edcrosay
Oct 12, 11:57 PM
I'm glad this isn't in an 8gb variety... because I will definatly start to regret the purchase of my black one.
ehoui
Apr 30, 01:31 PM
Why do they want OS X users to feel as if we were on an iPad!!!???
If I wanted/needed one, I'd buy one. What the hell !!!???????:mad::mad::mad::mad:
Anger management is a good thing.
If I wanted/needed one, I'd buy one. What the hell !!!???????:mad::mad::mad::mad:
Anger management is a good thing.
Benjamins
Mar 29, 12:49 PM
Ask Nokia customers how important profit is.
lol better yet, ask Lehman Brothers' customers :rolleyes:
lol better yet, ask Lehman Brothers' customers :rolleyes:
jonnysods
Apr 14, 01:15 PM
Guys, should I buy now or wa......
needthephone
Sep 15, 05:57 PM
Sounds good. I want this phone!
To me its optics which are just as important as how many MP's. I have a 2MP Nokia 6280 which is OK but its let down by poor optics- For a camera I would rather a Nikon SLR any day
To me its optics which are just as important as how many MP's. I have a 2MP Nokia 6280 which is OK but its let down by poor optics- For a camera I would rather a Nikon SLR any day
anotherkenny
Apr 30, 04:40 PM
Tom was referring to this feature (http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2011/01/shows-over-how-hollywood-strong-armed-intel.ars).
"Intel... takes advantage of a new hardware module inside Sandy Bridge's GPU to enable the secure delivery of downloadable HD content to PCs, has been blasted as "DRM." But of course it's only a DRM-enabler�a hardware block that can store predistributed keys that the Sandy Bridge GPU uses to decrypt movies a frame at a time before they go out over the HDMI port."
It allows for secure playback of cloud movies, without the risk of pirating. Your own files aren't being scrutinized.
Clix Pix put the matte preference well in an old post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=245491):
Go "matte.....easier on your eyes under all lighting conditions, more accurate representation of what will be printed or show on other people's monitors."
Photographers and people who don't like sparkled/ full of reflection monitors go with matte.
"Intel... takes advantage of a new hardware module inside Sandy Bridge's GPU to enable the secure delivery of downloadable HD content to PCs, has been blasted as "DRM." But of course it's only a DRM-enabler�a hardware block that can store predistributed keys that the Sandy Bridge GPU uses to decrypt movies a frame at a time before they go out over the HDMI port."
It allows for secure playback of cloud movies, without the risk of pirating. Your own files aren't being scrutinized.
Clix Pix put the matte preference well in an old post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=245491):
Go "matte.....easier on your eyes under all lighting conditions, more accurate representation of what will be printed or show on other people's monitors."
Photographers and people who don't like sparkled/ full of reflection monitors go with matte.
Warbrain
Apr 20, 10:00 AM
Shame that everyone is going to jump to conclusions rather than work out why this is stored.
And really, would you rather have the information stored on the device or logged by Google?
And really, would you rather have the information stored on the device or logged by Google?
Bickity
Mar 29, 11:34 AM
If they load it on every free, **** phone out there. Actually sounds very possible. Race to the bottom.
IJ Reilly
Aug 24, 02:11 PM
Sorry, but I think you are taking the settlement at face value and making just a surface interpretation.
There are already several industry analysts who have now gone on record saying this is a win for Apple.
$100 million may be a big load of money for you, me and Creative, but it's chump change when we're talking about the fact that iPod makes $6+ BILLION PER YEAR (and growing) for Apple.
It's like Creative accused Apple of stealing the goose that lays golden eggs. In return, Apple gives Creative one of the eggs and Creative goes, "Wow! Thanks! You can keep the goose!"
The face-value interpretation says that Creative won because it was a pauper who now has a golden egg that's worth a lot of money. The deep interpretation is that Apple still has the goose and Creative just gave up all claims of ownership over it.
What's so hard to understand about that?
Nothing, but it's also not very accurate.
First, $100 million is load of money for anyone. Time was, not so long ago, that reporting a $100 million quarterly profit was a big deal for Apple. The iPod doesn't "make" $6 billion a year for Apple. That's just revenue. Profits are a faction of that revenue.
