vincenz
Apr 15, 05:23 PM
Ah, an English major. Kudos.
How'd you guess?! Is it that obvious?
How'd you guess?! Is it that obvious?
notjustjay
Mar 7, 10:07 AM
Windows 98 did more for USB adoption than the limited run Apple had with its original iMac. Common sense removed floppy drives a lot more than Apple forced it with the iMac, and a lot later too.
Some of you need to open up your boundaries a little beyond what Apple does.
Perhaps. You may well be right. But the point was that Apple was the first to seriously use USB and the first to remove floppy drives -- so they get to take the credit for "being innovative", and when everyone else follows suit, whether they were actually being copycats or for whatever other reason, they get credit for "being the leader" and "everyone copies them".
Apples one true area of brilliance is their masterful art of marketing. In the finest example of typical American deceptive advertising, Apple describes their products as "magical & revolutionary".
Apple can market however they like, but if the product itself doesn't stand up to the marketing, the product will fail. Plain and simple. Apple has not been without a few failures because they were poorly designed or poorly priced products that no amount of marketing could rescue them from (the G4 Cube, for example).
I bought an iPad, not because someone told me it was "magical and revolutionary" but because I tried it out in the store and could easily see myself using it far more than the netbook that it replaced. It was well designed, highly functional, and extremely practical for what I needed to do. The price was, well, Apple, meaning it cost twice as much as a netbook, but all told it was, and continues to be, a product that suited my needs.
Some of you need to open up your boundaries a little beyond what Apple does.
Perhaps. You may well be right. But the point was that Apple was the first to seriously use USB and the first to remove floppy drives -- so they get to take the credit for "being innovative", and when everyone else follows suit, whether they were actually being copycats or for whatever other reason, they get credit for "being the leader" and "everyone copies them".
Apples one true area of brilliance is their masterful art of marketing. In the finest example of typical American deceptive advertising, Apple describes their products as "magical & revolutionary".
Apple can market however they like, but if the product itself doesn't stand up to the marketing, the product will fail. Plain and simple. Apple has not been without a few failures because they were poorly designed or poorly priced products that no amount of marketing could rescue them from (the G4 Cube, for example).
I bought an iPad, not because someone told me it was "magical and revolutionary" but because I tried it out in the store and could easily see myself using it far more than the netbook that it replaced. It was well designed, highly functional, and extremely practical for what I needed to do. The price was, well, Apple, meaning it cost twice as much as a netbook, but all told it was, and continues to be, a product that suited my needs.
toes
Nov 23, 06:38 PM
Not sure about the AP Express (it's not on Apple's printed "Joy to the Wallet" sale list) ... Here it is again:
"Joy to the Wallet" sale only on black friday '06:
iMac: $898-$1958
MacBook: $998-$1398
.Mac: $68
iPod Nano (except Reds): $138-$228
iPod: $228-$318
Wireless Mighty Mouse: $58
Shure earphones: $78-$238
Contour iPod Cases: $14-$24
Belkin TuneBase FM: $58
JBL On Stage Micro: $78
JBL Spot Speakers: $108
LaCie Hard Drives: $148-$888
Incase Sling Pack: $48
Xtreme Mac Micro Memo Voice Recorder: $48
Sonic Impact Video-55 Display: $238
Nike+iPod Sport Kit: $24
The "red" iPod nanos and the new ipod shuffle remain at the same prices...
Well, then you add tax and you would be better of buying online at free-shipping, no-tax options. Applestores are nice, to look at stuff, but no good for anything else (especially lousy are the 'so-called' genius bars).
Just my 2c, t.
"Joy to the Wallet" sale only on black friday '06:
iMac: $898-$1958
MacBook: $998-$1398
.Mac: $68
iPod Nano (except Reds): $138-$228
iPod: $228-$318
Wireless Mighty Mouse: $58
Shure earphones: $78-$238
Contour iPod Cases: $14-$24
Belkin TuneBase FM: $58
JBL On Stage Micro: $78
JBL Spot Speakers: $108
LaCie Hard Drives: $148-$888
Incase Sling Pack: $48
Xtreme Mac Micro Memo Voice Recorder: $48
Sonic Impact Video-55 Display: $238
Nike+iPod Sport Kit: $24
The "red" iPod nanos and the new ipod shuffle remain at the same prices...
