MattSepeta
Apr 18, 04:29 PM
Ooohhh. So being on a salary, even a measly one for a basic desk job, means you are now at your employers beck and call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, come hell or high water? Got it. So, if more work comes in and the amount you are given to do increases substantially, you just suck it up and work that many more hours because they won't hire more people for the extra work? That sounds like a pretty awful world...but pretty much what goes on. Too bad people like you manage to convince people it's how life should be.
Of course that is ridiculous, and I totally agree there should be a line, but where do we draw it? Who gets to draw it?
What about a hotshot stock trader making a killing working 80+ hours a week on salary. Should we be allowed to work this much without overtime?
I realize it is an obscure analogy, but it is valid nonetheless.
Of course that is ridiculous, and I totally agree there should be a line, but where do we draw it? Who gets to draw it?
What about a hotshot stock trader making a killing working 80+ hours a week on salary. Should we be allowed to work this much without overtime?
I realize it is an obscure analogy, but it is valid nonetheless.
Satori
Apr 22, 11:22 AM
I'd be surprised to see this coming to the MBA before the iMac!
mcarnes
Sep 19, 01:56 PM
I'd gladly wait overnight for a solid 1080p movie that played in quicktime. Don't need the DVD features (or frickin' ads). Just give me the movie.
kurosov
Mar 30, 12:02 PM
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/app
278891
I think this is enough to show that Microsoft is unequivocally correct. The term has been in use for much longer than Apple's launching of the store and it has been ubiquitous in the computer industry for a long time.
The way to distinguish (if it needs to be done) between app stores is by saying the name of the app store before hand, ie the Apple App Store, the Amazon App Store, or the Microsoft App Store.
This argument has nothing to do with the term "app" but with the legally given trademark "app store".
The term app store was never used before the release and subsequent trademark approval of apples app store so anybody arguing that the term is generic are just being silly. The whole concept of a trademark is to protect a companies name, slogan etc from becoming a generic term and to prevent that they have to defend against it.
278891
I think this is enough to show that Microsoft is unequivocally correct. The term has been in use for much longer than Apple's launching of the store and it has been ubiquitous in the computer industry for a long time.
The way to distinguish (if it needs to be done) between app stores is by saying the name of the app store before hand, ie the Apple App Store, the Amazon App Store, or the Microsoft App Store.
This argument has nothing to do with the term "app" but with the legally given trademark "app store".
The term app store was never used before the release and subsequent trademark approval of apples app store so anybody arguing that the term is generic are just being silly. The whole concept of a trademark is to protect a companies name, slogan etc from becoming a generic term and to prevent that they have to defend against it.
diamond.g
Apr 19, 09:25 AM
1. If you are on Salary, you contractually agreed to get the job done regardless of the typical "work week". If you don't want to work long hours, don't accept a salaried position.
2. I am just as whole-heartedly against forcing hourly employees to work unpaid overtime. That would be "theft" or "servitude". Totally different.
I never understood exactly what it means to be a salary worker. Even when I am told I am a salary worker I still have to log my hours (as if I were paid hourly) and I still can't do overtime (==comp time). So what am I missing?
2. I am just as whole-heartedly against forcing hourly employees to work unpaid overtime. That would be "theft" or "servitude". Totally different.
I never understood exactly what it means to be a salary worker. Even when I am told I am a salary worker I still have to log my hours (as if I were paid hourly) and I still can't do overtime (==comp time). So what am I missing?
manu chao
Apr 20, 12:16 PM
According to Apple Germany, simply navigating to https://oo.apple.com with your iOS 4 device should stop 'this' (though it is not clear what 'this' is, is it the collection and storage of data or just the use of them for iAds).
cube
May 3, 11:44 AM
As before, that support is entirely derived from ATI's GPUs and the available number of outputs.
You can get 5 Mini-DisplayPort connectors on a single slot video card.
You can daisy chain multiple monitors with DisplayPort 1.2, and it has much more bandwidth than a Thunderbolt channel.
You can get 5 Mini-DisplayPort connectors on a single slot video card.
You can daisy chain multiple monitors with DisplayPort 1.2, and it has much more bandwidth than a Thunderbolt channel.
stewacide
Sep 27, 12:35 AM
If I had to guess as to why Apple would go with an exclusive provider to start, I would say so as to play hardball with the network providers.
