Desktop PC: For Apple, the entry-level eMac really does represent Think Different. That's because for a company that prides itself on quality, this computer is different. As in bad. On the plus side, it's stylish. On the downside, it's slow, underpowered, and pathetic. The 40GB hard drive will fill up quickly, the lack of a DVD burner makes offloading files impossible, and the Radeon 9200 graphics card won't even run this fall's hot Mac games. And at around $800, this eMac ain't cheap. If you're considering a home Apple, think different. Buy a Dell. Or be prepared to spend a lot more for an acceptable Apple computer. Our Desktop Product Guide can lead you to the best Apples, along with the best of the rest.
I do like Apple which is why it's sad they don't understand the real value (ie.e they are not worth that much) of there machines.
An analogy of IT is in a car, IT would be the engine No, it's not absolutely required for the car to go i would strongley disagre no engine can run for more than a minute or 2 before permantley seizieng.
but the car won't get very far without it.
First you say oil isn required for the car to go and then you say it is. Your analogy suggests that companys would sieze up if they didn't have IT!.DON'T get in their way. Only when the user's actions are disrupting OTHER users should you take action. If the user does something stupid, then fix it. That is your job - you are (for lack of a better term) a technical maid.
My current IT department us to work on exactley those lines we would only ever react to to users requests we were in effect technical maids, we would have major outages once a week at least. Recently we have changed to a more profesional approach and taking some control away from the users quess what major outages have almost completley cleared up. Now quess which way of operating the user prefer.
While I do understand that users often make stupid decisions, your job is to keep the employees working.
This is what we are now able to do, which couldn't before when we were acting as technical maids responding to users. now we are advising and working with users and it works a lot better.
Everytime a problem came up which the IT staff COULD fix instantly but couldn't be arsed to because we were just "lowly" firstyears then they would say "Oh its a bug, you will have to work around it".
If it was that simple why don't you fix it after they claimed they couldn't and then let there boss know that they where not doing there job.
And that was it, we could ask if they were planning to fix it, and they would claim they are waiting for a new version of the software. Shame is in this day and age, people EXPECT bugs, so much so that when one causes a problem, they find away around it.
And often that is the truth until the Bug is fixed you will have to use a work around also if a bug has a work around it is a much lower priority to fix than one the doesn't have a work around, there is nothing more annoying than being pestered by someone who can do there work even if it is a little inconvienient when trying to fix a real show stopper.
And that was it, we could ask if they were planning to fix it, and they would claim they are waiting for a new version of the software.
I really can't tell if you're joking or not. But if you're not joking they were very likely telling the truth.
Your arrogance is outstanding. If you think you know everything about your job your (it doesn't what job you do) wrong. Also there are many ways to get the same result some work better than others in different environment. The people who ask these questions know a lot more than you, for a start they know that they don't know everything where as you seem to think you do.
If you cannot do your job, leave it and let your place of employment get someone who can do the job.
Your lucky you don't work for me as I would relive you of that decision and fire you, why would I fire you? Because the biggest mistake you can make is to not know something and not ask and as you think you know everything you would never ask or even discuss with someone if a new problem came up, you can not do your job.
try explaining an Herbal Essences commercial to a five year old.
how About explaining that she is really pleased and satisfied with they way here hair has come out which is the whole point of the advert, what's so hard about explaining that? In what way is going yes yes obscene anyway? if they wonder why she's having an orgasm perhaps you should wonder how they know she is.
I also believe that those who argue that frequent exposure to porn and explicit sexual situations does not harm children are just plain stupid and haven't seen the results of the frequent exposure. I have cousins whose parents were heavy into porn when they were children. Both of them were sexually active by the time they were 8 years old (I am certain the uncle abused them, too) and one is HIV positive. I know that porn did not cause them to make every poor decision in their lives, but I am quite certain that their addiction along with their father's addiction led to their perception that such behaviour is acceptable and normal.
Of course it cant be the parents fault for not taking responsibility. Here in the UK the single biggest impression of America is that no one want's to take responsibility for there actions or there actions of those in there care i.e. there children, there are plenty of adults who are into porn who's children aren't sexual active before 18 and are aware of sexual disease and how to avoid them. The second biggest impression is a nation of prudes who can't stand to see a nipple flashed.
