You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
With PC's you wait for sales if you want a good deal.
Let's see. A lower model i5 2.3 GHz chip
4 gigs of 1333 Hz DDR3 ram
Only 1 USB 3.0 plug and 2 USB 2.0 plugs.
The Toshiba that was posted has a higher model 2.5 GHz chip. 4 gigs of 1600 Hz DDR3 ram, 2 USB 3.0 plugs and 1 USB 2.0 plug.
Yes you have a seperate video card and a way bigger hard drive while the Toshiba has a faster drive.
I wouldn't say your laptop has better specs.
Advertisement
__________________ Originally posted by Iceman_19 you should have tried to touch his penis. that really throws them off. Originally posted by The7even SumAznGuy > Billboa Originally posted by 1990TSI SumAznGuy> Internet > tinytrix
Quote:
Originally Posted by tofu1413
and icing on the cake, lady driving a newer chrysler 200 infront of me... jumped out of her car, dropped her pants, did an immediate squat and did probably the longest public relief ever...... steam and all.
Okay, maybe not twice as much... I was merely using hyperbole to get my point across. Yes, the base model Macs tend to be in line with the majority of it's competitors. However, once you start spec'ing up your unit (bigger screen, larger SSD, etc), then the price difference starts to become more noticeable.
I'm looking at buying a new desktop to use as an editing machine. Since I know a few people with older Mac Pros, I decided to pop onto Apple's website and check it out.
Just to start off with a basic machine with the following:
3.2 Quad-core
6gb
1tb
Superdrive
HD5770 w/1gb
$2549
I'm sorry, but you can build a PC from NCIX for a fraction of that cost. And it only got worse once I started upgrading it to something that would last me a while:
3.3 6-core
16gb
1x 512gb ssd
2x 2tb 7200
$4874
Seriously, you have to be mental to pay that price. The machine doesn't even come with USB3.0 or Thunderbolt.
Off topic, but the APPL is getting hammered. I'm glad I dumped everything $695 not too long ago.
Hmmmm, AAPL dropping probably due to the rumors of production delay with the iPad Mini and rMBP 13". Probably means it's a good time to buy with the holiday season approaching.
Oh gee, I guess a judge, the NY Times (with various sources from Google, Nuance, Vlingo, Apple), and a respected game developer are just throwaway sources. Do you want me to keep looking for more commentary? Cause I can keep giving them to you if it changes your mind (unlikely). Forbes? Guardian? CNN? Pick your source. Or are all these news outlets equivalent to YouTube videos on the illuminati to you?
So now you're going to use an "argument from authority" to prove your point? Because a few "intelligent people" see things one way it must be right? So those news outlets are in the business of re-writing law and correcting the world's problems? They'd never post an article simply to increase hits?
Wasn't it The NY Times that had to "edit" the story they posted about Apple's "slave factories" when it was revealed that Mike Daisey didn't even talk to the people he said and much of his material was "made up?" Didn't the NY Times claim Apple was playing "access journalism?"
Quote:
Depends what you mean by tweaks (I doubt that you even know). The whole article sums up that the system needs change to reflect modern software development. You, on the other hand, repeatedly surmise that (software) patents are fine as is and serve their purpose well. I've not mentioned once that the system is a complete failure. It is screwed up and needs changing, that is for sure. Perhaps you should try reading the NY Times article to see for yourself how Apple attempts to wear down the patent office with submissions and how effective it is for them, amongst other problems.
I've read them all. So when someone shows one side of a story you think that it's a fair representation of the system as a whole? You might not have mentioned it, but the general comments from most people are in this vein. It's a "throw the baby out with the bath water" type of change most people demand. For example, they want software patents banned because they dislike Apple and their tactics, not because they are bad. Then if you mention that Google wouldn't exist today if it wasn't for their software patent they all disappear.
People keep demanding reform without even thinking of the consequences of the changes they suggest.
Quote:
This has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I haven't mentioned FRAND patents once adn that is not the topic of my discussion.
