KipCoon
Nov 29, 09:06 AM
Lame. As if they aren't gettign enough money as it is. And as someone else said, they just exposed their stance on the subject. So it's not going to happen.
Fabio_gsilva
Aug 5, 04:05 PM
Monday morning.... so good to me...
Well, I'll be miles away of internet conectoins, so maybe only tuesday to know something....
Well, I'll be miles away of internet conectoins, so maybe only tuesday to know something....
justaregularjoe
Feb 28, 03:17 PM
Wow. I have never, ever in my life been so tempted to troll a MacRumors thread, nor have I ever been so infuriated by the use of a set of double quotation marks.
Gay marriage is not "marriage." Gay marriage is marriage.
Gay people are not "gay." They are gay.
So a few things:
1) Deal with it.
2) Gays are going to keep on getting married. Whether that means that they have to leave your ass-backwards country to come to a real civilization to do so, or write their own damn marriage contract and hire a rational person to perform the ceremony, they will.
3) As Lee said, what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes (hell, anywhere, in fact) is their own damn business.
4) The claim by Bill McEnaney that gay people living together "should have purely platonic, nonsexual relationships with one another" is outrageous. (NB that this person had just said they must live "as siblings" which is weird, given that platonic love is only reservation from physical romance, not emotional romance...)
5) If you are going to pull the "protect the sanctity of marriage" card on me, think very hard about the institutions of divorce and annulment.
6) Many people (and many of the small number who claim to anyway) do not share your beliefs. Catholics have sex. In and out of marriage. *See Point One.*
7) Please try to be just a smidgen more cultured in your attitudes, and a little less abrasive in sharing them. Though I try to reserve judgment, I am currently not alone in thinking that you are completely insane just by your posts in this thread.
I feel better now. :)
Gay marriage is not "marriage." Gay marriage is marriage.
Gay people are not "gay." They are gay.
So a few things:
1) Deal with it.
2) Gays are going to keep on getting married. Whether that means that they have to leave your ass-backwards country to come to a real civilization to do so, or write their own damn marriage contract and hire a rational person to perform the ceremony, they will.
3) As Lee said, what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes (hell, anywhere, in fact) is their own damn business.
4) The claim by Bill McEnaney that gay people living together "should have purely platonic, nonsexual relationships with one another" is outrageous. (NB that this person had just said they must live "as siblings" which is weird, given that platonic love is only reservation from physical romance, not emotional romance...)
5) If you are going to pull the "protect the sanctity of marriage" card on me, think very hard about the institutions of divorce and annulment.
6) Many people (and many of the small number who claim to anyway) do not share your beliefs. Catholics have sex. In and out of marriage. *See Point One.*
7) Please try to be just a smidgen more cultured in your attitudes, and a little less abrasive in sharing them. Though I try to reserve judgment, I am currently not alone in thinking that you are completely insane just by your posts in this thread.
I feel better now. :)
scottgroovez
Apr 8, 06:09 AM
Why anyone would ever choose to buy an Apple product at Best Buy over the Apple Store is beyond me. :confused:
I just ordered a Macbook pro from BB with 15% off and a further 8% cashback saving me just over �200.
I just ordered a Macbook pro from BB with 15% off and a further 8% cashback saving me just over �200.
Cowinacape
Jul 14, 04:46 PM
I don't know if I am real big on the rumored 512 meg of ram (geesh) for the bottom end tower, c'mon Steve would throwing a gig in there really break the bank?? I do like the idea of dual optical drives though ( I do copy my cd's for use in my garage/workshop, so I don't wreck the originals).
An extra one or two pci slots would of been nice, (sucks, that some video cards wind up taking two slots, due to their cooling setup)
An extra one or two pci slots would of been nice, (sucks, that some video cards wind up taking two slots, due to their cooling setup)
logandzwon
Apr 19, 02:51 PM
The First Commercial GUI
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/5659/star1vg.gif
Xerox's Star workstation was the first commercial implementation of the graphical user interface. The Star was introduced in 1981 and was the inspiration for the Mac and all the other GUIs that followed.
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7892/leopardpreviewdesktop4.jpghttp://img714.imageshack.us/img714/5733/xerox8010star.gif
-The Star was not a commercial product. Xerox didn't sell them. (Well eventually they did, but not as PCs. they were to be similar to what we'd call a terminal today.)
-the middle image is actually of an Apple Lisa. I think you were just showing as a comparison, but some people might think your saying it's a Star. It's not. It's a Lisa.
