milbournosphere
Apr 20, 12:42 PM
android enthusiast here.
everyone here is on facebook, exposing their real names, friends, user uploaded photos that are under the control of facebook under the new TOS agreement, where they live, phone numbers, what they like, what they dislike, their status updates, etc.
Speak for yourself. I'm on Facebook, but take care to limit what data of mine is given to them. They don't have my phone number, they don't have my address, my profile is private, they don't have ANY work info, I only post what I want to be public, and I only friend people I know in the flesh. Everybody should do the same. It all comes down to owning and caring for one's own data, not allowing somebody else to do it.
everyone here is on facebook, exposing their real names, friends, user uploaded photos that are under the control of facebook under the new TOS agreement, where they live, phone numbers, what they like, what they dislike, their status updates, etc.
Speak for yourself. I'm on Facebook, but take care to limit what data of mine is given to them. They don't have my phone number, they don't have my address, my profile is private, they don't have ANY work info, I only post what I want to be public, and I only friend people I know in the flesh. Everybody should do the same. It all comes down to owning and caring for one's own data, not allowing somebody else to do it.
JAT
Apr 17, 11:18 PM
You guys are forgetting the most important fact. "Sonos" sounds much cooler than "Airplay". ;)
HecubusPro
Sep 14, 12:15 PM
My prediction:
Definiantly:
MacBook Pro:
2 15" and 1 17" model with 2.16 and 2.33 GHz Merom
1 GB RAM standdard, up to 3 or 4 GB
100 and 120 GB HDD's, up to 160 GB
8x DVD+/-RW DL drives for all
X1600 Pro in low-end 15" and X1800 Pro/XT in hi-end 15" and 17"
FW800 on all models
Magnetic latch (no integrated keyboard)
Expresscard/54 slot on all models
$1899 - $2299 - $2499
I love the way you think. The price seems low, but I wouldn't complain. :)
Definiantly:
MacBook Pro:
2 15" and 1 17" model with 2.16 and 2.33 GHz Merom
1 GB RAM standdard, up to 3 or 4 GB
100 and 120 GB HDD's, up to 160 GB
8x DVD+/-RW DL drives for all
X1600 Pro in low-end 15" and X1800 Pro/XT in hi-end 15" and 17"
FW800 on all models
Magnetic latch (no integrated keyboard)
Expresscard/54 slot on all models
$1899 - $2299 - $2499
I love the way you think. The price seems low, but I wouldn't complain. :)
PinkyMacGodess
Dec 30, 10:28 AM
That's all I need... A cart load of false positives and spending 45-minutes scanning my iPhone before I can accept a call...
NOT!!!
NOT!!!
Capt Underpants
Apr 14, 11:45 AM
I think my next computer will be an Ivy Bridge MBA with Thunderbolt. My 2007 Macbook is getting a bit long in tooth.
Unorthodox
Sep 14, 03:14 PM
September 25th (http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/09/14/photokina/index.php).
Not the 24th.
Not the 24th.
n-abounds
Oct 12, 09:09 PM
I'm gonna have to see it in person first. Although, my birthday is coming up soon.
Vegasman
Mar 30, 01:04 PM
After a bit of thought I think I'm siding with Apple... here's why:
The strongest argument I've read against the trademark is that 'App Store' is describing the very thing it actually is. Someone likened this to renaming 'Windows' to 'Operating System'.
However what isn't appreciated is that 'App' is in itself an abbreviation. It's debatable whether apple popularised it not but thats not the point. Basically it would be like renaming 'Windows' to 'Ope System'.
I'd argue that 'Ope System' could be trademarked whereas 'Operating System' couldn't...
Nice try. But "app" and "application" have been synonymous for more than a decade. They have always been used interchangeably. "Ope System" and "Operating System" have not been used interchangeably.
2005: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-k...or-real-estate
2004: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1599324,00.asp
2003: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1191830,00.asp
The strongest argument I've read against the trademark is that 'App Store' is describing the very thing it actually is. Someone likened this to renaming 'Windows' to 'Operating System'.
However what isn't appreciated is that 'App' is in itself an abbreviation. It's debatable whether apple popularised it not but thats not the point. Basically it would be like renaming 'Windows' to 'Ope System'.
I'd argue that 'Ope System' could be trademarked whereas 'Operating System' couldn't...
Nice try. But "app" and "application" have been synonymous for more than a decade. They have always been used interchangeably. "Ope System" and "Operating System" have not been used interchangeably.