I never said you did. Just pointing out that an article asking for changes to the patent system is also strongly against using SEP's. And I have brought this up several times in this thread and nobody seems to want to tackle that subject. Let's bring up every single thing Apple does that's wrong, but we'll give Samsung, HTC, Motorola and Google a "free pass" when they do something wrong. "They're only doing it because Apple forced them too." Sounds like my kids arguing "she hit me first."
Quote:
No. Thankfully, the judge in question was smart enough to dismiss Apple's ridiculous claims. Apple sued Motorola on the premise that a tap was a zero-length swipe and thus Motorola's unlock mechanism infringed on Apple's patent. I'm guessing this is something that's probably acceptable to you.
Continuing to report on one side of the story? Or selectively picking portions of Posner's quotes to alter the real reasons the case was dismissed? Judge Posner dismissed both Apple's and Motorola's claims. If you had followed this case you would have seen that they both got the smackdown from Posner, though Motorola fared worse than Apple. By the end Apple still had four patents in play while Motorola was down to one, and it was an SEP to boot.
The case was dismissed because neither side could show any harm. Without harm (like loss of sales) there can be no damages. Along the way Ponser made comments about patent suits in general, but they weren't the reason the case was dismissed, though people like to assume that's the reason since it makes for better news.
Posner also made strong comments on SEP's and FRAND that were in line with Apple (and MS, Intel, IBM, HP, Cisco, FTC....) and against Samsung, HTC, and Motorola. But let's not bring those issues up. We should only talk about things were Apple lost.
Apple never sued on a patent that a "tap is zero length swipe" although that point was brought up as part of the much larger set of claims. But I guess it's acceptable to you to take a complex trial and try to narrow it down to something frivolous. Sort of like how Samsung and Google like to release false statements that Apple has a patent on rounded rectangles when Apple has no such patent.
Quote:
This is up to the courts to decide.
Exactly. So why are you whining about something that hasn't happened yet (Apple suing everyone with their new slide-unlock patent)? If it goes to court then the patent will either get invalidated or it will remain valid.
This all reminds me of Microsoft getting a patent for FAT (file allocation table). First they got one, then it was invalidated, then appealed and found valid. People were all doom & gloom that MS was going to collect royalties from everyone that made a device that uses FAT (like SD cards, CF cards, USB thumb drives). Prices were going to go up. Companies that couldn't afford MS royalties would stop producing and we'd have less choice for the consumer. Innovation would slow because of money that would have to be paid to MS instead of R&D. Pretty much the exact same things Samsung is trying to say will happen to mobile devices because of Apple's lawsuits.
And where are we today? MS is making money licensing FAT and we have a wide range of choices for memory cards and thumb drives. Prices didn't go up for consumers and innovation didn't slow down (capacity and speed have gone up, size and price down). Everything the doomsayers were predicting would happen didn't happen. And despite Samsung trying to scare people, nothing bad is going to happen to the mobile industry.
Let's see. A lower model i5 2.3 GHz chip
4 gigs of 1333 Hz DDR3 ram
Only 1 USB 3.0 plug and 2 USB 2.0 plugs.
The Toshiba that was posted has a higher model 2.5 GHz chip. 4 gigs of 1600 Hz DDR3 ram, 2 USB 3.0 plugs and 1 USB 2.0 plug.
Yes you have a seperate video card and a way bigger hard drive while the Toshiba has a faster drive.
I wouldn't say your laptop has better specs.
Mine came with 6 gigs of ram. Also USB is not 100% compatible with USB 2.o. It's been causing a lot of havoc with DJ equipment. Having a discrete video card is a big plus in my books along with the $430 price difference. The the savings I could pick up an 480 gb ssd drive and throw the other drive in an external case. Also ram is cheap as long as you don't buy it from apple.
__________________ Until the lions have their own historians, the history of the hunt will always glorify the hunter.
With PC's you wait for sales if you want a good deal.
With the way computing is trending (moving towards GPU based processing), Discrete graphics is definitely a plus. Not only does Chrome use graphic card acceleration, doors to Photo Editing, Video Editing, and Content Creation software that are many times faster are opened.