-Apple compensated Xerox for the ideas borrowed from the Star. SJ and the mac team were already working on the GUI before any of them ever saw the Star though. Also, Macintosh 1 wasn't a copy of the Star. In fact a lot of the stables of a modern GUI today were innovated by Apple for the Macintosh.
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/5659/star1vg.gif
Xerox's Star workstation was the first commercial implementation of the graphical user interface. The Star was introduced in 1981 and was the inspiration for the Mac and all the other GUIs that followed.
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7892/leopardpreviewdesktop4.jpghttp://img714.imageshack.us/img714/5733/xerox8010star.gif
-The Star was not a commercial product. Xerox didn't sell them. (Well eventually they did, but not as PCs. they were to be similar to what we'd call a terminal today.)
-the middle image is actually of an Apple Lisa. I think you were just showing as a comparison, but some people might think your saying it's a Star. It's not. It's a Lisa.
-Apple compensated Xerox for the ideas borrowed from the Star. SJ and the mac team were already working on the GUI before any of them ever saw the Star though. Also, Macintosh 1 wasn't a copy of the Star. In fact a lot of the stables of a modern GUI today were innovated by Apple for the Macintosh.
domness
Apr 25, 02:14 PM
I think this IS a privacy issue. That data could end up in the wrong hands. Does anyone store a text document on their iPhone with a list of their bank details and passwords? No, because it could end up in the wrong hands. So could this data that's being collected.
This data shouldn't be recorded without permission, no matter what's being done with it.
Location data == bank details and passwords? -- I think not.
This data shouldn't be recorded without permission, no matter what's being done with it.
Location data == bank details and passwords? -- I think not.
Unspeaked
Sep 19, 11:24 AM
I ordered my 15" MBP yesterday and they are telling me it will ship next Tuesday. I sure hope that when the package arrives the MBP will have no stinking Merom, no more than 512 MB RAM, no better than an 80 Gb/5400 rpm HDD, and -- please God -- no magnetic latch! Oh - and one more thing: Apple better not send me a refund if they lower the price before the package hits my doorstep. :mad:
I don't think you've got anything to worry about there...
I don't think you've got anything to worry about there...
Nuvi
Apr 11, 12:01 AM
I'm a little confused...why was Avid presenting at a Final Cut Pro User Group's meeting anyway? Do they just come in and are like "Hey, you've all made a mistake!" or something?
Because professional editors give flying-F about FCP if Apple doesn't deliver. Its about putting food on the table and not about being a fan boy. If Apple doesn't deliver a solution that is comparable with Avid MC the mass exodus away from FCP will continue. Some iOS stuff and Steve can shove it. Mr Jobs had good sense of keeping his fingers out of the Pixar so I truly hope he doesn't crap on FCS mix.
Because professional editors give flying-F about FCP if Apple doesn't deliver. Its about putting food on the table and not about being a fan boy. If Apple doesn't deliver a solution that is comparable with Avid MC the mass exodus away from FCP will continue. Some iOS stuff and Steve can shove it. Mr Jobs had good sense of keeping his fingers out of the Pixar so I truly hope he doesn't crap on FCS mix.
Grokgod
Jul 28, 06:52 PM
Well we all know how Apple works with when things are due.
Look at the G5 laptop.
Tweak or no tweak, the return will cost money and getting a refurbished is not getting a new one.
CounterPoint: If he is just going to take it back to buy a refurbished one, why take it back.
He allready has it! Thats a roundabout way to work, isnt it?
If you take it back, you wait for the new one, why spend the money for restocking and not get the new one?
The question remains, what are you going to get with a new iMac that you dont have now?
If you were going to get a MacPro, then I would say, my god, return that iMac and get a new MacPro, if not then keep what you got and use it for the next 2 months and enjoy it,, cheers!
Look at the G5 laptop.
Tweak or no tweak, the return will cost money and getting a refurbished is not getting a new one.
CounterPoint: If he is just going to take it back to buy a refurbished one, why take it back.
He allready has it! Thats a roundabout way to work, isnt it?
If you take it back, you wait for the new one, why spend the money for restocking and not get the new one?
The question remains, what are you going to get with a new iMac that you dont have now?
If you were going to get a MacPro, then I would say, my god, return that iMac and get a new MacPro, if not then keep what you got and use it for the next 2 months and enjoy it,, cheers!
flopticalcube
Apr 27, 09:33 AM
So many critical issues to discuss and serious problems to overcome and people are still talking about ********** birth certificates? :rolleyes:
MacPhilosopher
Apr 10, 02:21 AM
Oh, we are totally getting an iPad app to go along with this program. I can feel it.
