dcv
Oct 24, 08:17 AM
Or should that be the Leopard Lounge ;-) http://www.leopard-lounge.com/
Haha, fantastic suggestion :D
Haha, fantastic suggestion :D
HyperZboy
Mar 26, 09:08 AM
really? which printer or camera uses it? It should be marked with the patent number if it does.
Doubtful. A judge already said they don't infringe.
First off Kodak doesn't even have to use its patents necessarily to sue, but clearly they have over the years since they've been making digital cameras and printers for quite some time. If you want to check each an every Kodak product for patent numbers, knock yourself out! :D
As for your second point, see the Macrumors UPDATE.
That initial ruling is being re-examined.
I still think Apple should just buy Kodak and start collecting the royalties from the other companies that have already made deals with Kodak, but it looks Apple's legal strategy is to drag this out until Kodak goes under.
Doubtful. A judge already said they don't infringe.
First off Kodak doesn't even have to use its patents necessarily to sue, but clearly they have over the years since they've been making digital cameras and printers for quite some time. If you want to check each an every Kodak product for patent numbers, knock yourself out! :D
As for your second point, see the Macrumors UPDATE.
That initial ruling is being re-examined.
I still think Apple should just buy Kodak and start collecting the royalties from the other companies that have already made deals with Kodak, but it looks Apple's legal strategy is to drag this out until Kodak goes under.
bretm
Oct 10, 12:10 PM
For those of you saying that we live in a capitalistic society... not by a long shot. Corporate welfare is MUCH MUCH bigger than any fictional welfare queen in Brooklyn. These companies receive tax cuts, loopholes, exemptions far beyond what a middle class suburban couple has access to.
What Target and Walmart are doing is actually against some of the monopoly legistation that was passed in the early 20th century. One of the tenets was that a company coulodn't tell another producer who they could sell to, at what price, etc. This prevented a very large company from gaining to much of an advantage over their competitors.
What Target and Walmart are probably threatening is to just jack up the prices on the DVDs a couple of dollars. This improves their bottom line and reduces the number of impluse buys a consumer makes on a DVD. Or to not put DVD on encaps, in front of the stores next to the checkout. They really do have a myriad of ways of making the studios lose some profit. At tsome point though, the retailers are going to shaft themselves. It really is a game of chicken and the first one to blink, gets the bullet in the head (how's that for mixed metaphors?)
First, no company pays taxes. YOU pay all their taxes. In a capitalistic society it doesn't matter if they are given tax breaks or increases. It is all passed on to the consumer to achieve the bottom line.
You cite it yourself in your misunderstanding that Walmart or Target will just jack up their prices to increase their profit. That's what a company does if your increase their corporate taxes. Decrease them and they can better compete.
Now Walmart and Target jacking up their prices probably wouldn't hurt anyone but Walmart and Target. They may make more per item but obviously they would sell less DVDs. And since they're not in cahoots with each other (THAT would actually be a monopolistic type practice) neither can actually jack the price, because everyone would simply go to Walmart or Target respectively. Or Best Buy, or Curcuit City or whoever. Walmart may be the biggest seller of DVDs, but it they yank them then they won't be. And they won't pull people into their stores to buy stuff they actually make profit on. Another company will glady pickup the slack.
The reason Walmart and Target are all talk is because they have no hand. None. They're backed into a corner. Thier best bet is to open their own online download biz.
This stuff is the same year after year. Companies ride their little economic model for years without looking to the future. Then they complain moan and threaten. If they really had options, they would simply implement them.
What Target and Walmart are doing is actually against some of the monopoly legistation that was passed in the early 20th century. One of the tenets was that a company coulodn't tell another producer who they could sell to, at what price, etc. This prevented a very large company from gaining to much of an advantage over their competitors.