2005: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-k...or-real-estate
2004: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1599324,00.asp
2003: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1191830,00.asp
HecubusPro
Sep 15, 08:37 PM
Apple being a California based company certainly must know about the new law just signed that prohibits hand held cell phone use while driving a car. (Reasonable law if you ask me) with this new law we can assume the phone will have some kind of "hands free" interface. It would be very hard to sell a high end phone that can't be used in a car in California. Apple must know this, the law has been in the works for some time.
As a Los Angeles resident, this makes me very happy. I've been following it, and I'm happy Arnold gave it his go-ahead.
I'm sure Apple will also be selling loads of peripherals including hands free headsets. I have a bluetooth headset and I love it. Anyone who use's cell phones these days and doesn't use a cell phone is an idiot, IMO.
Want to hear me really rant about this subject, go here...
EDIT: I took the URL out becuase the link had a naughty word in it (and I don't want to get in trouble :) ). If you're interested in seeing my rant, feel free to PM me.
As a Los Angeles resident, this makes me very happy. I've been following it, and I'm happy Arnold gave it his go-ahead.
I'm sure Apple will also be selling loads of peripherals including hands free headsets. I have a bluetooth headset and I love it. Anyone who use's cell phones these days and doesn't use a cell phone is an idiot, IMO.
Want to hear me really rant about this subject, go here...
EDIT: I took the URL out becuase the link had a naughty word in it (and I don't want to get in trouble :) ). If you're interested in seeing my rant, feel free to PM me.
Durendal
Oct 27, 10:54 AM
Yes, they should just just shut-up and vote for corporate-sponsored Republicrats or Converalabour every four or five years and take it.
It's a shame that there is no longer any meaningful democracy.
Yes, and that certainly justifies being a loudmouthed asshat. There are ways you can get a message out without being a douchebag, but that's rapidly becoming a lost art on any part of the political spectrum.
Anyway, I'd be pretty pissed off if a bunch of Greenpeace guys were screwing with my baby kid without even talking to me about it. I don't care if it's as inconspicuous as them putting an apple in the pram and snapping publicity photos. They had damn well better get permission before doing it.
It's a shame that there is no longer any meaningful democracy.
Yes, and that certainly justifies being a loudmouthed asshat. There are ways you can get a message out without being a douchebag, but that's rapidly becoming a lost art on any part of the political spectrum.
Anyway, I'd be pretty pissed off if a bunch of Greenpeace guys were screwing with my baby kid without even talking to me about it. I don't care if it's as inconspicuous as them putting an apple in the pram and snapping publicity photos. They had damn well better get permission before doing it.
Stridder44
Sep 9, 04:57 AM
I am moving up from an eMac 1 gigahertz G4. So I'm sure it will seem very fast to me. Probably more than I need.
Im still stuck on my 800 mhz G4 with it's crappy 2X Graphics card. 2X!! Oh how I wait for the day when...
Im still stuck on my 800 mhz G4 with it's crappy 2X Graphics card. 2X!! Oh how I wait for the day when...
samiwas
Apr 18, 12:50 AM
why would I want to pay someone $17 an hour to a job a monkey is almost qualified to do? Sounds like an opportunity to hire less people, or jack my prices up. A job is worth simply what a job is worth. Period. If I'm trying to offer services at competitive prices, and someone is willing to bag groceries for $3 an hour, then they should be ALLOWED to. Rather than me just choose to hire nobody and using automated checkouts.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
So, needless to say, you don't support any type of workers' rights, correct? Basically, if someone wants to work, they better damn well be willing to work for the lowest possible dollar in your opinion. I mean, let's not worry about things like being able to pay rents or insurance, or even for transportation to and from work. Screw them, they are under your watch now.
And what YOU think a job is worth is not what everyone thinks a job is worth. I think most people are vastly underpaid for the work they do. And others, like entertainers, sports players, corporate CEOs, and types like that, are VASTLY overpaid. I don't know what world you might live in that acting in a movie or playing a few 3-hour games a year or driving in circles is actually WORTH $20 million or even much more.
So let's flip this the other way. Should an employer be able to change compensation at will? Let's say you have 10 employees working at $30 a day scooping scum out of sewers (in your fantasy $3 an hour type world). You want to get more work done, so you decide to require all workers to now work for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week without any extra compensation or be fired. Should that also be allowed? You know, free will and free market and all? Those pansies who wont accept such a deal can just go find something else?
And as for your maternity leave thing...it's just one part of having some sort of benefit that makes you have happy, productive workers. Now, I know that you believe that all workers should just be productive and follow orders and meet the goals without any sort of recognition or reward other than a measly paycheck, but how about as an employer you put a little up there, too, and treat your workers as fellow human beings with a few benefits, and not the punching bags that you seem to think they are.
