hobo.hopkins
Apr 20, 10:48 AM
so the program can not find the file. Does that mean my iPhone isnt tracking me?
I was just about to post the same thing; the application says that it couldn't find the consolidated.db file. I even tried syncing my iPhone once more and it still didn't help. An interesting note though - I own a Verizon iPhone. I wonder if that has anything to do with it.
I was just about to post the same thing; the application says that it couldn't find the consolidated.db file. I even tried syncing my iPhone once more and it still didn't help. An interesting note though - I own a Verizon iPhone. I wonder if that has anything to do with it.
jiggie2g
Jul 14, 10:14 AM
Yeah, otherwise it's FSB antics.
Not that the locked chips aren't that bad either.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=18
That freakin' Tuniq Tower 120 is an abosolute Beast , I may have to look into purchasing one if my Artic Cooling Freezer Pro 7 isn't up to the task. I am hoping for atleast 3.6ghz from an E6600. Can't wait till Aug.
Not that the locked chips aren't that bad either.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=18
That freakin' Tuniq Tower 120 is an abosolute Beast , I may have to look into purchasing one if my Artic Cooling Freezer Pro 7 isn't up to the task. I am hoping for atleast 3.6ghz from an E6600. Can't wait till Aug.
vitaboy
Aug 24, 04:52 AM
The cost of litigation would not even remotely approached 100 million. The cost of losing (ie, having a judgement against apple), now that would have probably exceeded 100 million. When a company is not sure about it's position, the best thing is to settle. You don't see IBM settling their Linux suit, do you?. And SCOunix hasn't even paid close to 100 mil in lawyers fees yet and they are fighting a losing battle..
I think you are seriously underestimating how expensive these type of patent battles can be. Check out the following story:
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3402321
Regarding its ongoing legal battles with IBM (Quote, Chart) and Novell over Linux code claims, SCO announced an agreement with its legal firm that would cap its legal costs at $31 million. As part of the deal, SCO's legal firm Boies, Schiller & Flexner could be awarded between 20 and 33 percent of any potential settlement that may arise from SCO's claims.
So SCO obviously expected its legal costs to spiral beyond $31 million to make a special deal with its law firm to cap costs. The fact they are willing to give as much as 33% of any potential winnings with the legal firm indicates that the final tally could easily approach $100 million if not for the cap.
It is quite clear that Apple would have made life very, very expensive and excruciating for Creative's legal team. $100 million in legal costs is not unrealistic considering that you not only had the original suit, but countersuits by Apple involving 4 bonafide patents.
I think you are seriously underestimating how expensive these type of patent battles can be. Check out the following story:
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3402321
Regarding its ongoing legal battles with IBM (Quote, Chart) and Novell over Linux code claims, SCO announced an agreement with its legal firm that would cap its legal costs at $31 million. As part of the deal, SCO's legal firm Boies, Schiller & Flexner could be awarded between 20 and 33 percent of any potential settlement that may arise from SCO's claims.
So SCO obviously expected its legal costs to spiral beyond $31 million to make a special deal with its law firm to cap costs. The fact they are willing to give as much as 33% of any potential winnings with the legal firm indicates that the final tally could easily approach $100 million if not for the cap.
It is quite clear that Apple would have made life very, very expensive and excruciating for Creative's legal team. $100 million in legal costs is not unrealistic considering that you not only had the original suit, but countersuits by Apple involving 4 bonafide patents.
berkleeboy210
Sep 4, 07:31 PM
With all these rumors around, I feel like this event is Tomorrow, and not next week, but still we don't even have a confirmed date yet.
Now don't get me wrong, I'd love to see everything happen in one event that AppleInsider recently predicted.
But I just there are too many rumors floating around at this point.
Anyone agree w/ me on this one?
Now don't get me wrong, I'd love to see everything happen in one event that AppleInsider recently predicted.
But I just there are too many rumors floating around at this point.
Anyone agree w/ me on this one?
Bubba Satori
Apr 25, 02:47 PM
What do you mean, "you people"
Image (http://oneguyrambling.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/600full-tropic-thunder-photo.jpg)
Best post of the day.