Apple doesn't want to gum their pretty phones up with provider ick-ware like other manufacturers have to (just like it didn't want to e.g. 'Intel Inside' its pretty boxes), so they make a deal whereas in exchange for initial exclusivity Cingular agrees to relent control over the phones software and services (so that it say interfaces with the iTunes store for music and tones not Cingular's store: although I'm sure the service provider will charge the full market rate for data transfer). Then when the iPhone becomes a huge hit the other providers won't have any choice if they want to get on board as well.
I don't see why Apple would start a virtual operator, because they have no interest in getting into the service provider game. They can get what they really want - an opt-out of the cruddy operator system in the US especially - through market weight alone.
Apple doesn't want to gum their pretty phones up with provider ick-ware like other manufacturers have to (just like it didn't want to e.g. 'Intel Inside' its pretty boxes), so they make a deal whereas in exchange for initial exclusivity Cingular agrees to relent control over the phones software and services (so that it say interfaces with the iTunes store for music and tones not Cingular's store: although I'm sure the service provider will charge the full market rate for data transfer). Then when the iPhone becomes a huge hit the other providers won't have any choice if they want to get on board as well.
I don't see why Apple would start a virtual operator, because they have no interest in getting into the service provider game. They can get what they really want - an opt-out of the cruddy operator system in the US especially - through market weight alone.
Piggie
Apr 30, 04:50 PM
Curious that everyone is clamoring for a thunderbolt-enabled machine, but there isn't a single thunderbolt drive available on the market.
I guess some people just need to feel like they have new stuff even if it's totally pointless.
Sorry, but you are wrong there........
Thunderbolt would only be pointless if it was fitted to a PC and Mac's had USB3 about to come out.
As many PC's have USB3 and Mac's are about to have Thunderbolt, that makes it the most important and awesome thing ever :D
I guess some people just need to feel like they have new stuff even if it's totally pointless.
Sorry, but you are wrong there........
Thunderbolt would only be pointless if it was fitted to a PC and Mac's had USB3 about to come out.
As many PC's have USB3 and Mac's are about to have Thunderbolt, that makes it the most important and awesome thing ever :D
Analog Kid
Apr 14, 01:18 PM
Oh well, there goes all my enthusiasm... Thunderbolt is dead.
USB 3 is slower, uglier, more gummed up with kruft but the masses are comfortable with it so everything will use it. Thunderbolt will go the way of FireWire.
Ugh.
USB 3 is slower, uglier, more gummed up with kruft but the masses are comfortable with it so everything will use it. Thunderbolt will go the way of FireWire.
Ugh.
w00master
Nov 13, 04:01 PM
Because they are NO LONGER USING THE API! They give the rights to use the API to call and display the image. It doesn't give them the right to take that image and use it for something else outside of the context it was meant to be used.
Let me quote Gruber on this very issue:
"Point 1 is simply wrong; the Airfoil Speakers Touch iPhone app does not contain any of these images. It contains no pictures of Apple computers. It contains no icons of Apple applications. It displays these images after they are sent across the network by Airfoil for Mac. Airfoil for Mac reads these images using public official Mac OS X APIs. I.e. Airfoil Speakers Touch can only show a picture of the Mac it is connected to because the image is sent from the Mac it is connected to."
http://daringfireball.net/2009/11/airfoil_touch_situation
Quit apologizing for Apple.
w00master
Let me quote Gruber on this very issue:
"Point 1 is simply wrong; the Airfoil Speakers Touch iPhone app does not contain any of these images. It contains no pictures of Apple computers. It contains no icons of Apple applications. It displays these images after they are sent across the network by Airfoil for Mac. Airfoil for Mac reads these images using public official Mac OS X APIs. I.e. Airfoil Speakers Touch can only show a picture of the Mac it is connected to because the image is sent from the Mac it is connected to."
http://daringfireball.net/2009/11/airfoil_touch_situation
Quit apologizing for Apple.
w00master
Sabenth
Aug 23, 05:23 PM
Well for a company that's almost bankrupt I guess this was a worthwhile event for them. Now Creative can continue to make "adapted copies" of the iPod and lose money all over again.