What Target and Walmart are probably threatening is to just jack up the prices on the DVDs a couple of dollars. This improves their bottom line and reduces the number of impluse buys a consumer makes on a DVD. Or to not put DVD on encaps, in front of the stores next to the checkout. They really do have a myriad of ways of making the studios lose some profit. At tsome point though, the retailers are going to shaft themselves. It really is a game of chicken and the first one to blink, gets the bullet in the head (how's that for mixed metaphors?)
First, no company pays taxes. YOU pay all their taxes. In a capitalistic society it doesn't matter if they are given tax breaks or increases. It is all passed on to the consumer to achieve the bottom line.
You cite it yourself in your misunderstanding that Walmart or Target will just jack up their prices to increase their profit. That's what a company does if your increase their corporate taxes. Decrease them and they can better compete.
Now Walmart and Target jacking up their prices probably wouldn't hurt anyone but Walmart and Target. They may make more per item but obviously they would sell less DVDs. And since they're not in cahoots with each other (THAT would actually be a monopolistic type practice) neither can actually jack the price, because everyone would simply go to Walmart or Target respectively. Or Best Buy, or Curcuit City or whoever. Walmart may be the biggest seller of DVDs, but it they yank them then they won't be. And they won't pull people into their stores to buy stuff they actually make profit on. Another company will glady pickup the slack.
The reason Walmart and Target are all talk is because they have no hand. None. They're backed into a corner. Thier best bet is to open their own online download biz.
This stuff is the same year after year. Companies ride their little economic model for years without looking to the future. Then they complain moan and threaten. If they really had options, they would simply implement them.
Lesser Evets
Apr 6, 06:03 AM
This is what I've been saying: computer geeks design and market the stuff and it's like cutting themselves out of a potentially huge market. Jobs always understood the need to connect computers to people--non-computer-geek people... people that don't want to waste days of their lives just trying to figure out how to make their computer work so they can then do work.
Making it a limited or closed platform is part of the simplification needed for a successful device catering to almost everyone.
Making it a limited or closed platform is part of the simplification needed for a successful device catering to almost everyone.
more...
*LTD*
Apr 30, 06:07 PM
Considering that nearly all "Pro IT" overwhelmingly used Windows
Their entire careers depend on maintaining an OS that needs constant maintenance. Windows is inherently broken, and an entire industry grew up to take full advantage of exactly that. Too funny.
Their entire careers depend on maintaining an OS that needs constant maintenance. Windows is inherently broken, and an entire industry grew up to take full advantage of exactly that. Too funny.
Flying Llama
May 27, 11:26 PM
Wow, I absolutely love this widget, just a little positive criticizing. ;)
Where you click the three dots on the bottom to expand it, you have to go down to the bottom of the widget to close it back. Anyway of keeping it were it is, so you can quickly click, look, close back. This functionality would be similar to the weather widget.
And for the actual design, I know you stated that you didn't like it and are planning to change it, make sure you make it nice and "aquafied", like the apple widgets. If you don't think you're too good at that there are always design pros here that i'm sure would be willing to help. :)
But nevertheless I love this, I know this is just the early beta stage, but I have confidence this will be one of my favorite widgets. Also, have you thought of making a modified version which can join any team, and then submit it to Dashboard Widgets.com (http://www.dashboardwidgets.com/) , you could win a Mac mini! :D (by the way I am in no way associated with these guys)
EDIT: Woops was just reading MacBytes and noticed that voting has started and the contest is over at dashboardwidgets.com .... :o
Where you click the three dots on the bottom to expand it, you have to go down to the bottom of the widget to close it back. Anyway of keeping it were it is, so you can quickly click, look, close back. This functionality would be similar to the weather widget.
