Analog Kid
Apr 20, 01:15 PM
Wow, this is really, really bad. I've no idea how any company would think this was acceptable. There's no way this was simply an oversight.
Absolutely unacceptable.
Absolutely unacceptable.
shadowx
Sep 26, 02:11 PM
This is fine. I'm sick of those cripplers at Verizon.
Yeah - if Verizon didn't have the most comprehensive coverage and good customer service I'd go back to T-mobile. I'll never own a bluetooth phone from Verizon, that's for sure...
Yeah - if Verizon didn't have the most comprehensive coverage and good customer service I'd go back to T-mobile. I'll never own a bluetooth phone from Verizon, that's for sure...
Cougarcat
Apr 30, 03:30 PM
Because that huge base of thunderbolt based devices is overwhelming! :p
Gotta build the computers first for the devices to follow.
I have a newbie question.
I plan on moving onto MAC OS (from Windows 7) but I wanted to wait for Lion, but I'm also quite impatient since the iMac is perfect for me.
Being new to Apple computers, would I be able to use Lion (like an upgrade) when it comes out?
Yes. Traditionally OS X upgrades cost $129, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was $99 or $79 this time around. Apple has been dropping their software prices lately.
Gotta build the computers first for the devices to follow.
I have a newbie question.
I plan on moving onto MAC OS (from Windows 7) but I wanted to wait for Lion, but I'm also quite impatient since the iMac is perfect for me.
Being new to Apple computers, would I be able to use Lion (like an upgrade) when it comes out?
Yes. Traditionally OS X upgrades cost $129, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was $99 or $79 this time around. Apple has been dropping their software prices lately.
brad.c
Sep 13, 11:02 AM
I had ripped my Finding Nemo DVD so my daughter could watch on my 5G 60Gb iPod during a flight last month. I ripped them into individual chapters, and transferred them as sequential movies under a Finding Nemo video playlist. Worked great, except for the playback gap between chapters.
Now, with my MBP and my iPod fully updated, the gapless feature is selectable when the chapters are selected as a group, but not individually (Part of a gapless album is greyed out). And the gaps remain.
Not a biggie, but interesting nonetheless. Or am I that boring? (Rhetorically asked. Replies are redundantly unnecessary.)
Now, with my MBP and my iPod fully updated, the gapless feature is selectable when the chapters are selected as a group, but not individually (Part of a gapless album is greyed out). And the gaps remain.
Not a biggie, but interesting nonetheless. Or am I that boring? (Rhetorically asked. Replies are redundantly unnecessary.)
vwcruisn
Mar 23, 05:04 PM
There shouldn't even be checkpoints in the first place because they violate the 4th Amendment. Every person sitting in line at that checkpoint is accused of being drunk without reasonable doubt.
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.
Agree 100%.
There's a pretty good read here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli27.html
while I don't necessarily agree with all of his points/correlations, some really do make sense.
One of the most glaring problems with the drunk-driving laws in this country is that they clearly discriminate against and ruthlessly penalize only one class of dangerous drivers. Drunk drivers are subject to arrest, thousands of dollars of fines, lengthy jail or prison sentences, loss of driving "privileges," alcohol abuse counseling, probation, et cetera. Other dangerous drivers are not subject to these draconian penalties. If Grandma gets pulled over by the police for careening in and out of the median, for example, she will not be wrenched from her Cadillac, handcuffed, incarcerated, counseled, or fined into bankruptcy. At worst, so long as she has not hurt anyone, she will be escorted home and possibly lose her "privilege" to drive on government roads in the future (she will not lose the "privilege" of paying for government roads, however). Similarly, a man who chooses not to wear his DMV-mandated glasses or contact lenses while driving does not have to worry about getting stopped at "corrective lens checkpoints" manned by nightstick-wielding troopers searching for un-bespectacled drivers to humiliate, arrest, fine, and send to jail. On the contrary, this type of dangerous driver is merely instructed to wear his glasses if he is stopped by the police, and he is issued a perfunctory (and revenue-generating) citation. He certainly does not have to worry about the possibility of going to state prison for several years when he decides to drive without his glasses � unless he actually hurts someone.
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.
Agree 100%.
There's a pretty good read here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli27.html
while I don't necessarily agree with all of his points/correlations, some really do make sense.
