danbolling
Aug 31, 12:49 PM
Some things are coming together that are not pointed out in the post about the upcoming new iTMS (iTunes Media Store)
1) If the movies are only available in the US (at least initially), then this explains why Apple would not announce it at Paris Expo.
2) Movies will be larger resolution, of course. This now makes the "Advance -> Convert Video for iPod" command make a lot more sense. This will be the easy way to get downloaded movies onto old (smaller resolution) video iPods. And, maybe new iPod nanos which will do video with smaller screens.
3) And, of course, an updated video iPod is no surprise at this point. The details and the specs may be, but the update is not.
1) If the movies are only available in the US (at least initially), then this explains why Apple would not announce it at Paris Expo.
2) Movies will be larger resolution, of course. This now makes the "Advance -> Convert Video for iPod" command make a lot more sense. This will be the easy way to get downloaded movies onto old (smaller resolution) video iPods. And, maybe new iPod nanos which will do video with smaller screens.
3) And, of course, an updated video iPod is no surprise at this point. The details and the specs may be, but the update is not.
vitaboy
Aug 24, 04:34 PM
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.
This might be a valid point, except that the $100 million payout isn't being charged against profits. Instead, it is being recorded as an asset and ammortized over many years, meaning it will have very minimal impact to the bottom line.
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.
I believe this is incorrect. Just because Apple is paying the fee doesn't mean it comes directly out of Apple's profits. As stated above, the licensing fee will be ammortized over several years and thus the impact to the bottom line will be nil.
Secondly, the fee is conditional. If Creative manages to secure other licensing deals, they pay Apple back some of that $100 million. Perhaps all, if the other fees are substantial. That sounds more like a "loan" to me.
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.
No disagreement with this. The only thing is that NTP never agreed to pay RIM back part of its licensing fee if it was successful in securing new licensees. And NTP didn't decide to become a maker of Blackberry add-on devices.
By officially becoming a member of the "Made for iPod" program, Creative is basically unofficially pre-announcing that it is exiting the player business (contrary to official denial, which are necessary in order for it to sell of remaining inventory). Zen's lost huge marketshare against Sandisk, of all companies, and there's no way Zen will hold on to what little marketshare it has with Zune entering the scene. Not to mention that "Zen" and "Zune" are phonetically similar, which all but guarantees the situation will be hopeless for the Zen line of players.
Creative realized it makes more sense to extract licensing fees from Microsoft for Zune than try to compete directly as it had against the iPod.
With that exit strategy tucked under its belt, it's now free to focus on creating great iPod accessories, which will require far less R&D than music players, and will actually be profitable.
Apple "lost" all right. Here's a summary from The Motley Fool
Apple Gets Creative (http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2006/mft06082410.htm)
What's more, Apple is allowed to recoup costs if others agree to license Creative's patent. Will there be other deals? It's a good bet Creative will try to secure some; the $100 million the firm is getting from Apple will juice per-share earnings by $0.85 in the current quarter.
Plus, there are plenty of targets, with the biggest and most obvious being Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT). Its planned Zune player is expected out before the holiday season. Creative could get ahold of a beta version of the device and, if there's evidence of a patent violation, file suit and petition for an injunction.
Apple would love nothing better, of course. But even if Mr. Softy and other i-wannabes avoid the courts, they're unlikely to avoid the extra time and expense of working around Creative's patent. That, too, is a win for the Mac maker. Well done, Steve.
This is what would be called Pyrrhic victory for Creative. Sure, it looks like they won the battle, but only at such a cost that it ends up being a defeat in the long term.
This might be a valid point, except that the $100 million payout isn't being charged against profits. Instead, it is being recorded as an asset and ammortized over many years, meaning it will have very minimal impact to the bottom line.
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.
I believe this is incorrect. Just because Apple is paying the fee doesn't mean it comes directly out of Apple's profits. As stated above, the licensing fee will be ammortized over several years and thus the impact to the bottom line will be nil.
Secondly, the fee is conditional. If Creative manages to secure other licensing deals, they pay Apple back some of that $100 million. Perhaps all, if the other fees are substantial. That sounds more like a "loan" to me.