With a 7200RPM hard drive, access times are cut down, but heat increases, battery life decreases, and noise increases.
A handful of Apple patents have been ruled invalid, throwing doubt on a landmark trial that awarded huge damages to the smartphone maker.
The US Patent and Trademark Office has ruled that 20 patents relating to scroll technology "lack novelty".
In August a California court awarded Apple $1.05bn (£652m) in damages, after ruling Samsung had infringed patents.
Samsung has submitted the preliminary ruling from the patent office to judge Lucy Koh, who is considering appeals.
The preliminary ruling follows an anonymous request in May to re-examine some of Apple's patents for touch-screen heuristics.
Some of the patents were rejected because there was not enough of an inventive step between the prior technology and Apple's patent.
Apple will have the chance to appeal against the decision.
Samsung has been calling for a retrial of the patent dispute case, claiming that the jury foreman had "failed to answer [questions] truthfully" and might have been biased.
Bouncing back
Apple had alleged Samsung had infringed its intellectual property in the design of its Galaxy smartphones.
The so-called rubber-banding patents, also known as overscroll bounce, refer to the bouncing animation that takes place when a user scr olls past the end of a page.Samsung has already found a workaround to the overscroll bounce patent although, if Apple's patents were found to be invalid, it is likely the feature would make a return to handsets sold in the US.
It is one of many ongoing patent disputes between Apple and rival smartphone makers.
The news that some of Apple's patents had been invalidated was first reported by patent consultant Florian Mueller.
Curpertino, California - Apple Computer displayed its newest product today, the iPad Mini with an anodized aluminum back. Following the product announcement, Apple announced they would patent anodized aluminum backs on electronic products and vigorously defend the patent should any other manufacturer try to use anodized aluminum backs on their products
Court Demands Samsung Pay Apple $120,000 per Day
Ashley Feinberg View ProfileEmailFacebookTwitterRSSMust be an uncomfortable moment over at Samsung headquarters right now. Just weeks after mobile division head J.K. Shin talked some seriously big game, a court in the Netherlands granted one more point to Apple in the companies' ongoing patent lawsuits.
Specifically, the judges banned any "Galaxy products that infringe on an patent describing a way to scroll through a photo gallery using a touchscreen." So any of the offending devices running Android 2.2.1 or higher that doesn't "use Samsung's proprietary photo gallery software" is now officially Dutch contraband. And every day that Samsung refuses to comply with the ban, they'll have to pay Apple $120,000 as recompense.
And the incessant patent war drones on. [Ubergizmo]
I had some girl come into the busser station the other day trying to make out with every staff member and then pull down her pants and asked for someone to stick a dick in her (at least she shaved).
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1exotic
Vtec doesn't kick in on Reverse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulic Qel-Droma
its like.. oh yeah oh yeah.. ohhhh yeah... OOoooOohh... why's it suddenly feel a bit better... ohhhh yeahh... ohhh...oh..fuck... it probably ripped.
So any of the offending devices running Android 2.2.1 or higher that doesn't "use Samsung's proprietary photo gallery software" is now officially Dutch contraband. And every day that Samsung refuses to comply with the ban, they'll have to pay Apple $120,000 as recompense.
...so Samsung has to pay for phones that aren't running Samsung proprietary software? How in god's name does that work?
ive used S2, S3, Note and Note 2. In what way are they similar to apple's photo gallery? Hell they all differ from each other even they all bear Samsungs logo. WTF. Posted via RS Mobile
This whole thing just stinks to high heaven on both ends. The system is broken and all sides are doing their best to fuck each other as hard as possible in any way possible.
"We're going to make you pay for devices that you sold in the past and have no control over now, while not applying the same standards to other companies which are using exactly the same software in exactly the same manner."
What hasn't Killed me, has made me more tolerant of RS!
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 181
Thanked 109 Times in 44 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graeme S
You mean Android devices.
