gauchogolfer
Sep 26, 03:50 AM
Apple is right to sue IMO, what does the Pod in Podcasting refer to? The iPod of course!
If not for the iPod, Podcasting would have no meaning.
Unfortunately, I don't think that this type of extension is really defensible. There must be limits on what Apple can trademark and control with reference to the word 'pod'. What about the website 'podshow'? Should they be allowed to register? Extending the reach of the iPod brand into regions that are phonetically the same i.e. myPodder, is troubling to me, but less so than iPodder, for example. Defending the "brand name" iPod is a completely different issue from preventing other uses of the word "pod" in the digital media sphere.
If not for the iPod, Podcasting would have no meaning.
Unfortunately, I don't think that this type of extension is really defensible. There must be limits on what Apple can trademark and control with reference to the word 'pod'. What about the website 'podshow'? Should they be allowed to register? Extending the reach of the iPod brand into regions that are phonetically the same i.e. myPodder, is troubling to me, but less so than iPodder, for example. Defending the "brand name" iPod is a completely different issue from preventing other uses of the word "pod" in the digital media sphere.
MacSamurai
Oct 16, 08:48 PM
speculate all you want...wont believe it til i see it,and it better be crammed with features lol like 3m pixel camera and wifi....
jelloshotsrule
Sep 17, 10:15 AM
Lick my mini.
Is that a nano in your pocket or are you just not very thrilled to see me?
so you guys have size issues eh?
Is that a nano in your pocket or are you just not very thrilled to see me?
so you guys have size issues eh?
Iscariot
Apr 10, 12:09 AM
The point of PP seems to be to get rid of the consequences
PP offers a too easy fix to people's indiscretion
Made up nonsense.
PP offers a too easy fix to people's indiscretion
Made up nonsense.
more...
maclaptop
Apr 27, 12:47 AM
Coming soon to a theater near you, on a "Magical & Revolutionary" NEW technology by Apple: DVD
HA... HA... HA...
HA... HA... HA...
talkingfuture
Mar 28, 08:21 AM
Can't wait to see what they announce. It would be nice to see a bigger jump than usual for iOS and hopefully a shipping date for Lion.
more...
wal9000
Apr 27, 10:31 PM
Check out CandyBar (http://panic.com/candybar/). It's not particularly cheap, but it does what you want, and Panic's a great company.
noxtos
Mar 27, 03:47 AM
The worn turtlenecks go to the incinerator in the basement...
Oh, I forgot. Since apple turned green they are shredded and made into iPhone boxes.
Oh, I forgot. Since apple turned green they are shredded and made into iPhone boxes.
more...
Warbrain
Apr 5, 09:02 AM
Apple would not put a capacitive home button. If anything, they'd remove the home button all together and use some of the new gestures that appeared briefly in iOS 4.3 to multitask and go home.
Have fun using those on a 3.5" or 4" screen.
Have fun using those on a 3.5" or 4" screen.
Ish
Mar 12, 10:01 AM
I liked the first one much better. The angle and the background just don't work for me on this one.
I agree. I was trying to show the time on the watch more clearly but it's not right.
Two very different interpretations of apples and oranges. I prefer the second one of yours, JD. The top of the apple is more clear, there's more texture in the front orange and the red apple is clearer and reflects the light nicely and adds a bit of sparkle. I also like the contrast between the fruit and the black background and the subtle reflection in the surface.
OK, my own submission for this challenge. With the utmost apologies to JD, I had to stick with the apples & oranges theme which is what had immediately occurred to me when we set this topic. I've tried to expand on the conceptual interpretation of apples & oranges with some more technical interpretations - a split b & w background, and an over-saturated and high contrast post treatment.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5019/5517805179_d69cdf5849_b.jpg
I like the idea you have going here. I would like the saturation more realistic, but that's just me. Different framing and cropping come to mind. Maybe play off the differences in the textures and color, putting them closer and cropping or framing in tight. I may play with this idea when I can. I have nice oranges, but I need an apple. And the nice lighting setup you have.