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.
No disagreement with this. The only thing is that NTP never agreed to pay RIM back part of its licensing fee if it was successful in securing new licensees. And NTP didn't decide to become a maker of Blackberry add-on devices.
By officially becoming a member of the "Made for iPod" program, Creative is basically unofficially pre-announcing that it is exiting the player business (contrary to official denial, which are necessary in order for it to sell of remaining inventory). Zen's lost huge marketshare against Sandisk, of all companies, and there's no way Zen will hold on to what little marketshare it has with Zune entering the scene. Not to mention that "Zen" and "Zune" are phonetically similar, which all but guarantees the situation will be hopeless for the Zen line of players.
Creative realized it makes more sense to extract licensing fees from Microsoft for Zune than try to compete directly as it had against the iPod.
With that exit strategy tucked under its belt, it's now free to focus on creating great iPod accessories, which will require far less R&D than music players, and will actually be profitable.
Apple "lost" all right. Here's a summary from The Motley Fool
Apple Gets Creative (http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2006/mft06082410.htm)
What's more, Apple is allowed to recoup costs if others agree to license Creative's patent. Will there be other deals? It's a good bet Creative will try to secure some; the $100 million the firm is getting from Apple will juice per-share earnings by $0.85 in the current quarter.
Plus, there are plenty of targets, with the biggest and most obvious being Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT). Its planned Zune player is expected out before the holiday season. Creative could get ahold of a beta version of the device and, if there's evidence of a patent violation, file suit and petition for an injunction.
Apple would love nothing better, of course. But even if Mr. Softy and other i-wannabes avoid the courts, they're unlikely to avoid the extra time and expense of working around Creative's patent. That, too, is a win for the Mac maker. Well done, Steve.
This is what would be called Pyrrhic victory for Creative. Sure, it looks like they won the battle, but only at such a cost that it ends up being a defeat in the long term.
toddybody
Apr 30, 07:34 PM
That display isn't happening this time.
Huh? Youre under the impression that it will have less resolution than before? :confused:
Huh? Youre under the impression that it will have less resolution than before? :confused:
Badandy
Sep 17, 10:31 PM
OK. hang on. back the f&6king truck up.
maybe we're backwards here. but i have NEVER, EVER heard of ANY kind of phone service where INCOMING calls are anything BUT free (excluding reverse-charge, obviously).
Im sorry, but if you all accept crappy CDMA phones specific to a carrier, and paying for incoming calls, you are kidding yourself if you think you are anything but backwards. (i wont go into the whole metric thing :P )
O no! Our cell phone technology is behind that of Europe's, where the small, congested spaces make it easier to unveil new cell technologies! The horror...
maybe we're backwards here. but i have NEVER, EVER heard of ANY kind of phone service where INCOMING calls are anything BUT free (excluding reverse-charge, obviously).
Im sorry, but if you all accept crappy CDMA phones specific to a carrier, and paying for incoming calls, you are kidding yourself if you think you are anything but backwards. (i wont go into the whole metric thing :P )
O no! Our cell phone technology is behind that of Europe's, where the small, congested spaces make it easier to unveil new cell technologies! The horror...
GGJstudios
Apr 4, 05:02 PM
I stand corrected.
I find myself standing that way a lot! :)
I find myself standing that way a lot! :)
Josias
Sep 5, 01:46 PM
Extreme! I really hope for hi-quality movies, and not just 640x480. A new line-up would be nice too. :D
iMikeT
Oct 27, 04:40 PM
This is just what we need, more hippies....
aiqw9182
Apr 16, 10:27 AM
Yes because everyone loves to carry around external breakout boxes with their sleek portable Macbooks.... :rolleyes:
And $10? For Thunderbolt? You are DREAMING. You can't even get a decent USB2 hub for $10.
Yeah because everyone loves to carry around an external hard drive with their sleek portable MacBooks. :rolleyes:
God forbid you carry around an inch long adapter in your laptop bag. Is that too much for you?