I often wonder why I feel compelled to express my opinions on this site because I know a good 75% of you are left-wing nutjobs that think anyone who is a Christian or Jew (and adheres to the standards of their respective religions) is a whacko in the same vein as those idiot terrorist who killed over 3,000 people on 9/11.
That one statment invalidated everything you said especiall how much Christian religuise art (and possible jewish?) would be considered pornographic by the PTC.
Finally what about http://www.tvvideos.com/sisterwendy.htmlsister Wendy's art programmes? She's a nun that study's paintings and for some reason allot of them are nudes; the PTC would have a heart attack especially as some of the shows are aimed at children. BTW I saw sister Wendy's show when I was young I knew about sex before I was 8 mainly from TV but my parents also explained things to me and do you know what, I wasn't active till I was about 15 (and that will shock some im sure) I have never got a girl pregnant and left her I have never caught an STD I have never mistreated another human but that's because my parents raised me right and explained things to me and didn't expect other to do there job for them especially not TV executives. They would have no trouble with herbal essence adverts.
Please don't reply as an AC and please don't treat this as drive by avocation.
Diagnosis murder gets a yellow rating. There is nothing milder except Rubbish like Barney
the PTC can't cope with reality and want to hide it from there children which is a dangerous thing as they themselves won't be able to cope. PTC pareents are raising there children to be helpless.
EA pulled off an exclusive licensing deal like this with Porsche. That's why you can't drive cars named "Porsche" in Gran Turismo. They have some imaginary model that matches them in specs, but they don't look much like a real 911.
Actually RUF are a real car company they take Porsche's and significantly improve on them changing upto 90% of the car and then take them racing eating Porsche's in the process. I would have a RUF over a Porsche any day of the week.
As for the real Republican party, you only have to walk ten steps to see the effects of it. Afghanistan, once under shariah by the Taliban, is now free and democratic.
About 90% of Afghanistan is in the hands of the same warlords who held power during the Taliban years, the same ones that are currently hiding bin laden and CO., that's Republican progress for you
Iraq, once under the murderous tyrannnical despot Hussein, is on track for elections. Al Qaeda and ALL major terrorist rings are on the run.
Even the Republicans quisling PM Iyad Allawi says elections can not be held under the current conditions and that a lack of American foresight is to blame. The Replicans biggest ally in Iraq says you and they are wrong.
Go ahead and allow the left to ignore all of the good things and focus on rumours and unsubstantiated claims.
That is a perfect description of your post. Rumours and unsubstantiated. For the support of the winning party you sound worried and on the defensive (like US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan) BTW China Co-operates when it is its advantage to do so i.e. not very often and grudgingly. They work with Japan South Korea and other Asian countries far more than they do with the US, they even work with Europe more. The trend and belief among Asian countries (especially Japan and South Korea) is to work as little as possible with US companies as history has shown you end up getting shafted if you do.
You're wrong. If it can be proven that Apple registered the trademark before Cohen registered the domain, then it is an open and shut case of cybersquatting, and the domain must be surrendered to Apple.
Sorry to piss on your parade but the offical FAQ says you are wrong.
If I have a registered trade mark, does that automatically entitle me to use that mark as my domain name?
Not necessarily. Because the same mark may be registered by different proprietors for different goods or services, someone else may also have legitimately registered the mark as their domain name
What can I do if someone has registered a domain name which I think should belong to me?
We suggest you take appropriately qualified legal advice. There are dispute resolution procedures operated, for example, by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) . And if you have a registered trade mark you may have legal remedies against someone who has registered the domain name simply for the purpose of profiting by its sale to the rightful trade mark owner.
Ben says he doesn't want to sell if that stays as it is. There is not much Apple can do and judging by the reaction they are getting (in the news) they are damaging there reputation in the UK.
As one of the parents explained, Apple only has to prove that he's misleading legitimate consumers and site visitors with his use of their mark. When he registered the domain is irrelevant...its what he's doing with it that makes a difference. If he was discussing iTunes, had some forums there, a community (like ipodlounge.com), there'd be no problem. But that isn't what he's doing.