Judging by their past business practices it's only a matter of time before they teeter on the edge of insolvency then I guess they'll have to come up with another reason to sue Apple all over again. what was apple a few years ago its only cause of ipods and reacently a lot of folk taking a keen eye in a comptuer system that can dual boot osx and windows sorry aint read all replys to this 100 million is not pocket change but it sure as hell aint as bad as it could have been thats my opinion on it at least
Judging by their past business practices it's only a matter of time before they teeter on the edge of insolvency then I guess they'll have to come up with another reason to sue Apple all over again. what was apple a few years ago its only cause of ipods and reacently a lot of folk taking a keen eye in a comptuer system that can dual boot osx and windows sorry aint read all replys to this 100 million is not pocket change but it sure as hell aint as bad as it could have been thats my opinion on it at least
Hastings101
Apr 19, 11:47 AM
What's the point of these lawsuits, nothing ever comes from them lol. Publicity?
MacGeek7
Mar 22, 02:31 PM
Finally! I've been waiting for an iMac update for awhile and I'm excited to see the potential of Thunderbolt even though the list of devices is relatively short right now.
Adolfo
Nov 13, 04:25 PM
So I guess this puts every iPhone VNC client in violation of Apple's terms as it would be displaying Apple copyrighted images...
I'm on RA's side on this one!
I'm on RA's side on this one!
kiljoy616
Apr 11, 02:47 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)
The marantz one is, you have to pay $40 to uPgrade firmware to get AirPlay working at all. At least you did with early versions, not sure about current versions, AirPlay may work without upgrade with those.
Ok this makes no real sense to I figure Apple is behind it. Merantz and Denon both have upgrade and both same price. Are they for real, come on Airplay upgrade WTF. I smell Apple crazy behind it. :rolleyes:
I guess its a software upgrade to their internal chip, but I still think its stupid, if your going to buy a 1000 plus receiver this is just dam bad PR to me.
The marantz one is, you have to pay $40 to uPgrade firmware to get AirPlay working at all. At least you did with early versions, not sure about current versions, AirPlay may work without upgrade with those.
Ok this makes no real sense to I figure Apple is behind it. Merantz and Denon both have upgrade and both same price. Are they for real, come on Airplay upgrade WTF. I smell Apple crazy behind it. :rolleyes:
I guess its a software upgrade to their internal chip, but I still think its stupid, if your going to buy a 1000 plus receiver this is just dam bad PR to me.
Pravius
Apr 22, 08:38 AM
You, sir, get it. The technologies create new capabilities that will adapt to the market. The luddites are only capable of seeing innovation as a loss.
Out of fear imo... or boredom... :P
technological anxiety? :)
Out of fear imo... or boredom... :P
technological anxiety? :)
Mac Fly (film)
Sep 15, 09:50 PM
I don't know if I can wait until MacWorld:(
Then read my comment, it's above yours.
Then read my comment, it's above yours.
miketcool
Sep 14, 10:17 AM
Chrome-Molybdenum. Yup, blindingly brilliant in the sun and scratch resistant.
Seriously, magnesium is perfect. We can have it in black and then do a fire test on it to see how it compares....:D
Seriously, magnesium is perfect. We can have it in black and then do a fire test on it to see how it compares....:D
BRLawyer
Sep 9, 10:10 AM
Good - now we won't have to wade through any arguments with fanbois who claim that the iMac is the "most powerful desktop on the planet"....
:D
As previously confirmed, the iMac is the most powerful AIO desktop...the title you just mentioned belongs to the MacPro...sorry for the misunderstanding...:rolleyes:
How is Winblows going on your side, Aiden? Many BSODs today?
PowerBooks G5, oops, Mini Tower Macs next Tuesday!!!! :rolleyes:
:D
As previously confirmed, the iMac is the most powerful AIO desktop...the title you just mentioned belongs to the MacPro...sorry for the misunderstanding...:rolleyes:
How is Winblows going on your side, Aiden? Many BSODs today?
PowerBooks G5, oops, Mini Tower Macs next Tuesday!!!! :rolleyes:
DeaconGraves
Mar 23, 04:50 PM
1) If you can pull up an app about where DUI checkpoints are, recognize where one might be, and craft a proper route around the checkpoint, then you probably aren't above the legal limit. I would almost want to use this app when I am sober to avoid any obnoxious stops on the way home.
2) Gizmodo brought up a good point. What's the difference between this app and people tweeting about DUI checkpoints?
3) In connection with point #1, I'm not understanding the arguments that the app should be pulled because the app would be essentially pointless. When have apps been pulled because they are pointless?
2) Gizmodo brought up a good point. What's the difference between this app and people tweeting about DUI checkpoints?