Please excuse the PhotoShop hack of your image...:)
Dale
No apologies necessary. I think it's great when we have similar ideas implemented differently for these challenges. I very much like the color, textures and saturation. It gives it a very modern feel, especially with the very bold black and white. Like others have said, I'm not sold on the placement or the crop. I get what you were going for in emphasizing the contrasts though. Maybe a tighter crop? Maybe playing with where the black/white line falls in the frame? Maybe placing one fruit in the black and one in the white somehow. Not sure, I think a tighter crop would help the most.
Great work.
Another nice interpretation, Axis. Very different and the crisp black and white adds to the contrast. If I may make one or two suggestions, I might choose something like a very green Granny Smith apple and rub it with a soft cloth until it shone. The one in the pic looks a bit blotchy. That might allow you to turn down the intensity on the orange just a tad so it looks a bit more realistic.
Also wondering what it would look like with the orange slightly in front of and overlapping the orange a little, then the view closed in a bit more on them. Just thoughts!
I agree. I was trying to show the time on the watch more clearly but it's not right.
Two very different interpretations of apples and oranges. I prefer the second one of yours, JD. The top of the apple is more clear, there's more texture in the front orange and the red apple is clearer and reflects the light nicely and adds a bit of sparkle. I also like the contrast between the fruit and the black background and the subtle reflection in the surface.
OK, my own submission for this challenge. With the utmost apologies to JD, I had to stick with the apples & oranges theme which is what had immediately occurred to me when we set this topic. I've tried to expand on the conceptual interpretation of apples & oranges with some more technical interpretations - a split b & w background, and an over-saturated and high contrast post treatment.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5019/5517805179_d69cdf5849_b.jpg
I like the idea you have going here. I would like the saturation more realistic, but that's just me. Different framing and cropping come to mind. Maybe play off the differences in the textures and color, putting them closer and cropping or framing in tight. I may play with this idea when I can. I have nice oranges, but I need an apple. And the nice lighting setup you have.
Please excuse the PhotoShop hack of your image...:)
Dale
No apologies necessary. I think it's great when we have similar ideas implemented differently for these challenges. I very much like the color, textures and saturation. It gives it a very modern feel, especially with the very bold black and white. Like others have said, I'm not sold on the placement or the crop. I get what you were going for in emphasizing the contrasts though. Maybe a tighter crop? Maybe playing with where the black/white line falls in the frame? Maybe placing one fruit in the black and one in the white somehow. Not sure, I think a tighter crop would help the most.
Great work.
Another nice interpretation, Axis. Very different and the crisp black and white adds to the contrast. If I may make one or two suggestions, I might choose something like a very green Granny Smith apple and rub it with a soft cloth until it shone. The one in the pic looks a bit blotchy. That might allow you to turn down the intensity on the orange just a tad so it looks a bit more realistic.
Also wondering what it would look like with the orange slightly in front of and overlapping the orange a little, then the view closed in a bit more on them. Just thoughts!
more...
Sydde
May 2, 07:32 PM
If I recall, you said the timing of the burial was very fast.
I should ask, how long does DNA testing take? I was told in February that it takes between 2-5 days.
I wonder if that might be "banker's hours"? Send a courier to the lab, lab tech does the test and goes home for the night, reading the results in the morning. Who knows what kind of advanced equipment and tech the military has access to. Fly right to the Kabul lab, start the test, fly to the carrier, proceed under the impression that this is him, with the hosing-down, funeral and dumping. A few hours later, confirmation.
Though I could be wrong. :)
I should ask, how long does DNA testing take? I was told in February that it takes between 2-5 days.
I wonder if that might be "banker's hours"? Send a courier to the lab, lab tech does the test and goes home for the night, reading the results in the morning. Who knows what kind of advanced equipment and tech the military has access to. Fly right to the Kabul lab, start the test, fly to the carrier, proceed under the impression that this is him, with the hosing-down, funeral and dumping. A few hours later, confirmation.
Though I could be wrong. :)
Lord Blackadder
Mar 15, 08:12 PM
WTF indeed.
more...
edesignuk
Sep 12, 03:14 PM
Don't we all, we neeeeed that G5 ASAP, or NO ONE will switch, hell, they'll end up loosing current users. :(
jalagl
Nov 14, 09:31 AM
Well, the only airline I remember which had seat-back displays for all passengers was WestJet. I just flew United and the smaller planes didn't even have an in-house audio system, let alone video.
