logandzwon
Apr 19, 02:51 PM
The First Commercial GUI
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/5659/star1vg.gif
Xerox's Star workstation was the first commercial implementation of the graphical user interface. The Star was introduced in 1981 and was the inspiration for the Mac and all the other GUIs that followed.
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7892/leopardpreviewdesktop4.jpghttp://img714.imageshack.us/img714/5733/xerox8010star.gif
-The Star was not a commercial product. Xerox didn't sell them. (Well eventually they did, but not as PCs. they were to be similar to what we'd call a terminal today.)
-the middle image is actually of an Apple Lisa. I think you were just showing as a comparison, but some people might think your saying it's a Star. It's not. It's a Lisa.
-Apple compensated Xerox for the ideas borrowed from the Star. SJ and the mac team were already working on the GUI before any of them ever saw the Star though. Also, Macintosh 1 wasn't a copy of the Star. In fact a lot of the stables of a modern GUI today were innovated by Apple for the Macintosh.
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/5659/star1vg.gif
Xerox's Star workstation was the first commercial implementation of the graphical user interface. The Star was introduced in 1981 and was the inspiration for the Mac and all the other GUIs that followed.
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7892/leopardpreviewdesktop4.jpghttp://img714.imageshack.us/img714/5733/xerox8010star.gif
-The Star was not a commercial product. Xerox didn't sell them. (Well eventually they did, but not as PCs. they were to be similar to what we'd call a terminal today.)
-the middle image is actually of an Apple Lisa. I think you were just showing as a comparison, but some people might think your saying it's a Star. It's not. It's a Lisa.
-Apple compensated Xerox for the ideas borrowed from the Star. SJ and the mac team were already working on the GUI before any of them ever saw the Star though. Also, Macintosh 1 wasn't a copy of the Star. In fact a lot of the stables of a modern GUI today were innovated by Apple for the Macintosh.
Rodimus Prime
Feb 27, 09:39 PM
assume what the guy says is true it looks like he has some pretty strong grounds for a wrongful termination law suit.
jaw04005
Nov 28, 10:00 PM
Actually, in the United States we don't pay a "music tax" for blank CD or DVD media. That proposal failed in Congress primarily because CD and DVDs can be used for other purposes (like backing up data). However, the RIAA managed to get a tax on DAT tapes.
I believe that UK also struck down a similar music tax on CD and DVD media.
Many of the major CD and DVD manufacturers introduced the specially-labeled "audio cd" which costs more, and a percentage of those sales go to the recording industry. However, there are no differences between the two types of media.
Why should we care? Because if taxes (or royalties) are imposed, common sense will tell you that Apple will adjust their prices (or price drops) to reflect those additional costs. Simple economics.
I believe that UK also struck down a similar music tax on CD and DVD media.
Many of the major CD and DVD manufacturers introduced the specially-labeled "audio cd" which costs more, and a percentage of those sales go to the recording industry. However, there are no differences between the two types of media.
Why should we care? Because if taxes (or royalties) are imposed, common sense will tell you that Apple will adjust their prices (or price drops) to reflect those additional costs. Simple economics.
Eidorian
Mar 26, 10:25 AM
I will wait to see what Spotlight is like.
BRLawyer
Aug 6, 02:05 PM
As Apple applied for the trademark, it will not be approved.
It is up to Apple how they want to proceed. A fight that can't win, no matter how much money they have.
Mac Pro has been the premier Mac dealer in the same county as Apple since 1988. Out of all the names for this new line of computers, why choose one that they know they cannot have.
We are already getting countless support calls for the macbook pro. It seems they assume we made them When we can't help them, they seem to get very upset.
Mac Pro is in a position to file for a court order not to release any computer that bears our name.
So get ready WWDC, we will be watching.
Mike Ajlouny
President
MAC-PRO.com
Great joke, thanks very much...in the same line as Tiger Computer Dealers, right?
It is up to Apple how they want to proceed. A fight that can't win, no matter how much money they have.
Mac Pro has been the premier Mac dealer in the same county as Apple since 1988. Out of all the names for this new line of computers, why choose one that they know they cannot have.
We are already getting countless support calls for the macbook pro. It seems they assume we made them When we can't help them, they seem to get very upset.
Mac Pro is in a position to file for a court order not to release any computer that bears our name.
So get ready WWDC, we will be watching.
