Chef Medeski
Jul 14, 11:31 AM
I just saw this and though it was pretty interesting:
Sony also introduced their own small-format 90.0 � 94.0 mm disk, similar to the others but somewhat simpler in construction than the AmDisk. The first computer to use this format was the HP-150 of 1983, and Sony also used them fairly widely on their line of MSX computers. Other than this the format suffered from a similar fate as the other new formats; the 5�-inch format simply had too much market share. Things changed dramatically in 1984 when Apple Computer selected the format for their new Macintosh computers. By 1989 the 3�-inch was outselling the 5�-inch.
Here is the source:
Sony's 3.5" Floppy Disk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floppy_drive#The_3.C2.BD-inch_microfloppy_diskette)
Yeah, but wasn't that also when Apple had something like 50% of the consumer market share. I mean... I think its a very different situation even if its the same names.
Sony also introduced their own small-format 90.0 � 94.0 mm disk, similar to the others but somewhat simpler in construction than the AmDisk. The first computer to use this format was the HP-150 of 1983, and Sony also used them fairly widely on their line of MSX computers. Other than this the format suffered from a similar fate as the other new formats; the 5�-inch format simply had too much market share. Things changed dramatically in 1984 when Apple Computer selected the format for their new Macintosh computers. By 1989 the 3�-inch was outselling the 5�-inch.
Here is the source:
Sony's 3.5" Floppy Disk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floppy_drive#The_3.C2.BD-inch_microfloppy_diskette)
Yeah, but wasn't that also when Apple had something like 50% of the consumer market share. I mean... I think its a very different situation even if its the same names.
iJohnHenry
Mar 2, 04:57 PM
the fact that after the second generation Jetta, VW had to rename the car in germany/europe (Bora, Vento) and still had lousy sales there, should have been a warning sign
the last few generations of the jetta have been absolute rubbish ... i hoping this new generation is actually better
Mexico may come around, in time.
Japan sure did, Korea has, and China is well on it's way.
the last few generations of the jetta have been absolute rubbish ... i hoping this new generation is actually better
Mexico may come around, in time.
Japan sure did, Korea has, and China is well on it's way.
BJB Productions
Apr 12, 09:51 PM
I wonder if they'll update the whole studio suite
(yes, including DVD Studio Pro I hope)
Here's hoping too. :)
(yes, including DVD Studio Pro I hope)
Here's hoping too. :)
Shanesan
Apr 26, 01:24 PM
Amazon could have just used "AppShop" to avoid this issue, but no, of course not.
speedythecat
Oct 6, 12:55 PM
That looks great! I too am thinking about getting the Belkin Grip Vue. My BestBuy currently has all the colors in stock. Looks like the night sky is the hot seller there.
Question.. Just how big of deal is it that the volume and sleep buttons are covered? Just looks like it would be sort of a pain in the butt to push through the material to get to and then push the buttons, or is it less squishy than it looks??
Question.. Just how big of deal is it that the volume and sleep buttons are covered? Just looks like it would be sort of a pain in the butt to push through the material to get to and then push the buttons, or is it less squishy than it looks??
speedythecat
Oct 6, 12:55 PM
That looks great! I too am thinking about getting the Belkin Grip Vue. My BestBuy currently has all the colors in stock. Looks like the night sky is the hot seller there.
Question.. Just how big of deal is it that the volume and sleep buttons are covered? Just looks like it would be sort of a pain in the butt to push through the material to get to and then push the buttons, or is it less squishy than it looks??
Question.. Just how big of deal is it that the volume and sleep buttons are covered? Just looks like it would be sort of a pain in the butt to push through the material to get to and then push the buttons, or is it less squishy than it looks??
nylonsteel
Apr 2, 09:48 PM
nice - short and sweet commericial - wish my corporate company would use ipad2 and iphone4 - their stupid excuse for years is blackberry is more enterprise secure - yeah so so f---in boring - aapl rules over rimm
MacRumors
Mar 25, 03:34 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/03/25/real-racing-2-hd-for-ipad-2-to-gain-1080p-video-out-with-dual-displays/)
CAPUCHIN CRYPTS
Capuchin Crypt
from Capuchin Burial Crypt
Ceiling of the Capuchin Crypt, Rome, Italy
me for the Capuchin Crypt
as the Capuchin Crypt .
Capuchin Crypt,
The Capuchin Crypt | Rome
and the Capuchin Crypt
The Capuchin Crypt in Rome
Its crypt known as Capuchin
jb1280
Apr 3, 06:12 AM
Very powerful ad.
0815
Apr 26, 02:00 PM
Every company should give up all their trademarks. I must say, Apple brought the name "AppStore" to fame and obviously others try to catch some of the 'good name' that comes along with it .... but than, I just looked on dictionary.com (in the hope to sort of proof that App is not a real world) but it has an entry in there and I recommend everyone to check it out:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/app : "computerese shorthand for application, attested by 1992."
so bottom line: yes others try to ride on the name recognition that apple has created for it (because before that, nobody had any 'good' associations with the name) - but unfortunately they choose a not very specific name for it.