Second, Creative doesn't "give up" anything but a license to Apple for technology Apple was using before for nothing. No matter how you cut it, the license fee come right out of Apple's bottom line.
If this can be called a "win" for Apple, it's in their getting this issue squared away relatively quickly, so it doesn't overhang the next generation of iPod releases. The long-term impacts of allowing the suit to drag on could have been considerable, just as it was for RIM. Especially if in the end, they lost.
There are already several industry analysts who have now gone on record saying this is a win for Apple.
$100 million may be a big load of money for you, me and Creative, but it's chump change when we're talking about the fact that iPod makes $6+ BILLION PER YEAR (and growing) for Apple.
It's like Creative accused Apple of stealing the goose that lays golden eggs. In return, Apple gives Creative one of the eggs and Creative goes, "Wow! Thanks! You can keep the goose!"
The face-value interpretation says that Creative won because it was a pauper who now has a golden egg that's worth a lot of money. The deep interpretation is that Apple still has the goose and Creative just gave up all claims of ownership over it.
What's so hard to understand about that?
Nothing, but it's also not very accurate.
First, $100 million is load of money for anyone. Time was, not so long ago, that reporting a $100 million quarterly profit was a big deal for Apple. The iPod doesn't "make" $6 billion a year for Apple. That's just revenue. Profits are a faction of that revenue.
Second, Creative doesn't "give up" anything but a license to Apple for technology Apple was using before for nothing. No matter how you cut it, the license fee come right out of Apple's bottom line.
If this can be called a "win" for Apple, it's in their getting this issue squared away relatively quickly, so it doesn't overhang the next generation of iPod releases. The long-term impacts of allowing the suit to drag on could have been considerable, just as it was for RIM. Especially if in the end, they lost.
samiwas
Apr 18, 12:50 AM
why would I want to pay someone $17 an hour to a job a monkey is almost qualified to do? Sounds like an opportunity to hire less people, or jack my prices up. A job is worth simply what a job is worth. Period. If I'm trying to offer services at competitive prices, and someone is willing to bag groceries for $3 an hour, then they should be ALLOWED to. Rather than me just choose to hire nobody and using automated checkouts.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
So, needless to say, you don't support any type of workers' rights, correct? Basically, if someone wants to work, they better damn well be willing to work for the lowest possible dollar in your opinion. I mean, let's not worry about things like being able to pay rents or insurance, or even for transportation to and from work. Screw them, they are under your watch now.
And what YOU think a job is worth is not what everyone thinks a job is worth. I think most people are vastly underpaid for the work they do. And others, like entertainers, sports players, corporate CEOs, and types like that, are VASTLY overpaid. I don't know what world you might live in that acting in a movie or playing a few 3-hour games a year or driving in circles is actually WORTH $20 million or even much more.
So let's flip this the other way. Should an employer be able to change compensation at will? Let's say you have 10 employees working at $30 a day scooping scum out of sewers (in your fantasy $3 an hour type world). You want to get more work done, so you decide to require all workers to now work for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week without any extra compensation or be fired. Should that also be allowed? You know, free will and free market and all? Those pansies who wont accept such a deal can just go find something else?
And as for your maternity leave thing...it's just one part of having some sort of benefit that makes you have happy, productive workers. Now, I know that you believe that all workers should just be productive and follow orders and meet the goals without any sort of recognition or reward other than a measly paycheck, but how about as an employer you put a little up there, too, and treat your workers as fellow human beings with a few benefits, and not the punching bags that you seem to think they are.
For example...the company I work for has been cutting every possible "thank you" that we used to get. Full nights out at steak restaurants with open bar and all expenses paid, as a thank you for the weeks of hard work doing installs, have turned into "We'll take you to a Fridays and buy the first round" even though they are still doing very well. As every benefit has gone away, our desire to go that extra mile has gone with them. This past work period, the client took us out for numerous barbecues, group outings at local pubs, visits to local attractions, etc. Guess what? We went all out to return the love.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
All ideology. It's a nice thought, but it would never happen. With wages that low, these people wouldn't be able to afford anything. Your $3 an hour wage, working 40 hours a week would net less than $500 a month BEFORE any taxes. And with so many people making so little, they wouldn't be paying tax anyway probably, so all the various tax issues would not be solved.
