rhett7660
Mar 24, 02:50 PM
Crap... that is a freaking steel and well there just went the resell value of everyone's first gen iPad, including me. Oh well.
drewyboy
Mar 23, 01:53 PM
License for $4?
Apple should license it for *free*.
They pretty much will. They do it w/ Airplay audio. $4 is only to cover extra cost of overhead needed to provide it to OEM's. No profit being made.
Apple should license it for *free*.
They pretty much will. They do it w/ Airplay audio. $4 is only to cover extra cost of overhead needed to provide it to OEM's. No profit being made.
Thunderhawks
Mar 25, 09:27 AM
Disagree. It's not ridiculous. Valid patent protection is great. That's the whole point of a patent to protect your invention. Any company with a valid invention and patent should pursue any and all infringements.
However, there are many high-tech patents that are BS or weak. Plus, I think patent holders should have to make claims of infringement in a reasonable amount of time after a potential infringement. Sitting back and waiting for products to be wildly successful before pursuing a case is nothing but settlement bloat. Finally, there is patent trolling which should be illegal as it's just lawyers looking to cash in on settlements and costs consumers. Patent trolling is like ambulance chasers. Lowest form of greed.
As I posted before Kodak once was an amazing company with many discoveries and patents in the imaging field.
Anybody close to Rochester NY should go and see their museum.
(You can also see the factory buildings that are being ripped down)
What a shame for this company to lose its vision and completely miss the digital age. (With a few exceptions)
The problem with patents is that the longer they are someplace dormant and unused it will only be a matter of time until somebody has a similar idea, driven by technological advances.
I would imagine that researching any given patent is very hard, depending on how it is worded and how vague and weak it is.
So, Apple and RIM and others may have looked, but not well enough.
Doesn't make them innocent of course and they will have to pay up, if proven.
A revision of patent laws should include that if a patent filer is not using his patented technology within a certain time period it would become open to others. That forces patent trolls to do something, rather then waiting for somebody with vision to make it successful and then cash in.
Buying Kodak may be a good tactic depending on the outcome, but the place is almost dead at this time and anybody who buys it would most likely buy it with the intention to use the patents and close the company altogether.
Only a matter of time.
However, there are many high-tech patents that are BS or weak. Plus, I think patent holders should have to make claims of infringement in a reasonable amount of time after a potential infringement. Sitting back and waiting for products to be wildly successful before pursuing a case is nothing but settlement bloat. Finally, there is patent trolling which should be illegal as it's just lawyers looking to cash in on settlements and costs consumers. Patent trolling is like ambulance chasers. Lowest form of greed.
As I posted before Kodak once was an amazing company with many discoveries and patents in the imaging field.
Anybody close to Rochester NY should go and see their museum.
(You can also see the factory buildings that are being ripped down)
What a shame for this company to lose its vision and completely miss the digital age. (With a few exceptions)
The problem with patents is that the longer they are someplace dormant and unused it will only be a matter of time until somebody has a similar idea, driven by technological advances.
I would imagine that researching any given patent is very hard, depending on how it is worded and how vague and weak it is.
So, Apple and RIM and others may have looked, but not well enough.
Doesn't make them innocent of course and they will have to pay up, if proven.
A revision of patent laws should include that if a patent filer is not using his patented technology within a certain time period it would become open to others. That forces patent trolls to do something, rather then waiting for somebody with vision to make it successful and then cash in.
Buying Kodak may be a good tactic depending on the outcome, but the place is almost dead at this time and anybody who buys it would most likely buy it with the intention to use the patents and close the company altogether.
Only a matter of time.
ddtlm
Oct 2, 08:53 PM
Not Microsoft's market... yet.
They want that peice of the pie. Give them time, they will try to take it.
They want that peice of the pie. Give them time, they will try to take it.
iGary
Sep 13, 08:59 AM
Well, if what you say to him works, you might actually be "effed", but sadly you won't remember it. Then you'll really wonder about the looks he gives you. :D
LOL! :D
LOL! :D
gatepc
May 2, 05:45 PM
I've got the full 3GB that it'll recognize. I'm mostly concerned about the old video card.
The person who asked you how much ram you meant was referring to your video card ram not your system ram. I think that that GPU only has 128MBs of VRAM but am not 100% sure off the top of my head. but it is an older GPU you will probably have no problems running it on low but don't expect to run it on anything higher if your lucky you might be able to run at med settings depending on what res you run at. VRam is not as important as most people think it is. The processing power of the GPU itself is much more important.