Image (http://oneguyrambling.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/600full-tropic-thunder-photo.jpg)
Best post of the day.
Tones2
Apr 22, 09:31 AM
Man, stop it with the cloud service already. :rolleyes: You can't rely on the internet availability for listening to music. It's unreliable. Plus, the streaming will probably be low resolution, drain battery life, eat into data caps, not display lyrics, and generally be a crappy experience. If I wanted to stream, I can do it from my home computer where my music already resides with one of the 100 apps already available and not have to fight through all the bandwidth issues that are probably gonna result from Apple's side. What's the point? I can do this now.
Of course what we really need if more friggin' flash memory on our devices! Apple's been stuck on 32 GB on the iPhone for almost 3 years!
Tony
Of course what we really need if more friggin' flash memory on our devices! Apple's been stuck on 32 GB on the iPhone for almost 3 years!
Tony
Wilz
Oct 27, 04:44 PM
hahaha, Greenpeace kicked out
I was at that expo all day today and they didn't turn up
I got free google t-shirt :)
I was at that expo all day today and they didn't turn up
I got free google t-shirt :)
psionic001
Sep 14, 09:30 AM
Why wait for the iPhone when you can have this iPodesque phone!
http://www.globalsourcesdirect.com/servlet/the-1060/USB-Phone/Detail
Matt
http://www.globalsourcesdirect.com/servlet/the-1060/USB-Phone/Detail
Matt
aprilfools
Aug 31, 02:38 PM
Apple is buying MicroSoft
Northgrove
Apr 19, 07:52 AM
Samsung running Android look very very similar to Apple's, to the point where it causes confusion in the marketplace for consumers. I've seen several people mistake one of these things for an iPhone because they look that similar. It's a combination of Google's Android and Samsung's hardware.
This confusion is no accident, that was the intent all along. There is no reason why they could not create their own look and feel... change it up enough so it's not an obvious copy. Other handset makers have been able to do that.
I agree. Sometimes I think this kind of lawsuits are a stretch and a bit silly, but not this time. When there's confusion even to me as a geek after a quick glance on these smarthpones, I have to agree that it's gone too far. It's obvious that Samsung is simply mimicking Apple at this point to ride on their popularity wave, and thus leeching off their profits. That just can't be right.
I've seen other comments in this thread, comments saying that iPhone UI's haven't changed the last four years, so Apple aren't actually renewing themselves. This is however completely besides the point -- no company has an obligation to do so, especially when the UI is part of their brand and image, like in Apple's case. Then it's counterproductive to change UI drastically bi-yearly. Their patents are invalidated even if they don't renew themselves.
I like how the iPhone revolutionized the idea with apps and app markets, and still maintaining ease-of-use, but I had really assumed that major competitors like Samsung would be able to keep competing while not starting their carbon copiers. Yes -- there are many undiscovered ways of building a smartphone, especially in terms of the software which I imagine is what Apple is getting at here.
This confusion is no accident, that was the intent all along. There is no reason why they could not create their own look and feel... change it up enough so it's not an obvious copy. Other handset makers have been able to do that.
I agree. Sometimes I think this kind of lawsuits are a stretch and a bit silly, but not this time. When there's confusion even to me as a geek after a quick glance on these smarthpones, I have to agree that it's gone too far. It's obvious that Samsung is simply mimicking Apple at this point to ride on their popularity wave, and thus leeching off their profits. That just can't be right.
I've seen other comments in this thread, comments saying that iPhone UI's haven't changed the last four years, so Apple aren't actually renewing themselves. This is however completely besides the point -- no company has an obligation to do so, especially when the UI is part of their brand and image, like in Apple's case. Then it's counterproductive to change UI drastically bi-yearly. Their patents are invalidated even if they don't renew themselves.