Oh and here's some adapter prices for you:
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042802&p_id=5311
http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10404
Twice the performance of USB3? That would be Thunderbolt's maximum possible data rate. No single consumer hard drive on earth supports that kind of speed (let alone even USB3's top speed) so I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Why would someone pay MORE to get a drive that is no faster than a USB3 drive? LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
They would almost certainly have to as demand determines price/availability and there is nearly zero demand for TB devices at this point in time while USB3 are backwards compatible with the vast majority of the computers on the planet. My sales figures are based on the relative cost of drives with Firewire interfaces (the closest example that already exists to Thunderbolt in terms of technology versus low demand) against drives that only support USB2 and/or USB3. There is always a large premium for a drive with a FW interface, even today when a fair amount of computers exist with FW interfaces (i.e. SOME demand). So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives. OK, let's make that clear. You have no evidence to support that your $250 price difference has any validity other than the fact that FireWire drives were more expensive when it's already been explained twice and back why Thunderbolt won't be as 'exclusive' as FireWire. It's going to be on every Ivy Bridge chipset just like USB 3.0 is. Everyone's going to be using it, it's another checkmark for them to list. Why do you think PC manufactures still sell machines with eSata?
Therefore TB compatible drives will likely cost considerably more money than USB3 drives for the SAME underlying drive. You will pay a premium for the interface just like Firewire to offset the higher costs of low production numbers created by little demand compared to USB3/2 interfaces. There will be no speed advantage on a consumer drive because no consumer drive even comes CLOSE to the limits of either interface. So unlike YOUR $10 scenario, I didn't just make a number up out of thin air. Furthermore, the scenario is hardly half-baked given USB drives are already common at places like Best Buy (I personally already own TWO 3TB USB3 drives) so the unlikely 'friend' in the stated scenario would be more likely to already own a USB3 drive than a currently non-existent TB drive that will undoubtedly cost MORE when it does finally arrive.LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior technology because it's 'what you're used to' that's the case. But for everyone else Thunderbolt will be a massive performance gain. Let alone when external SSD's really start hitting the market. USB 3 will really be proven for the piece of trash that it is and get wasted on all bandwidth comparisons. USB 3 is capped at a theoretical transfer rate of 5 Gbps. Thunderbolt is currently at 10 Gbps and can scale up to 100 Gbps in the future.
TB is more suited to high-end professional use where maximum overall data throughput (probably across multiple banks of drives per interface) and low overhead is desired (e.g. professional video, future high-speed server banks, live audio, etc.) The average consumer doesn't want to pay $50-100 more for FW800 drive interface over USB2 today (nor is their computer even likely to have FW if it's not a Mac) even if does have a benefit over USB2. They certainly aren't going to want to pay a potentially larger premium to get the same relative performance (perhaps with a bit of CPU overhead differences) versus USB3 with today's drives that don't come near USB3 levels, let alone Thunderbolt.Same relative performance? LMAO
Thunderbolt is suited for the future of high data transfer speeds that SSD's are capable of. Who wants the bottleneck to be the port on their computer? Because that's all USB 3 is going to be.
Be my guest and continue to insult and rant and dream big of TB heaven where USB doesn't exist. I live in a more practical and logical world.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3. Well the reason why no one's going to pay a premium for USB 3 is because it's a garbage update over USB 2.0. Thunderbolt will scale to the future. USB 3 is going to be trapped in limbo no matter what new peripherals come out down the road and given that it took them 8 years to release it a couple of years down the road when Thunderbolt is scaling even faster than USB 3. The only thing USB 3 is going to be used for down the road is nothing that USB 2 couldn't handle.
And $10? For Thunderbolt? You are DREAMING. You can't even get a decent USB2 hub for $10.
Yeah because everyone loves to carry around an external hard drive with their sleek portable MacBooks. :rolleyes:
God forbid you carry around an inch long adapter in your laptop bag. Is that too much for you?