And for the actual design, I know you stated that you didn't like it and are planning to change it, make sure you make it nice and "aquafied", like the apple widgets. If you don't think you're too good at that there are always design pros here that i'm sure would be willing to help. :)
But nevertheless I love this, I know this is just the early beta stage, but I have confidence this will be one of my favorite widgets. Also, have you thought of making a modified version which can join any team, and then submit it to Dashboard Widgets.com (http://www.dashboardwidgets.com/) , you could win a Mac mini! :D (by the way I am in no way associated with these guys)
EDIT: Woops was just reading MacBytes and noticed that voting has started and the contest is over at dashboardwidgets.com .... :o
more...
rogerh
Mar 11, 02:09 PM
I think I'm gonna goto the bestbuy in irving off 183 by the mall.
bogg
Jul 4, 11:25 AM
I really don't get why people who come up with specs don't think ahead. When SD came out it has a 2GB limit. So they updated it, SDHC for a 32GB limit. Now they had to update it again, SDXC for a 2TB limit. They should have just designed the format to scale in the FIRST place.
For example: CompactFlash came out in like 1994 and has scaled all the way up to like 137GB, when the first cards were under 1MB.
Yeah, they scaled just fine when it came to sizes. But instead they are at like the 6:th revision when it comes to speed capabilities.
For example: CompactFlash came out in like 1994 and has scaled all the way up to like 137GB, when the first cards were under 1MB.
Yeah, they scaled just fine when it came to sizes. But instead they are at like the 6:th revision when it comes to speed capabilities.
more...
Eraserhead
Jun 11, 03:59 PM
The following can also be deleted:
http://guides.macrumors.com/Category:Apple_Hardware
and
http://guides.macrumors.com/Category:Upgrade_Guides
Wow, I don't look at the guides for a few days and look what's happened. Nice work Eraserhead.
Grr, you interrupted my (record aiming) stream of posts :p.
We're mostly there now, its mostly just that pesky Guides category, and the hardware category to go.
EDIT: http://guides.macrumors.com/Category:Apple_Services can also be deleted.
EDIT 2:
http://guides.macrumors.com/Category:Phones and http://guides.macrumors.com/Category:Hardware can also be deleted.
EDIT 3:
http://guides.macrumors.com/Category:Tips can also be deleted.
http://guides.macrumors.com/Category:Apple_Hardware
and
http://guides.macrumors.com/Category:Upgrade_Guides
Wow, I don't look at the guides for a few days and look what's happened. Nice work Eraserhead.
Grr, you interrupted my (record aiming) stream of posts :p.
We're mostly there now, its mostly just that pesky Guides category, and the hardware category to go.
EDIT: http://guides.macrumors.com/Category:Apple_Services can also be deleted.
EDIT 2:
http://guides.macrumors.com/Category:Phones and http://guides.macrumors.com/Category:Hardware can also be deleted.
EDIT 3:
http://guides.macrumors.com/Category:Tips can also be deleted.
dukebound85
Apr 24, 04:23 AM
why isnt my fah using cpu cycles? i dl's the client and started it in sys prefs
never mind, its going
never mind, its going
more...
Eraserhead
May 16, 02:05 AM
Hmm, maybe I'm looking at it from the wrong perspective though, why don't you think it's clear?
Because most Apple products have hardware AND software so you might not know where to look for your specific issue/for the information you want.
For example if I was looking up information on the iPod Touch, there will be information on the hardware and information on the software, but they will be in different places.
Because most Apple products have hardware AND software so you might not know where to look for your specific issue/for the information you want.
For example if I was looking up information on the iPod Touch, there will be information on the hardware and information on the software, but they will be in different places.
MacRumors
Dec 28, 08:36 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/12/28/atandt-halts-online-iphone-sales-to-new-york-city-market/)
The Consumerist reported (http://consumerist.com/2009/12/att-customer-service-new-york-city-is-not-ready-for-the-iphone.html) over the weekend that AT&T has quietly stopped offering online iPhone sales to customers located in the New York City market. Responding to a reader report, The Consumerist verified the extent of the issue:I went to the AT&T site to verify what Stephen said. Sure enough, the iPhone was available to zip codes in San Francisco and other major cities. It was not available to purchase for people living anywhere in New York City, or any of the suburban zip codes in Westchester County or northern New Jersey that I tried.There seems to be some confusion, however, over the cause of the move, with a customer service representative initially stating that "New York is not ready for the iPhone" and that it doesn't "have enough towers to handle the phone." Such an explanation, while a bit surprising, was not considered completely illogical, as New York City has been a common source of complaints from consumers regarding network performance, and AT&T has acknowledged (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/12/09/atandt-addressing-network-performance-in-manhattan-and-san-francisco-high-bandwidth-users/) that it is looking to improve service there.