I would oh-so love the ability to down-rez a Final Cut project and send it to an iPad...do all my rough cutting there...and then bring it back to the Mac and re-link it to the real footage to do the detail work.
I've had a lot of fun playing with iMovie on the iPad. I am drooling for something similar that works as part of a Final Cut Pro workflow.
I'm a little confused...why was Avid presenting at a Final Cut Pro User Group's meeting anyway? Do they just come in and are like "Hey, you've all made a mistake!" or something?
I'm not so sure about the down res option, it sounds like an awful lot of time spent compressing, though I sure hope it is some type of interface, perhaps as an input device or palette.
I would oh-so love the ability to down-rez a Final Cut project and send it to an iPad...do all my rough cutting there...and then bring it back to the Mac and re-link it to the real footage to do the detail work.
I've had a lot of fun playing with iMovie on the iPad. I am drooling for something similar that works as part of a Final Cut Pro workflow.
I'm a little confused...why was Avid presenting at a Final Cut Pro User Group's meeting anyway? Do they just come in and are like "Hey, you've all made a mistake!" or something?
I'm not so sure about the down res option, it sounds like an awful lot of time spent compressing, though I sure hope it is some type of interface, perhaps as an input device or palette.
Blue Velvet
Mar 23, 06:11 AM
Libya is more like Bosnia than Iraq. A moment of force has the potential to change the scope of the conflict, hopefully for the positive, in a way that a full-blown invasion would merely complicate. That's the central part that fivepoint, who is merely interested in making another partisan screed, is ignoring.
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Machead III
Sep 19, 07:45 AM
The mermon G5s should be out before summer.
OMG wat about Santa Clause tabl3t apple Max? NEWTON FTW!!!!
OMG wat about Santa Clause tabl3t apple Max? NEWTON FTW!!!!
Popeye206
Apr 25, 02:54 PM
Anybody doing credit card fraud would have a somewhat better chance of staying undetected if they knew you usually whereabouts. Credit card companies use highly evolved software to track if a CC transaction is unusual.
I think it is save to assume that most people do not store their credit card number in plain text on their computer. If some piece of software (eg, a browser) would do this, wouldn't this be something you preferred it would not do?
Ahhhh..... dude... I'm more worried about my wallet being stolen.
Again... the tower tracking does nothing and for your average crook to put your iPhone database together with your physical credit card... for what? They slash and burn not sit there and try and sort out if you go to Target or JC Penneys more. What do they care?
Come one people... think and come back to earth.
I think it is save to assume that most people do not store their credit card number in plain text on their computer. If some piece of software (eg, a browser) would do this, wouldn't this be something you preferred it would not do?
Ahhhh..... dude... I'm more worried about my wallet being stolen.
Again... the tower tracking does nothing and for your average crook to put your iPhone database together with your physical credit card... for what? They slash and burn not sit there and try and sort out if you go to Target or JC Penneys more. What do they care?
Come one people... think and come back to earth.
Abstract
Sep 18, 11:40 PM
Of course they're going to refresh the laptops before the holidays. Duh. :rolleyes:
Agreed.
I can't believe this would even count as a rumour. It's more an "inevitability."
Agreed.
I can't believe this would even count as a rumour. It's more an "inevitability."
artistry
Nov 29, 03:06 AM
I can't see this standing up in the EU - it would be knocked down at first attempt in the European Court I'm sure.
Whatever, if someone with no Universal Music on their iPod wants to I bet they'd be able to cause a stink by asking for the 'tax' back.
I'm surprised no one's sued Universal for libel since the 'all iPod owners are thieves' thing.
Whatever, if someone with no Universal Music on their iPod wants to I bet they'd be able to cause a stink by asking for the 'tax' back.
I'm surprised no one's sued Universal for libel since the 'all iPod owners are thieves' thing.
Stridder44
Apr 10, 12:28 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)
This should be interesting.
This should be interesting.
After G
Aug 26, 04:09 PM
If the power consumption is the same... does that mean that the Merom and the current chips suck the same amount energy while going full throttle?
If the above is true, if you turned down the Merom to match the speed of the current chips, wouldn't the Merom be drawing 20% less power?
In other words if the Merom and the current chip were both going 60 mph down the freeway, would the Merom be drawing less power?
Am I missing something here (such as the basics of electricity, the basic way that chips work, etc.)?
512keThey'd draw the same power, but the Merom would be done faster at the same clock rate. So you use less power by taking less time to do your work. That and better power saving modes.