Mike Ajlouny
President
MAC-PRO.com
Great joke, thanks very much...in the same line as Tiger Computer Dealers, right?
mcrain
Mar 23, 02:59 PM
"Lying" implies intent. Are you accusing them of lying, or getting it wrong? They absolutely lied, and they got stuff wrong. I believe there was malevolent intent, and to the extent that can't be proven, there was clear reckless disregard for the truth.
Is it your position that Libya represents a larger danger to American assets/security than Iraq? If not, is it your suggestion that America should be involved in every humanitarian crisis with brutal dictators worldwide, or at least those comparable to Libya? If so, why aren't we in North Korea? Why aren't we in any number of African nations? There are many in the mainstream media and many on the left who are saying today that there are problems. Asking why we didn't go into other African countries, criticizing the coalition and the idea that this is "minimal" US involvement. I'm not claiming the left is perfect, but rather pointing out that your claim (re: hipocricy from 'the left in media') is far too broad and ignores the realities of the media coverage and congressional responses.
But I also think it's important (especially in this forum) to point out hypocrisy stemming from the left so that the Macrumors Echo Chamber doesn't keep you all in denial. I've been in these forums for a long time, and I can tell you that while some denial occurs, liberals are far more likely to be critical of the politicians they support than conservatives are.
Knott#39;s Berry Farm Theme Park
knotts berry farm map of park.
Knott#39;s Berry Farm Resort
Knotts Berry Farm Resort Hotel
Knotts Berry Farm, Los Angeles
Hotels near Knotts Berry Farm
Knotts Berry Farm Hotel
Knott#39;s Berry Farm Hotel Van
Knotts Berry Farm Resort Hotel
Knott#39;s Berry Farm hotel.
Hotels near Knotts Berry Farm
Knott#39;s Berry Farm Hotel
Knott#39;s Berry Farm Resort
Is it your position that Libya represents a larger danger to American assets/security than Iraq? If not, is it your suggestion that America should be involved in every humanitarian crisis with brutal dictators worldwide, or at least those comparable to Libya? If so, why aren't we in North Korea? Why aren't we in any number of African nations? There are many in the mainstream media and many on the left who are saying today that there are problems. Asking why we didn't go into other African countries, criticizing the coalition and the idea that this is "minimal" US involvement. I'm not claiming the left is perfect, but rather pointing out that your claim (re: hipocricy from 'the left in media') is far too broad and ignores the realities of the media coverage and congressional responses.
But I also think it's important (especially in this forum) to point out hypocrisy stemming from the left so that the Macrumors Echo Chamber doesn't keep you all in denial. I've been in these forums for a long time, and I can tell you that while some denial occurs, liberals are far more likely to be critical of the politicians they support than conservatives are.
batitombo
Apr 25, 02:20 PM
I'm so over this ****
gallinger
Sep 13, 10:27 AM
does anyone know how much the clovertown chips are going to be?
aswitcher
Aug 11, 02:49 PM
You guys are looking about a $500.00 phone...atleast.
Perhaps. But thats about right for a Nokia N series with most of the features we have been mentioning.
Perhaps. But thats about right for a Nokia N series with most of the features we have been mentioning.
CaoCao
Feb 28, 07:42 PM
Do you not think that the priests should be jailed for raping children?
Crimes against children are usually seen badly in the public eye. The priests should not be an exception.
priests should be held to the same standard and jailed for raping children after there is conclusive proof.
Crimes against children are usually seen badly in the public eye. The priests should not be an exception.
priests should be held to the same standard and jailed for raping children after there is conclusive proof.
Zadillo
Aug 27, 06:04 AM
Damn PowerPC fans.
Apple is INTEL now. We Love Intel Because Stevie Tells Us So.
We hate AMD and IBM. Should Apple ever move to another CPU provider, we will seamlessly transition to hating Intel again. This is the Way of the Mac.
What's so good about G5's anyway? They are slow, too hot, and skull juice.
Why do we love Intel? Because Steve says to, and Core 2 Duo is powerful, cool, not permanently drunk, allows us to run Windows and helps Apple increase its market share.
We love ATi because just like Intel, their products are the best at the moment. We still love nVIDIA because their GPUs are in the Mac Pro.
We love Israel because they make our Core 2 Duos and we love China because they make our Macs. We love California because that's where Our Lord Stevie J is (Don't particularly care about the rest of the US, sorry guys).