Not necessarily. Because the same mark may be registered by different proprietors for different goods or services, someone else may also have legitimately registered the mark as their domain name
Do you see the diffrence?
IT doesn't matter what he does with it or even when he registered all that matter is the domain is legally his.
There's no requirement for someone (corporation or not) to run around the globe buying up every domain name they think they might need just in case.
No but in the internet age it would be a good idea to register the domain when you know that you are going to use a name.
if i wanted to i could tradmark iTunes for something completley diffrent from what apple's is.
Therefore from 24 October 2000 - only Apple can use the trademark in business. Date of publication is not relevant.
from the offical FAQ
the same mark may be registered by different proprietors for different goods or services.
Judging by your web site your not a lawer in the UK which has different laws from other countries.
First off that was a nice 404 you sent me to (check link). However from that website is was able to get the offical FAQ for Domain name VS tradmark disputes.
Not necessarily. Because the same mark may be registered by different proprietors for different goods or services, someone else may also have legitimately registered the mark as their domain name. Seek advice from Nominet UK , who also offer a Dispute Resolution Service
If I have a registered domain name, does that automatically entitle me to a trade mark in the same name?
No. Even if your domain name has been properly registered, a similar trade mark may not satisfy the basic requirements for trade mark registration, or it may be confusingly similar with someone else's earlier mark. See our page "The examination process".
What can I do if someone has registered a domain name which I think should belong to me?
We suggest you take appropriately qualified legal advice. There are dispute resolution procedures operated, for example, by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) . And if you have a registered trade mark you may have legal remedies against someone who has registered the domain name simply for the purpose of profiting by its sale to the rightful trade mark owner.
info about what a trade mark is and what it covers. [hint] it doesn't entitle you to a domain name, also someone could legally trademark itunes as well so long as it was in a diffrent business[/hint]This is why in the first Apple corp Vs. Apple comp Apple corp didn't really have a leg to stand on but now that Apple have moved into music there second suit has a lot of legitamacy.
Cohen legally owns the site, there is no way for Apple to legally take over the site unless cohen agrees to sell. Apple can moan all they want but there is nothing they can do about it the site is legally his. Will you be the first to make a cse for apple's legal ownership? BTW What did Cohen do with this site? He forwarded it to another online music site that he ran, with a totally different name. Why would he register a domain as obscure and nonsensical as "iTunes", but not go after the trademark itself, or market any products or services using the name? has no relevance on wheter the site is legally his.
However, don't get me wrong, I want Apple to own this site and they can do with the clause mentioned in the article. My opinion is merely to give some balance to the whole discussion before all the mac heads scream "rape" on a story which doesn't have all the facts. I use a mac as well btw
The point is Ben Cohen legally owns itunes.co.uk. there is no legal way for apple to take it off him. What he is using it for is irelavant.
All Apple need do is stress that technologically illiterate people visiting www.itunes.co.uk could conceivably be deluded into thinking that these discount links are what they are advertising. Now call me a cynic, but I think they have a point.
And all Ben has to do is point out that Apple could have bought and owned the domain Itunes.co.uk before they launched there product it would be wrong for ben to be punished for Apples mistake any court would side with Ben.
I hope he doesn't -- Apple would end up with his testicles in a jar. But he will. And he'll probably use the opportunity to cry more tears to the media
there is precident that says he won't The fact of the matter is that Apple messed up: buy the domains *before* you lunch the product (and trademark). Don't try and bully people in to giving up what is legally theirs. As the law stands Apple failed to do things in the correct order.
how is this diffrent from Katie.com? is it' because it's apple that it's diffrent.
At the time of registration the word "Itunes" was not a trademark and because of the way Apple went about the process Ben could not see that there was a trademark pending, so there is no way Apple can prove 'bad intent' which I believe in the UK is the only way to take a domain away from someone that isn't infringing on a pre-existing trademark, that is unless a document from Ben turns up that says something like "must remember to buy Itunes.co.uk in order to get shed loads of cash from apple when/if they have a product called Itunes"
Apple still can't prove 'bad intent' as there is a clear link on the website in question to something to do with music.
Ben can't take a payout from Apple as it will trap him in to giving up the domain and lose the payout, the argument goes like this:
Apple: Well can't legally take the name from you so how about we buy it from you for X million pounds.
Ben: Ok then
Apple: AHa! See you were squatter all the time now we will sue you to get the money back and a whole lot more! Mwah! ha! ha!
Ben: Fiddle sticks, now I am bankrupt.
(Though his father would make sure there is a clause in the contact to insure this won't happen should Ben sale)
The fact of the matter is that Apple messed up: buy the domains *before* you lunch the product (and trademark). Don't try and bully people in to giving up what is legally theirs.
If Apple wins this case it will open the floodgates to 1000's of other sites that for what ever reason own a domain that has something in its name that might 'confuse' people. It will be a disaster.
Is it because of his surname? Why are the apple fan boys being hypocrites if this had been MS they would be sticking the boot in with visible pleasure.
he registered the domain first, its his, LEGALLY, and there is absolutely nothing apple can do. its a farce that its even going to nominet.
the content of the site does not matter one bit. he could have anything on it and its still his. he is breaking no british laws at all and it is British courts it will end up in.
If the domain were used for something completely unrelated to Apple's program, I think Apple would be unreasonable for attacking the registration.
Apple are unreasonable because he registered it before apple even trademarked itunes if they hadn't have been so secret about they would have a leg to stand but they don't.
However, the domain is instead being used to undermine Apple's specific trademark and as such is, I think, arguably fair game.
it was originally a music search engine long before Apple's itunes existed, in what way does it undermine apples trademark (bear in mind the website was registered before the trade mark). If you had dug a little deeper and read the accompanying text
CyberBritain, innocently registered the ITUNES.co.uk domain name and used it for four years before it was contacted by Apple Computer Inc's solicitors in November of this year. On the 30th November, Apple issued Nominet proceedings (domain authority) to gain control of the ITUNES.co.uk domain name.
CyberBritain now forwards the ITUNES.co.uk domain name to a music promotion on its associated website, QuickQuid.com.
you would have realised that they have taken down the music search site because of apples actions and pointed it to quick quid which happens to contain an advert for itunes amongst others (not the best move) but the original website was fair use and he should have been left as it was rather than being taken down in a panic.
I hope Mr Cohen takes apple to court they are trying to turn into MS MK2, it's First come first served Mr Cohen was first and he would probably win if this went to a court of law.
Hos many times have you seen right here on slashdot someone saying something like "I tried to get linux for three days before I gave up and installed windows". If I could not get linux installed in three days I would be ashamed to broadcast it to everybody on slashdot.
Well if you took 3 days to intall linux and did not try to find out what you did wrong (i.e. stayed ignorant)thats as bad as being proudly ignorant that's deliberate ignorance, they are as extreme and as bad as each other, they are closeley related.
Slashdot Mirror
I do like Apple which is why it's sad they don't understand the real value (ie.e they are not worth that much) of there machines.
but the car won't get very far without it.
First you say oil isn required for the car to go and then you say it is. Your analogy suggests that companys would sieze up if they didn't have IT!.DON'T get in their way. Only when the user's actions are disrupting OTHER users should you take action. If the user does something stupid, then fix it. That is your job - you are (for lack of a better term) a technical maid.
My current IT department us to work on exactley those lines we would only ever react to to users requests we were in effect technical maids, we would have major outages once a week at least. Recently we have changed to a more profesional approach and taking some control away from the users quess what major outages have almost completley cleared up. Now quess which way of operating the user prefer.
While I do understand that users often make stupid decisions, your job is to keep the employees working.
This is what we are now able to do, which couldn't before when we were acting as technical maids responding to users. now we are advising and working with users and it works a lot better.
If it was that simple why don't you fix it after they claimed they couldn't and then let there boss know that they where not doing there job.
And that was it, we could ask if they were planning to fix it, and they would claim they are waiting for a new version of the software. Shame is in this day and age, people EXPECT bugs, so much so that when one causes a problem, they find away around it.
And often that is the truth until the Bug is fixed you will have to use a work around also if a bug has a work around it is a much lower priority to fix than one the doesn't have a work around, there is nothing more annoying than being pestered by someone who can do there work even if it is a little inconvienient when trying to fix a real show stopper.
And that was it, we could ask if they were planning to fix it, and they would claim they are waiting for a new version of the software.
I really can't tell if you're joking or not. But if you're not joking they were very likely telling the truth.
If you cannot do your job, leave it and let your place of employment get someone who can do the job.
Your lucky you don't work for me as I would relive you of that decision and fire you, why would I fire you? Because the biggest mistake you can make is to not know something and not ask and as you think you know everything you would never ask or even discuss with someone if a new problem came up, you can not do your job.
So whats wrong with asking? that's how you learn. It's idiots like you that ensure reduced learning and understanding.
how About explaining that she is really pleased and satisfied with they way here hair has come out which is the whole point of the advert, what's so hard about explaining that? In what way is going yes yes obscene anyway? if they wonder why she's having an orgasm perhaps you should wonder how they know she is.
I also believe that those who argue that frequent exposure to porn and explicit sexual situations does not harm children are just plain stupid and haven't seen the results of the frequent exposure. I have cousins whose parents were heavy into porn when they were children. Both of them were sexually active by the time they were 8 years old (I am certain the uncle abused them, too) and one is HIV positive. I know that porn did not cause them to make every poor decision in their lives, but I am quite certain that their addiction along with their father's addiction led to their perception that such behaviour is acceptable and normal.
Of course it cant be the parents fault for not taking responsibility. Here in the UK the single biggest impression of America is that no one want's to take responsibility for there actions or there actions of those in there care i.e. there children, there are plenty of adults who are into porn who's children aren't sexual active before 18 and are aware of sexual disease and how to avoid them. The second biggest impression is a nation of prudes who can't stand to see a nipple flashed.
I often wonder why I feel compelled to express my opinions on this site because I know a good 75% of you are left-wing nutjobs that think anyone who is a Christian or Jew (and adheres to the standards of their respective religions) is a whacko in the same vein as those idiot terrorist who killed over 3,000 people on 9/11.
That one statment invalidated everything you said especiall how much Christian religuise art (and possible jewish?) would be considered pornographic by the PTC.
Finally what about http://www.tvvideos.com/sisterwendy.htmlsister Wendy's art programmes? She's a nun that study's paintings and for some reason allot of them are nudes; the PTC would have a heart attack especially as some of the shows are aimed at children. BTW I saw sister Wendy's show when I was young I knew about sex before I was 8 mainly from TV but my parents also explained things to me and do you know what, I wasn't active till I was about 15 (and that will shock some im sure) I have never got a girl pregnant and left her I have never caught an STD I have never mistreated another human but that's because my parents raised me right and explained things to me and didn't expect other to do there job for them especially not TV executives. They would have no trouble with herbal essence adverts.
Please don't reply as an AC and please don't treat this as drive by avocation.
the PTC can't cope with reality and want to hide it from there children which is a dangerous thing as they themselves won't be able to cope. PTC pareents are raising there children to be helpless.
You lie there's no boss that competent ;)
Actually RUF are a real car company they take Porsche's and significantly improve on them changing upto 90% of the car and then take them racing eating Porsche's in the process. I would have a RUF over a Porsche any day of the week.
About 90% of Afghanistan is in the hands of the same warlords who held power during the Taliban years, the same ones that are currently hiding bin laden and CO., that's Republican progress for you
Iraq, once under the murderous tyrannnical despot Hussein, is on track for elections. Al Qaeda and ALL major terrorist rings are on the run.
Even the Republicans quisling PM Iyad Allawi says elections can not be held under the current conditions and that a lack of American foresight is to blame. The Replicans biggest ally in Iraq says you and they are wrong.
Go ahead and allow the left to ignore all of the good things and focus on rumours and unsubstantiated claims.
That is a perfect description of your post. Rumours and unsubstantiated. For the support of the winning party you sound worried and on the defensive (like US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan) BTW China Co-operates when it is its advantage to do so i.e. not very often and grudgingly. They work with Japan South Korea and other Asian countries far more than they do with the US, they even work with Europe more. The trend and belief among Asian countries (especially Japan and South Korea) is to work as little as possible with US companies as history has shown you end up getting shafted if you do.
A mac version of the all seeing eye? that would be a worthwhile interace. unfortunatley my company blocks it so i can't check.
Thank you moderator for proving my point.