One of the most glaring problems with the drunk-driving laws in this country is that they clearly discriminate against and ruthlessly penalize only one class of dangerous drivers. Drunk drivers are subject to arrest, thousands of dollars of fines, lengthy jail or prison sentences, loss of driving "privileges," alcohol abuse counseling, probation, et cetera. Other dangerous drivers are not subject to these draconian penalties. If Grandma gets pulled over by the police for careening in and out of the median, for example, she will not be wrenched from her Cadillac, handcuffed, incarcerated, counseled, or fined into bankruptcy. At worst, so long as she has not hurt anyone, she will be escorted home and possibly lose her "privilege" to drive on government roads in the future (she will not lose the "privilege" of paying for government roads, however). Similarly, a man who chooses not to wear his DMV-mandated glasses or contact lenses while driving does not have to worry about getting stopped at "corrective lens checkpoints" manned by nightstick-wielding troopers searching for un-bespectacled drivers to humiliate, arrest, fine, and send to jail. On the contrary, this type of dangerous driver is merely instructed to wear his glasses if he is stopped by the police, and he is issued a perfunctory (and revenue-generating) citation. He certainly does not have to worry about the possibility of going to state prison for several years when he decides to drive without his glasses � unless he actually hurts someone.
amac4me
Aug 28, 12:16 PM
I think Apple will try to get these out prior to the Paris expo. Why give up sales to announce the product at a later date?
thworple
Oct 27, 10:30 AM
MacWorld Quote:
The problem came to a head when one woman complained that they had placed an apple in her child�s pram and were taking photographs of him without her permission.
Ok, this I honestly didn't see, and if true, then warrants a serious reprimand of any organisation at Mac Expo!! I hope that the reason they were ejected was something like this, and not just handing out leaflets in the wrong area, like I was led to believe from the thread so far!
I wouldn't like anyone taking photos of my child without permission, and if true then Greenpeace have behaved irresponsibly!
The problem came to a head when one woman complained that they had placed an apple in her child�s pram and were taking photographs of him without her permission.
Ok, this I honestly didn't see, and if true, then warrants a serious reprimand of any organisation at Mac Expo!! I hope that the reason they were ejected was something like this, and not just handing out leaflets in the wrong area, like I was led to believe from the thread so far!
I wouldn't like anyone taking photos of my child without permission, and if true then Greenpeace have behaved irresponsibly!
AidenShaw
Sep 9, 12:27 PM
Kentsfield is two Conroes on a single die. They don't share cache like the previous Pentium D chips. So they'll each have 4 MB of cache and then communicate over the front side bus.
Minor terminology correction - the "die" is the silicon chip, the "package" is the carrier with the pins....
http://www.xbitlabs.com/web/2006-6-22.html
Kentsfield consists of two Conroe dies, each featuring two cores and 4MB of L2 cache.
See http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/04/top_secret_intel_processor_plans_uncovered/page4.html
(this shows a Pentium D image, but Kentsfield is doing the same trick.)
Minor terminology correction - the "die" is the silicon chip, the "package" is the carrier with the pins....
http://www.xbitlabs.com/web/2006-6-22.html
Kentsfield consists of two Conroe dies, each featuring two cores and 4MB of L2 cache.
See http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/04/top_secret_intel_processor_plans_uncovered/page4.html
(this shows a Pentium D image, but Kentsfield is doing the same trick.)
E.Lizardo
Apr 22, 07:01 AM
I'm amazed that no-one is seeing the very dangerous path we could be heading down here. Will people only see it when it's too late?
Are we looking into the jaws of the future where you pay, but never OWN anything? Music, Movies, Apps.
You pay to have the right to listen/watch/use the data.
The data is never downloaded to your device to do as you wish, it's always held by the owners. or distributors.
I can see this coming like a flashing red warning sign.
Clean your glasses.
Are we looking into the jaws of the future where you pay, but never OWN anything? Music, Movies, Apps.
You pay to have the right to listen/watch/use the data.
The data is never downloaded to your device to do as you wish, it's always held by the owners. or distributors.
I can see this coming like a flashing red warning sign.