We love our Big Cats because they run so fast and look so clean and powerful (Hmmm... Mystery of OS codenames revealed?) and of course because they are not Windows, which are susceptible to breaking...
People who live in Windows shouldn't throw Viruses?
Off track...
Anyway, Rawr to all you PowerPC fanboys (And girls)
Intel 4EVER!
I know this is just a joke, but even so it's stupid, because the implication is that the only reason anyone here might like the chips Intel is coming out with is because they have been brainwashed into liking them now that Apple uses them (i.e. if Apple was still using PowerPC chips, or had switched to AMD, we would all be sitting here talking about how crappy the Core 2 Duo chips are).
I'm sure there are some people like that, but it is insulting to plenty of people here who actually do know something about the various chips that Intel and AMD make and base their opinions on them just on their actual merits and weaknesses.
-Zadillo
Apple is INTEL now. We Love Intel Because Stevie Tells Us So.
We hate AMD and IBM. Should Apple ever move to another CPU provider, we will seamlessly transition to hating Intel again. This is the Way of the Mac.
What's so good about G5's anyway? They are slow, too hot, and skull juice.
Why do we love Intel? Because Steve says to, and Core 2 Duo is powerful, cool, not permanently drunk, allows us to run Windows and helps Apple increase its market share.
We love ATi because just like Intel, their products are the best at the moment. We still love nVIDIA because their GPUs are in the Mac Pro.
We love Israel because they make our Core 2 Duos and we love China because they make our Macs. We love California because that's where Our Lord Stevie J is (Don't particularly care about the rest of the US, sorry guys).
We love our Big Cats because they run so fast and look so clean and powerful (Hmmm... Mystery of OS codenames revealed?) and of course because they are not Windows, which are susceptible to breaking...
People who live in Windows shouldn't throw Viruses?
Off track...
Anyway, Rawr to all you PowerPC fanboys (And girls)
Intel 4EVER!
I know this is just a joke, but even so it's stupid, because the implication is that the only reason anyone here might like the chips Intel is coming out with is because they have been brainwashed into liking them now that Apple uses them (i.e. if Apple was still using PowerPC chips, or had switched to AMD, we would all be sitting here talking about how crappy the Core 2 Duo chips are).
I'm sure there are some people like that, but it is insulting to plenty of people here who actually do know something about the various chips that Intel and AMD make and base their opinions on them just on their actual merits and weaknesses.
-Zadillo
skunk
Feb 28, 08:02 PM
Fornication doesn't matter if the person doesn't care about the religious connotations of marriageIt matters that you describe it as fornication.
Greek culture also endorsed pederasty!What has this dubious claim to do with anything? :confused:
Greek culture also endorsed pederasty!What has this dubious claim to do with anything? :confused:
peterdevries
Apr 20, 08:50 AM
Samsung didn't stole it from Apple since they were first with the design, end of story.
Samsung can claim Apple stole their design and patent it. That's fraud right since it's not their own idea?
Read my post properly. If one company doesn't patent the idea, than other companies can copy it without consequence. If Samsung was indeed first (and I'm not challenging that they were, I don't know), than they are stupid that they didn't patent it.
I'm sure Samsung sues many other companies that infringe on their patents.
I really don't understand what all this fuss is about. People need to see that this is normal business practice (whatever your opinion of it may be is totally besides the point).
Samsung can claim Apple stole their design and patent it. That's fraud right since it's not their own idea?
Read my post properly. If one company doesn't patent the idea, than other companies can copy it without consequence. If Samsung was indeed first (and I'm not challenging that they were, I don't know), than they are stupid that they didn't patent it.
I'm sure Samsung sues many other companies that infringe on their patents.
I really don't understand what all this fuss is about. People need to see that this is normal business practice (whatever your opinion of it may be is totally besides the point).
CyberPrey
Aug 15, 12:19 PM
Show.. me.. the.. games...
LOL, us gamers all sound kinda like broken records :)
LOL, us gamers all sound kinda like broken records :)
milo
Jul 27, 04:11 PM
I'm sorry. I thought that it was adequately implied that I meant the fastest chip, to date. Anyway, that's what I meant if I've been misunderstood.
I wasn't disagreeing with the "to date" part, just with the notion that a higher clock speed is the same as a faster chip.
The 2.7 G5 will continue to be the highest clocked chip in a mac to date. But chips with lower clock speeds will likely prove to be faster in benchmarks, meaning it's not the fastest chip.
