroduction of slavery?
Is all relative. If you take my home country, it'll be around $1.32/hour pay for minimum wage. You get 2 weeks vacation and equivalent pay. Oh and down there they treat you like crap because of the infuriating high 35% unemployment rate. So everyone looks out for their job even if it means sucking up.
Here in the US you can fight it. So yeah. Also Europe has more taxes than the US. Consecuently we get taxed even lower than the US. But still $315.50 a month is barely covering cost of living even for my country.
Care to complain now?
zacman
Mar 30, 11:39 AM
"Windows" was a generic term in the computer industry before Microsoft had any trademark.
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.
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.
kinless
Apr 4, 11:40 AM
Guard +1
kny3twalker
Mar 30, 12:35 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_6 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E200 Safari/6533.18.5)
"Windows" was a generic term in the computer industry before Microsoft had any trademark.
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.
Windows are generic. More so than app store. Just took at your browser and see where it says open a new window. This is not specific to only windows OS.
I am old enough to remember the complaints of Microsoft calling there OS windows when they were not the first to create the concept.
"Windows" was a generic term in the computer industry before Microsoft had any trademark.
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.
Windows are generic. More so than app store. Just took at your browser and see where it says open a new window. This is not specific to only windows OS.
I am old enough to remember the complaints of Microsoft calling there OS windows when they were not the first to create the concept.
gugy
Sep 4, 07:45 PM
Apple, Please!
Just give me a Media Center where all my music, video and pictures are store.
A place where I can connect all my Entertainment room devices, a place where I can connect my HDTV display, a place where I can download songs and eventually movies, a place where everything is connected and works beautifully. A place where I have an UI that is elegant and simple as the Ipod UI or Front Row.
Something like a Mac Mini format or little larger would be great.
That's is what is missing in the digital lifestyle IMHO.
Apple bring it on!
Ipod widescreen video, also will be very welcome!
Just give me a Media Center where all my music, video and pictures are store.
A place where I can connect all my Entertainment room devices, a place where I can connect my HDTV display, a place where I can download songs and eventually movies, a place where everything is connected and works beautifully. A place where I have an UI that is elegant and simple as the Ipod UI or Front Row.
Something like a Mac Mini format or little larger would be great.
That's is what is missing in the digital lifestyle IMHO.
Apple bring it on!
Ipod widescreen video, also will be very welcome!
No comments:
Post a Comment