Well, then you add tax and you would be better of buying online at free-shipping, no-tax options. Applestores are nice, to look at stuff, but no good for anything else (especially lousy are the 'so-called' genius bars).
Just my 2c, t.
Anthony T
Apr 15, 03:48 PM
http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2010/04/15/images-of-4th-generation-iphone-emerge/
What do you guys think?
I think it could be real, since when the 3G photos leaked, everyone was like 'no way Apple is going for a plastic back' and no one believed they were real...but it turned out they were.
I'm not sure how I feel about those edges on the phone though. It should be more rounded out and smooth.
What do you guys think?
I think it could be real, since when the 3G photos leaked, everyone was like 'no way Apple is going for a plastic back' and no one believed they were real...but it turned out they were.
I'm not sure how I feel about those edges on the phone though. It should be more rounded out and smooth.
iphone3gs16gb
Apr 26, 08:59 AM
This guy was more than capable of defending himself...
French iPod
Apr 9, 10:13 AM
http://img.game.co.uk/ml/3/5/3/6/353636ps_500h.jpg
Pokemon DSI, with pokemon black for �99 \M/
O.o i love the packaging :D it's so black:p never played a pokemon game since the gold edition on my gameboy color and i was around 14...
anyway i'm going to get my Just Cause 2 copy today @ EBGAMES so freaking exciting squeee:D
Pokemon DSI, with pokemon black for �99 \M/
O.o i love the packaging :D it's so black:p never played a pokemon game since the gold edition on my gameboy color and i was around 14...
anyway i'm going to get my Just Cause 2 copy today @ EBGAMES so freaking exciting squeee:D
notjustjay
Mar 7, 01:06 AM
I think there are a lot of factors at play here.
One is that virtually every other company not only has to compete with Apple, but with each other. So they have to cram the most features and specs they can into a product, while making as cheap as they possibly can, in order to stay competitive.
For example, take a MacBook Pro, and find ways to make it cheaper: Well, we can replace the unibody aluminum with a plastic shell. We could remove the backlit keyboard. We could replace the glass touchpad with a cheaper part. Take out the Firewire port. Hey, look what's left: a cheap laptop. Everyone tries to get it cheaper and cheaper so they can outsell the other guys. Meanwhile, Apple puts in whatever they want and charges whatever they want, because they've built themselves up a position where they know people will still go ahead and pay it.
Also, because of the tight competition, companies are afraid to take risks. Remember when the USB por had just been introduced? This was a real chicken and egg situation for PC makers. No PC maker wants to be the first to switch to all USB ports because (a) it will cost more money to put the new ports into the board, and (b) they know it will annoy customers who will have to buy all peripherals. Customers will simply buy the competing brand because it's cheaper. Now, someone eventually sells a PC with both USB and PS/2 ports so you can slowly start the upgrade trend, but it's slow for all the above reasons.
Same for the floppy drive: nobody wants to be the first to ship without one. It would be seen as being "too different" and cause lost sales to the competition.
Then comes Apple with the iMac and its all-USB ports and no floppy. You want an iMac? You're getting USB. You're getting no floppy drive. There's simply no choice about it. There's no competition, either, and Apple is already known for being more expensive so that's not even a factor. Apple decides they want to push the standard forward, and frankly you have no real choice about it (if you intend to stick to Apple).
Then the market opens up (for USB) or perception changes (it's OK to not have a floppy drive) or Apple defines something cool that people copycat, and in all cases Apple's marketing engine claims credit for changing the industry. Repeat something enough times and everyone starts to believe it...
And, to be honest, there's also lots of confirmation bias going on.
One is that virtually every other company not only has to compete with Apple, but with each other. So they have to cram the most features and specs they can into a product, while making as cheap as they possibly can, in order to stay competitive.
For example, take a MacBook Pro, and find ways to make it cheaper: Well, we can replace the unibody aluminum with a plastic shell. We could remove the backlit keyboard. We could replace the glass touchpad with a cheaper part. Take out the Firewire port. Hey, look what's left: a cheap laptop. Everyone tries to get it cheaper and cheaper so they can outsell the other guys. Meanwhile, Apple puts in whatever they want and charges whatever they want, because they've built themselves up a position where they know people will still go ahead and pay it.