I like how the iPhone revolutionized the idea with apps and app markets, and still maintaining ease-of-use, but I had really assumed that major competitors like Samsung would be able to keep competing while not starting their carbon copiers. Yes -- there are many undiscovered ways of building a smartphone, especially in terms of the software which I imagine is what Apple is getting at here.
cmaier
Nov 13, 11:51 PM
Which law firm please. We'd all like to know for future reference, who to not trust our cases with. While most law has to do with the letter of the law, jury trials often are won or lost based on what the jury believes to be the intent or spirit of the law.
The british common law legal system was never intended to be like this. The lawyers have destroyed and twisted it beyond all recognition. It was originally supposed to be based on judeo-christian morals and ethics. There is not supposed to be a grey area. You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not. The original intent was to have a court case as the last resort where parties would first try to solve the problem by talking to each other, then go to arbitration and then court as a last resort.
Wow. That's quite a diatribe. Historically inaccurate, too. English common law descends from the Roman system of laws that predates christianity (and which was not based on judaism) and from Saxon law, which also has nothing to do with judeo-christian ethics.
And juries are given instructions to follow the letter of the law as explained to them by the judge. Further, in the U.S. system, only matters at law, not equity, are subject to jury trial, and, in many cases, only if the defendant demands a jury trial.
You say:
"You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not."
Ok. So when your third grader copies a few quotes from a book for his book report, he is infringing the copyright statute. But, of course, you complain that it's not the letter of the law that matters - it's the spirit. That's why judges came up with the fair use defense (later codified into the statute).
But what if the third grader copies 10 quotes? Still okay? A chapter? How about now? Where's the dividing line? What if instead of a third grader, it's another author who copies a few of the best quotes and competes with the first author? How about then? Gets more complicated, huh?
And that's why the fair use defense has evolved into a complicated legal test involving multiple factors. Among the factors:
the purpose and character of your use
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
the effect of the use upon the potential market.
Let's look at these.
1) the purpose and character of your use
This is often called the transformative test. Am I creating something new and different and worthwhile to society, involving my own creativity? Many people say that the use in this case was pretty creative and useful, but let's assume no. So this factor weighs against fair use.
2) the nature of the copyrighted work
Published works, such as these icons, are entitled to less protection than unpublished. Also, factual or representative works, such as icons, are entitled to less protection than creative works like novels. So this factor weighs for fair use.
3) the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
A handful of icons out of an entire operating system? Seems small to me. Weighs for fair use.
4) the effect of the use upon the potential market.
By using these icons, is the "infringer" somehow preventing Apple from selling this sort of software, or preventing Apple from selling these icons? No. Again, weighs for fair use.
You simultaneously argue that things are black and white (you either infringe or you don't) and then you argue that the spirit of the law matters, not the letter. You argue for a bright line test, then for shades of gray.
Well, the answer is a little of both, but men and women far smarter than you have come up with the best tests they can to figure out how to deal with these fuzzy situations.
You can go to church and pray instead of going to court, if you'd like, but for those of us that believe in the legal system, we take solace in the fact that things really aren't black and white, and yet there is a framework in place that let's us try and figure these things out.
The british common law legal system was never intended to be like this. The lawyers have destroyed and twisted it beyond all recognition. It was originally supposed to be based on judeo-christian morals and ethics. There is not supposed to be a grey area. You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not. The original intent was to have a court case as the last resort where parties would first try to solve the problem by talking to each other, then go to arbitration and then court as a last resort.
Wow. That's quite a diatribe. Historically inaccurate, too. English common law descends from the Roman system of laws that predates christianity (and which was not based on judaism) and from Saxon law, which also has nothing to do with judeo-christian ethics.
And juries are given instructions to follow the letter of the law as explained to them by the judge. Further, in the U.S. system, only matters at law, not equity, are subject to jury trial, and, in many cases, only if the defendant demands a jury trial.
You say:
"You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not."
Ok. So when your third grader copies a few quotes from a book for his book report, he is infringing the copyright statute. But, of course, you complain that it's not the letter of the law that matters - it's the spirit. That's why judges came up with the fair use defense (later codified into the statute).
But what if the third grader copies 10 quotes? Still okay? A chapter? How about now? Where's the dividing line? What if instead of a third grader, it's another author who copies a few of the best quotes and competes with the first author? How about then? Gets more complicated, huh?