The person who asked you how much ram you meant was referring to your video card ram not your system ram. I think that that GPU only has 128MBs of VRAM but am not 100% sure off the top of my head. but it is an older GPU you will probably have no problems running it on low but don't expect to run it on anything higher if your lucky you might be able to run at med settings depending on what res you run at. VRam is not as important as most people think it is. The processing power of the GPU itself is much more important.
bella92108
Apr 1, 01:13 PM
Their renewed partnership is because there used to be a DirecTivo (which was a dvr separate from the other boxes) that was launched back in 1999 and went through a series of upgrades until 2007.
Their current software found in their boxes is done in house, I know a few people who test it.
I know a few people here in Santa Clara who wrote it ;-)
Their current software found in their boxes is done in house, I know a few people who test it.
I know a few people here in Santa Clara who wrote it ;-)
ibrainch
Oct 26, 09:57 PM
anyone know if you can sync pics from addressbook to the one on .mac - seems like there is a space for them but can't figure out how, thanks.
bassfingers
Apr 22, 01:56 PM
I think Republicans just have this weird vision for America where everyone is capable and responsible. We're not. So we need
... free everything and someone to teach us how to wipe our butts. We have this weird vision for American where everything should be an incentive to be responsible.
anything else promotes irresponsibility
"Hmmm, I already have health care, a second hand television, and enough food to live off of... Nahhh, I'll just look for a job next week" (all meanwhile we're swimming in unsustainable debt, and outrageous taxation) = nightmare scenario
the funny thing is that some of you would say "your nightmare scenario sounds awesome!", and that makes me sad
... free everything and someone to teach us how to wipe our butts. We have this weird vision for American where everything should be an incentive to be responsible.
anything else promotes irresponsibility
"Hmmm, I already have health care, a second hand television, and enough food to live off of... Nahhh, I'll just look for a job next week" (all meanwhile we're swimming in unsustainable debt, and outrageous taxation) = nightmare scenario
the funny thing is that some of you would say "your nightmare scenario sounds awesome!", and that makes me sad
Frosties
Nov 6, 05:13 AM
Say no to rfid! We already use phones to pay for tickets on parking spaces, trains, buses and so on. There is no need to add more identity to these transactions. It is already in use and works just fine without rfid.
reden
May 1, 01:06 AM
gamestop only allow preorder for pc. Do they give code for mac? I dont want to pre-order a pc product since I want to play on native mac.
Same key will work for both Mac and PC dude.
Same key will work for both Mac and PC dude.
Aldaris
Apr 30, 12:45 PM
So, how long does GameStop take to send the beta code? I just preordered... wish I could start the download while I'm waiting for the code...
Supposedly, according to Gamestop, within 1 business day, although some other posts I have come across seem less optimistic (maybe they're just trolls...)
Either way, I put in a pre-order, if I don't get my beta key before too long I might cancel, I might not... I'm more of a digital download fella anyway...
Supposedly, according to Gamestop, within 1 business day, although some other posts I have come across seem less optimistic (maybe they're just trolls...)
Either way, I put in a pre-order, if I don't get my beta key before too long I might cancel, I might not... I'm more of a digital download fella anyway...
VicMacs
Apr 21, 12:58 PM
I just got mine! Going to a bar now to show it off...
mkrishnan
Nov 11, 11:24 AM
kawakatta tte nani? kawaikatta deshou ka? ;):D
*****urei shimashita! :o
*****urei shimashita! :o
Knowimagination
Mar 11, 11:25 AM
heading to Knox street planning on getting there by 1pm hope the line is not too out of control
kdarling
Feb 24, 09:28 AM
Technology should help us.
Imagine if all smartphones had either a multi-user selector, or at the least a "child" mode that was easy to turn on.
Even if you're not a parent, many people have lent their smartphone to a niece or nephew, little brother or sister, to entertain them while on the road or at a restaurant. Heck, I keep one app folder just for my grandkids who are 2 or 3 years old.
Then you and they get frustrated because they hit a Home or Menu key, and you have to get them back into the app they were using.
It'd be great if we could quickly set a kid mode that locks them into a certain app or folder. For that matter, it'd be handy for when you loan your phone to a friend, spouse or boss :)
Imagine if all smartphones had either a multi-user selector, or at the least a "child" mode that was easy to turn on.
Even if you're not a parent, many people have lent their smartphone to a niece or nephew, little brother or sister, to entertain them while on the road or at a restaurant. Heck, I keep one app folder just for my grandkids who are 2 or 3 years old.
Then you and they get frustrated because they hit a Home or Menu key, and you have to get them back into the app they were using.
It'd be great if we could quickly set a kid mode that locks them into a certain app or folder. For that matter, it'd be handy for when you loan your phone to a friend, spouse or boss :)
mikerr
Apr 21, 09:21 AM
the iPad will be for normal people when you don't have the sync it.
all this syncing ********* needs to stop.