Clean your glasses.
nehunte
Nov 14, 07:45 AM
I think this thread has moved too far into the law and needs to move back into the 'common sense' arena. Rogue was using images supplied to him by MAC OSX. Strangely enough, Apple denied the app. Whatever, that's fine. BUT IT TOOK THREE AND A HALF MONTHS TO SORT THE SITUATION OUT!!!!
That's the problem. It takes forever to straighten out crap with them. This is why the Facebook developer is done with Apple. He would see a bug in his app, and it would take Apple two weeks or more to approve the bug fix while everybody is experiencing the bug problems. It's completely asinine. Apple clearly had no idea how popular the App Store was going to be and still doesn't have the proper resources to handle it. Sure, the App Store has over 100,000 apps. How many of those are quality apps? Hard to tell, but I can tell you it's filled with a bunch of worthless apps that shouldn't be on there in the first place.
With the recent news around the App Store, I'm afraid you're going to start seeing a lot less quality apps and far more stupid worthless apps hit since all the good developers are leaving. It just blows my mind that Apple is having this kind of mentality while Android is starting to pick up steam. I guess I'll just have to see where this situation stands when my contract runs up. Hopefully Apple pulls their head our of their rear by then.
That's the problem. It takes forever to straighten out crap with them. This is why the Facebook developer is done with Apple. He would see a bug in his app, and it would take Apple two weeks or more to approve the bug fix while everybody is experiencing the bug problems. It's completely asinine. Apple clearly had no idea how popular the App Store was going to be and still doesn't have the proper resources to handle it. Sure, the App Store has over 100,000 apps. How many of those are quality apps? Hard to tell, but I can tell you it's filled with a bunch of worthless apps that shouldn't be on there in the first place.
With the recent news around the App Store, I'm afraid you're going to start seeing a lot less quality apps and far more stupid worthless apps hit since all the good developers are leaving. It just blows my mind that Apple is having this kind of mentality while Android is starting to pick up steam. I guess I'll just have to see where this situation stands when my contract runs up. Hopefully Apple pulls their head our of their rear by then.
scoobydoo99
Apr 20, 02:09 PM
You have no proof of this.
I'm sure they do... but for the most part they just subpoena the telecom provider for whatever records they require.
lol. they don't even have to subpoena these days. just ask nicely and the companies simply hand over anything they want (all in the name of being good patriots.) Of course, sometimes they charge the government for it:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm
I'm sure they do... but for the most part they just subpoena the telecom provider for whatever records they require.
lol. they don't even have to subpoena these days. just ask nicely and the companies simply hand over anything they want (all in the name of being good patriots.) Of course, sometimes they charge the government for it:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm
jellomizer
Sep 14, 05:48 AM
I assume the screen would be a touch screen. I would hate to start dialing numbers using the click wheel.
I think it would be kinda cool in a retro way. Just put the numbers on the click wheel. while most people just select the person on the list. which the iPod are really good at.
I think it would be kinda cool in a retro way. Just put the numbers on the click wheel. while most people just select the person on the list. which the iPod are really good at.
Chundles
Sep 1, 08:42 AM
I'd say a refresh of the Mac Mini and/or iMac might happen. Why would they call both of the existing models 'early 2006' (esp. the mini) in this page.
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303315
Because that's when they were released.
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303315
Because that's when they were released.
richard4339
Sep 26, 11:26 AM
I hate to say this folks, but even an iPhone wouldn't be worth having to deal with Cingular's godawful service. Reception is poor in areas where it's supposed to be good and even when you have good reception, you get dropped calls due to network error/rejected/dropped. I've had Cingular for a while now, and I am preparing to drop it with eagerness, even if that means a $200 contract termination fee. I want to slug that twat who says Cingular has the least dropped calls, because it's a ********* LIE.
Verizon isn't much better. I'm wanting to switch to Sprint; their plans make the most sense. Unfortunately, their coverage areas are small.
Verizon isn't much better. I'm wanting to switch to Sprint; their plans make the most sense. Unfortunately, their coverage areas are small.
Balooba
Nov 13, 07:07 PM
Rogue Amoeba, stop behaving like grumpy children. We love your apps and need updates and continued development! Change the graphics and get over it.