For example...the company I work for has been cutting every possible "thank you" that we used to get. Full nights out at steak restaurants with open bar and all expenses paid, as a thank you for the weeks of hard work doing installs, have turned into "We'll take you to a Fridays and buy the first round" even though they are still doing very well. As every benefit has gone away, our desire to go that extra mile has gone with them. This past work period, the client took us out for numerous barbecues, group outings at local pubs, visits to local attractions, etc. Guess what? We went all out to return the love.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
All ideology. It's a nice thought, but it would never happen. With wages that low, these people wouldn't be able to afford anything. Your $3 an hour wage, working 40 hours a week would net less than $500 a month BEFORE any taxes. And with so many people making so little, they wouldn't be paying tax anyway probably, so all the various tax issues would not be solved.
And if you REALLY think that cost of everything across the board would fall drastically solely because of smaller wages on low-level jobs, you are delusional. Do you think transportation costs would drop drastically, rent would drop drastically, land costs would drop drastically, corporate wages would drop drastically? Just paying low-level workers less would solve all the country's problems? Really?
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Taxes are now the lowest they have almost EVER been, so those clearly aren't the problem. And with people making pretty much no money, I don't think it would solve your handout woes. And there is no private charity out there that has the reach and availability of the government, whether you like to believe that or not.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
So using this chart...
http://consumerist.com/images/resources/2007/04/changeinceopaygraph.jpg
...answer this please: if taxes are the lowest they've been almost ever, worker pay hasn't increased much at all in 15-20 years, then why are corporate profits way up, and CEO pay ridiculously increased over the same period??
It would seem to me that it isn't taxes and worker pay that have caused the problem. It's putting the money in the wrong place. Instead of paying the CEO $20 million a year, you could pay him/her $18 million a year, and hire 66 new employees at $30,000 a year. The CEO would never notice that difference (no, they wouldn't), and 66 new people could afford to live comfortably, eat, and BUY STUFF IN THE ECONOMY.
How about instead of trying to cut standard wages down to unlivable numbers, we cut down ludicrous wages to just ridiculous wages. THAT is where our problem is. The majority of the money is going to owners, shareholders, and profits and not to workers. The workers are not the problem here....greed is the problem.
sydde: What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
bassfinger: Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Oh my god...this is the most laughable statement of all....
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_2a.gif
The bottom 90% owns 2% of financial securities, 19% of stock and mutual funds, and 21% of trusts. The top 10% (ie VERY LITTLE of the the middle class) owns the vast majority of it. The middle class benefits very little from massive profits of business in this sense. Give up that notion.
Face it...your ideas are crap.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
So, needless to say, you don't support any type of workers' rights, correct? Basically, if someone wants to work, they better damn well be willing to work for the lowest possible dollar in your opinion. I mean, let's not worry about things like being able to pay rents or insurance, or even for transportation to and from work. Screw them, they are under your watch now.
And what YOU think a job is worth is not what everyone thinks a job is worth. I think most people are vastly underpaid for the work they do. And others, like entertainers, sports players, corporate CEOs, and types like that, are VASTLY overpaid. I don't know what world you might live in that acting in a movie or playing a few 3-hour games a year or driving in circles is actually WORTH $20 million or even much more.
So let's flip this the other way. Should an employer be able to change compensation at will? Let's say you have 10 employees working at $30 a day scooping scum out of sewers (in your fantasy $3 an hour type world). You want to get more work done, so you decide to require all workers to now work for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week without any extra compensation or be fired. Should that also be allowed? You know, free will and free market and all? Those pansies who wont accept such a deal can just go find something else?
And as for your maternity leave thing...it's just one part of having some sort of benefit that makes you have happy, productive workers. Now, I know that you believe that all workers should just be productive and follow orders and meet the goals without any sort of recognition or reward other than a measly paycheck, but how about as an employer you put a little up there, too, and treat your workers as fellow human beings with a few benefits, and not the punching bags that you seem to think they are.
For example...the company I work for has been cutting every possible "thank you" that we used to get. Full nights out at steak restaurants with open bar and all expenses paid, as a thank you for the weeks of hard work doing installs, have turned into "We'll take you to a Fridays and buy the first round" even though they are still doing very well. As every benefit has gone away, our desire to go that extra mile has gone with them. This past work period, the client took us out for numerous barbecues, group outings at local pubs, visits to local attractions, etc. Guess what? We went all out to return the love.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
All ideology. It's a nice thought, but it would never happen. With wages that low, these people wouldn't be able to afford anything. Your $3 an hour wage, working 40 hours a week would net less than $500 a month BEFORE any taxes. And with so many people making so little, they wouldn't be paying tax anyway probably, so all the various tax issues would not be solved.