I shouldn't need another computer to use my iPad.
Makes no sense at all.
True
But do you really need to sync it though?
The apple store will activate it apparently if asked,
and I can't see people having much problem yet if they haven't synced from day 1.
So its possible to own an ipad without a computer.
Only becomes a problem when too many apps require a later OS version
by #VictoriaFrancesClub on
Victoria Francés contest.
all this syncing ********* needs to stop.
I shouldn't need another computer to use my iPad.
Makes no sense at all.
True
But do you really need to sync it though?
The apple store will activate it apparently if asked,
and I can't see people having much problem yet if they haven't synced from day 1.
So its possible to own an ipad without a computer.
Only becomes a problem when too many apps require a later OS version
fourthtunz
Sep 16, 07:15 AM
Originally posted by solvs
[B]
.I'd rather have a Mac, but don't fool yourself. You can build a really nice PC for less than $2,000 (with plenty of basic software that helps you crash Windows even faster) that blows the $3,000+ machines out of the water. You get a nice, out of the box experiance with OS X.2, but is it worth it for the higher price and slower performance. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
Again, you are living in the past. Macs are now fast and a very good deal. Premiere is not a pro video app and is not optimized for the Mac, Imovie(a free app) and Final cut render much faster. I still have premiere but is very slow on the Mac and I won't upgrade. You can do audio and video on any computer but when you do it to make your living you have to look at the whole picture and that means looking at everything pcs included, and right now the Mac is a better deal overall.
Daniel
[B]
.I'd rather have a Mac, but don't fool yourself. You can build a really nice PC for less than $2,000 (with plenty of basic software that helps you crash Windows even faster) that blows the $3,000+ machines out of the water. You get a nice, out of the box experiance with OS X.2, but is it worth it for the higher price and slower performance. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
Again, you are living in the past. Macs are now fast and a very good deal. Premiere is not a pro video app and is not optimized for the Mac, Imovie(a free app) and Final cut render much faster. I still have premiere but is very slow on the Mac and I won't upgrade. You can do audio and video on any computer but when you do it to make your living you have to look at the whole picture and that means looking at everything pcs included, and right now the Mac is a better deal overall.
Daniel
bonaccij
Apr 19, 09:54 AM
That didn't look like a micro sim...
darkplanets
Apr 5, 07:42 PM
Am I the only one that's happy about adapters?
I feel they give the maximum flexibility for the minimum port interference; I'd rather have 4 of these good-for-any-use ports on my computer than a set number of fixed use ports, some of which never get used.
I guess it's just me?
I feel they give the maximum flexibility for the minimum port interference; I'd rather have 4 of these good-for-any-use ports on my computer than a set number of fixed use ports, some of which never get used.
I guess it's just me?
madmax_2069
Oct 9, 04:40 PM
i don't know why wally world and target are complaining, this will not hurt DVD sales. like what was said. there are allot of people that cant afford new Mac's to play there movies (my problem). or live outside of the city and don't have a high speed connection (cause they are to far out) or just cant afford satellite internet. i like to have the original copy (in dvd format) i know allot of other people that also like to have a dvd of the movie.
boy are they stupid (wall-marts and target) in not seeing this.
boy are they stupid (wall-marts and target) in not seeing this.
Winni
Nov 6, 03:33 PM
Orwell's nightmare. Powered by Apple.
Squonk
Oct 27, 09:45 AM
I really like the "reply" and "delete" buttons that appear on the right hand side of the message line when you hover or select the message from the list. Very slick! ;)
robbieduncan
Mar 29, 08:58 AM
Taken out of context yet again. Congratulations!
EF-S 200mm on a 1.6 crop camera will yield the same image as an EF 200mm on a FF camera. If you put that EF 200 back onto the 1.6 camera, the image is different.
How hard is that to understand?
It's not. That is exactly what I have said in every post since the start. You are the one who said that a 200mm EF lens would produce a different image than a 200mm EF-s lens when mounted on the same camera. That is the quote is a complete sentence from your post. It is 100% wrong. You are not saying something completely different to what you were saying. It is not "out of context". There is no context in which that sentence contains correct information.
EF-S 200mm on a 1.6 crop camera will yield the same image as an EF 200mm on a FF camera. If you put that EF 200 back onto the 1.6 camera, the image is different.
How hard is that to understand?
It's not. That is exactly what I have said in every post since the start. You are the one who said that a 200mm EF lens would produce a different image than a 200mm EF-s lens when mounted on the same camera. That is the quote is a complete sentence from your post. It is 100% wrong. You are not saying something completely different to what you were saying. It is not "out of context". There is no context in which that sentence contains correct information.
No comments:
Post a Comment