Also, because of the tight competition, companies are afraid to take risks. Remember when the USB por had just been introduced? This was a real chicken and egg situation for PC makers. No PC maker wants to be the first to switch to all USB ports because (a) it will cost more money to put the new ports into the board, and (b) they know it will annoy customers who will have to buy all peripherals. Customers will simply buy the competing brand because it's cheaper. Now, someone eventually sells a PC with both USB and PS/2 ports so you can slowly start the upgrade trend, but it's slow for all the above reasons.
Same for the floppy drive: nobody wants to be the first to ship without one. It would be seen as being "too different" and cause lost sales to the competition.
Then comes Apple with the iMac and its all-USB ports and no floppy. You want an iMac? You're getting USB. You're getting no floppy drive. There's simply no choice about it. There's no competition, either, and Apple is already known for being more expensive so that's not even a factor. Apple decides they want to push the standard forward, and frankly you have no real choice about it (if you intend to stick to Apple).
Then the market opens up (for USB) or perception changes (it's OK to not have a floppy drive) or Apple defines something cool that people copycat, and in all cases Apple's marketing engine claims credit for changing the industry. Repeat something enough times and everyone starts to believe it...
And, to be honest, there's also lots of confirmation bias going on.
Surely
Apr 5, 10:51 PM
May it bring you success and wealth! :D
;)
I already found a quarter when I was walking to my car at the gym!
;)
I already found a quarter when I was walking to my car at the gym!
DavidLeblond
Sep 12, 07:22 AM
Aint it a bit early for that. With 5 hours to go before the event:confused: :confused:
It's called hype, my friend.
It's called hype, my friend.
twoodcc
Sep 14, 05:26 PM
That is too bad, my latest electric bill is about the same as it's been all summer.
my power bill (which includes water and sewer) was $385 last month!
but i did finally get someone out to look at the a/c unit. i believe that is a big part of the problem. we'll see
my power bill (which includes water and sewer) was $385 last month!
but i did finally get someone out to look at the a/c unit. i believe that is a big part of the problem. we'll see
snberk103
Apr 15, 12:29 PM
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
twoodcc
Apr 28, 09:24 PM
I thought about that, getting one cpu now and getting another one down the road, but the board was only $200 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128423) in this case maybe 2 systems would be better than one - if I get another one down the road or if Apple EVER gets around to making a new Mac Pro :rolleyes:
well, 2 systems would be better than one, if you can afford it.
let's see
dual cpu:
- 2 x i7 980x - $2,000
- motherboard - $600
- 12 GB of RAM - about $300
- powersupply - about $120
total - about $3,020
single cpu:
- i7 980x - $1,000
- motherboard - $200
- 6 GB of RAM - about $150
- powersupply - about $80
total - about $1430 x 2 = $2,860
so 2 systems might actually be cheaper. i didn't put a case, since with the big $600 motherboard, it won't fit in most cases. and i assume you already have gpus
well, 2 systems would be better than one, if you can afford it.
let's see
dual cpu:
- 2 x i7 980x - $2,000
- motherboard - $600
- 12 GB of RAM - about $300
- powersupply - about $120
total - about $3,020
single cpu:
- i7 980x - $1,000
- motherboard - $200
- 6 GB of RAM - about $150
- powersupply - about $80
total - about $1430 x 2 = $2,860
so 2 systems might actually be cheaper. i didn't put a case, since with the big $600 motherboard, it won't fit in most cases. and i assume you already have gpus
twoodcc
May 4, 06:31 PM
Speaking of aggravation, I'm having trouble with my new system. I'm back to stock cpu speed and for some reason the wu's don't want to use all of the cores/threads so bigadv units are running at 45+ min per frame now from 27 min per frame the first time I ran folding.
oh man. that's not good. what flags are you using?
-smp 12?
oh man. that's not good. what flags are you using?
-smp 12?
rdowns
Apr 16, 07:01 PM
I made an observation in a joking manner. But yeah, it probably does sting a little. ;)
It's Saturday night. I'm going out with friends to see some bands and then hopefully get sodomized later.
What are your plans? ;)
Staying in. It's pouring with 40-50 mph winds. I gots me some sodomy last night though. ;)
Hope you get some too!
Well have fun Lee!
Meanwhile here's a clip about the honey badger (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7wHMg5Yjg).
I love that video. Cracks me up every time I see it.
