dr manhattan

SonyEricsson is the main sponsor of womens tennis and especially the official sponsor of WTA, the womens tour. That's probably why.

Not only is BenQ a terrible name, the logo has no appeal whatsoever. These guys don't seem to realize what branding means..

Love the concept! I'd love to play this casually with friends or relatives. Here's to hoping it makes it to Europe!

Microsoft: Lovin' the FUD.

I'm sorry, but that phone is not much of a beauty, is it?

I like the specs and the price. And I guess all phones can't be designed by Jony Ive. But still, that round menu button thing is so unappelingly designed and also positioned way too close to the screen (the one with the ugly interface).

"Almost no devices play AAC, and Apple is deliberately not making these downloads available in MP3."

4 months from now, every new player announced will probably play AAC.

This was a watershed moment for the selling and manufacturing of what was formerly known as mp3-players (to consumers I mean, because nobody I know says "DAP").

Its not that hard to add - just contact the local licensing office, get the IPR and pay a fee similar to what you pay for mp3 or dvd (hopefully much less than for dvd). And because of iTunes importance, nobody will dare to leave it out now.

New manufacturers and importers will race to be first with it in their sales channels.

Excuse me for my techno-ignorance but.. Does this all mean that any digital audio player that can do MPEG-4 can also play the new DRM-free AAC-files from Apples iTunes?

Apparently you need a patent license - from a consortium, not from Apple - to manufacture technology with AAC-playback (just like MP3 & DVD). But for any player that says it can do MPEG4, the manufacturer would have HAD TO license AAC as well, correct?

wikipedia about AAC:
http://tinyurl.com/3djk98

"I loved it when I was a kid and grew up okay, so I don't see what the harm is in letting children see it. People are so sensitive."

I see this particular set of arguments a lot ("I loved it as a kid, what's the harm, people are so sensitive") and today it happened to anger me just enough for a reply.

Why should the fact you by your own admission "grew up okay" make it okay for Disney to distribute and promote a film with negative portrayal and stereotyping of blacks?

If your kids watched this on dvd today, what would be the harm? Yeah, what would be the harm if they were fed with a few stereotypes about blacks, because that's none of your business, right?

People are not more sensitive these days. Society as a whole is just more sensitive to other peoples needs than just the white cultural norm.

You think this film was not hurtful to african-americans when it was released? Yes, there where many other more despicable portrayals available at that time, but of course this was one more building block in strengthening the stereotypes of the day.

I wonder if the guys physical resemblance to Peter Guber has anything to do with it? :)

Elitist jerks. Meaning Apple or the Democrats. Probably both. Showing off with all their fancy ambitions, intelligence and opinions based on research and fact. I hate those guys. Why can't they be like regular people?

Because if they insist on acting like that while crafting policy or creating technology, then we don't want their stinking efforts.

I'd rather enjoy the works and decisions of the Republicans or Microsoft. At least they speak to me like I'm a regular joe. Because that's what really matters. Priority number one.