And that's why the fair use defense has evolved into a complicated legal test involving multiple factors. Among the factors:
the purpose and character of your use
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
the effect of the use upon the potential market.
Let's look at these.
1) the purpose and character of your use
This is often called the transformative test. Am I creating something new and different and worthwhile to society, involving my own creativity? Many people say that the use in this case was pretty creative and useful, but let's assume no. So this factor weighs against fair use.
2) the nature of the copyrighted work
Published works, such as these icons, are entitled to less protection than unpublished. Also, factual or representative works, such as icons, are entitled to less protection than creative works like novels. So this factor weighs for fair use.
3) the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
A handful of icons out of an entire operating system? Seems small to me. Weighs for fair use.
4) the effect of the use upon the potential market.
By using these icons, is the "infringer" somehow preventing Apple from selling this sort of software, or preventing Apple from selling these icons? No. Again, weighs for fair use.
You simultaneously argue that things are black and white (you either infringe or you don't) and then you argue that the spirit of the law matters, not the letter. You argue for a bright line test, then for shades of gray.
Well, the answer is a little of both, but men and women far smarter than you have come up with the best tests they can to figure out how to deal with these fuzzy situations.
You can go to church and pray instead of going to court, if you'd like, but for those of us that believe in the legal system, we take solace in the fact that things really aren't black and white, and yet there is a framework in place that let's us try and figure these things out.
daneoni
Sep 14, 11:33 AM
Some ACD love? I need to buy soon.
Hear hear, but its unlikely, they just updated the current models with more brightness and contrast ratio. I doubt they'd change it so quickly.
Hear hear, but its unlikely, they just updated the current models with more brightness and contrast ratio. I doubt they'd change it so quickly.
bloodycape
Aug 24, 02:34 AM
What?:)
This is true I read this a while back and it was brought up today on a d.a.p site i frequent. Creatives TravelDock 900 speakers have an ipod shuffle connected to it on the box.
Kind of an interesting history note of digital audio players made back in 2004.
http://dapreview.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.90
This is true I read this a while back and it was brought up today on a d.a.p site i frequent. Creatives TravelDock 900 speakers have an ipod shuffle connected to it on the box.
Kind of an interesting history note of digital audio players made back in 2004.
http://dapreview.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.90
AppliedVisual
Oct 27, 01:29 PM
Of course, they've never really cared if people get offended, even their own voice actors (Issac Hayes).
Hayes has issues... He stuck with the show and helped Matt and Trey and the folks at Commedy Central poke fun at every race and religion... And then came the Scientologists turn to get made fun of. Hayes, being a Scientologist, didn't agree with that (even though it's OK with him to defile every other religion), so he announced he was leaving the show.
Oh, and the Mr. & Mrs. Tennorman chili was classic. Cartman rules. ;)
Hayes has issues... He stuck with the show and helped Matt and Trey and the folks at Commedy Central poke fun at every race and religion... And then came the Scientologists turn to get made fun of. Hayes, being a Scientologist, didn't agree with that (even though it's OK with him to defile every other religion), so he announced he was leaving the show.
Oh, and the Mr. & Mrs. Tennorman chili was classic. Cartman rules. ;)
bdj21ya
Oct 12, 04:11 PM
Steve, if you are reading this, make a nano in ORANGE and I'll buy one. :)
Sorry if someone already mentioned orange in this thread. I just came along and couldn't be bothered to read the entire thread up to this point.
ORANGE!
Personally, I'd love a true blue or navy blue one.
Sorry if someone already mentioned orange in this thread. I just came along and couldn't be bothered to read the entire thread up to this point.
ORANGE!
Personally, I'd love a true blue or navy blue one.
TheKrillr
Aug 28, 01:21 PM
There are so many rumors about a new ipod coming in the next few weeks/months/etc, most likely announced at Paris (maybe).