I wasn't disagreeing with the "to date" part, just with the notion that a higher clock speed is the same as a faster chip.
The 2.7 G5 will continue to be the highest clocked chip in a mac to date. But chips with lower clock speeds will likely prove to be faster in benchmarks, meaning it's not the fastest chip.
starflyer
Mar 23, 09:30 AM
So you don't understand the primary differences between the cellphone market and the launch of the iPhone and the tablet market and the launch of the iPad. If you did you would understand why this is not the case.
Exactly. What people fail to realize is that the iPad market is more comparable to the iPod Touch then the iPhone for which there still isn't any competition.
Exactly. What people fail to realize is that the iPad market is more comparable to the iPod Touch then the iPhone for which there still isn't any competition.
drewyboy
Apr 11, 12:44 PM
Analysts can just shove it. Complete BS all over the place. So.. according to them, we're going to have OSX Lion, iOS5, iPhone5, new iPods AND iPad 3... ALL IN THE FALL?! Complete bull. Oh, and throw in macbook pro updates for the later part of the fall, as usual. Just think about that for a second.
Now, let me remember, when was the last time they were wrong.. oh wait, that's right, iPad 2. Last I remember, it was, you won't see it till May/June at the earliest. WRONG. And after analysts vs. bloggers report, it seems bloggers are more right than analysts.
Anyways, after the 1st paragraph I wrote, I have no doubt in my mind that this is impossible. Last time Apple tried something like this, if I recall, it was Mobile Me, iPhone 3G + iOS2. It was a mess. Jobs himself said it was a mistake (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10006873-93.html) they'll never make again. So, when thinking about everything that is rumored by analysts to be coming out this fall, yeah, don't think so.:rolleyes:
Edit: Don't get me started on how much their sales would be and strain on supplies having a huge item (iPhone) not only just going on sale, but going on sale leading into holiday season. That's 2x the demand of just releasing during the summer, and we all know how much of a demand that causes.
And going to the guy who said iPhone 3 brought 3GS, what the heck is that? There is 3G, no 3GS (technology wise). It's only a naming convention apple used. Like when cars use SE or GLS. All the did was add a camera, and maybe something else hardware wise.
Edit 2: ipad 2 entered production 1 month b4 apple announcing, so no freak'n 3 months as I've heard around rumor sites.
Now, let me remember, when was the last time they were wrong.. oh wait, that's right, iPad 2. Last I remember, it was, you won't see it till May/June at the earliest. WRONG. And after analysts vs. bloggers report, it seems bloggers are more right than analysts.
Anyways, after the 1st paragraph I wrote, I have no doubt in my mind that this is impossible. Last time Apple tried something like this, if I recall, it was Mobile Me, iPhone 3G + iOS2. It was a mess. Jobs himself said it was a mistake (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10006873-93.html) they'll never make again. So, when thinking about everything that is rumored by analysts to be coming out this fall, yeah, don't think so.:rolleyes:
Edit: Don't get me started on how much their sales would be and strain on supplies having a huge item (iPhone) not only just going on sale, but going on sale leading into holiday season. That's 2x the demand of just releasing during the summer, and we all know how much of a demand that causes.
And going to the guy who said iPhone 3 brought 3GS, what the heck is that? There is 3G, no 3GS (technology wise). It's only a naming convention apple used. Like when cars use SE or GLS. All the did was add a camera, and maybe something else hardware wise.
Edit 2: ipad 2 entered production 1 month b4 apple announcing, so no freak'n 3 months as I've heard around rumor sites.
hunkaburningluv
Mar 23, 06:09 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
Competition is good.
Make a case for your argument.
Well, you only need to look at what happened with the gameboy to see that competition is good.
After seeing off the game gear and lynx, the gameboy stagnated for almost a decade. How long did it take before there was a colour version? Years, yet we've seen some great revisions since the PSP was announced.
Competition is good.
Make a case for your argument.
Well, you only need to look at what happened with the gameboy to see that competition is good.
After seeing off the game gear and lynx, the gameboy stagnated for almost a decade. How long did it take before there was a colour version? Years, yet we've seen some great revisions since the PSP was announced.
Blue Velvet
Mar 23, 06:11 AM
Libya is more like Bosnia than Iraq. A moment of force has the potential to change the scope of the conflict, hopefully for the positive, in a way that a full-blown invasion would merely complicate. That's the central part that fivepoint, who is merely interested in making another partisan screed, is ignoring.