It's Saturday night. I'm going out with friends to see some bands and then hopefully get sodomized later.
What are your plans? ;)
Staying in. It's pouring with 40-50 mph winds. I gots me some sodomy last night though. ;)
Hope you get some too!
Well have fun Lee!
Meanwhile here's a clip about the honey badger (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7wHMg5Yjg).
I love that video. Cracks me up every time I see it.
Mattie Num Nums
May 2, 09:29 AM
Actually I have seen a number of explanations on this thread from people who use Windows more than myself. The answer to why it is "7" does not seem to be well known even to Windows users.
Really its not brain surgery.
Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, XP (5.0), Vista (6.0), Windows 7 (7.0).
Really its not brain surgery.
Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, XP (5.0), Vista (6.0), Windows 7 (7.0).
roadbloc
Mar 14, 04:23 AM
Wait a while.
I'm still waiting for Laptops to kill Desktops like everyone said they were going to in the early 2000's.
iPads will sell. So will Laptops. So will Desktops. So will Servers. The iPad will not, and simply cannot replace them all. It's impossible.
I'm still waiting for Laptops to kill Desktops like everyone said they were going to in the early 2000's.
iPads will sell. So will Laptops. So will Desktops. So will Servers. The iPad will not, and simply cannot replace them all. It's impossible.
grahamtearne
Sep 12, 04:34 AM
A few people have mentioned webcasts and things streamed to London. I live in the UK, can anyone clear things up, am I going to be able to watch the event on the net live (if so, where), or will I just have to make sense of the text scrolling up the screen on this site?
Jamie
the live stream to london is for journalists only
Jamie
the live stream to london is for journalists only
Thomas Veil
Mar 4, 12:05 PM
Keep talking Veil, 2010 was just the 'coming attractions.'Outdated graphs aside, you really think so? With the tri-cornered hat brigade being vastly outnumbered at rallies? With public opinion siding with the unions? With people watching good workers threatened with jail, and thinking to themselves, "If it can happen to them, it can happen to us?"
And the fact that she married 5P. ;)You have to wonder, if she was in a union and they declared a strike, who would he side with? A thread that runs through his posts seems to be that people and practicality take a back seat to strict adherence to rigid dogma. Would he let his wife get dragged off to jail, just so he could remain righteous in his beliefs?
And the fact that she married 5P. ;)You have to wonder, if she was in a union and they declared a strike, who would he side with? A thread that runs through his posts seems to be that people and practicality take a back seat to strict adherence to rigid dogma. Would he let his wife get dragged off to jail, just so he could remain righteous in his beliefs?
Nicolasdec
Jan 9, 05:08 PM
mine just says connecting
lordonuthin
Apr 30, 09:06 PM
you're really getting one?! if so, you'll have to start a new thread about it, and give up updates!
Got it! I had just enough time to put it in a case but not enough to boot it up before work :( The heat sink that Intel give you is BIG, but would probably fit in a 3u. Maybe. My case is 4u so lots of room. I put 12 gigs of ram it it too, just need a gpu now (from one of the other machines for now). I think I will see what is on Ebay or craig's list.
Got it! I had just enough time to put it in a case but not enough to boot it up before work :( The heat sink that Intel give you is BIG, but would probably fit in a 3u. Maybe. My case is 4u so lots of room. I put 12 gigs of ram it it too, just need a gpu now (from one of the other machines for now). I think I will see what is on Ebay or craig's list.
macman2790
Oct 3, 01:37 PM
This is my prediction as well. We'll see!
i've been pessimistic about the mbp update for a while now considering how long it would take for santa rosa if they released a new one now.
i've been pessimistic about the mbp update for a while now considering how long it would take for santa rosa if they released a new one now.
Full of Win
Mar 28, 02:18 PM
BS. Pure, BS.
When did good design become contigent on devs accepting a lop-sided TOS?
When did good design become contigent on devs accepting a lop-sided TOS?
clukas
Apr 5, 03:39 PM
hahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.........
Whoever spends their time looking at adverts is a lost cause and has no life. Seriously I think this is the most ridiculous thing apple has come up with.
Whoever spends their time looking at adverts is a lost cause and has no life. Seriously I think this is the most ridiculous thing apple has come up with.
martijnvandijk
Sep 12, 08:39 AM
NL store is down
No comments:
Post a Comment