This whole thing just stinks to high heaven on both ends. The system is broken and all sides are doing their best to fuck each other as hard as possible in any way possible.
"We're going to make you pay for devices that you sold in the past and have no control over now, while not applying the same standards to other companies which are using exactly the same software in exactly the same manner."
Forum shopping also bothers me quite a bit.
That's pretty weird and I'd have to call bullshit on Gizmodo's understanding of the suit? What they are saying is it's OK to have a phone with Samsung's proprietary gallery software, but the stock version is contraband? Does not compute.
I got a bit confused, so I read into the source of the source (srsly) to get a more detailed analysis.
It's the fucking bounceback patent AGAIN. A-fucking-GAIN.
Spoiler!
Quote:
IDG News Service - A Dutch court has banned sales of Samsung Electronics' Galaxy products that infringe on an Apple patent describing a way to scroll through a photo gallery using a touchscreen.
The ban only applies to Galaxy products that run Android 2.2.1 and higher that don't use Samsung's proprietary photo gallery software, the Court of The Hague ruled on Wednesday.
Apple patented a way to scroll past the edge of a zoomed-in photo and see a glimpse of the next in a series of images, after which the initial photo bounces back onto the screen, a technique that Samsung has used in its Galaxy products. Samsung's proprietary photo gallery software replaces that bounce-back feature with a "blue flash" that illuminates the edge of the image.
Samsung already lost a case over the same patent after preliminary proceedings in the Netherlands last year, leading to a sales ban on the then-infringing Galaxy S, SII and Ace. After the verdict, Samsung adjusted its photo gallery software as a work around, and said it stopped delivering infringing products to clients as of the end of August 2011.
During the plea hearing in September, Samsung said that, since the last verdict, it uses its own technology in all its products in the Netherlands. Samsung, however failed to provide the court with evidence of the change, annoying the panel of judges.
"The argument raised by Samsung at the hearing that Samsung Benelux does not sell the infringing products any more, cannot lead to a rejection of the ban," wrote judge Peter Blok, who presided over the panel of three judges in the verdict. Blok said he would grant the ban because Samsung refused to sign a declaration of abstinence committing to not infringing the patent.
The court ordered Samsung to tell Apple how much net profit it made from sales of infringing Galaxy products since June 27, 2011. A separate court procedure will determine how much of that profit Samsung must pay Apple.
If Samsung continues to infringe on the patent, it has to pay Apple a penalty of 100,000 euros (US$129,000) for every day it violates the ban, the court ruled.
A Samsung spokeswoman said the company was disappointed with the court's ruling. Apple did not respond to a request for comment.
The Court of The Hague recently ruled that Samsung does not infringe on an Apple multitouch patent in another Dutch lawsuit between the companies. In January, the court is set to rule in yet another case between the two in a case about tablet design rights.
So basically Samsung/Android used to have bounceback when you were zoomed into an image in the gallery. When you scrolled to the edge of the picture, it'd show the edge of the next picture in the queue and then bounce back to the original image. Apple says "dude we own bounceback" so Samsung switched to the big glowy pulse at the edge (which seems to be the Android standard now?) but apparently they didn't prove it to the judges and (this is the weird part for me and gets my back up against Samsung) didn't sign an agreement not to infringe again.
So they have to pay a chunk of profits since the original judgement went down, and if they "continue to sell infringing devices" (I'm guessing they'll have to sign that we-won't-infringe form in order to get the ban lifted) they'll be fined.
yes apple lawsuits on design patents is obviously an American thing to obviously ruin international companies chances of becoming as successful as apple in America, kinda like how Korea would probably favor all Samsung patents n they should just BAN each other in their respective countries then...
logically the judicial system in america is obviously biased towards Apple since Samsung have been producing phones in MANY different materials and designs WAY before apple...
probably why the Japanese never give us the awesome sports cars because they know if they become successful, rednecked patriots can prolly sue them on some absurd patent on how Chevrolet, Ford, or Chrysler invented VTEC...... and the circular steering wheels, and the circular rims as well... >.>
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