If the above is true, if you turned down the Merom to match the speed of the current chips, wouldn't the Merom be drawing 20% less power?
In other words if the Merom and the current chip were both going 60 mph down the freeway, would the Merom be drawing less power?
Am I missing something here (such as the basics of electricity, the basic way that chips work, etc.)?
512keThey'd draw the same power, but the Merom would be done faster at the same clock rate. So you use less power by taking less time to do your work. That and better power saving modes.
benthewraith
Nov 28, 07:42 PM
Many years ago a media levy was passed in the United States that applies a "tax" to "consumer digital audio" media (CD-R blanks, DAT, etc.) with the proceeds going to music industry/artists. The justification was to offset losses due to illegal copying of music in digital form (generational loseless copies). This to date hasn't been expanded to include devices like the iPod (at least I don't recall that taking place).
Which makes no sense. If they get compensated by blank CD/DVD sales to offset the money loss from pirating, then why the hell are they suing consumers for P2P?
Actually, I suspected Universal was going to do the same with the iPod, regardless of whether the Zune debuted or not. They obviously can manipulate Microsoft, they'll try and do the same with Apple.
And lets not forget, these are the same people who wish they could sue people for ripping their cds (and burning them again so as to do away with all the DRM **** they put on them).
As to why their music sales have been dropping, if half the songs on the market weren't about pimps and beating hos', probably a lot more people would buy it.
Which makes no sense. If they get compensated by blank CD/DVD sales to offset the money loss from pirating, then why the hell are they suing consumers for P2P?
Actually, I suspected Universal was going to do the same with the iPod, regardless of whether the Zune debuted or not. They obviously can manipulate Microsoft, they'll try and do the same with Apple.
And lets not forget, these are the same people who wish they could sue people for ripping their cds (and burning them again so as to do away with all the DRM **** they put on them).
As to why their music sales have been dropping, if half the songs on the market weren't about pimps and beating hos', probably a lot more people would buy it.
kavika411
Apr 11, 03:17 PM
I may not be saying anything new or original, but I'm betting there won't be any more iPod, iPad, iPhone, or Mac updates until "the cloud" is rolled out. Once it's rolled out, there will be at least a month or two or three between flipping the switch on the cloud - to get it up and running and integrating with the existing hardware that will be able to utilize it - and the first rollout of post-cloud-release generation of products. So, the question is when will Apple have the next media event? I'm betting it is in May, and that the cloud will be turned on a week or two after that, and then there won't be any new iPhone, etc. until August or September. Perhaps there will be one single iPod update released contemporaneous with the cloud going live that will hype the cloud, and draw some people into it who may have otherwise not be a likely customer of the cloud.
aswitcher
Aug 11, 09:45 PM
Apple won't put GPS in unless they can create a whole new 'Apple' interface for it.
I'm no GPS expert, but I'm not sure how they could do that with a simple candybar phone. It would need to be some sort of smartphone / pocketPC thing.
We have rumours of something like Google Earth called Maps.
GPS can be put in soemthing the size of a watch.
I think its a strong possibility in the next few years.
I'm no GPS expert, but I'm not sure how they could do that with a simple candybar phone. It would need to be some sort of smartphone / pocketPC thing.
We have rumours of something like Google Earth called Maps.
GPS can be put in soemthing the size of a watch.
I think its a strong possibility in the next few years.
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 11, 05:10 PM
But you're really forgetting 1 thing. International Trade Mark/patent law is a pain in the @$$!!! I wouldn't blame Apple for 1 min to keep it in the US for at least a test run. That way they should be able to keep the patent breaker-reverse engineers off their back for a least a little while (i.e. why copy something if you can't even use it anywhere other than where it's patent protected).
If the rest of the world would get a handle on international trademarking and patent protection I don't think we'd have this issue of different standards of EU vs USA...
:confused: patent intrusion in europe??? Are you serious? Do you have any examples to verify your claims where a european company violated US patent law and this wasn't enforced by the european judicial system?
If the rest of the world would get a handle on international trademarking and patent protection I don't think we'd have this issue of different standards of EU vs USA...
:confused: patent intrusion in europe??? Are you serious? Do you have any examples to verify your claims where a european company violated US patent law and this wasn't enforced by the european judicial system?
anim8or
Apr 6, 03:40 AM
I hope that the new FCP will resemble iMovie: No need for rendering and a precision editor! I like the ease of use of iMovie, should be adopted by FCP.
Looking for some controversy are we?!!! :rolleyes:
Looking for some controversy are we?!!! :rolleyes:
