illa romza

You're right, I apologize for being incorrect on the pledge.

I have some shoe strings, a piece of gum and a ball of lint.

Maybe we're just confused how someone who claims to be a director of IT (and presumably takes some college to become) can fail so hard at basic history.

I'm not here to remember everything I learned, especially in a class I could have cared less about. If you asked me about "pythagorean theorem" I couldn't even answer that. Just because you are wrong on a piece of history doesn't mean your wrong on all other subjects (aside from math which I have stated that).[/QUOTE]

I may not know the pythagorean theorem either, but if I'm going to participate in a debate over the pythagorean theorem, I'm going to make damn sure I know it.

Oh save us mighty Senator Stuart Smally.

Maybe focus on Jobs, Deficit, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya.

Not if my Iphone has an internal file that shows I went to Walmart then the strip club last Tuesday night.

You'd probably appreciate this app: http://onnati.net/apptrap/

Thanks for the heads up. I've been using App Zapper, which is seems is basically the same thing. But I keep downloading the trial :) A free solution is nice.

So are there any live updates?

I must have watched 20 different video clips from the Daily Show on You Tube, streaming in almost real time. Why would I want to buy that content on the Itunes store?

Consumer Reports says "we still think the same thing" for the third time and that's first page news? Sounds more like they're fishing for free publicity.

Anyway, when a reviewing organization "doesn't recommend" what I consider the best phone I've ever owned, it sounds more like I shouldn't bother paying attention to that reviewing organization. Their taste just isn't relevant to mine.

My personal opinion is that you and anyone else like you on here that thinks it's NOT a good idea for Consumer Reports to look out for the best interests of the CONSUMER instead of Apple's bottom line doesn't deserve the time of day, in my humble opinion. You seem to believe that Consumer Reports should simply be an automatic blessing to Apple's profits as if they were acting solely on advertising dollars (like a certain magazine called "Stereo Review" used to do all the time) and shouldn't inform their readers of potential problems. All I can say is THANK GOD that YOU don't work for them!!!! :p

Consumer reports gave a fair and HONEST report on the iPhone giving its highest score based on its merits but gave an honest reason WHY they could not recommend it and let the consumer decide for themselves if they want to take the risk. In short, they are doing their job properly.

So I'll reiterate AGAIN that I do not comprehend how someone like yourself could find fault with that line of reasoning other than to admit that you are a Steve Jobs drone. :rolleyes:

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.


Can you please show me the trademark that was granted to Apple for App Store by the USPTO? You won't be able to find it because their trademark has not been approved. An opposition to their application was filed, if you didn't catch that from the text.

Trademark is having property rights in a trade name. Apple, or any other company, can file to protect a trademark they have been using and the USPTO decides if it is too generic to be an actual trademark. I suggest you learn about the process of how trademarks.


"How does a mark qualify for federal registration?

To register a trademark with the PTO, the mark's owner first must put it into use " in commerce that Congress may regulate." This means the mark must be used on a product or service that crosses state, national or territorial lines or that affects commerce crossing such lines--for example, a catalog business or a restaurant or motel that caters to interstate or international customers. Even if the owner files an intent-to-use (ITU) trademark application (ITU applications are discussed in the previous set of questions), the mark will not actually be registered until it is used in commerce."

Source: http://www.inc.com/articles/1999/10/14646.html


Also, take a look at the Lanham Act, which is pretty important when it comes to trademark law ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act <-- particularly Subchapters I and II.

Just because you use a mark does not mean you have been granted the trademark rights in it.


So, as you can see Apple does not have the trademark to App Store. Therefore, your argument fails on that premise alone.

Well, that's because all of Apple's other products are constrained by power and/or space requirements.

Meh, yes and no. For their integrated desktops (iMac)...pws and space are certainly an issue (especially since it doesn't have an accessibly PCI E slot for heavens sake). Now for MP's on the other hand...I dont think it would be an issue: accessible PCI E slots + ample chassis space + stock PWS capable of handling an HD 5870 or Crossfired 5770's. A 6970 shouldnt be a problem.

anyways(no snarkiness implied)...who said crossfire wasnt supported? The MacPro CAN be configured with 2x5770's.

From what I understand that was Steve Job's doing. The guy made a separate simple movie app, and Jobs liked it so much he decided to make it the new iMovie.

I remember the keynote... He was on vacation and wanted a super easy way to edit his home movie. So he whipped up this "new" program to do it. Steve liked it and it became iMovie. And in the process threw 50 years of video editing out the window. Great if you've never edited before, but if you want to edit, iMovie isn't an option. If you want to slap together a super quick video, it's almost faster to cut and paste clips in a QT7 window then use iMovie now.
Speaking of that. I really hope they fix QTX today also, at least bring it up to par with QT7 in features.

What TIME are the updates on Tuesdays usually made? EST? PST?

Also, can we be certain that the update is tomorrow? Wouldn't this be too soon for them to update? It seems they've given almost no time for the resellers-then again, does apple usually make suprise announcements, completely out of the blue like this?

Someone with more experience please clarify.

Maybe dual optical drives like the Mac pro. This is getting standard on Macs obviously.


:p

The only Mac that currently has the dual optical drive is the Mac Pro. I would not think that the iMac and Mini would get a dual as well. But I will admit that stranger things have happened.

here is my mess sorry i didnt clean up first

You are #103 cruncher for the hole project, whao!
And actually #1 and #2 are default user, not real...
Impressive.

Can't wait for Gulftown Mac Pros and SMP2 (maybe 60k PPD with one machine?).

Thanks!

The Gulftowns, SMP2 and GPU3 will make for an impressive bump in PPD I hope. It will be interesting to see, I'm hoping some overhead will get cleaned up as well.

I wonder what companies besides Apple will get their software ported for Grand Central/OpenCL in the next year? Lots of potential there.

Viruses collecting data on iOS?


... :confused:

It doesn't exist now, but that's not to say it might never happen in the future.

[QUOTE=Doraemon]What are you talking about? iTMS not generating profit? Geez, check your facts!

Actually, while I couldn't disagree with iMac-Japan more, I have heard the itms doesn't actually make a profit on it's own... It's real purpose is to sell iPods, & break even on the sales of songs, or so I'm told...

---

---

---

---