And if you REALLY think that cost of everything across the board would fall drastically solely because of smaller wages on low-level jobs, you are delusional. Do you think transportation costs would drop drastically, rent would drop drastically, land costs would drop drastically, corporate wages would drop drastically? Just paying low-level workers less would solve all the country's problems? Really?
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Taxes are now the lowest they have almost EVER been, so those clearly aren't the problem. And with people making pretty much no money, I don't think it would solve your handout woes. And there is no private charity out there that has the reach and availability of the government, whether you like to believe that or not.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
So using this chart...
http://consumerist.com/images/resources/2007/04/changeinceopaygraph.jpg
...answer this please: if taxes are the lowest they've been almost ever, worker pay hasn't increased much at all in 15-20 years, then why are corporate profits way up, and CEO pay ridiculously increased over the same period??
It would seem to me that it isn't taxes and worker pay that have caused the problem. It's putting the money in the wrong place. Instead of paying the CEO $20 million a year, you could pay him/her $18 million a year, and hire 66 new employees at $30,000 a year. The CEO would never notice that difference (no, they wouldn't), and 66 new people could afford to live comfortably, eat, and BUY STUFF IN THE ECONOMY.
How about instead of trying to cut standard wages down to unlivable numbers, we cut down ludicrous wages to just ridiculous wages. THAT is where our problem is. The majority of the money is going to owners, shareholders, and profits and not to workers. The workers are not the problem here....greed is the problem.
sydde: What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
bassfinger: Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Oh my god...this is the most laughable statement of all....
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_2a.gif
The bottom 90% owns 2% of financial securities, 19% of stock and mutual funds, and 21% of trusts. The top 10% (ie VERY LITTLE of the the middle class) owns the vast majority of it. The middle class benefits very little from massive profits of business in this sense. Give up that notion.
Face it...your ideas are crap.
johndoejohndoes
Apr 25, 04:17 PM
This is tight...but please....PLEASE!!! Have a ODD.
Counter
Sep 29, 05:50 PM
...My initial reaction was similar to many, in that I couldnt' imagine why people would want a digital file with no physical media, no artwork, and digital rights management, but I've begun to feel this will gain the same appeal as digital audio has...
Right. All that and the picture isn't as good, the audio isn't as good, there's no cost benefit.
If they were half price I wouldn't by any. Max I would pay is a third of the fee to rent.
However, I will never use the iTunes store for music either. I like hard copies, album artwork, printed cd's, how they look on a shelf. But this is being real clinical about it, hard copies mean so much more than that.
I don't want to have to turn my computer on to see my music collection.
I'm not against the purely digital medium, it will just never be for me. I remember somebody saying on here when some sales statistics got posted 'it seems people are still buying music the traditional way'. LOL Factor Ten. CD's are going nowhere. Vinyl is coming back for christs sake, let alone CD's dying. Few real bands today release a record and don't have it on vinyl.
The current movie offering will only sell on ease of purchase.
I will always want shelves full of cool stuff to flick through. It doubles as one of the, if not thee, coolest features of a room.
Right. All that and the picture isn't as good, the audio isn't as good, there's no cost benefit.
If they were half price I wouldn't by any. Max I would pay is a third of the fee to rent.
However, I will never use the iTunes store for music either. I like hard copies, album artwork, printed cd's, how they look on a shelf. But this is being real clinical about it, hard copies mean so much more than that.
I don't want to have to turn my computer on to see my music collection.
I'm not against the purely digital medium, it will just never be for me. I remember somebody saying on here when some sales statistics got posted 'it seems people are still buying music the traditional way'. LOL Factor Ten. CD's are going nowhere. Vinyl is coming back for christs sake, let alone CD's dying. Few real bands today release a record and don't have it on vinyl.
The current movie offering will only sell on ease of purchase.
I will always want shelves full of cool stuff to flick through. It doubles as one of the, if not thee, coolest features of a room.
erikistired
Sep 19, 04:54 PM
I don't think Apple is aiming for the uber-geek with $25k worth of home entertainment equipment. IMHO, they will never be able to compete in that market.