That would be an awesome birthday present for me, my birthday is the 12th ;-)
That would be an awesome birthday present for me, my birthday is the 12th ;-)
entwife
Apr 4, 12:21 PM
How sad,
I mean a person lost his life because of his actions, and the guard now has to live with the fact that he took a life. All for what - some iToys? Doesn't seem worth it. :(
Exactly.
What a waste.
I mean a person lost his life because of his actions, and the guard now has to live with the fact that he took a life. All for what - some iToys? Doesn't seem worth it. :(
Exactly.
What a waste.
cube
Apr 22, 11:55 AM
If Blu-Ray was going to happen it would've been in the refresh of 2011 MBP's. I can't imagine the optical drive being around much longer in anything other than the Mac Pro.
Now there's 100GB BDXL. There's plenty of time for Blu-Ray to keep on living on notebooks.
Now there's 100GB BDXL. There's plenty of time for Blu-Ray to keep on living on notebooks.
iJays
Apr 19, 07:24 AM
So what? They're already getting sued by Apple, so what's another lawsuit? Point is, contract breach or not, Samsung could cripple Apple's whole ecosystem within days by halting all processor shipments. Apple makes the vast majority on iDevices and this would kill Apple's whole economic model. And this doesn't even account for Samsungs components that go into their Macs. As a result, Apple would have no hardware to sell. They would dip into their treasure chest. It could be devastating to Apple.
and someone thinking again that Apple and Samsung didn't sign into a contract.
and someone thinking again that Apple and Samsung didn't sign into a contract.
MacVault
Sep 19, 04:36 PM
Err, buy an external HD or upgrade your iBook HD!
I have a 1Ghz iBook with a 80GB HD (upgraded it myself) and 2 160GB firewire HD's so what was your point?
My point is...
1) The Movies take up huge amounts of storage space.
2) I hate having to always plug external drives into my iBook.
3) We need redundancy for storing these movies we buy. An "external HD" just won't cut it.
4) If I want to take my iBook on the road with me, then how are the other people in my house going to access the Movies and other media via iTV if it's stored on my iBook or some "external HD" which requires a host computer to be of any use.
I have a 1Ghz iBook with a 80GB HD (upgraded it myself) and 2 160GB firewire HD's so what was your point?
My point is...
1) The Movies take up huge amounts of storage space.
2) I hate having to always plug external drives into my iBook.
3) We need redundancy for storing these movies we buy. An "external HD" just won't cut it.
4) If I want to take my iBook on the road with me, then how are the other people in my house going to access the Movies and other media via iTV if it's stored on my iBook or some "external HD" which requires a host computer to be of any use.
louis Fashion
Apr 28, 03:18 PM
Anyone looked at Mr. Softy's stock price? What a dog.
halhiker
Mar 23, 05:04 PM
Drunk driver checkpoints are the biggest law enforcement scam being perpetrated on the public at large. These checkpoints do no better than roving patrols but cops do them because they can hassle the public without probable cause and bust them for other minor infractions. They also more likely to have them in poor neighborhoods where people may be late paying their insurance or vehicle fees. They make big money from impounding poor people's cars.
They pad the bottom line of the Law Enforcement Industrial Complex and so that's why they have them. It has NOTHING to do with justice.
They pad the bottom line of the Law Enforcement Industrial Complex and so that's why they have them. It has NOTHING to do with justice.
JGowan
Sep 19, 08:20 PM
this moel apple is using is fine, but 2 things need to happen, 1, much teh same as netflix, they should send you a blank dvd with case for each order, and secondly, like the music, all cover art should be given as well. it should be burnable, I would pay 9.99 for movie with the convinience of download, for this proce, even with the less quality if I could burn my own dvd, put it in any dvd player and watch it. but I want all teh artwork as well, so i can FEEL my dvd library growing,
andreasIt's a simple equation, really,...
Netflix account + $5.99 Used DVDs = comes with Plastic Box, Free Shipping and Original Artwork!
andreasIt's a simple equation, really,...
Netflix account + $5.99 Used DVDs = comes with Plastic Box, Free Shipping and Original Artwork!
cheunghy
Sep 5, 08:44 AM
Apple Store Hong Kong is still up...
No comments:
Post a Comment