And if you REALLY think that cost of everything across the board would fall drastically solely because of smaller wages on low-level jobs, you are delusional. Do you think transportation costs would drop drastically, rent would drop drastically, land costs would drop drastically, corporate wages would drop drastically? Just paying low-level workers less would solve all the country's problems? Really?
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Taxes are now the lowest they have almost EVER been, so those clearly aren't the problem. And with people making pretty much no money, I don't think it would solve your handout woes. And there is no private charity out there that has the reach and availability of the government, whether you like to believe that or not.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
So using this chart...
http://consumerist.com/images/resources/2007/04/changeinceopaygraph.jpg
...answer this please: if taxes are the lowest they've been almost ever, worker pay hasn't increased much at all in 15-20 years, then why are corporate profits way up, and CEO pay ridiculously increased over the same period??
It would seem to me that it isn't taxes and worker pay that have caused the problem. It's putting the money in the wrong place. Instead of paying the CEO $20 million a year, you could pay him/her $18 million a year, and hire 66 new employees at $30,000 a year. The CEO would never notice that difference (no, they wouldn't), and 66 new people could afford to live comfortably, eat, and BUY STUFF IN THE ECONOMY.
How about instead of trying to cut standard wages down to unlivable numbers, we cut down ludicrous wages to just ridiculous wages. THAT is where our problem is. The majority of the money is going to owners, shareholders, and profits and not to workers. The workers are not the problem here....greed is the problem.
sydde: What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
bassfinger: Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Oh my god...this is the most laughable statement of all....
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_2a.gif
The bottom 90% owns 2% of financial securities, 19% of stock and mutual funds, and 21% of trusts. The top 10% (ie VERY LITTLE of the the middle class) owns the vast majority of it. The middle class benefits very little from massive profits of business in this sense. Give up that notion.
Face it...your ideas are crap.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
So, needless to say, you don't support any type of workers' rights, correct? Basically, if someone wants to work, they better damn well be willing to work for the lowest possible dollar in your opinion. I mean, let's not worry about things like being able to pay rents or insurance, or even for transportation to and from work. Screw them, they are under your watch now.
And what YOU think a job is worth is not what everyone thinks a job is worth. I think most people are vastly underpaid for the work they do. And others, like entertainers, sports players, corporate CEOs, and types like that, are VASTLY overpaid. I don't know what world you might live in that acting in a movie or playing a few 3-hour games a year or driving in circles is actually WORTH $20 million or even much more.
So let's flip this the other way. Should an employer be able to change compensation at will? Let's say you have 10 employees working at $30 a day scooping scum out of sewers (in your fantasy $3 an hour type world). You want to get more work done, so you decide to require all workers to now work for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week without any extra compensation or be fired. Should that also be allowed? You know, free will and free market and all? Those pansies who wont accept such a deal can just go find something else?
And as for your maternity leave thing...it's just one part of having some sort of benefit that makes you have happy, productive workers. Now, I know that you believe that all workers should just be productive and follow orders and meet the goals without any sort of recognition or reward other than a measly paycheck, but how about as an employer you put a little up there, too, and treat your workers as fellow human beings with a few benefits, and not the punching bags that you seem to think they are.
For example...the company I work for has been cutting every possible "thank you" that we used to get. Full nights out at steak restaurants with open bar and all expenses paid, as a thank you for the weeks of hard work doing installs, have turned into "We'll take you to a Fridays and buy the first round" even though they are still doing very well. As every benefit has gone away, our desire to go that extra mile has gone with them. This past work period, the client took us out for numerous barbecues, group outings at local pubs, visits to local attractions, etc. Guess what? We went all out to return the love.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
All ideology. It's a nice thought, but it would never happen. With wages that low, these people wouldn't be able to afford anything. Your $3 an hour wage, working 40 hours a week would net less than $500 a month BEFORE any taxes. And with so many people making so little, they wouldn't be paying tax anyway probably, so all the various tax issues would not be solved.