Apple, what are you thinking? It is not like RA were using an Apple logo for an app on the Palm Pre, they used iMac pictures as part of the UI in a clever way that made sense from a user's perspective. You cannot keep doing this to smart and Apple-loving companies that make wonderful apps clearly in the spirit of your policies. If your lawyers object, change your lawyers.
Apple, what are you thinking? It is not like RA were using an Apple logo for an app on the Palm Pre, they used iMac pictures as part of the UI in a clever way that made sense from a user's perspective. You cannot keep doing this to smart and Apple-loving companies that make wonderful apps clearly in the spirit of your policies. If your lawyers object, change your lawyers.
alexdrinan
Jul 14, 01:52 PM
while i agree with you general lineup i don't think the imac goes below 2ghz for marketing reasons.
i also think the prices for the 2.33 and 2.66 are simply too high. the performance gain will not be that much over the one year old dual core g5's. so the price should go down.
but in general i would be happy with any 4MB conroe model.
in a few weeks we will know.
Do we have benchmarks for Conroe vs. G5 yet? I haven't seen any but I would think that a 2.33ghz chip with more advanced architecture would out-perform a 2.0ghz chip with "old" architecture by enough to justify at least keeping the same price point.
i also think the prices for the 2.33 and 2.66 are simply too high. the performance gain will not be that much over the one year old dual core g5's. so the price should go down.
but in general i would be happy with any 4MB conroe model.
in a few weeks we will know.
Do we have benchmarks for Conroe vs. G5 yet? I haven't seen any but I would think that a 2.33ghz chip with more advanced architecture would out-perform a 2.0ghz chip with "old" architecture by enough to justify at least keeping the same price point.
Hwangsta
Apr 4, 11:43 AM
A mall cop having to shoot someone in the head...he'll probably need some counseling.
hayesk
May 3, 06:56 PM
No matte antiglare screens on the new iMacs. If you need matte screens, there's something you can do - add your voice to 1,300+ petitions at http://macmatte.wordpress.com Unlike personal emails to Apple - which Apple just ignore, asserting everyone loves glossy screens - make it count by adding to the online petition where your voice will remain visible on the net until Apple listens. Remember, adding your comment to transient news articles on the net is fine, but those articles go out of date in a few weeks, and also there is no long-term accumulation and consolidation of numbers, like there is at a petition site.
I've seen you post this same post on every Mac site I've visited today. Here's the problem - those of us who read Mac sites are a tiny minority. Those of us who read the comments on Mac sites are an even tinier minority. We don't represent the vast majority of iMac customers. This petition, while I agree with your preference as I type this on a matte screen MBP, is not going to do anything. Apple won't read it, and even if they do, will not follow it. But good luck.
I've seen you post this same post on every Mac site I've visited today. Here's the problem - those of us who read Mac sites are a tiny minority. Those of us who read the comments on Mac sites are an even tinier minority. We don't represent the vast majority of iMac customers. This petition, while I agree with your preference as I type this on a matte screen MBP, is not going to do anything. Apple won't read it, and even if they do, will not follow it. But good luck.
DocNYz
Apr 24, 03:15 PM
I just hope they manage to keep it as cool and quiet as our current mba 11" (1,6 Ghz C2D)... I prefer quiet computing over ultraspeed in a mba, for shure!
Yeah it should be, there's no hard drive to make noise and unless you keep it on a stove or do insanely heavy processing you shouldn't hear the fan either.
Yeah it should be, there's no hard drive to make noise and unless you keep it on a stove or do insanely heavy processing you shouldn't hear the fan either.
milo
Sep 6, 07:52 AM
This is what I had anticipated a while back, but Apple went and invested in the Mini as the quasi-set-top-box. I'm not saying it's not possible, but I wonder if they would change horses mid stream, as it were. I think the video AE would be cool, but it's not quite mainstream enough for regular folk. The Mini, on the other hand, would be sufficiently mainstream if Apple cut the price a little bit and made Front Row a little more robust (and included a DVI to HDMI cable ;)).
The mini isn't really any more of a set top box than any other mac, other than it being small. I don't see going with an airport as a change in direction, they've been pretty adamant that it's not a set top box all along. For a TV unit to become mainstream, it would have to be $200 tops, and even that is pretty high. A mini will never get that cheap - and even if it was, it would still be a waste to have a whole computer used for just TV when a cheap, simple streaming device would do the job.
