dethmaShine
Apr 12, 06:16 PM
The Windows task bar is now by far much better with the addition of aero peek
Networking, its easier, faster and generally better then dealing with OSX
To some extent yes, but with expose in SL, Apple already implements the best of the dock features. But yes, hyperdock would be cool.
In general though I think apple needs to add features to catch up because MS has caught up and surpassed apple with windows 7.
Surpassed how? What are those features?
I guess the bottom line for me is this: I see Microsoft working hard and adding features, to improve the OS. I see apple working hard at making OSX act more like an iPad. I also think given that they really didn't provide the consumer features in 10.6 that they should have done that in 10.7. Its not like they didn't have time, given that SL was released in 2009
That's just your misconception. There's no harm in making it iPad like if it becomes better. If you think your status will go down because you're using a product that's a bit derived from a so called toy, then its up to you.
You really don't know what you are talking about.
Networking, its easier, faster and generally better then dealing with OSX
To some extent yes, but with expose in SL, Apple already implements the best of the dock features. But yes, hyperdock would be cool.
In general though I think apple needs to add features to catch up because MS has caught up and surpassed apple with windows 7.
Surpassed how? What are those features?
I guess the bottom line for me is this: I see Microsoft working hard and adding features, to improve the OS. I see apple working hard at making OSX act more like an iPad. I also think given that they really didn't provide the consumer features in 10.6 that they should have done that in 10.7. Its not like they didn't have time, given that SL was released in 2009
That's just your misconception. There's no harm in making it iPad like if it becomes better. If you think your status will go down because you're using a product that's a bit derived from a so called toy, then its up to you.
You really don't know what you are talking about.
RichP
Aug 9, 12:59 PM
Im waiting to see what the revision brings, and if the panel actually changed. I had the pink cast issue on the 23s I owned, and, even worse, it takes time to develop, which makes a quick return and replace impossible, as apple then considers them "repairable" and not eligible for a return.
For all we know, they could have had the new specs for some time, and now they are advertising it.
Anyone with a "new" 23?
For all we know, they could have had the new specs for some time, and now they are advertising it.
Anyone with a "new" 23?
Russell L
Aug 15, 01:21 AM
This is getting very messy.
Another purchaser of the 23" contacted AppleCare and reported this in Apple's Monitor Forum:
"I just talked to an AppleCare specialist and he said that this is still the old model based on my serial number. 2A6241XXXXX and manufactured June 2006"
"I called the apple store online on the phone and asked them how I would get the new one that is as the one they sell now. They said, it is guaranteed 100% that I would get the new one online, but through their retail stores, it is very likely to get the previous model, because they still have the old ones."
So both of us (mine made in May ( 2A6211XXXXX) and yours in June 2006 (2A6241XXXXX) have the old model with the following specs according to his report:
Brightness 270cd/m2
contrast ratio 400:1
So I guess no one can be sure of what they are getting, no matter how or where they buy it.
Well, I sprung for a new 23" at the Apple Store in SF last Friday (along with a new Mac Pro!). I asked the salesman to find me one with the highest serial number, which was 2A6251xxxxx (also June 2006). FWIW, the display was set at its highest brightness setting and was just too bright--I've now got it set at about 25% and it looks terrific. No obvious dead pixels, no pink cast. I also purchased the AppleCare warranty, so I should be covered over the next 3 years.
Russell
Another purchaser of the 23" contacted AppleCare and reported this in Apple's Monitor Forum:
"I just talked to an AppleCare specialist and he said that this is still the old model based on my serial number. 2A6241XXXXX and manufactured June 2006"
"I called the apple store online on the phone and asked them how I would get the new one that is as the one they sell now. They said, it is guaranteed 100% that I would get the new one online, but through their retail stores, it is very likely to get the previous model, because they still have the old ones."
So both of us (mine made in May ( 2A6211XXXXX) and yours in June 2006 (2A6241XXXXX) have the old model with the following specs according to his report:
Brightness 270cd/m2
contrast ratio 400:1
So I guess no one can be sure of what they are getting, no matter how or where they buy it.
Well, I sprung for a new 23" at the Apple Store in SF last Friday (along with a new Mac Pro!). I asked the salesman to find me one with the highest serial number, which was 2A6251xxxxx (also June 2006). FWIW, the display was set at its highest brightness setting and was just too bright--I've now got it set at about 25% and it looks terrific. No obvious dead pixels, no pink cast. I also purchased the AppleCare warranty, so I should be covered over the next 3 years.
Russell
swingerofbirch
Sep 25, 02:19 PM
I was hoping for at least version 1.6.
1.5 is a little too little, a little too late.
1.5 is a little too little, a little too late.
airforce1
May 2, 12:30 PM
The whole thing was blown out of proportion, they had no choice but do somthing thing...
I agree apple was presented with a lawsuit last year and they still refused to address this until some geeks found the actual BUG, thats way out of line, Apple is LIABLE period,
Now they have privacy matters with tracking, collecting and remote desktop controlling with out users consent.
And
Running a sweatshop company offshore to protect themselves from any human rights violations
having developers use apps to spy on peoples political views, congress loves that one, they still wonder about Obamas Birth Certificate and the wall street hike, this certainly could of helped anyone take advantage.
maybe apple was about to collapse becuase Steve was sick and they got desperate, who knows, liability is probably a fine and handing over the data, money which could of paid fairly to those working over seas for apple living of a 10 bucks a week to make ipads so some take home profit., why not put americans their who pay taxes
I agree apple was presented with a lawsuit last year and they still refused to address this until some geeks found the actual BUG, thats way out of line, Apple is LIABLE period,
Now they have privacy matters with tracking, collecting and remote desktop controlling with out users consent.
And
Running a sweatshop company offshore to protect themselves from any human rights violations
having developers use apps to spy on peoples political views, congress loves that one, they still wonder about Obamas Birth Certificate and the wall street hike, this certainly could of helped anyone take advantage.
maybe apple was about to collapse becuase Steve was sick and they got desperate, who knows, liability is probably a fine and handing over the data, money which could of paid fairly to those working over seas for apple living of a 10 bucks a week to make ipads so some take home profit., why not put americans their who pay taxes
puuukeey
Jan 9, 04:04 PM
he said he was sorry... I trust him
skunk
Apr 21, 11:14 AM
The counter is crap anyway. It goes from -1 to +1 without a 0. And it seems completely random.
anjinha
Apr 27, 04:40 PM
In a dreamland, sure, it works out great.
Reality: Guy and a woman in adjacent stalls. Man drops his phone on the ground. Picks it up. woman assumes he is taking photos of her under the stall. Etc.
What if there's a lesbian in the women's bathroom?
Reality: Guy and a woman in adjacent stalls. Man drops his phone on the ground. Picks it up. woman assumes he is taking photos of her under the stall. Etc.
What if there's a lesbian in the women's bathroom?
DISCOMUNICATION
Nov 24, 11:16 PM
Got .Mac and Paralles even though I already run windows on Bootcamp and barely use it. You can get a better deal on iPods year round at Amazon.
BC2009
May 2, 11:56 AM
Oh the conspiracies!!!!
As a software developer, the explanation that Apple gave seems far more plausible than "they are tracking your every move".
It makes total sense to keep a cache of cell tower positions to speed up positioning through trilateration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilateration). It also makes sense for Apple to maintain this as a crowd-sourced database and download part of it to your phone. Further, it makes sense for a developer to make an arbitrary decision to say "let's make the cache size 2MB -- that's smaller than a single song". Finally, it makes sense for QA to miss this since the file is not readily visible through the user interface. A very good article on this is here (http://www.macworld.com/article/159528/2011/04/how_iphone_location_works.html).
I for one cannot remember a single iAd ever popping that was more appropriate based on my location (e.g.: a restaurant ad showing up when I was near a location for that restaurant chain). I seriously doubt that Apple cares where I have been for the past year -- especially with the huge degree of error that trilateration offers. But they definitely care about the crowd-sourced data to understand what regions iPhones are being used most heavily.
Certainly, if Apple wanted to record my personal position it would make MUCH MUCH MUCH more sense for their servers to simply record the query my phone makes to obtain the portion of the crowd-sourced database that my phone wants to cache. That query could easily include a more exact GPS position (i.e.: give me the part of the cache near this location). It could also include a phone identifier. Of course, a timestamp could be associated with the query. They could keep the information on their own servers where I would NEVER EVER see it and they could easily access it. Keeping it on my phone simply does not make sense if Apple really wanted this information -- it makes it easy for me to find and it is of less use to Apple that way.
I wonder if Google records my Wifi/GPS location on Google Maps or what locations I searched when using Google Maps. Hopefully, my identity is anonymized before the query is sent to Google for what part of the Maps database to pull down and cache. But again, it would be really easy for anybody to do this on the server side.
As a software developer, the explanation that Apple gave seems far more plausible than "they are tracking your every move".
It makes total sense to keep a cache of cell tower positions to speed up positioning through trilateration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilateration). It also makes sense for Apple to maintain this as a crowd-sourced database and download part of it to your phone. Further, it makes sense for a developer to make an arbitrary decision to say "let's make the cache size 2MB -- that's smaller than a single song". Finally, it makes sense for QA to miss this since the file is not readily visible through the user interface. A very good article on this is here (http://www.macworld.com/article/159528/2011/04/how_iphone_location_works.html).
I for one cannot remember a single iAd ever popping that was more appropriate based on my location (e.g.: a restaurant ad showing up when I was near a location for that restaurant chain). I seriously doubt that Apple cares where I have been for the past year -- especially with the huge degree of error that trilateration offers. But they definitely care about the crowd-sourced data to understand what regions iPhones are being used most heavily.
Certainly, if Apple wanted to record my personal position it would make MUCH MUCH MUCH more sense for their servers to simply record the query my phone makes to obtain the portion of the crowd-sourced database that my phone wants to cache. That query could easily include a more exact GPS position (i.e.: give me the part of the cache near this location). It could also include a phone identifier. Of course, a timestamp could be associated with the query. They could keep the information on their own servers where I would NEVER EVER see it and they could easily access it. Keeping it on my phone simply does not make sense if Apple really wanted this information -- it makes it easy for me to find and it is of less use to Apple that way.
I wonder if Google records my Wifi/GPS location on Google Maps or what locations I searched when using Google Maps. Hopefully, my identity is anonymized before the query is sent to Google for what part of the Maps database to pull down and cache. But again, it would be really easy for anybody to do this on the server side.
arn
Oct 2, 04:32 PM
I'm surprised how many people are interpreting this wrong.
The point of this is that Amazon can go to this new company and license Fairplay-compatable DRM. That way they can sell movies/music on their website (Unbox) and sell it with DRM that is iPod/iTV/iTunes Compatible.
This could mean, for example, Napster could be iTunes/iPod compatible.
Or Vongo (unlimited movie downloads $9.95/month) could be iPod compatible.
Personally, I'm not sure how long it will go. Either Apple will shut them down (if legally capable) or simply start licensing Fairplay themselves and cut out the middleman (which could be an inadvertant positive result of this effort)
OR
[edit: as pointed out below, this is probably not possible]
Microsoft licenses it so Zune can play iTunes Music/Movie store content. That could be a huge boost for Zune.
arn
The point of this is that Amazon can go to this new company and license Fairplay-compatable DRM. That way they can sell movies/music on their website (Unbox) and sell it with DRM that is iPod/iTV/iTunes Compatible.
This could mean, for example, Napster could be iTunes/iPod compatible.
Or Vongo (unlimited movie downloads $9.95/month) could be iPod compatible.
Personally, I'm not sure how long it will go. Either Apple will shut them down (if legally capable) or simply start licensing Fairplay themselves and cut out the middleman (which could be an inadvertant positive result of this effort)
OR
[edit: as pointed out below, this is probably not possible]
Microsoft licenses it so Zune can play iTunes Music/Movie store content. That could be a huge boost for Zune.
arn
dethmaShine
Apr 29, 04:00 PM
iCal is awesome. Looks great; works great even in full screen mode.
The only issue is that in week view, the fonts are not properly anti-aliased.
I think Apple should have chosen Lucida Grande as a consistent font across the OS. iCal + Lucida Grande is much better than iCal + Helvetica which looks crap.
They need to get rid of Helvetica for Lion and other apps. PLEASE.
The only issue is that in week view, the fonts are not properly anti-aliased.
I think Apple should have chosen Lucida Grande as a consistent font across the OS. iCal + Lucida Grande is much better than iCal + Helvetica which looks crap.
They need to get rid of Helvetica for Lion and other apps. PLEASE.
LagunaSol
Apr 29, 04:13 PM
What is this hideous faux leather iCal format ????? It's just like the truly awful wooden background that somehow crawled in to the iPad. Please think again on this. It will look abysmal on a large iMac or MBP screen. It looks like a child's toy. :o
Agreed. I thought we were well past the days when computer applications had to emulate their analog compatriots. Leather, wood, paper, stone = not for computer UIs please! :mad:
Speaking of bad iCal, why is it I can't flip pages in the Calendar app on my iPad by actually flicking the pages (a la iBooks)? Instead I have to tap on arrow buttons? What's up with that???
Agreed. I thought we were well past the days when computer applications had to emulate their analog compatriots. Leather, wood, paper, stone = not for computer UIs please! :mad:
Speaking of bad iCal, why is it I can't flip pages in the Calendar app on my iPad by actually flicking the pages (a la iBooks)? Instead I have to tap on arrow buttons? What's up with that???
Crike .40
Nov 16, 03:09 PM
this may have been mentioned before, and if so I'm sorry.
But it is entirely possible that because of the sources checkered (to say the least) history that this is a piece of insided information that was misinterpretted.
It could entirely be the case that simply Apple is planning on buying more ATI video cards. This could be for use in iTV, or even dedicated graphics (please please please) in the lower end machines: MacBook/Mini.
just a thought, but possible I s'pose.
But it is entirely possible that because of the sources checkered (to say the least) history that this is a piece of insided information that was misinterpretted.
It could entirely be the case that simply Apple is planning on buying more ATI video cards. This could be for use in iTV, or even dedicated graphics (please please please) in the lower end machines: MacBook/Mini.
just a thought, but possible I s'pose.
Stellarola
Apr 26, 06:45 PM
Anyone notice how much us nerds flame companies for the slightest of changes? It's kinda f'd up. :rolleyes:
redalpha
Sep 12, 08:59 AM
http://www.apple.com/nl/quicktime/mac.html
Left Bottom (Itunes Videos)
iTunes-video's
Transporter 2Transporter 2
20th Century Fox
Red EyeRed Eye
Dreamworks S.K.G.
World of Warcraft Burning CrusadeWorld of Warcraft Burning Crusade
Enigmo2Enigmo 2
Left Bottom (Itunes Videos)
iTunes-video's
Transporter 2Transporter 2
20th Century Fox
Red EyeRed Eye
Dreamworks S.K.G.
World of Warcraft Burning CrusadeWorld of Warcraft Burning Crusade
Enigmo2Enigmo 2
CalBoy
Apr 15, 04:21 PM
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 actually we know the TSA methods don't work because both of the incidents were from European airports that mirror what the TSA does. Added to the number of weapons that make it through TSA checkpoints, it's easy to see that the TSA does in fact not work to the extent that it is expected to.
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.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
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.
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
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.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
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.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
justin bieber 2011 april
Justin Bieber 2011 Calendar
Reacent Post
Well actually we know the TSA methods don't work because both of the incidents were from European airports that mirror what the TSA does. Added to the number of weapons that make it through TSA checkpoints, it's easy to see that the TSA does in fact not work to the extent that it is expected to.
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.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
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.
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
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.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
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.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
Anthony T
Apr 16, 08:52 AM
I don't see how the writing on the iPhone is crooked or whatever, maybe I'm blind. The photo looks real. But I hope it's not, and if it is real, I hope that's just a prototype, because I don't like the square shape and the angular edges on the back.
katanna
Jan 5, 10:30 AM
Oh, no...I don't think much of anyone expects there to be live coverage. They did away with that some time ago. But the QT archived video should be up within a few hours after the keynote ends.
Right... I am talking about the "archive" video that they host after the event... I SO miss the live feeds (I remember when they canceled them)!!!
The reason for the post here was in hopes that there would be others like me... enough to warrant a page, link, RSS, e-mail, something of the sort. Guess not. No biggie.
Matthew
Right... I am talking about the "archive" video that they host after the event... I SO miss the live feeds (I remember when they canceled them)!!!
The reason for the post here was in hopes that there would be others like me... enough to warrant a page, link, RSS, e-mail, something of the sort. Guess not. No biggie.
Matthew
JaSuS
Sep 28, 02:38 PM
Gates: What's that?
Jobs: It's an iHouse.
Gates: But there's no Windows.
Jobs: Exactly!!! Hahahahaha!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHO8l-Bd1O4
CAH CAH CAH!
I love this one man you rock!
Jobs: It's an iHouse.
Gates: But there's no Windows.
Jobs: Exactly!!! Hahahahaha!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHO8l-Bd1O4
CAH CAH CAH!
I love this one man you rock!
BBA
Nov 24, 07:32 PM
apple's canada store is also down...
It is up now. I just ordered 2 iPod nano's off of it.
It is up now. I just ordered 2 iPod nano's off of it.
thatisme
Jul 21, 09:36 AM
I find it great that they are doing this... in so far as it illustrates what their testing shows, that the iPhone 4 is not the only phone to have "antenna issues"
I don't see Apple as using this in an advertising campaign, just that they are backing up their claims and research with true visual evidence
If they were acting immaturely, they would have just left it at "well, everyone else has the problems like this too" and not offer up any data, evidence, etc to back up their claim.... It is very similar to a vocal majority on this site saying "Apple's antenna design is defective" and "All iPhone 4's are defective" as well as "Every iPhone 4 loses reception just by touching it"... no hard data showing that ALL phones are defective or that the antenna doesn't work...
I don't see Apple as using this in an advertising campaign, just that they are backing up their claims and research with true visual evidence
If they were acting immaturely, they would have just left it at "well, everyone else has the problems like this too" and not offer up any data, evidence, etc to back up their claim.... It is very similar to a vocal majority on this site saying "Apple's antenna design is defective" and "All iPhone 4's are defective" as well as "Every iPhone 4 loses reception just by touching it"... no hard data showing that ALL phones are defective or that the antenna doesn't work...
rdowns
Dec 13, 10:41 AM
Will it come in white? :rolleyes:
bigbossbmb
Oct 20, 12:44 PM
A lot of people have more than one mac...I've found that people with macs tend to hold on to them and find a use for the older machines when new ones are bought. Either using them as servers or hook em up to a TV, older macs tend to hang around.
0 comments:
Post a Comment