Oh and here's some adapter prices for you:
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042802&p_id=5311
http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10404
Twice the performance of USB3? That would be Thunderbolt's maximum possible data rate. No single consumer hard drive on earth supports that kind of speed (let alone even USB3's top speed) so I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Why would someone pay MORE to get a drive that is no faster than a USB3 drive? LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
They would almost certainly have to as demand determines price/availability and there is nearly zero demand for TB devices at this point in time while USB3 are backwards compatible with the vast majority of the computers on the planet. My sales figures are based on the relative cost of drives with Firewire interfaces (the closest example that already exists to Thunderbolt in terms of technology versus low demand) against drives that only support USB2 and/or USB3. There is always a large premium for a drive with a FW interface, even today when a fair amount of computers exist with FW interfaces (i.e. SOME demand). So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives. OK, let's make that clear. You have no evidence to support that your $250 price difference has any validity other than the fact that FireWire drives were more expensive when it's already been explained twice and back why Thunderbolt won't be as 'exclusive' as FireWire. It's going to be on every Ivy Bridge chipset just like USB 3.0 is. Everyone's going to be using it, it's another checkmark for them to list. Why do you think PC manufactures still sell machines with eSata?
Therefore TB compatible drives will likely cost considerably more money than USB3 drives for the SAME underlying drive. You will pay a premium for the interface just like Firewire to offset the higher costs of low production numbers created by little demand compared to USB3/2 interfaces. There will be no speed advantage on a consumer drive because no consumer drive even comes CLOSE to the limits of either interface. So unlike YOUR $10 scenario, I didn't just make a number up out of thin air. Furthermore, the scenario is hardly half-baked given USB drives are already common at places like Best Buy (I personally already own TWO 3TB USB3 drives) so the unlikely 'friend' in the stated scenario would be more likely to already own a USB3 drive than a currently non-existent TB drive that will undoubtedly cost MORE when it does finally arrive.LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior technology because it's 'what you're used to' that's the case. But for everyone else Thunderbolt will be a massive performance gain. Let alone when external SSD's really start hitting the market. USB 3 will really be proven for the piece of trash that it is and get wasted on all bandwidth comparisons. USB 3 is capped at a theoretical transfer rate of 5 Gbps. Thunderbolt is currently at 10 Gbps and can scale up to 100 Gbps in the future.
TB is more suited to high-end professional use where maximum overall data throughput (probably across multiple banks of drives per interface) and low overhead is desired (e.g. professional video, future high-speed server banks, live audio, etc.) The average consumer doesn't want to pay $50-100 more for FW800 drive interface over USB2 today (nor is their computer even likely to have FW if it's not a Mac) even if does have a benefit over USB2. They certainly aren't going to want to pay a potentially larger premium to get the same relative performance (perhaps with a bit of CPU overhead differences) versus USB3 with today's drives that don't come near USB3 levels, let alone Thunderbolt.Same relative performance? LMAO
Thunderbolt is suited for the future of high data transfer speeds that SSD's are capable of. Who wants the bottleneck to be the port on their computer? Because that's all USB 3 is going to be.
Be my guest and continue to insult and rant and dream big of TB heaven where USB doesn't exist. I live in a more practical and logical world.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3. Well the reason why no one's going to pay a premium for USB 3 is because it's a garbage update over USB 2.0. Thunderbolt will scale to the future. USB 3 is going to be trapped in limbo no matter what new peripherals come out down the road and given that it took them 8 years to release it a couple of years down the road when Thunderbolt is scaling even faster than USB 3. The only thing USB 3 is going to be used for down the road is nothing that USB 2 couldn't handle.
840quadra
Oct 12, 01:13 PM
Red?
I wonder if I have room in my iPod collection for such a device :D .
If this is true, I would be happy to see this come to life, not because of the color, but because of the charity aspect.
I wonder if I have room in my iPod collection for such a device :D .
If this is true, I would be happy to see this come to life, not because of the color, but because of the charity aspect.
MattyMac
Sep 5, 08:46 PM
Darn it, 6 more days to go.
ahhh...at least you have something to look forward too.
It's all about the little things in life;)
ahhh...at least you have something to look forward too.
It's all about the little things in life;)
jettredmont
Sep 5, 12:16 PM
"Media Device" = Does it include an iPod Video?
This would somewhat explain why the Paris Expo was given the cold shoulder.
"Bonjour, mes amis! The iTunes Movie Store is finally here! (but only in the U.S.)"