So while it is in my opinion a poor move by Amazon and others admitting that they havent anything good otherwise to offer and need to ride on the success of Apple - it does not seem to be illegal.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/app : "computerese shorthand for application, attested by 1992."
so bottom line: yes others try to ride on the name recognition that apple has created for it (because before that, nobody had any 'good' associations with the name) - but unfortunately they choose a not very specific name for it.
So while it is in my opinion a poor move by Amazon and others admitting that they havent anything good otherwise to offer and need to ride on the success of Apple - it does not seem to be illegal.
GadgetAddict
Mar 22, 09:50 AM
Article from the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/21/gay-cure-apple-iphone) and The Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/8393974/Apple-under-fire-for-gay-conversion-app.html)
So what are your thoughts? Should Apple have rejected the app?
So what are your thoughts? Should Apple have rejected the app?
mrkramer
Mar 18, 08:35 AM
You know it. I would even go so far as to say it's ridiculous! :rolleyes:
In full disclosure, I've had a borderline man-crush on Obama since he announced he was running for POTUS... but when I heard about this UN resolution, my heart just sank. Eight years of Bush "forcefully spreading the gospel of democracy 'round the world" idiocy and we appear to have learned nothing. Nothing. :(
this isn't forcefully spreading democracy like Bush did, the difference between here and Iraq is that the Iraqis weren't asking for us to come but the Libian rebels are. Plus we aren't sending in a ground force to occupy the country if we did that I would have a problem with it.
In full disclosure, I've had a borderline man-crush on Obama since he announced he was running for POTUS... but when I heard about this UN resolution, my heart just sank. Eight years of Bush "forcefully spreading the gospel of democracy 'round the world" idiocy and we appear to have learned nothing. Nothing. :(
this isn't forcefully spreading democracy like Bush did, the difference between here and Iraq is that the Iraqis weren't asking for us to come but the Libian rebels are. Plus we aren't sending in a ground force to occupy the country if we did that I would have a problem with it.
Jaro65
Apr 19, 09:50 PM
He looks like a Shaolin Monk merged with Amy Winehouse.
Hmm...interesting visualization.
Hmm...interesting visualization.
AlphaDogg
Feb 19, 08:47 PM
crapy iphone pics
Beautiful view!
Beautiful view!
Sport73
Sep 6, 06:36 PM
The most important insight from all of these 'rumors' is that Apple MUST have something more to discuss on Tuesday than simply the release of the Movie Store. With Amazon trumping Apple on content and major questions outstanding about quality and DRM, it would be a big mistake to hold a major press event just for that.
Clearly, the new iPod AND a media streaming/center device is on tap, otherwise this event will go on record as the biggest flop in Apple SE history.
Clearly, the new iPod AND a media streaming/center device is on tap, otherwise this event will go on record as the biggest flop in Apple SE history.
CalBoy
Apr 26, 03:17 PM
I doubt any legal battle between titans is a simple case, even if it appears so to us laypersons.
Certainly there are going to be minutiae that most of us won't ever learn about (and even fewer will understand), but in this case the trademark dispute is going to invariably depend on whether or not "app" is specific enough to trademark or whether it is generic to the point that trademarking it would deprive consumers and companies of a simple ands valuable labeling device.
"Amazon" is a generic term and should not be used for a store name.
Generic in a legal sense means that the term describes the product or service. For example, "computer" broadly describes any device with a chip, some storage, and an ability to perform calculations or other functions for the user. A person could not trademark "Computer Store" because it would leave other competitors with no way of describing the service they offer.
Amazon is an online retailer; hence "online retailer" cannot be trademarked but "Amazon" can be.
In much the same way "app store" describes what is being sold and how, and any competitor would want to make use of the same basic naming structure in order to clearly inform consumers about what they could expect to find.
The general population never heard the term "App" until Apple released the iPhone.
Nor did the general population ever shop for Apps online until Apple built the App Store.
The abbreviation "App" used in conjunction with "store" to denote an online marketplace in which to buy applications is a unique combination that is not known in generic parlance.
Apple will win this.
This is just not true. App has long been in use since before the 1990s.
Apple is also not the only company to sell software online; many companies had been doing direct downloads for years before iOS came out.
You make it sound as though this is such an obvious distinction that Apple could never get a trademark for "app store". But apparently this argument is not so strong in trademark law as Apple actually has the trademark already. If that were not the case how could they sue another entity for trademark infringement?
I think all of you who believe you have trademark law all figured out should keep this in mind. Apple has a trademark for app store. Previously another company had a trademark for "appstore" which is very similar.
You can write about the topic as though you have it all figured out but clearly your interpretation is not definitive as Apple was awarded the trademark.
Now perhaps eventually apple will lose it or have to modify it but the fact that they got the trademark and a legal battle would need to be waged for them to lose proves that your opinion of trademark law in this case is oversimplified.