Follow-up comments from AT&T, however, have cast doubt on that explanation, with an official response noting only that AT&T may "periodically modify [their] promotions and distribution channels." Other customer support representatives, such as those contacted by Gearlog (http://www.gearlog.com/2009/12/att_nixes_online_iphone_sales.php), have cited "increased fraudulent activity" from the area as the reason for removing online iPhone sales in the region.
Article Link: AT&T Halts Online iPhone Sales to New York City Market (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/12/28/atandt-halts-online-iphone-sales-to-new-york-city-market/)
The Consumerist reported (http://consumerist.com/2009/12/att-customer-service-new-york-city-is-not-ready-for-the-iphone.html) over the weekend that AT&T has quietly stopped offering online iPhone sales to customers located in the New York City market. Responding to a reader report, The Consumerist verified the extent of the issue:I went to the AT&T site to verify what Stephen said. Sure enough, the iPhone was available to zip codes in San Francisco and other major cities. It was not available to purchase for people living anywhere in New York City, or any of the suburban zip codes in Westchester County or northern New Jersey that I tried.There seems to be some confusion, however, over the cause of the move, with a customer service representative initially stating that "New York is not ready for the iPhone" and that it doesn't "have enough towers to handle the phone." Such an explanation, while a bit surprising, was not considered completely illogical, as New York City has been a common source of complaints from consumers regarding network performance, and AT&T has acknowledged (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/12/09/atandt-addressing-network-performance-in-manhattan-and-san-francisco-high-bandwidth-users/) that it is looking to improve service there.
Follow-up comments from AT&T, however, have cast doubt on that explanation, with an official response noting only that AT&T may "periodically modify [their] promotions and distribution channels." Other customer support representatives, such as those contacted by Gearlog (http://www.gearlog.com/2009/12/att_nixes_online_iphone_sales.php), have cited "increased fraudulent activity" from the area as the reason for removing online iPhone sales in the region.
Article Link: AT&T Halts Online iPhone Sales to New York City Market (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/12/28/atandt-halts-online-iphone-sales-to-new-york-city-market/)
more...
mKizzo
Mar 28, 12:19 PM
So he really doesn't wear anything besides jeans and black turtleneck...huh :)
LOL. Totally! I'm starting to think he sleeps in that turtle neck too...
LOL. Totally! I'm starting to think he sleeps in that turtle neck too...
bella92108
Apr 1, 12:04 PM
This is the weird reality. TV Networks spend millions and even billions of dollars trying to get as many people to watch their shows for free, and then they also spend a great deal of time and money trying to stop people from watching their tv shows for free.
Imagine if they spend that energy just trying to properly record viewers for those outlets instead of weirdly begging people to watch their shows for free and then on the other hand demand they don't watch their shows for free.
Imagine if they actually spent money and time to put out shows that didn't SUCK. LOL. CBS, this means you, lol.
Imagine if they spend that energy just trying to properly record viewers for those outlets instead of weirdly begging people to watch their shows for free and then on the other hand demand they don't watch their shows for free.
Imagine if they actually spent money and time to put out shows that didn't SUCK. LOL. CBS, this means you, lol.
more...
Peace
Mar 26, 03:09 PM
""They're going to see it all eventually so who cares how they get it." Which seemed to be about web content, said the tipster."
How can that be interpreted about web content ? :confused:
How can that be interpreted about web content ? :confused:
brepublican
Aug 28, 01:18 PM
I don't care to argue about the effectiveness of the adds. But I will say that the Angel/Devil one was kinda stupid. It didn't even advertise Macs. I think I am tiring of the format of the commercials. I would like to see one show just what can be done with OS X.