This way, they announce the store but also get a chance to demo the product at the Expo.
-Squire
The Paris Expo is a redheaded stepchild, and hardly even acknowledged by Apple PR folks. ("We have two events per year, WWDC and MWSF." "And Paris Expo." "Paris what?")
Even if the iTMediaStore was to be US and France (which, I agree, is about 95% unlikely) they'd still not announce it at Paris. Apple has decided on two major events, and impromptu mini-events as announcements warrant. And Paris Expo is not on that list.
Personally, I see the timing of this event as a way of driving that point home in the press. Why would you go to Paris, when you might miss something really important coming out of Cupertino?
This would somewhat explain why the Paris Expo was given the cold shoulder.
"Bonjour, mes amis! The iTunes Movie Store is finally here! (but only in the U.S.)"
This way, they announce the store but also get a chance to demo the product at the Expo.
-Squire
The Paris Expo is a redheaded stepchild, and hardly even acknowledged by Apple PR folks. ("We have two events per year, WWDC and MWSF." "And Paris Expo." "Paris what?")
Even if the iTMediaStore was to be US and France (which, I agree, is about 95% unlikely) they'd still not announce it at Paris. Apple has decided on two major events, and impromptu mini-events as announcements warrant. And Paris Expo is not on that list.
Personally, I see the timing of this event as a way of driving that point home in the press. Why would you go to Paris, when you might miss something really important coming out of Cupertino?
barkomatic
Apr 4, 11:43 AM
I'm actually surprised this doesn't happen more often. Applestores must be filled with cash. I would think one would be a bit easier to rob than a bank.
kurosov
Mar 30, 12:02 PM
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/app
278891
I think this is enough to show that Microsoft is unequivocally correct. The term has been in use for much longer than Apple's launching of the store and it has been ubiquitous in the computer industry for a long time.
The way to distinguish (if it needs to be done) between app stores is by saying the name of the app store before hand, ie the Apple App Store, the Amazon App Store, or the Microsoft App Store.
This argument has nothing to do with the term "app" but with the legally given trademark "app store".
The term app store was never used before the release and subsequent trademark approval of apples app store so anybody arguing that the term is generic are just being silly. The whole concept of a trademark is to protect a companies name, slogan etc from becoming a generic term and to prevent that they have to defend against it.
278891
I think this is enough to show that Microsoft is unequivocally correct. The term has been in use for much longer than Apple's launching of the store and it has been ubiquitous in the computer industry for a long time.
The way to distinguish (if it needs to be done) between app stores is by saying the name of the app store before hand, ie the Apple App Store, the Amazon App Store, or the Microsoft App Store.
This argument has nothing to do with the term "app" but with the legally given trademark "app store".
The term app store was never used before the release and subsequent trademark approval of apples app store so anybody arguing that the term is generic are just being silly. The whole concept of a trademark is to protect a companies name, slogan etc from becoming a generic term and to prevent that they have to defend against it.
GGJstudios
Mar 21, 11:25 PM
Not false read #104 :D
I did read it. It doesn't answer why there are no viruses today, now that Mac OS has greater market share than ever, when there were viruses back when it had a much smaller market share. The market share theory is pure nonsense. It doesn't stand up to simple math.
I did read it. It doesn't answer why there are no viruses today, now that Mac OS has greater market share than ever, when there were viruses back when it had a much smaller market share. The market share theory is pure nonsense. It doesn't stand up to simple math.
MacRumors
Aug 23, 05:07 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Apple and Creative have resolved their legal disputes (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/aug/23settlement.html) which started on May 15th of this year when Creative and Apple sued each other (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/05/20060519080315.shtml) claiming patent infringement. According to a joint-press release, Apple will pay Creative $100 million USD to settle all outstanding lawsuits.
"Creative is very fortunate to have been granted this early patent," said Steve Jobs, Apple's CEO. "This settlement resolves all of our differences with Creative, including the five lawsuits currently pending between the companies, and removes the uncertainty and distraction of prolonged litigation."
Apple and Creative have resolved their legal disputes (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/aug/23settlement.html) which started on May 15th of this year when Creative and Apple sued each other (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/05/20060519080315.shtml) claiming patent infringement. According to a joint-press release, Apple will pay Creative $100 million USD to settle all outstanding lawsuits.