I agree with everyone here who says that when Apple starts their own movie store they should also release a new Application along with it.
Playing video in iTunes is pretty bad.
They don't need a new app, they just need to fix iTunes.
I guess I was thinking if they up the resolution too much on the movie it may look better on the big screen, but it will no longer be compatible on the ipod.
I don't think the problem would be fixable in the firmware either. How big are we going to make these files?
Right now, I can rip a DVD (that I own of course) and crunch it down to my iPOD's size 320x240 (roughly 600MB for a couple of hours) . Now... it supports up to 640x480, but that turns it into a pretty hefty file.
I don't see apple changing the resolution for movies unless you want rediculous download times. Just downloading some of these HD trailers takes forever, and they look terrible on the displays at the apple store (tried it there only because I thought it was my computer, not the technology).
I guess I would rather see an on demand viewing solution for the hi-def stuff, which I can already do through comcast, and stick to low res for my iPod Video when I am traveling.
Either way... like I said in another post... you are going to see an updated iPod Nano, upgraded processors for some of models still using the first generation intel chips, and a worthless video streamer that lets you feed your video to a TV without hooking your computer up to it lo res (which will look terrible on a 1080p television)... oh and the Movie downloads - probably from Disney Pixar only at first.
This would suck for me because the last thing I want to do is tie up my computer so somebody in my house can watch INCREDIBLES with bad picture and average sound in my living room.
My guess would be that they'd offer two versions of the movie, one for TV and one for iPod (either giving the user a choice or letting them have both). If download time is an issue, another option is having the user's computer render out the smaller version, if the machine is fast enough.
They pretty much have to up the quality if they want to sell movies and promote them for watching on a TV. I assume they'll go NTSC and not HD, the size for that is still managable for people with high speed connections.
I disagree that the airport will be "worthless", because I don't think they will ship one that is low rez. NTSC (dvd quality) at minimum. I don't think low rez is even an option for TV viewing, apple wouldn't release something they'd know was doomed to fail.
The mini isn't really any more of a set top box than any other mac, other than it being small. I don't see going with an airport as a change in direction, they've been pretty adamant that it's not a set top box all along. For a TV unit to become mainstream, it would have to be $200 tops, and even that is pretty high. A mini will never get that cheap - and even if it was, it would still be a waste to have a whole computer used for just TV when a cheap, simple streaming device would do the job.
I agree with everyone here who says that when Apple starts their own movie store they should also release a new Application along with it.
Playing video in iTunes is pretty bad.
They don't need a new app, they just need to fix iTunes.
I guess I was thinking if they up the resolution too much on the movie it may look better on the big screen, but it will no longer be compatible on the ipod.
I don't think the problem would be fixable in the firmware either. How big are we going to make these files?
Right now, I can rip a DVD (that I own of course) and crunch it down to my iPOD's size 320x240 (roughly 600MB for a couple of hours) . Now... it supports up to 640x480, but that turns it into a pretty hefty file.
I don't see apple changing the resolution for movies unless you want rediculous download times. Just downloading some of these HD trailers takes forever, and they look terrible on the displays at the apple store (tried it there only because I thought it was my computer, not the technology).
I guess I would rather see an on demand viewing solution for the hi-def stuff, which I can already do through comcast, and stick to low res for my iPod Video when I am traveling.
Either way... like I said in another post... you are going to see an updated iPod Nano, upgraded processors for some of models still using the first generation intel chips, and a worthless video streamer that lets you feed your video to a TV without hooking your computer up to it lo res (which will look terrible on a 1080p television)... oh and the Movie downloads - probably from Disney Pixar only at first.
This would suck for me because the last thing I want to do is tie up my computer so somebody in my house can watch INCREDIBLES with bad picture and average sound in my living room.
My guess would be that they'd offer two versions of the movie, one for TV and one for iPod (either giving the user a choice or letting them have both). If download time is an issue, another option is having the user's computer render out the smaller version, if the machine is fast enough.
They pretty much have to up the quality if they want to sell movies and promote them for watching on a TV. I assume they'll go NTSC and not HD, the size for that is still managable for people with high speed connections.