I thought it was just me, but I am stumped by that one. Its kinda... just... stupid? :confused:
I thought it was just me, but I am stumped by that one. Its kinda... just... stupid? :confused:
more...
integlspwr
Apr 19, 03:37 PM
dude those vietkong mf's a'ways seem to cop the exclusive apple s.hit
troop231
Apr 5, 10:53 AM
I don't think apple would go 128gb now.. There launching cloud soon, which is the future.
How is "cloud" the future if bandwidth is still limited and not available everywhere? Cloud = server, This rebranding needs to stop.
How is "cloud" the future if bandwidth is still limited and not available everywhere? Cloud = server, This rebranding needs to stop.
liavman
Mar 25, 08:28 PM
Federal Agency Will Review a Kodak Patent Claim.
A federal agency has decided to review Eastman Kodak�s patent claim against Apple and Research In Motion. The International Trade Commission said Friday it would look at a judge�s finding in January that Apple�s iPhone and RIM�s BlackBerry do not violate a 2001 Kodak image-preview patent. The favorable decision revives Kodak�s hopes of negotiating royalties worth $1 billion or more. The agency�s six commissioners will decide by May 23 whether to alter the initial determination by its chief administrative judge or let it stand.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/26bizbriefs-FEDERALAGENC_BRF.html?partner=yahoofinance
A federal agency has decided to review Eastman Kodak�s patent claim against Apple and Research In Motion. The International Trade Commission said Friday it would look at a judge�s finding in January that Apple�s iPhone and RIM�s BlackBerry do not violate a 2001 Kodak image-preview patent. The favorable decision revives Kodak�s hopes of negotiating royalties worth $1 billion or more. The agency�s six commissioners will decide by May 23 whether to alter the initial determination by its chief administrative judge or let it stand.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/26bizbriefs-FEDERALAGENC_BRF.html?partner=yahoofinance
Zombie Acorn
May 6, 10:19 AM
"Save a few fighter jets"? You mean the billions of dollars that could be better spent on more important things, such as healthcare? Billions. And apparently, the numbers that the Conservatives are giving as the cost are way below what the actual cost will be.
I need to add that the other reason that people voted Conservative is because they had little confidence in Ignatief. This was due to a number of factors, which include his own doing and the smear campaign that was run against him.
I think that if a better leader would have been running the Liberals, they would have done much better.
He came off as an academic elitist with no grounding with the people. Glad to see he has retired where he belongs: out of politics and in academia.
I need to add that the other reason that people voted Conservative is because they had little confidence in Ignatief. This was due to a number of factors, which include his own doing and the smear campaign that was run against him.
I think that if a better leader would have been running the Liberals, they would have done much better.
He came off as an academic elitist with no grounding with the people. Glad to see he has retired where he belongs: out of politics and in academia.
dustinsc
Apr 5, 10:57 AM
Yes but you do not need to use it as a physical button.
You can use the MacBook 100% without EVER clicking the physical button.
The trackpad can be setup in System Preferences to respond to a touch as a click rather than a physical click. That is the way I have used it from days one and I have no issues with it at all.
Yeah, but it's important to some of us to have that physical click, which is why I love the trackpad. I can get a tactile response from anywhere on it. That's also necessary for a phone or iPod for me, and I'm sure it's true for thousands of other users.
You can use the MacBook 100% without EVER clicking the physical button.
The trackpad can be setup in System Preferences to respond to a touch as a click rather than a physical click. That is the way I have used it from days one and I have no issues with it at all.
Yeah, but it's important to some of us to have that physical click, which is why I love the trackpad. I can get a tactile response from anywhere on it. That's also necessary for a phone or iPod for me, and I'm sure it's true for thousands of other users.
barkmonster
Sep 14, 09:01 AM
If your Mac is slower than a PC for any reason on the same application it is because the software hasn't been optimized for the Mac. Write the software developer before you complain about the Mac speed. Get them to develop for Altivec. It makes a world of difference.