But this is a great idea.
...
Most airlines that fly trans-atlantic and pacific have individual displays for everybody. In coach, most of them play the same movies and series over and over, but in business/first, most of the time you can choose what to watch, and even pause/stop the movies.
But this is a great idea.
...
Most airlines that fly trans-atlantic and pacific have individual displays for everybody. In coach, most of them play the same movies and series over and over, but in business/first, most of the time you can choose what to watch, and even pause/stop the movies.
more...
SevenInchScrew
Jun 17, 08:08 PM
The older models aren't being produced anymore.
Understood, but there is no "Pro" version of this new one, so I'm not sure where you were going with that.
Understood, but there is no "Pro" version of this new one, so I'm not sure where you were going with that.
saving107
Oct 6, 10:35 AM
I find it funny how investors continue to trust these "analyst" even though none of them have any insider information and are wrong 90% of the time, the other 10% of the time they have been correct was from publishing rumors as facts from stories they more likely read here on MacRumors regarding future products.
http://www.macrumors.com/2010/10/06/early-apple-tv-sales-estimated-at-1-million-per-quarter/
like this guy "Alex Gauna" who called 20 Apple Stores around the country and already determined that the new Apple TV is selling at a rate of 1 millions units a quarter, even thought Apple Stores never give out any information of how many units have been received or sold.
how do these people still have jobs?
http://www.macrumors.com/2010/10/06/early-apple-tv-sales-estimated-at-1-million-per-quarter/
like this guy "Alex Gauna" who called 20 Apple Stores around the country and already determined that the new Apple TV is selling at a rate of 1 millions units a quarter, even thought Apple Stores never give out any information of how many units have been received or sold.
how do these people still have jobs?
more...
imutter
Mar 13, 10:38 AM
we have al iphones in my house (3) and all did fine I thought it was carrier issue rather hardware ?
SiriusVector
Dec 28, 09:43 AM
This just means everyone in NYC is about to get a free iPod Tablet with lifetime 3G service and video calling. Hang in there.
Both you, and Apple, need to wake up!! :D
Both you, and Apple, need to wake up!! :D
hayesk
Mar 28, 09:37 AM
From that price, you can better buy a Mac and watch it in QuikTime... :)
I could also buy groceries for three months, but I don't see what that has to do with this being a Developer conference. Seriously people, this is a developer conference, not a consumer product showcase.
I could also buy groceries for three months, but I don't see what that has to do with this being a Developer conference. Seriously people, this is a developer conference, not a consumer product showcase.
josephebacon
Apr 3, 11:03 AM
But it doesn't. :mad:
I've repeatedly tried to log in to use it and the Time Warner application tells me my password is invalid. Several contacts with customer service failed to resolve the password problem. :mad:
So i deleted it and I'll just keep using Netflix which DOES work :D
I've repeatedly tried to log in to use it and the Time Warner application tells me my password is invalid. Several contacts with customer service failed to resolve the password problem. :mad:
So i deleted it and I'll just keep using Netflix which DOES work :D
Mac-Addict
Oct 24, 07:43 PM
Im so getting there at 3 and queuing, I don't care that much for free stuff (pfft :P) I just dont want to be in the queue until 7-8pm until I actually get in the store.
MacCoaster
Sep 22, 07:29 AM
Originally posted by avkills
Ok, so Intel has the Itanium, well they have the Itanium2 I guess if you want to get super current, so what! The Itanium is based on a brand new design that looks good on paper, but Intel will be the first to admit it has not performed as good as they hoped.
I simply meant the Itanium family, including both the original Itanium and the current Intamium 2.
Sun, IBM and SGI have had 64bit processors way before Intel. So if you say the Itanium is ok for the high-end consumer, then It's safe to say that a Sun Ultra10 or a SGI Octane would also be a high-end consumer machine.
Sure, okay. Compare the prices. The Itanium solution is much cheaper.