I disagree that the airport will be "worthless", because I don't think they will ship one that is low rez. NTSC (dvd quality) at minimum. I don't think low rez is even an option for TV viewing, apple wouldn't release something they'd know was doomed to fail.
Creibold
Sep 12, 03:00 PM
It's the nintendo thinking people...
theelysium
May 3, 01:05 PM
I think there is an error on the iMac performance page.
It shows:
For i5
283912
Then for i7
283913
Shouldn't it show faster performance for the i7?:confused:
I sent an email to someone who works on their website asking them to double check that.:D
It shows:
For i5
283912
Then for i7
283913
Shouldn't it show faster performance for the i7?:confused:
I sent an email to someone who works on their website asking them to double check that.:D
beshyddaren
Sep 14, 04:55 PM
I don't know what the status on MBPs in other countries is, but back here in good old norway, no apple outlet has MBPs in store (though they have plenty of MBs, even though the MBs are the killer sellers). Both apple store and the various apple outlets I've talked to won't have MBPs in store for another 14 days (11 days now), which (in my screwed up head, atleast) fits very well with an apple event the 25th.
It also suggests that if new laptops are released, only the MBPs will see the upgrades. Apple store _does_ display the normal "ships within 24 hours" message on MBPs, but a couple of phone calls revealed they're on the same two-week lack of MBPs as normal stores.
I don't really care much for the merom, but other possible updates are enough to make me wait a bit. Hoping photokina is where my wait will be over :)
It also suggests that if new laptops are released, only the MBPs will see the upgrades. Apple store _does_ display the normal "ships within 24 hours" message on MBPs, but a couple of phone calls revealed they're on the same two-week lack of MBPs as normal stores.
I don't really care much for the merom, but other possible updates are enough to make me wait a bit. Hoping photokina is where my wait will be over :)
cmaier
Nov 14, 12:08 AM
Dude. You have a double standard. If Apple were to infringe on the copyright of someone else, you would be here pitchfork in hand screaming for blood.
If you look on other sites like macnn, you will see that the airfoil app does not only display Apple icons but rather the icon of whatever browser is configured as the main browser. They cannot make the claim that they have to right to use the Firefox, Camino or Omniweb icon in their app. It is not "streaming" the icon data, it is copied over and displayed superimposed on another icon which is presumably an internal OS X bundle. The audio is streamed but those icons are copied over and superimposed on each other on the phone. That is a clear violation of the IP of other programs in a manner that is not consistent with use on the mac it was pulled from.
Mozilla's trademark policy appears to allow this sort of use:
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html
More importantly, each of these companies is likely to argue for trademark infringement/unfair competition, not copyright infringement, particularly when the icon is trademarked (which is a different case than the Mac icons we are talking about).
It is permissible to use a trademark so long as there is no confusion as to source. That is, if people using the RA software are likely to think that somehow Mozilla (or the other companies) are the source of the software, this would be impermissible. It is permissible to use trademarks in a descriptive sense - i.e.: this icon means that the thing you are connecting to is the product Mozilla. There is also a fair use/non-trademark use defense. As long as the message I am sending is not "this product IS mozilla" it probably is not trademark infringement.
If you look on other sites like macnn, you will see that the airfoil app does not only display Apple icons but rather the icon of whatever browser is configured as the main browser. They cannot make the claim that they have to right to use the Firefox, Camino or Omniweb icon in their app. It is not "streaming" the icon data, it is copied over and displayed superimposed on another icon which is presumably an internal OS X bundle. The audio is streamed but those icons are copied over and superimposed on each other on the phone. That is a clear violation of the IP of other programs in a manner that is not consistent with use on the mac it was pulled from.
Mozilla's trademark policy appears to allow this sort of use:
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html
More importantly, each of these companies is likely to argue for trademark infringement/unfair competition, not copyright infringement, particularly when the icon is trademarked (which is a different case than the Mac icons we are talking about).
It is permissible to use a trademark so long as there is no confusion as to source. That is, if people using the RA software are likely to think that somehow Mozilla (or the other companies) are the source of the software, this would be impermissible. It is permissible to use trademarks in a descriptive sense - i.e.: this icon means that the thing you are connecting to is the product Mozilla. There is also a fair use/non-trademark use defense. As long as the message I am sending is not "this product IS mozilla" it probably is not trademark infringement.