"Creative is very fortunate to have been granted this early patent," said Steve Jobs, Apple's CEO. "This settlement resolves all of our differences with Creative, including the five lawsuits currently pending between the companies, and removes the uncertainty and distraction of prolonged litigation."
InuNacho
Apr 30, 06:56 PM
There is a difference between a revision and a dramatic change. They have not really touch the computer bolted to the back of an LCD screen for a long long time. I loved the look of the Luxo iMac, the BondiBlue would be my second. The slim iMac seems cold and heartless, lack of emotion.
I feel the same way about the new iMacs, their cold dark metal instead of the old warm happy white or bright colors.
I feel the same way about the new iMacs, their cold dark metal instead of the old warm happy white or bright colors.
JAT
Oct 27, 11:56 AM
Somebody please explain to me what GW Bush has to do with a Greenpeace story out of the London Mac Expo?
And I don't know UK law, but if they did this in the USA (handing a kid food without parent's permission), they should be arrested. And fired by the company, although there's no company in this case. If somebody does that with one of my kids, they better be prepared to back down fast and apologize, or they will GO down fast. Wouldn't be the first time.
Let them hand out leaflets wherever they want.
And I don't know UK law, but if they did this in the USA (handing a kid food without parent's permission), they should be arrested. And fired by the company, although there's no company in this case. If somebody does that with one of my kids, they better be prepared to back down fast and apologize, or they will GO down fast. Wouldn't be the first time.
Let them hand out leaflets wherever they want.
KarlOlsson
Apr 4, 12:19 PM
I'm as pro gun rights as anyone, but this sounds like a problem for the security guard. Unless that guard's life was in danger, there was no reason to shoot anyone, especially in the head. The placement of that shot was no accident.
That being said, I'm sure there are a lot of facts we don't know. Innocent until proven guilty, of course.
According to SD news , camera shows the guard took over 10 rounds directed towards him before returning fire, over 40 shots fired by by all 4 present 1guard 3suspects, so I would think deadly force was indeed needed, and FYI he was not a "Mall Cop" he was working for a privet security firm that ear all licensed to carry guns....
That being said, I'm sure there are a lot of facts we don't know. Innocent until proven guilty, of course.
According to SD news , camera shows the guard took over 10 rounds directed towards him before returning fire, over 40 shots fired by by all 4 present 1guard 3suspects, so I would think deadly force was indeed needed, and FYI he was not a "Mall Cop" he was working for a privet security firm that ear all licensed to carry guns....
OdduWon
Sep 27, 12:25 AM
You're joking right? You realise these are pipe-dream mock ups right?
nice mock up. i've seen 4 like this after i had started making mine using the new ..ahem.. mini nano. but why, why have macrocrap apps on it?? the itunes viz is a nice touch tho. italk still my fav though.even though a phone with wings may become annoying at least it will come to you when it rings :D
nice mock up. i've seen 4 like this after i had started making mine using the new ..ahem.. mini nano. but why, why have macrocrap apps on it?? the itunes viz is a nice touch tho. italk still my fav though.even though a phone with wings may become annoying at least it will come to you when it rings :D
Mattsasa
Apr 25, 04:34 PM
This is tight...but please....PLEASE!!! Have an ODD.
this is tight......but please.....PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't have an ODD.
this is tight......but please.....PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't have an ODD.
chuckles:)
Oct 12, 10:27 PM
i think it looks cool.
ThunderSkunk
Apr 4, 12:01 PM
How did I just know, it had to be here.
iStudentUK
Apr 19, 06:43 AM
I wonder how long it will be until every tech company is suing every other tech company.
This is getting silly!
This is getting silly!
chameleon81
Apr 30, 01:57 PM
Great, now can someone please release a product that actually uses Thunderbolt so I can get it for my MBP?
I think the same. Great! I will have a thunderbolt which promises ultra fast speed for non existing products.
I think the same. Great! I will have a thunderbolt which promises ultra fast speed for non existing products.
No comments:
Post a Comment