3) In connection with point #1, I'm not understanding the arguments that the app should be pulled because the app would be essentially pointless. When have apps been pulled because they are pointless?
wizard
Apr 4, 12:59 PM
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)
Rent-a-cops have guns? And shoot people IN THE HEAD? I'm amazed.
That said, this is pretty ******. Sure, the guy was a criminal lowlife, and he certainly deserved punishment, but I don't think he deserved to get killed. Oh well.
The only problem I have is that only one of these jerks ended up dead. Seriously, the legal system failed us a long time ago, we don't have much of a choice anymore. Frankly I abandoned all hope of ever seeing crime effectively reduced in this country when the Supreme Court decided it was illegal to execute minors which is one of the Courts most stupid and politically motivated decisions ever. Society is best served by removing the criminal element as early as possible.
Rent-a-cops have guns? And shoot people IN THE HEAD? I'm amazed.
That said, this is pretty ******. Sure, the guy was a criminal lowlife, and he certainly deserved punishment, but I don't think he deserved to get killed. Oh well.
The only problem I have is that only one of these jerks ended up dead. Seriously, the legal system failed us a long time ago, we don't have much of a choice anymore. Frankly I abandoned all hope of ever seeing crime effectively reduced in this country when the Supreme Court decided it was illegal to execute minors which is one of the Courts most stupid and politically motivated decisions ever. Society is best served by removing the criminal element as early as possible.
cmaier
Nov 13, 05:26 PM
Well that might a the case in your situation but it this case Rogue Amoeba is using Apple's own copyright images in a client server application where the API on OS X does not confer the right to use those images on other devices by third party developers.
You're missing the point. Yes, Apple, as the copyright holder, can define the extent of its license (assuming they haven't already waived the right to do so, which they may have, and assuming it isn't fair use, which it almost certainly is), and, yes, they can decide what goes into the app store, making the extent of the copyright license moot.
But it doesn't make sense for them to do so! Integration between iphone and mac would only sell more of each. They don't lose money on this sort of use of the icons - it's not like they offer a paid license for those images.
There is no duty to police copyrights to avoid losing them.
And, there is no rational alternative to using those icons (despite your repeated "all they had to do is create their own icons" argument) because Apple is likely to turn around and assert trademark/trade dress.
So all you can do is use words, or images unrelated to the appearance of the machines being represented. If the words say "Macbook Pro," e.g., APple can turn around and say you can't do THAT, either, because that's a trademark. If your handmade image looks too much like a mac, that's trademark infringement too (according to Apple). So you have to make it NOT look like the thing it represents. That totally defeats the POINT of the images in this use.
It's like having to write an article in a newspaper reviewing a concert without mentioning the name of the band or the names of any of the band members.
And Apple is doing it for absolutely no good reason.
You're missing the point. Yes, Apple, as the copyright holder, can define the extent of its license (assuming they haven't already waived the right to do so, which they may have, and assuming it isn't fair use, which it almost certainly is), and, yes, they can decide what goes into the app store, making the extent of the copyright license moot.
But it doesn't make sense for them to do so! Integration between iphone and mac would only sell more of each. They don't lose money on this sort of use of the icons - it's not like they offer a paid license for those images.
There is no duty to police copyrights to avoid losing them.
And, there is no rational alternative to using those icons (despite your repeated "all they had to do is create their own icons" argument) because Apple is likely to turn around and assert trademark/trade dress.
So all you can do is use words, or images unrelated to the appearance of the machines being represented. If the words say "Macbook Pro," e.g., APple can turn around and say you can't do THAT, either, because that's a trademark. If your handmade image looks too much like a mac, that's trademark infringement too (according to Apple). So you have to make it NOT look like the thing it represents. That totally defeats the POINT of the images in this use.
It's like having to write an article in a newspaper reviewing a concert without mentioning the name of the band or the names of any of the band members.
And Apple is doing it for absolutely no good reason.
Abstract
Sep 26, 07:54 AM
That artists rendition posted on the front page is pointless. It's not as though that is the actual design. It looks too Nano-ish, and even the Nano look has changed.
Anyway, I'm not excited about an iPhone. It would need to give me at least one neat feature for this to be worth drooling over.
Reacent Post
Anyway, I'm not excited about an iPhone. It would need to give me at least one neat feature for this to be worth drooling over.
0 comments:
Post a Comment