What makes you so sure that a 16 processor G4 machine would not perform, because of the bus speed. What about super high-end servers like the CM5 or the Cray T3D. I seriously doubt those machines have 500Mhz bus speeds, or DDR memory. I know for a fact that the CM5 had dedicated memory for each processor node, and each node had 2 vector units. If you want, I can find out specifics from my brother, who has actually programmed code for it, when he worked at Las Alamos. Whether a 16 processor G4 machine is relevant or not, it could be built and if built right, would be very fast.
Very irrevelant. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the G4 wasn't designed to be run in anything more than a dual configuration.
So the .NET family is limited to 32 processors huh....Weak, very weak. You can say what you want, UNIX still scales better than Windows, no matter what the flavor.
Windows isn't designed nor targeted at customers with more than 32 processors. If anyone wanted a 2048-way server, they'd either custom build it and load UNIX on it or have some large corporation develop the computer. It's a lot cheaper clustering 32 high-availablity servers than buying that one 2048-way server. Duh, Windows isn't scalable. It was NEVER designed primarily to be used on 2048-way supercomputers. That's way out of Microsoft's scope and market.
In my opinion, Microsoft is beginning to die a slow painful death. Everyone is tired of their ************ and half-assed attempts of secure computing. Everyone always complains that Macs are not open enough, well I think the opposite is true. Apple embraces open standards and even invents and shares them when none exist, while Microsoft shuns and sometimes even steals others work, in a attempt to push their own proprietary formats and stifle progress.
Funny that Microsoft pushed the ever-so-slow W3C to standardize further dynamic HTML/etc. technologies to become standard. Of course, W3C can't keep current to allow people to innovate in the web presentation standards. Microsoft is even pushing XML very hard with .NET Web Services. And yes, Macs are closed. Not in software, but in hardware. Maybe you were confused by the definition of Macs being closed. The older Macintosh hardware is so proprietary it's not funny. Recent Macs adopt technology that had been in PCs before, except FireWire of course, because Apple invented that. But the hardware is still proprietary. I don't see that we are able to take off-the-shelf high quality components and build our own PowerPC computers then slap Mac OS X on it. Also, Microsoft indeed is "against" open source, and yet they maintain a "shared source" implementation of .NET for FreeBSD. In fact, it's a very well done implementation -- not that most-feeble-possible-implementation that we thought could possible be.
I find it funny that Intel invented USB, but it was Apple that took the leap of faith and pushed it into the mainstream. Apple, in my opinion is the only company thinking "outside the box" and in the end, they will win because of it.
-mark
Maybe it was Apple and Microsoft (Windows 98) who popularized USB, but you've got to realize this. PCs have had USB a few years before Apple. It wasn't until iMac/Windows 98 (note, same year: 1998) that USB got popular.
Ok, so Intel has the Itanium, well they have the Itanium2 I guess if you want to get super current, so what! The Itanium is based on a brand new design that looks good on paper, but Intel will be the first to admit it has not performed as good as they hoped.
I simply meant the Itanium family, including both the original Itanium and the current Intamium 2.
Sun, IBM and SGI have had 64bit processors way before Intel. So if you say the Itanium is ok for the high-end consumer, then It's safe to say that a Sun Ultra10 or a SGI Octane would also be a high-end consumer machine.
Sure, okay. Compare the prices. The Itanium solution is much cheaper.
What makes you so sure that a 16 processor G4 machine would not perform, because of the bus speed. What about super high-end servers like the CM5 or the Cray T3D. I seriously doubt those machines have 500Mhz bus speeds, or DDR memory. I know for a fact that the CM5 had dedicated memory for each processor node, and each node had 2 vector units. If you want, I can find out specifics from my brother, who has actually programmed code for it, when he worked at Las Alamos. Whether a 16 processor G4 machine is relevant or not, it could be built and if built right, would be very fast.
Very irrevelant. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the G4 wasn't designed to be run in anything more than a dual configuration.
So the .NET family is limited to 32 processors huh....Weak, very weak. You can say what you want, UNIX still scales better than Windows, no matter what the flavor.