Sorry to piss on your parade but the offical FAQ says you are wrong.
Ben says he doesn't want to sell if that stays as it is. There is not much Apple can do and judging by the reaction they are getting (in the news) they are damaging there reputation in the UK.Under American law maybe. Under UK law (which is what counts) no, the following is from the offical FAQ If I have a registered trade mark, does that automatically entitle me to use that mark as my domain name?
Not necessarily. Because the same mark may be registered by different proprietors for different goods or services, someone else may also have legitimately registered the mark as their domain name
Do you see the diffrence?
IT doesn't matter what he does with it or even when he registered all that matter is the domain is legally his.
There's no requirement for someone (corporation or not) to run around the globe buying up every domain name they think they might need just in case.
No but in the internet age it would be a good idea to register the domain when you know that you are going to use a name.
if i wanted to i could tradmark iTunes for something completley diffrent from what apple's is.
from the offical FAQ
the same mark may be registered by different proprietors for different goods or services.
Judging by your web site your not a lawer in the UK which has different laws from other countries.
First off that was a nice 404 you sent me to (check link). However from that website is was able to get the offical FAQ for Domain name VS tradmark disputes.
Anyone able to refute this without resorting to anonymous coward or unsubstantiated accusations.
Cohen legally owns the site, there is no way for Apple to legally take over the site unless cohen agrees to sell. Apple can moan all they want but there is nothing they can do about it the site is legally his. Will you be the first to make a cse for apple's legal ownership? BTW What did Cohen do with this site? He forwarded it to another online music site that he ran, with a totally different name. Why would he register a domain as obscure and nonsensical as "iTunes", but not go after the trademark itself, or market any products or services using the name? has no relevance on wheter the site is legally his.
The point is Ben Cohen legally owns itunes.co.uk. there is no legal way for apple to take it off him. What he is using it for is irelavant.
And all Ben has to do is point out that Apple could have bought and owned the domain Itunes.co.uk before they launched there product it would be wrong for ben to be punished for Apples mistake any court would side with Ben.
Thats a very mild worst case.
I hope he doesn't -- Apple would end up with his testicles in a jar. But he will. And he'll probably use the opportunity to cry more tears to the media
there is precident that says he won't The fact of the matter is that Apple messed up: buy the domains *before* you lunch the product (and trademark). Don't try and bully people in to giving up what is legally theirs. As the law stands Apple failed to do things in the correct order.
how is this diffrent from Katie.com? is it' because it's apple that it's diffrent.
Apple still can't prove 'bad intent' as there is a clear link on the website in question to something to do with music.
Ben can't take a payout from Apple as it will trap him in to giving up the domain and lose the payout, the argument goes like this:
Apple: Well can't legally take the name from you so how about we buy it from you for X million pounds.
Ben: Ok then
Apple: AHa! See you were squatter all the time now we will sue you to get the money back and a whole lot more! Mwah! ha! ha!
Ben: Fiddle sticks, now I am bankrupt.
(Though his father would make sure there is a clause in the contact to insure this won't happen should Ben sale)
The fact of the matter is that Apple messed up: buy the domains *before* you lunch the product (and trademark). Don't try and bully people in to giving up what is legally theirs.
If Apple wins this case it will open the floodgates to 1000's of other sites that for what ever reason own a domain that has something in its name that might 'confuse' people. It will be a disaster.
Is it because of his surname? Why are the apple fan boys being hypocrites if this had been MS they would be sticking the boot in with visible pleasure.
the content of the site does not matter one bit. he could have anything on it and its still his. he is breaking no british laws at all and it is British courts it will end up in.
Apple are unreasonable because he registered it before apple even trademarked itunes if they hadn't have been so secret about they would have a leg to stand but they don't.
However, the domain is instead being used to undermine Apple's specific trademark and as such is, I think, arguably fair game.
it was originally a music search engine long before Apple's itunes existed, in what way does it undermine apples trademark (bear in mind the website was registered before the trade mark). If you had dug a little deeper and read the accompanying text
Well if you took 3 days to intall linux and did not try to find out what you did wrong (i.e. stayed ignorant)thats as bad as being proudly ignorant that's deliberate ignorance, they are as extreme and as bad as each other, they are closeley related.