And if you REALLY think that cost of everything across the board would fall drastically solely because of smaller wages on low-level jobs, you are delusional. Do you think transportation costs would drop drastically, rent would drop drastically, land costs would drop drastically, corporate wages would drop drastically? Just paying low-level workers less would solve all the country's problems? Really?
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Taxes are now the lowest they have almost EVER been, so those clearly aren't the problem. And with people making pretty much no money, I don't think it would solve your handout woes. And there is no private charity out there that has the reach and availability of the government, whether you like to believe that or not.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
So using this chart...
http://consumerist.com/images/resources/2007/04/changeinceopaygraph.jpg
...answer this please: if taxes are the lowest they've been almost ever, worker pay hasn't increased much at all in 15-20 years, then why are corporate profits way up, and CEO pay ridiculously increased over the same period??
It would seem to me that it isn't taxes and worker pay that have caused the problem. It's putting the money in the wrong place. Instead of paying the CEO $20 million a year, you could pay him/her $18 million a year, and hire 66 new employees at $30,000 a year. The CEO would never notice that difference (no, they wouldn't), and 66 new people could afford to live comfortably, eat, and BUY STUFF IN THE ECONOMY.
How about instead of trying to cut standard wages down to unlivable numbers, we cut down ludicrous wages to just ridiculous wages. THAT is where our problem is. The majority of the money is going to owners, shareholders, and profits and not to workers. The workers are not the problem here....greed is the problem.
sydde: What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
bassfinger: Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Oh my god...this is the most laughable statement of all....
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_2a.gif
The bottom 90% owns 2% of financial securities, 19% of stock and mutual funds, and 21% of trusts. The top 10% (ie VERY LITTLE of the the middle class) owns the vast majority of it. The middle class benefits very little from massive profits of business in this sense. Give up that notion.
Face it...your ideas are crap.
djdarlek
Sep 6, 08:02 AM
I can't remember. Anyway, I still can't see Apple magically being able to offer HD films and all this wireless streaming malarky of gigantic files at this point. I've got a 10 meg net connection, but I don't want to not be able to use the internet for 6 hours or so while iTunes downloads a 6gig movie file.
All I'm looking for is a way to play my archive of DVD backups straight to our HDTV. Sure the quality will only be comparable with current DVDs, but for me, at the moment that is fine. In the UK I don't think you can even buy any dedicated HD players yet? I may be wrong (I think Toshiba is releasing one in October). Actually, being in the UK the whole Movie Store idea isn't going to affect us for at least a couple of years.
It annoys me that my iTunes music collection is slowly being taken over by Podcasts. I wish there was a way of having them listed in a seperate library. I hate listening to a tune and then it moves onto a Podcast without me realising.
I also hate the way that iTunes is being expanded into visual things. iTunes Movie Store is like saying iEars iEyes Store. I hope they rebrand the movie aspect; the 'Showtime' name to me seems perfect.
Also, if it really is 'Showtime', I hope Apple have thought of every angle over the last year or so and release the fabled iPod Video with touch screen to compliment the streaming solution.
All I'm looking for is a way to play my archive of DVD backups straight to our HDTV. Sure the quality will only be comparable with current DVDs, but for me, at the moment that is fine. In the UK I don't think you can even buy any dedicated HD players yet? I may be wrong (I think Toshiba is releasing one in October). Actually, being in the UK the whole Movie Store idea isn't going to affect us for at least a couple of years.
It annoys me that my iTunes music collection is slowly being taken over by Podcasts. I wish there was a way of having them listed in a seperate library. I hate listening to a tune and then it moves onto a Podcast without me realising.
I also hate the way that iTunes is being expanded into visual things. iTunes Movie Store is like saying iEars iEyes Store. I hope they rebrand the movie aspect; the 'Showtime' name to me seems perfect.
Also, if it really is 'Showtime', I hope Apple have thought of every angle over the last year or so and release the fabled iPod Video with touch screen to compliment the streaming solution.