Windows isn't designed nor targeted at customers with more than 32 processors. If anyone wanted a 2048-way server, they'd either custom build it and load UNIX on it or have some large corporation develop the computer. It's a lot cheaper clustering 32 high-availablity servers than buying that one 2048-way server. Duh, Windows isn't scalable. It was NEVER designed primarily to be used on 2048-way supercomputers. That's way out of Microsoft's scope and market.
In my opinion, Microsoft is beginning to die a slow painful death. Everyone is tired of their ************ and half-assed attempts of secure computing. Everyone always complains that Macs are not open enough, well I think the opposite is true. Apple embraces open standards and even invents and shares them when none exist, while Microsoft shuns and sometimes even steals others work, in a attempt to push their own proprietary formats and stifle progress.
Funny that Microsoft pushed the ever-so-slow W3C to standardize further dynamic HTML/etc. technologies to become standard. Of course, W3C can't keep current to allow people to innovate in the web presentation standards. Microsoft is even pushing XML very hard with .NET Web Services. And yes, Macs are closed. Not in software, but in hardware. Maybe you were confused by the definition of Macs being closed. The older Macintosh hardware is so proprietary it's not funny. Recent Macs adopt technology that had been in PCs before, except FireWire of course, because Apple invented that. But the hardware is still proprietary. I don't see that we are able to take off-the-shelf high quality components and build our own PowerPC computers then slap Mac OS X on it. Also, Microsoft indeed is "against" open source, and yet they maintain a "shared source" implementation of .NET for FreeBSD. In fact, it's a very well done implementation -- not that most-feeble-possible-implementation that we thought could possible be.
I find it funny that Intel invented USB, but it was Apple that took the leap of faith and pushed it into the mainstream. Apple, in my opinion is the only company thinking "outside the box" and in the end, they will win because of it.
-mark
Maybe it was Apple and Microsoft (Windows 98) who popularized USB, but you've got to realize this. PCs have had USB a few years before Apple. It wasn't until iMac/Windows 98 (note, same year: 1998) that USB got popular.
realtime
Sep 27, 06:36 PM
Nah, if they need to go past 10.7.9, they can go for 10.7.10, 10.7.11 .. 10.7.93 or whatever.
The numbering scheme just looks like it's base 10. It ain't.
The version number used internally throughout the system is contained in 32 bits. The high byte (0-255) is the Major version number [10] in 8 bits. The second highest byte contains the Minor version [4] and the BugFix version [7] as two 4-bit nibbles, so each of those is limited to a max of 15, and the last two bytes contain an 8-bit development stage bitmask and an 8-bit revision number. Thus the OS could conceivably encounter eight more BugFix versions, up to 10.4.15, before Leopard takes over. The Gestalt format is similarly limited; although the value is a long, it holds a hexadecimal representation masked to the lowest 16 bits: 0x1047.
Heaven forbid we use more than one word to describe the system build version. I guess Apple should have packed the Major and Minor version into the two nibbles of the high byte, and designated the BugFix version the entire second byte (0-255)... but then what would we do after Mac OS X 15 is EOL'? ;-)
Personally I think Tiger will RIP at 10.4.9...
The numbering scheme just looks like it's base 10. It ain't.
The version number used internally throughout the system is contained in 32 bits. The high byte (0-255) is the Major version number [10] in 8 bits. The second highest byte contains the Minor version [4] and the BugFix version [7] as two 4-bit nibbles, so each of those is limited to a max of 15, and the last two bytes contain an 8-bit development stage bitmask and an 8-bit revision number. Thus the OS could conceivably encounter eight more BugFix versions, up to 10.4.15, before Leopard takes over. The Gestalt format is similarly limited; although the value is a long, it holds a hexadecimal representation masked to the lowest 16 bits: 0x1047.
Heaven forbid we use more than one word to describe the system build version. I guess Apple should have packed the Major and Minor version into the two nibbles of the high byte, and designated the BugFix version the entire second byte (0-255)... but then what would we do after Mac OS X 15 is EOL'? ;-)
Personally I think Tiger will RIP at 10.4.9...
sundayx
Apr 5, 11:34 AM
Like a touchpad wouldn't it be possible for it to recognize what is a tap and what is just touching to the surface? i.e. it would only initiate a command based on a quick touch and release.
No comments:
Post a Comment