It was.
Apple does not actually hold the trademark yet. That is still being decided. They filed their case against Amazon prematurely, hoping to either make Amazon change names or get a leg-up in the trademark hearings (or both).
Certainly there are going to be minutiae that most of us won't ever learn about (and even fewer will understand), but in this case the trademark dispute is going to invariably depend on whether or not "app" is specific enough to trademark or whether it is generic to the point that trademarking it would deprive consumers and companies of a simple ands valuable labeling device.
"Amazon" is a generic term and should not be used for a store name.
Generic in a legal sense means that the term describes the product or service. For example, "computer" broadly describes any device with a chip, some storage, and an ability to perform calculations or other functions for the user. A person could not trademark "Computer Store" because it would leave other competitors with no way of describing the service they offer.
Amazon is an online retailer; hence "online retailer" cannot be trademarked but "Amazon" can be.
In much the same way "app store" describes what is being sold and how, and any competitor would want to make use of the same basic naming structure in order to clearly inform consumers about what they could expect to find.
The general population never heard the term "App" until Apple released the iPhone.
Nor did the general population ever shop for Apps online until Apple built the App Store.
The abbreviation "App" used in conjunction with "store" to denote an online marketplace in which to buy applications is a unique combination that is not known in generic parlance.
Apple will win this.
This is just not true. App has long been in use since before the 1990s.
Apple is also not the only company to sell software online; many companies had been doing direct downloads for years before iOS came out.
You make it sound as though this is such an obvious distinction that Apple could never get a trademark for "app store". But apparently this argument is not so strong in trademark law as Apple actually has the trademark already. If that were not the case how could they sue another entity for trademark infringement?
I think all of you who believe you have trademark law all figured out should keep this in mind. Apple has a trademark for app store. Previously another company had a trademark for "appstore" which is very similar.
You can write about the topic as though you have it all figured out but clearly your interpretation is not definitive as Apple was awarded the trademark.
Now perhaps eventually apple will lose it or have to modify it but the fact that they got the trademark and a legal battle would need to be waged for them to lose proves that your opinion of trademark law in this case is oversimplified.
It was.
Apple does not actually hold the trademark yet. That is still being decided. They filed their case against Amazon prematurely, hoping to either make Amazon change names or get a leg-up in the trademark hearings (or both).
MCP-511
Apr 21, 12:21 PM
Only ones upset over such news is Johny what's his face who hangs out at the local booby bar, when his wife thinks he's somewhere else. :eek:
iJohnHenry
Mar 21, 05:31 PM
The idea is to avoid casualties as much as possible by rapidly degrading Gaddafi's ability to wage war. The focus is on inflicting material damage to the Gaddafi-loyalist military, and to disrupt their operations against rebel-held cities - not killing Gaddafi loyalists.
Loyalists blow with the wind, and the prevailing wind happens to be from Vichy. .... sorry, Tripoli. :o
Loyalists blow with the wind, and the prevailing wind happens to be from Vichy. .... sorry, Tripoli. :o
antmarobel
Apr 1, 03:15 PM
Were them two apps downloaded via the Mac App Store by any chance?
You might consider yourself lucky. Mine have no "X" at all:mad:
You might consider yourself lucky. Mine have no "X" at all:mad:
KENTW
Jan 30, 05:44 AM
Best handling car i have ever driven.... have a 5 month old little boy though so i think its days are numbered in favour of a truck!
imac_japan
May 1, 08:04 AM
latin is dead ! Long live Apple
Graeme43
Mar 11, 06:07 PM
Not really, they stole and are still considered bad cars. Look at the Kia's etc, throughout the brand you can instantly see other (mainly German) cars they've stolen the design from.
.
Talking about stolen design.... Hyundai i30... BMW 1 series... look familiar? I swear they have the exact same back panel! BMW had the look first then all of a sudden hyundai made a car that looks like a 1 series from a distance until u get to see the badge
.
Talking about stolen design.... Hyundai i30... BMW 1 series... look familiar? I swear they have the exact same back panel! BMW had the look first then all of a sudden hyundai made a car that looks like a 1 series from a distance until u get to see the badge
Caitlyn
Nov 27, 03:57 PM
A 17" Apple Cinema Display would be great in my opinion. Probably an afforable, well selling product. However, the thing I want more than anything is built-in iSights so...this doesn't really phase me much to be honest. :D
wheezy
Nov 15, 06:37 PM
That really depends on the program, on how "parallelizable" the application is.
The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.
On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.
Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.
So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.
Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
What a very lovely analogy. Thank you.
For me... 8 cores for the bragging rights only... so I guess I won't get one anytime soon. I'm sure 4 would suit me fine though, I need to upgrade my 1Ghz G4!!!
The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.
On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.
Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.
So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.
Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
What a very lovely analogy. Thank you.
For me... 8 cores for the bragging rights only... so I guess I won't get one anytime soon. I'm sure 4 would suit me fine though, I need to upgrade my 1Ghz G4!!!