PBF
Apr 11, 01:59 AM
Apple don't like the word 'expose' in any form whatsoever. :p
MrWinters
Apr 28, 05:36 PM
Yes it's all willy-waving, which was in fact my point.
and to Mr Winters - you haven't met me before, that comment you refer to isn't one of mine. Also it's wise to be careful who you try to belittle with 'boy' references, you have no idea who I am or how experienced or qualified I am compared to you.
I don't know you. I do know that you have no idea what the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineers and the Project Management Institute is. I do know that you have no idea what Certified Cost Engineer, Certified Forensic Claims Consultant, and Project Management Professional certifications are.
As ever, if you're new here, don't try to impress (or troll) by waving experience or qualification around to justify your opinion.
As I mentioned, Experience or Education isn't necessary to refute the post "Microsoft is DEAD". A 3rd grade education and a tad of common sense would tell you that..
We all know MS isn't dead when making 5.23 BILLION profits,
Obviously, WE all don't. My original post was not addressed to you but to Mr. BR Lawyer whose exact post was "Microsoft is DEAD"... Please go on though and tell me about how "WE ALL KNOW"....
volkswagen beetle convertible
EVZBUG#39;s #39;03 Galactic Blue New
volkswagen beetle convertible.
Used Blue Volkswagen Beetle
The New Beetle convertible
vw beetle convertible blue.
and to Mr Winters - you haven't met me before, that comment you refer to isn't one of mine. Also it's wise to be careful who you try to belittle with 'boy' references, you have no idea who I am or how experienced or qualified I am compared to you.
I don't know you. I do know that you have no idea what the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineers and the Project Management Institute is. I do know that you have no idea what Certified Cost Engineer, Certified Forensic Claims Consultant, and Project Management Professional certifications are.
As ever, if you're new here, don't try to impress (or troll) by waving experience or qualification around to justify your opinion.
As I mentioned, Experience or Education isn't necessary to refute the post "Microsoft is DEAD". A 3rd grade education and a tad of common sense would tell you that..
We all know MS isn't dead when making 5.23 BILLION profits,
Obviously, WE all don't. My original post was not addressed to you but to Mr. BR Lawyer whose exact post was "Microsoft is DEAD"... Please go on though and tell me about how "WE ALL KNOW"....
MacAddict1978
Mar 23, 05:18 PM
Personally I find it hard to believe that so drunk as to warrant avoiding a checkpoint will be collected enough to use the app effectively in the first place.
Anyone saying pull it obviously doesn't EVER drink. In just about every state, 1 beer technically puts you over the limit. Find me anyone who is impaired to drive after 1 beer, or even maybe 3. DUI check points pull EVERYONE over.
I'm totally in favor of things like this as long as organizations like MAD keep lobbying for ridiculous laws. Don't get me wrong, MAD is a very great organization, but kids aren't supposed to drink at all, and are not going to be any less likely to have an accident with a drunk driver because of these apps. Most adults are responsible enough to have a couple of cocktails. Our laws punish everyone, not the alcoholics that really are super drunk and well over the limit. The higher limits that used to allow someone 2 or 3 beers still punished the alcoholics. But to the OP's point... no, really plastered people wouldn't be using this app. They're the ones driving into the phone poles or people that will be on the roads anyway
Anyone saying pull it obviously doesn't EVER drink. In just about every state, 1 beer technically puts you over the limit. Find me anyone who is impaired to drive after 1 beer, or even maybe 3. DUI check points pull EVERYONE over.
I'm totally in favor of things like this as long as organizations like MAD keep lobbying for ridiculous laws. Don't get me wrong, MAD is a very great organization, but kids aren't supposed to drink at all, and are not going to be any less likely to have an accident with a drunk driver because of these apps. Most adults are responsible enough to have a couple of cocktails. Our laws punish everyone, not the alcoholics that really are super drunk and well over the limit. The higher limits that used to allow someone 2 or 3 beers still punished the alcoholics. But to the OP's point... no, really plastered people wouldn't be using this app. They're the ones driving into the phone poles or people that will be on the roads anyway
caspersoong
Apr 23, 12:18 AM
Just don't throw away any USB ports for the Thunderbolt port. 2 is little enough. If this is true, it is finally time to get a Mac.
paddy
Aug 31, 11:29 AM
Hope this has something to do with a mac mini update, I'm holding out for the next.
