JAT
Apr 13, 10:55 AM
I love the Hecho en China threads!
Every time, posters come out to support China and insult the US. They all use the same talking points:
US workers are lazy
Unions are evil
Regulations against pollution, etc are burdensome
An iPhone would cost $1000 or even more!
Taxes on rich people/corporations are too high.
Hmmm.....sponsored by our right wing, or by Foxcon?
You do understand that the right wing backbone is low income factory worker types in the so-called red states, right?
Every time, posters come out to support China and insult the US. They all use the same talking points:
US workers are lazy
Unions are evil
Regulations against pollution, etc are burdensome
An iPhone would cost $1000 or even more!
Taxes on rich people/corporations are too high.
Hmmm.....sponsored by our right wing, or by Foxcon?
You do understand that the right wing backbone is low income factory worker types in the so-called red states, right?
lostngone
Mar 29, 01:31 AM
Moscone North and South were already reserved for trade shows much bigger than WWDC more than a year in advance. It's all about the total number of attendees, and these big trade shows bring in an order of magnitude more people spending money in SF than either WWDC or Google IO.
Yes, reserved now.
However look 2 years out. If back in the day MacWorld Expo could get North and South then Apple should not have a problem with getting 2 or more of the building as well.
Yes, reserved now.
However look 2 years out. If back in the day MacWorld Expo could get North and South then Apple should not have a problem with getting 2 or more of the building as well.
hulugu
Mar 30, 11:42 AM
actually NATO doesn't come into play ... or do you see any german troops ? ;) ...
Good point. The involvement of Britain and France would seem enough, I guess, but you're correct, it's not a NATO operation.
... Just think about it: Sarkozy got funding for his last campaign illegally from libya. Can there be a more convinient way of getting away from that dirty laundry than bombing them into oblivion ? While at home showing how much of a strong leader he is for increasing popularity ?
Anne Applebaum made a similar argument in Slate just a few days ago, arguing that France, really Sarkozy, was pushing for the intervention in kind of 'wag the dog' scenario.
Good point. The involvement of Britain and France would seem enough, I guess, but you're correct, it's not a NATO operation.
... Just think about it: Sarkozy got funding for his last campaign illegally from libya. Can there be a more convinient way of getting away from that dirty laundry than bombing them into oblivion ? While at home showing how much of a strong leader he is for increasing popularity ?
Anne Applebaum made a similar argument in Slate just a few days ago, arguing that France, really Sarkozy, was pushing for the intervention in kind of 'wag the dog' scenario.
OllyW
Nov 25, 12:30 PM
Is this close enough for you?
Are you always this late to the show?
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=11477087#post11477087
:D
Are you always this late to the show?
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=11477087#post11477087
:D
sconnor99
Apr 13, 04:11 PM
It's nice to see the generally positive comments on this forum, other forums for "professionals" are not so happy!
Personally I can't wait to start working with it.
Personally I can't wait to start working with it.
SevenInchScrew
Oct 11, 11:55 AM
What's this about datapads? I managed to get through the game on Heroic & half on Legendary without finding even one. Don't make me go through all that again!
Yep, the game has some datapads in all of the various levels. Much like the Terminals in Halo 3, and the Audio Logs in ODST, these are sort of hidden. They all tell a different bit of side story, or back story. Not really required, per se, but they do give some good info if you do hunt them down.
I still don't understand why Halsey was kept in a glass cell.
She sealed herself off because of the Covenant attack on Sword Base, to try and keep herself and her research safe. At least, that is what I took of it.
I'd love to play through the series again, starting with Reach and then Halo, etc., but I've never tried playing Halo on a 360. Does it play/look ok?
Yep, both Halo 1 & 2 work just fine on the 360. They have turned off the old Xbox Live servers, so obviously you won't be able to play Halo 2 online, but the campaigns from both games will work fine.
Halo Wars >> Reach >> Halo 1 >> Halo 2 >> ODST >> Halo 3
I'm growing more and more disenchanted with Multi-player though...I'd rather pop in Halo 3...the game variants and maps are much more enticing...
I sort of agree. I've been having a real hit-or-miss experience with the Multiplayer lately. Either the games go great, and are fun, or there is tons of quitting, and the games fall apart. I really like BTB and Invasion, and both of them could really stand to have some of the maps looked at with regards to the spawns and balance issues. The game could be quite fun, but it still needs some work to refine it a bit.
On a slightly related note, I have hit Lt. Colonel, and my Spartan has had some new modifications done to him... :D
http://i53.tinypic.com/2czekj9.jpg
http://i54.tinypic.com/s6q5ax.jpg
Yep, the game has some datapads in all of the various levels. Much like the Terminals in Halo 3, and the Audio Logs in ODST, these are sort of hidden. They all tell a different bit of side story, or back story. Not really required, per se, but they do give some good info if you do hunt them down.
I still don't understand why Halsey was kept in a glass cell.
She sealed herself off because of the Covenant attack on Sword Base, to try and keep herself and her research safe. At least, that is what I took of it.
I'd love to play through the series again, starting with Reach and then Halo, etc., but I've never tried playing Halo on a 360. Does it play/look ok?
Yep, both Halo 1 & 2 work just fine on the 360. They have turned off the old Xbox Live servers, so obviously you won't be able to play Halo 2 online, but the campaigns from both games will work fine.
Halo Wars >> Reach >> Halo 1 >> Halo 2 >> ODST >> Halo 3
I'm growing more and more disenchanted with Multi-player though...I'd rather pop in Halo 3...the game variants and maps are much more enticing...
I sort of agree. I've been having a real hit-or-miss experience with the Multiplayer lately. Either the games go great, and are fun, or there is tons of quitting, and the games fall apart. I really like BTB and Invasion, and both of them could really stand to have some of the maps looked at with regards to the spawns and balance issues. The game could be quite fun, but it still needs some work to refine it a bit.
On a slightly related note, I have hit Lt. Colonel, and my Spartan has had some new modifications done to him... :D
http://i53.tinypic.com/2czekj9.jpg
http://i54.tinypic.com/s6q5ax.jpg
DaveTheGrey
Aug 29, 08:38 AM
who cares how much crap is?
balamw
Sep 12, 02:30 PM
iTunes now provides access to an "Album Artist" tag which should help keep those duets and other collaborations in line without having to declare them as compilations.
B
B
milo
Apr 14, 02:24 PM
And who, exactly, are you talking about?
All I've seen are a few anonymous comments on this message board. Who are those people? Are they pros? I don't know who they are. Do you know?
Funny how you've developed a whole theory about "professionals" and yet you haven't proved in any way that any pros said what you claimed they said. I've read that the crowd at the show seemed to really love it.
Looks like you totally misread his post - he didn't say professionals, he said "professionals". Meaning people who claimed to be pros.
And it's funny, yesterday those "pros" were all ranting that tons of features were removed and the rest of the suite killed, now that that has been debunked they're off in hiding.
Because you made a post that claimed our editing skills have nothing to do with creativiy or experience, but simply that 'knowing the software' is the only advangate we have.
Good try, but no. Because you misread his post and assumed something he didn't actually say. I know, sometimes sarcasm can be tricky, but it seemed pretty obvious to me.
There ARE "pros" who get mad because software gets cheaper and easier to use. If they are truly talented they should have nothing to worry about, but I'm sure there are guys out there who aren't especially great editors who are getting work because they could afford the cost of entry.
All I've seen are a few anonymous comments on this message board. Who are those people? Are they pros? I don't know who they are. Do you know?
Funny how you've developed a whole theory about "professionals" and yet you haven't proved in any way that any pros said what you claimed they said. I've read that the crowd at the show seemed to really love it.
Looks like you totally misread his post - he didn't say professionals, he said "professionals". Meaning people who claimed to be pros.
And it's funny, yesterday those "pros" were all ranting that tons of features were removed and the rest of the suite killed, now that that has been debunked they're off in hiding.
Because you made a post that claimed our editing skills have nothing to do with creativiy or experience, but simply that 'knowing the software' is the only advangate we have.
Good try, but no. Because you misread his post and assumed something he didn't actually say. I know, sometimes sarcasm can be tricky, but it seemed pretty obvious to me.
There ARE "pros" who get mad because software gets cheaper and easier to use. If they are truly talented they should have nothing to worry about, but I'm sure there are guys out there who aren't especially great editors who are getting work because they could afford the cost of entry.
Brandon Sharitt
Sep 4, 06:57 AM
The following is just me personal guesses as too updates to Apples hardware over the next 6 months or so, with a few coming on the 12th and most by the end of the year.
MacBook Pros updated to Core 2 Duos is a no brainer, though I'm not sure if they'd launch it at such and event, but still possible since it is a bit more than speed bump, and you know Steve would want to brag about his new 64-bit PowerBooks.
Also, the iMacs seem to be in the same boat processor wise, though which Core 2 Duo isn't quite as obvious of a choice. If they could fit a G5 in the form factor, it seems reasonable that they could get Conroe in there too, but Merom would let it run cooler. Considering the large gap between the Mac mini and Mac Pro, a 23" iMac would just make sense, unless the much hoped for Conroe based mid tower was released, though that a lot less likely than a 23" iMac, or even a 30" iMac, so don't hold your breath.
MacBooks, don't hold your breath, possibly price drops to get it to $999 again since Yonah prices have come down since launch, but don't expect a Core 2 Duo any time soon. The MacBook is already eating the MacBook Pro's launch due to the similar specs, so the Core 2 is likely to be the MacBook Pro advantage.
Like the MacBook, the Mac mini could see drops back down to G4 levels, and I would discount the Core Duos across the line, but again, don't look for the Core 2 Duo anytime soon.
As for iPods, I would expect the touch screen Video iPod to come out in time for the holiday season, though maybe not on the 12th. The reason being to compete with the Zune and the fact that there finally seems to be a deal about a movie store. As for the regular iPod, probably 40GB and 80GB versions at the current prices, with a slim chance at a 60GB model at $349. As for the nano, probably doubling of storage on all models(2GB, 4GB, 8GB) at the same price points. I wouldn't be surprised to see a 1GB nano at around $129 either. As for the shuffle, if it survives, 512MB at $49 and 1GB at around $79 or so.
MacBook Pros updated to Core 2 Duos is a no brainer, though I'm not sure if they'd launch it at such and event, but still possible since it is a bit more than speed bump, and you know Steve would want to brag about his new 64-bit PowerBooks.
Also, the iMacs seem to be in the same boat processor wise, though which Core 2 Duo isn't quite as obvious of a choice. If they could fit a G5 in the form factor, it seems reasonable that they could get Conroe in there too, but Merom would let it run cooler. Considering the large gap between the Mac mini and Mac Pro, a 23" iMac would just make sense, unless the much hoped for Conroe based mid tower was released, though that a lot less likely than a 23" iMac, or even a 30" iMac, so don't hold your breath.
MacBooks, don't hold your breath, possibly price drops to get it to $999 again since Yonah prices have come down since launch, but don't expect a Core 2 Duo any time soon. The MacBook is already eating the MacBook Pro's launch due to the similar specs, so the Core 2 is likely to be the MacBook Pro advantage.
Like the MacBook, the Mac mini could see drops back down to G4 levels, and I would discount the Core Duos across the line, but again, don't look for the Core 2 Duo anytime soon.
As for iPods, I would expect the touch screen Video iPod to come out in time for the holiday season, though maybe not on the 12th. The reason being to compete with the Zune and the fact that there finally seems to be a deal about a movie store. As for the regular iPod, probably 40GB and 80GB versions at the current prices, with a slim chance at a 60GB model at $349. As for the nano, probably doubling of storage on all models(2GB, 4GB, 8GB) at the same price points. I wouldn't be surprised to see a 1GB nano at around $129 either. As for the shuffle, if it survives, 512MB at $49 and 1GB at around $79 or so.
fivepoint
Mar 29, 08:26 AM
I don't know about that. Check out #2 ...
If the United States were under immediate threat, do you really think the president would have to write a report to congress "setting forth the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces"?
As for Rand Paul's objections, it's so geopolitically and historically ignorant, it's beyond contempt. It's been hilarious watching the right run around to find a consistent line of attack on this. Congress hasn't declared war since the 1940s.
This is a multilateral action with the backing of a Security Council resolution. The Daily Telegraph's rantings about Al Qaeda are little more than Gaddafi propaganda.
As for US interests, many of you including the racist fringe christianist Pauls, are not connecting the dots:
The entire point of this is in the long-term. Apart from denying a victorious Gaddafi an opportunity to create trouble to his neighbours and destabilise the region, it is to provide support for popular uprisings in order to deny radicalism the oxygen it needs.
It's fascinating how quickly the Democrat party has turned into the party of war... trying to justify it legally and morally at every corner. It's almost as if their anti-war stance for the past 10 years was a complete farce, and was more anti-Bush than anti-war, anti-intervention. Now that Obama is at the helm, core philosophy no longer matters, consistent morality no longer matters, only justifying war and protecting the political future of the first black president.
The constitution was written in regards to war specifically to stifle the power of the president which the founders knew would be more predisposed to war, and to put the power in the hands of the people via congress. In fact, as Tom Woods recently put it...
...here is my challenge to you. I want you to find me one Federalist, during the entire period in which the Constitution was pending, who argued that the president could launch non-defensive wars without consulting Congress. To make it easy on you, you may cite any Federalist speaking in any of the ratification conventions in any of the states, or in a public lecture, or in a newspaper article � whatever. One Federalist who took your position. I want his name and the exact quotation.
If I�m so wrong, this challenge should be a breeze. If you evade this challenge, or call me names, or make peripheral arguments instead, I will take that as an admission of defeat.
We can argue all day long about whether or not war with Libya was justified, you'll talk about the threat of mass killings, I'll talk about the tens of other nations which are in similar circumstances which receive NO American aid and the logical fallacy of suggesting it's our role to play in picking sides on every civil war around the world... but the point here is that it's straight up unconstitutional, and CANDIDATE Obama (you know, the one you voted for) completely agrees. But for some reason, now that he's president you think it's ok for him to switch his views 180 degrees and still are unwilling to admit you agree with Rand Paul even though his position is far more consistent with candidate Obama's. Sounds awfully hypocritical.
This was my impression as well. If correct, Obama has no business doing what he's done--right, wrong, paid for or not. Personally, I'm glad somebody's stopping Gaddafi from acting unchecked--but that doesn't excuse circumventing the constitution to do so.
Yes.
I'm not surprised. Every administration grabs more and more power. I get depressed just seeing how everyone takes it as the status quo and defends it. The Constitution was set up almost as if to stop one person from being able to take up to war on a whim. Well, if Obama has that right, then George Bush III, or whoever will push the limits of his powers even further. I guess that's the power of precedence. If you look at the Constitution, it vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war. Things just have a way of changing. I thought Bush was bad enough with Iraq. Now Obama's actions are even worse than Bush's. Obama didn't even put up the charade of making a case.
Yes.
Uh yeah. Saw that on Meet the Press. Paul is only telling a half-truth. Gates went on to say that other NATO countries felt they have a vital interest in Libya, and I think we all understand how the NATO treaty works. Whether or not you believe or agree with that, the fact is that Paul misrepresented Gates' statement.
I don't want to be the one to tell you, but Americans hold no allegiance to NATO or to the United Nations. In addition, no treaties or otherwise passed by these two organizations have any legal effect on our sovereign nation. The UN or NATO passing a resolution to engage in military action does not serve as an ALTERNATIVE to a declaration of war by the U.S. congress.
Also, I do not believe his position was misrepresented. If you watched Gates' testimony before the war, you'll see that he was dragged kicking and screaming in to this war. He is of the strong opinion that this was a bad idea and that Libya is not vital to U.S. interests. His comment that the 'mid-east' is part of our national interest was an extremely long reach in a pathetic attempt to find some sort of overlap between his position and the administration he works for. I'd say Paul's analysis of Gates' position is much better than any analysis which suggests he thinks the war is justified.
If the United States were under immediate threat, do you really think the president would have to write a report to congress "setting forth the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces"?
As for Rand Paul's objections, it's so geopolitically and historically ignorant, it's beyond contempt. It's been hilarious watching the right run around to find a consistent line of attack on this. Congress hasn't declared war since the 1940s.
This is a multilateral action with the backing of a Security Council resolution. The Daily Telegraph's rantings about Al Qaeda are little more than Gaddafi propaganda.
As for US interests, many of you including the racist fringe christianist Pauls, are not connecting the dots:
The entire point of this is in the long-term. Apart from denying a victorious Gaddafi an opportunity to create trouble to his neighbours and destabilise the region, it is to provide support for popular uprisings in order to deny radicalism the oxygen it needs.
It's fascinating how quickly the Democrat party has turned into the party of war... trying to justify it legally and morally at every corner. It's almost as if their anti-war stance for the past 10 years was a complete farce, and was more anti-Bush than anti-war, anti-intervention. Now that Obama is at the helm, core philosophy no longer matters, consistent morality no longer matters, only justifying war and protecting the political future of the first black president.
The constitution was written in regards to war specifically to stifle the power of the president which the founders knew would be more predisposed to war, and to put the power in the hands of the people via congress. In fact, as Tom Woods recently put it...
...here is my challenge to you. I want you to find me one Federalist, during the entire period in which the Constitution was pending, who argued that the president could launch non-defensive wars without consulting Congress. To make it easy on you, you may cite any Federalist speaking in any of the ratification conventions in any of the states, or in a public lecture, or in a newspaper article � whatever. One Federalist who took your position. I want his name and the exact quotation.
If I�m so wrong, this challenge should be a breeze. If you evade this challenge, or call me names, or make peripheral arguments instead, I will take that as an admission of defeat.
We can argue all day long about whether or not war with Libya was justified, you'll talk about the threat of mass killings, I'll talk about the tens of other nations which are in similar circumstances which receive NO American aid and the logical fallacy of suggesting it's our role to play in picking sides on every civil war around the world... but the point here is that it's straight up unconstitutional, and CANDIDATE Obama (you know, the one you voted for) completely agrees. But for some reason, now that he's president you think it's ok for him to switch his views 180 degrees and still are unwilling to admit you agree with Rand Paul even though his position is far more consistent with candidate Obama's. Sounds awfully hypocritical.
This was my impression as well. If correct, Obama has no business doing what he's done--right, wrong, paid for or not. Personally, I'm glad somebody's stopping Gaddafi from acting unchecked--but that doesn't excuse circumventing the constitution to do so.
Yes.
I'm not surprised. Every administration grabs more and more power. I get depressed just seeing how everyone takes it as the status quo and defends it. The Constitution was set up almost as if to stop one person from being able to take up to war on a whim. Well, if Obama has that right, then George Bush III, or whoever will push the limits of his powers even further. I guess that's the power of precedence. If you look at the Constitution, it vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war. Things just have a way of changing. I thought Bush was bad enough with Iraq. Now Obama's actions are even worse than Bush's. Obama didn't even put up the charade of making a case.
Yes.
Uh yeah. Saw that on Meet the Press. Paul is only telling a half-truth. Gates went on to say that other NATO countries felt they have a vital interest in Libya, and I think we all understand how the NATO treaty works. Whether or not you believe or agree with that, the fact is that Paul misrepresented Gates' statement.
I don't want to be the one to tell you, but Americans hold no allegiance to NATO or to the United Nations. In addition, no treaties or otherwise passed by these two organizations have any legal effect on our sovereign nation. The UN or NATO passing a resolution to engage in military action does not serve as an ALTERNATIVE to a declaration of war by the U.S. congress.
Also, I do not believe his position was misrepresented. If you watched Gates' testimony before the war, you'll see that he was dragged kicking and screaming in to this war. He is of the strong opinion that this was a bad idea and that Libya is not vital to U.S. interests. His comment that the 'mid-east' is part of our national interest was an extremely long reach in a pathetic attempt to find some sort of overlap between his position and the administration he works for. I'd say Paul's analysis of Gates' position is much better than any analysis which suggests he thinks the war is justified.
MacKarl
Oct 29, 03:22 AM
I can't see any differences in temperature, voltage or frequency after the SMC update. I use the coolbook utility to monitor this (http://www.coolbook.se.
Jcoz
Mar 29, 03:36 PM
I'm happy it's working for you, but that doesnt mean they were problem free.
The rest is your opinion, not fact.... But since you like the iPhone 4 your opinion must count more then mine right? :rolleyes:
Yes your right... Me saying it's a POS negates any opinion I have. Why didn't I see that?
Oh right. Cause a lot of people agree. And it's important. And I want the iPhone 5 soon, so I can rid myself of the 3GS, and hear from all you fanbois that IT is the best phone eva omgwtf everyone has to agree or they don't know what they are talking abot!!!!!!
It's really not nearly as big a deal as you are making it, maybe calm down a bit?
funny you are the one basically calling people out for hurt feelings yet you are showing much, much more emotion in your opinion.
Yes using wild hyperbole does in fact degrade the chances of people taking what you say seriously. It doesn't mean your opinion doesn't "count", it just means it isn't much worth listening to.
Whatever your real opinion is, you are posting with the emotion of a teenager. I've got no bones to pick with your decision not to get a new iphone. You seem angry at someone, dont know who that is.
No matter, I could care less. Grab a beer or get laid or something.
The rest is your opinion, not fact.... But since you like the iPhone 4 your opinion must count more then mine right? :rolleyes:
Yes your right... Me saying it's a POS negates any opinion I have. Why didn't I see that?
Oh right. Cause a lot of people agree. And it's important. And I want the iPhone 5 soon, so I can rid myself of the 3GS, and hear from all you fanbois that IT is the best phone eva omgwtf everyone has to agree or they don't know what they are talking abot!!!!!!
It's really not nearly as big a deal as you are making it, maybe calm down a bit?
funny you are the one basically calling people out for hurt feelings yet you are showing much, much more emotion in your opinion.
Yes using wild hyperbole does in fact degrade the chances of people taking what you say seriously. It doesn't mean your opinion doesn't "count", it just means it isn't much worth listening to.
Whatever your real opinion is, you are posting with the emotion of a teenager. I've got no bones to pick with your decision not to get a new iphone. You seem angry at someone, dont know who that is.
No matter, I could care less. Grab a beer or get laid or something.
Warbrain
Aug 24, 01:32 PM
Doesn't matter. I think the script they were using was broken anyway. I tried to enter my affected serial number a bunch of ways and it wouldn't accept it. My guess is that they took the site down to fix the issue.
Or it could be because the story hit the front page of Digg :)
-Mike
Yea, the page is probably digg****ed as well as being destroyed by MacRumors, AppleInsider, Engadget, TUAW, Think Secret, Slashdot, etc.
Or it could be because the story hit the front page of Digg :)
-Mike
Yea, the page is probably digg****ed as well as being destroyed by MacRumors, AppleInsider, Engadget, TUAW, Think Secret, Slashdot, etc.
silentnite
Apr 17, 01:02 AM
Wake me up when Starbucks start selling em. :eek:
Sydde
Apr 11, 08:02 PM
As I said above, free will is a foundational truth that can't be overlooked. God has given you the ability to reject him and you are simply exercising that choice
Sorry to seem to be excessively contrarian, but even here we have a problem. At least I do, some others will probably disagree with me. Of course in the first place, the "god has given you" assertion is irksome. You are apparently not even able to say "you have free will", it has to come from your god person. I mean, I understand where you are coming from, you have to realize that constantly attributing everything to your god person actually tends to detract from what you are saying.
But more importantly, I think the very concept of free will is grossly overstated. "Free will" is actually a very trivial component of human behavior, the lion's share consists of responding to events, which may be of immediate or deferred effect or consequence. Most of what we do involves following well-established patterns, sometimes adjusting a little for a particular situation.
Now I am aware that this kind of Skinnerian behaviorism is a bit extreme for most people to deal with, but my own personal observations (as I go through life and deal with people and animals) have yet to find fault with it. The reality is that I did not choose to believe what I do just as I am not at liberty to just adopt a different belief set. Perhaps a head trauma could turn me into a Baptist or Kufi, but even then, the choice would not be mine. If your god did make us, this is how it did, and the vaporous notion of free will upon which your religion is based is what you want, not so much how things truly are.