No chance.
Most applications that can take advantage of Altivec already do, there's a lot of processes that can't benefit from Altivec at all and that's where the G4 is getting beaten senseless.
Even Altivec itself is crippled by the bus speed.
The G4 achieves 1.3Gb/s on the dual 1Ghz G4 with the 167Mhz Front Side Bus.
Remembering that there's 8 bits in a byte and memory is 64 bit the Mb/s of the FSB works out as follows :
(100 / 3) x 5 = 166.666 this is just the precise way of calculating the bus speed
64 bit / 8 = 8 bytes
8 x 166.666Mhz = 1.333 GB/s
Remembering that 1.3Gb/s is the most the system controller can transfere to either CPU, altivec is hardly getting any of the juice it needs at all with the current G4 design.
Assuming we're still talking about that dual Ghz G4, Altvec works out like this :
(128 / 8) x 1000Mhz = 15.625 Gb/s
It's only getting a measly 1.3Gb/s, hardly what it needs.
Plus both CPUs and both Altivec units have to share the same 167Mhz FSB to transfere data to and from main memory.
Even though the L2 and L3 cache have a lot to play in getting around the FSB bottleneck, that's 1.3Gb/s of bandwidth shared between cpus and SiMD units that require a total of 33.85Mb/s.
If you're working on data that's less than 256K it fits in the L2 cache and there's no bottleneck, anything bigger than that and it's either got to fit in the L3 which is half the required bandwidth or it's coming from main system memory with that tiny 1.3Mb/s of bandwidth.
No chance.
Most applications that can take advantage of Altivec already do, there's a lot of processes that can't benefit from Altivec at all and that's where the G4 is getting beaten senseless.
Even Altivec itself is crippled by the bus speed.
The G4 achieves 1.3Gb/s on the dual 1Ghz G4 with the 167Mhz Front Side Bus.
Remembering that there's 8 bits in a byte and memory is 64 bit the Mb/s of the FSB works out as follows :
(100 / 3) x 5 = 166.666 this is just the precise way of calculating the bus speed
64 bit / 8 = 8 bytes
8 x 166.666Mhz = 1.333 GB/s
Remembering that 1.3Gb/s is the most the system controller can transfere to either CPU, altivec is hardly getting any of the juice it needs at all with the current G4 design.
Assuming we're still talking about that dual Ghz G4, Altvec works out like this :
(128 / 8) x 1000Mhz = 15.625 Gb/s
It's only getting a measly 1.3Gb/s, hardly what it needs.
Plus both CPUs and both Altivec units have to share the same 167Mhz FSB to transfere data to and from main memory.
Even though the L2 and L3 cache have a lot to play in getting around the FSB bottleneck, that's 1.3Gb/s of bandwidth shared between cpus and SiMD units that require a total of 33.85Mb/s.
If you're working on data that's less than 256K it fits in the L2 cache and there's no bottleneck, anything bigger than that and it's either got to fit in the L3 which is half the required bandwidth or it's coming from main system memory with that tiny 1.3Mb/s of bandwidth.
kingdonk
Feb 28, 07:07 PM
The screenshots follow in order so if you unsure what a smaller shot is of, go back until you see a full screen shot and you will understand what it belongs too.
APPLENEWBIE
Nov 14, 07:18 PM
From Potus:"Charles Carroll, a devout Roman Catholic, was a signer of the Declaration of Independence.:rolleyes"
Arggghhhh... I missed that day in class. Not really. I did forget, though. Don't know how I forgot... he was a fairly famous guy. The nuns would be so mad at me!
Arggghhhh... I missed that day in class. Not really. I did forget, though. Don't know how I forgot... he was a fairly famous guy. The nuns would be so mad at me!
No comments:
Post a Comment