SPUY767
Sep 14, 10:05 AM
You had me up until the magnesium body.
It would have to be made out of aluminium.
-B
Chrome-Molybdenum. Yup, blindingly brilliant in the sun and scratch resistant.
It would have to be made out of aluminium.
-B
Chrome-Molybdenum. Yup, blindingly brilliant in the sun and scratch resistant.
jackaninny
Mar 29, 12:27 PM
Looks to me like a combined MS/Nokia actually LOSES marketshare. (26.4% down to 21.1%) - funny how the 'report' doesn't spin the numbers that way. I do find it humorous that these analysts think they can see 2015 with any semblance of accuracy.
xionxiox
Apr 25, 01:15 PM
Nice. My 17 MBP (Early 2009) will be getting close to the end of its life cycle by then, allowing me to easily slide into a new MBP.
A comment from Full of Win that's not complaining??? GLORY BE. :p
A comment from Full of Win that's not complaining??? GLORY BE. :p
Kebabselector
Apr 30, 02:13 PM
Isn't there an aftermarket for this?
Not a real solution. Most people who want matte want the MBP type of option, no glass and real matte screen.
Not a real solution. Most people who want matte want the MBP type of option, no glass and real matte screen.
sommer182
Apr 20, 11:40 AM
i'm tired of companies taking our privacy so lightly. makes a consumer feel like a dumb piece of meat. i hope someone files a lawsuit over this. any sneaky tactics like this should be outright banned by the government. maybe once we get some politicians of a younger generation in there who are more aware of these issues they will actually do something to protect the consumer from greedy and arrogant corporations. i hope but i'm not sure i will ever see this dream realized the way government currently lets companies run rampant.
"Banned by the government?" Who do you think is BEHIND this technology. Companies can certainly use this info for things like targeted advertising, but the folks who REALLY want to know where you, or more likely people not as nice as you, are at any moment of the day are sitting in governments around the world. This technology is nothing new, and it doesn't take a smart phone to be able to be tracked. My dumb flip phone is probably pinging a tower every few seconds and logging my location on a database somewhere.
"Banned by the government?" Who do you think is BEHIND this technology. Companies can certainly use this info for things like targeted advertising, but the folks who REALLY want to know where you, or more likely people not as nice as you, are at any moment of the day are sitting in governments around the world. This technology is nothing new, and it doesn't take a smart phone to be able to be tracked. My dumb flip phone is probably pinging a tower every few seconds and logging my location on a database somewhere.
RazzTheFrog
Sep 13, 08:55 PM
Finally is this it?
CDCC
Apr 19, 02:45 PM
They have plenty of patents. It wasn't until the 90s that the patent madness really started with software. Google is also leading the bidding for a large portfolio of mobile patents to protect them against Apple and Microsoft.
Google has more copyrights than patents. However, they are still to cheap to buy most copyrights if they can get away with it. They are illegally scanning all books and photos to feed their hungry "big brother" search engines.
http://gizmodo.com/#!5070029/google-pays-125-million-to-writers-and-buys-us-some-free-books
Reacent Post
Google has more copyrights than patents. However, they are still to cheap to buy most copyrights if they can get away with it. They are illegally scanning all books and photos to feed their hungry "big brother" search engines.
http://gizmodo.com/#!5070029/google-pays-125-million-to-writers-and-buys-us-some-free-books
OS X Dude
May 3, 10:49 AM
The whole point of Thunderbolt is you can daisy-chain devices (up to 6 I think), so one port goes a long way.
Besides the three-monitor doohickery on the 27", I struggle to see why 95% of people would need two ports often. But still, nice to have :)
Besides the three-monitor doohickery on the 27", I struggle to see why 95% of people would need two ports often. But still, nice to have :)
0 comments:
Post a Comment