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Scarpad
Apr 7, 02:20 PM
I'm happy with my Current Gen Maxed 13" but I'm interested in an 11" so I'll be keeping my eyes open for what they do there.
wovel
Apr 19, 04:22 PM
Well Rovio (Angry Birds) thinks otherwise:
http://www.insidemobileapps.com/2011/03/13/angry-birds-android-ios/
"The company said in December that it expected to make $1 million per month from Android by the end of 2010. (...) Now that the app has seen about 100 million installs across all platforms, Rovio is not getting the same initial bump in paid download revenue from Apple�s app store. On Android, the company doesn�t offer paid Angry Birds apps, but sees recurring revenue from advertising."
So they make more money with their free Android version than they do with the paid iOS version.
They will make more if they actually reach the 1 million a month and then sustain it for 3 years... RIF
http://www.insidemobileapps.com/2011/03/13/angry-birds-android-ios/
"The company said in December that it expected to make $1 million per month from Android by the end of 2010. (...) Now that the app has seen about 100 million installs across all platforms, Rovio is not getting the same initial bump in paid download revenue from Apple�s app store. On Android, the company doesn�t offer paid Angry Birds apps, but sees recurring revenue from advertising."
So they make more money with their free Android version than they do with the paid iOS version.
They will make more if they actually reach the 1 million a month and then sustain it for 3 years... RIF
11thIndian
Apr 6, 07:25 AM
.. I never use it, but I use Motion and Soundtrack a lot and I need true 3D in Motion, even simply 3D. I need no crashing Motion. I need optimised and 64-bit Motion. I want it now, please!
What do you mean true 3D? Motion 3 integrated 3D reflection, shadows, depth of field, etc.. It was around that time I stopped using After Effects. There are still things that AE can do that Motion can't, but that's mostly due to 3rd party plugins.
What do you mean true 3D? Motion 3 integrated 3D reflection, shadows, depth of field, etc.. It was around that time I stopped using After Effects. There are still things that AE can do that Motion can't, but that's mostly due to 3rd party plugins.
Jcoz
Mar 31, 05:43 PM
Man do these stories bring out the ignoranus fanboys. IMO if you have never owned both an Android phone and an iPhone, you shouldn't be allowed to comment because 99% just can't be objective about it.
Now, I'll hop on my pedestal and say I owned the original Moto Droid, and now own an iPhone. The ability to customize your experience on a droid is what I found so attractive, and Google isn't taking that away, so IMO this story is nothing but good for Android. Better control, more polish, yet the same customization capability that the majority of everyday users want. All of the iBoys tooting their horns and patting each other are doing so for absolutely no reason.
With that said, the polish of the iPhone is what I love the most about it, and if I could pair that polish with Androids ability for personalization of my device without jailbreaking and their much superior notification system, it would be the perfect phone. The next device to get it all right gets my money, whether its apple or Google.
Polished like the pure Google, "optimized from the ground up for tablets" Honeycomb running on the XOOM right now?
Yikes.
Now, I'll hop on my pedestal and say I owned the original Moto Droid, and now own an iPhone. The ability to customize your experience on a droid is what I found so attractive, and Google isn't taking that away, so IMO this story is nothing but good for Android. Better control, more polish, yet the same customization capability that the majority of everyday users want. All of the iBoys tooting their horns and patting each other are doing so for absolutely no reason.
With that said, the polish of the iPhone is what I love the most about it, and if I could pair that polish with Androids ability for personalization of my device without jailbreaking and their much superior notification system, it would be the perfect phone. The next device to get it all right gets my money, whether its apple or Google.
Polished like the pure Google, "optimized from the ground up for tablets" Honeycomb running on the XOOM right now?
Yikes.
logandzwon
Apr 25, 02:49 PM
OMG, have you heard? Apple is secretly spying on our TXT messages, contacts, and e-mail! Seriously! If someone stole my iPhone and guessed my passcode they would be able to look through this list of "contacts" and find out where I lived. They could even check my calendar and know when I'm not home and come rob me. Even if I put fake info in my contacts they can still see my e-mails! All they have to do is look through my e-mails and find a receipt, or shipping notice, or the bill for the power, or my cellphone bill, or my water bill and they would have my home address!
No comments:
Post a Comment