Sorry to seem to be excessively contrarian, but even here we have a problem. At least I do, some others will probably disagree with me. Of course in the first place, the "god has given you" assertion is irksome. You are apparently not even able to say "you have free will", it has to come from your god person. I mean, I understand where you are coming from, you have to realize that constantly attributing everything to your god person actually tends to detract from what you are saying.
But more importantly, I think the very concept of free will is grossly overstated. "Free will" is actually a very trivial component of human behavior, the lion's share consists of responding to events, which may be of immediate or deferred effect or consequence. Most of what we do involves following well-established patterns, sometimes adjusting a little for a particular situation.
Now I am aware that this kind of Skinnerian behaviorism is a bit extreme for most people to deal with, but my own personal observations (as I go through life and deal with people and animals) have yet to find fault with it. The reality is that I did not choose to believe what I do just as I am not at liberty to just adopt a different belief set. Perhaps a head trauma could turn me into a Baptist or Kufi, but even then, the choice would not be mine. If your god did make us, this is how it did, and the vaporous notion of free will upon which your religion is based is what you want, not so much how things truly are.
William Gates
Mar 18, 02:37 PM
no, the touch will supplant the classic.
VirtualRain
Mar 6, 02:02 PM
http://chrismccormack.zenfolio.com/img/s3/v26/p789595326-5.jpg
bobert1985
Aug 4, 10:18 AM
Here's another link about Blu-Ray and other stuff.
http://www.dvdnewsroom.com/news/breaking-inside-apple-on-blu-ray-macpro-and-apple%E2%80%99s-media-center-strategy-what-to-expect-and-not-to-expect-at-wwdc/
BTW,
Fakity fake fake fake.
He can take a screen capture of a widget in the dock (I could photoshop that in seconds) yet when it comes down to iChat all he can say is "The interface is different, I can't explain why it just is?" No screen caps? Riiiiiiight.
FAKE.
My sentiments exactly.
http://www.dvdnewsroom.com/news/breaking-inside-apple-on-blu-ray-macpro-and-apple%E2%80%99s-media-center-strategy-what-to-expect-and-not-to-expect-at-wwdc/
BTW,
Fakity fake fake fake.
He can take a screen capture of a widget in the dock (I could photoshop that in seconds) yet when it comes down to iChat all he can say is "The interface is different, I can't explain why it just is?" No screen caps? Riiiiiiight.
FAKE.
My sentiments exactly.
rhett7660
Mar 28, 07:33 PM
If this is anything like the iPhone 4 sales.. there will be very limited stock on hand....Well at least in the stores around my area. Good news for those who want one. Might be able to score one via Radio Shack!
vitwi
Mar 12, 06:32 AM
like i said i think is down everywhere here in spain is down too
Croatian
Oct 28, 12:36 PM
Here's my roommate's macbook. Hasn't been serviced yet, you can tell by the screws.
just kidding
so if u have 3 screws, that means it was serviced
my 2 macbook for business came out of the box with 3 screws so would that indicate that they serviced that macbooks before they were shipped to me
just kidding
so if u have 3 screws, that means it was serviced
my 2 macbook for business came out of the box with 3 screws so would that indicate that they serviced that macbooks before they were shipped to me
gonnabuyamacbsh
Apr 14, 03:36 PM
+1 Windows PC's are over priced pieces of junk.
The only people here to argue against Apple have to be industry plants. How else can anyone be so blind to the quality of Macs versus Windows machines?
Thinkpads are built incredibly well.
I know what you're saying though, MOST windows laptops are crap.
The only people here to argue against Apple have to be industry plants. How else can anyone be so blind to the quality of Macs versus Windows machines?
Thinkpads are built incredibly well.
I know what you're saying though, MOST windows laptops are crap.
toddybody
Mar 28, 01:37 PM
I can't believe they are going to start to sell the ipad2 at radio shack, and they haven't improved on my ship date of 4 to 5 weeks. You would think that they would take care of the ones that allready paid full price for theirs. I guess they need the interest that they are getting by holding on to everyones pre-paid orders through their own apple store.:(:(
They dont charge you till it ships:) But I Jive with your sentiments dude...I say rewards the folks who've already placed orders
They dont charge you till it ships:) But I Jive with your sentiments dude...I say rewards the folks who've already placed orders
0 comments:
Post a Comment