I think they are reaching for the average joe blow that has a servicable $400 TV that he bought at Wal-mart, and maybe, just maybe, has a stereo hooked up to it. The average Joe doesn't care, and can't tell, that it's Dolby Surround and not Dolby Digital.
you don't need 25k of equipment to notice the difference between dolby surround and dolby digital. contrary to what was posted before, you CAN hear the difference on a $200 htib system. even my half deaf dad has noticed the difference, especially if the soundtrack uses a lot of directional audio. the first time i had my family to my house (at the time my home audio system wasn't that great, but still good) to watch a movie with 5.1 surround they were jumping all over at bullets whizzing over their shoulder from behind. it was neat to watch people who would be considered "joe sixpack" enjoying good A/V. it's amazing how many people underestimate what the average joe has or cares about these days when it comes to home entertainment.
I think they are reaching for the average joe blow that has a servicable $400 TV that he bought at Wal-mart, and maybe, just maybe, has a stereo hooked up to it. The average Joe doesn't care, and can't tell, that it's Dolby Surround and not Dolby Digital.
you don't need 25k of equipment to notice the difference between dolby surround and dolby digital. contrary to what was posted before, you CAN hear the difference on a $200 htib system. even my half deaf dad has noticed the difference, especially if the soundtrack uses a lot of directional audio. the first time i had my family to my house (at the time my home audio system wasn't that great, but still good) to watch a movie with 5.1 surround they were jumping all over at bullets whizzing over their shoulder from behind. it was neat to watch people who would be considered "joe sixpack" enjoying good A/V. it's amazing how many people underestimate what the average joe has or cares about these days when it comes to home entertainment.
StudioGuy
Sep 10, 09:50 PM
An $800 difference in 2.66 to 3.0 GHz Xeon?
Actually, look at the Dell Precision 490 Workstation - going from dual 3.0 (Intel 5160) down to a dual 2.66 (Intel 5150) is $410/processor, or an $820 difference in price. Not Apple pushing that one.
I'm guessing any 8-core machine will initially be a top-entry (ala "fastest") if it is introduced too soon, and not affect the whole lineup. Otherwise I will have more trouble convincing myself to buy the dual 3.0 now :). That Mac + iPod promo ends this week!
Actually, look at the Dell Precision 490 Workstation - going from dual 3.0 (Intel 5160) down to a dual 2.66 (Intel 5150) is $410/processor, or an $820 difference in price. Not Apple pushing that one.
I'm guessing any 8-core machine will initially be a top-entry (ala "fastest") if it is introduced too soon, and not affect the whole lineup. Otherwise I will have more trouble convincing myself to buy the dual 3.0 now :). That Mac + iPod promo ends this week!
iRun26.2
Apr 26, 01:08 PM
A family member has the new MBP 13" and I think it has a nice display. I have no idea how it is for gaming, but pics and videos look quite nice, IMHO. I've been of the opinion that Apple uses a better quality display panel than the other manufacturers, not necessarily stronger graphics performance but overall better looking.
I have always found that the Apple displays are a lot brighter than other brands. Tome, the quality of the display is one of the most important key points of a new model.
If they were to make any significant improvement in the 11.6" MBA display (higher resolution, brighter screen, higher contrast, move to IPS technology) I think I would consider upgrading immediately.
I have always found that the Apple displays are a lot brighter than other brands. Tome, the quality of the display is one of the most important key points of a new model.
If they were to make any significant improvement in the 11.6" MBA display (higher resolution, brighter screen, higher contrast, move to IPS technology) I think I would consider upgrading immediately.
colmaclean
Mar 22, 01:51 PM
I guess native HDMI input functionality will still be a no-no. I know you can do it with 3rd party adapters, but that's a croc!
vwcruisn
Mar 23, 05:38 PM
Stay classy Austin :rolleyes:
As for the Senator's request, they cannot be required to take it down. If cops are so overt that apps can bust their checkpoints, maybe they should be floating checkpoints?
It's illegal. Police need to publicly announce check points before setting up. Ironic they would want to pull the app since this is the basis that makes them legal in the first place.
As for the Senator's request, they cannot be required to take it down. If cops are so overt that apps can bust their checkpoints, maybe they should be floating checkpoints?
It's illegal. Police need to publicly announce check points before setting up. Ironic they would want to pull the app since this is the basis that makes them legal in the first place.
Multimedia
Sep 9, 02:39 PM
Yes an OS issue.
http://www.math.purdue.edu/~abarreno/affinitydlg.gifWow so if that's in XP already it's gotta be a feature in Leopard.
You call that Application Core Affinity or what's the correct full termonology? And where in the OS do you choose the applications to assign x number of cores with that dialog box. Looks like they're ready for a lot of cores coming up?!?! :eek:
32. I'd say that's planning ahead.
Are we hijacking this thread? Don't mean to go so far Off Topic folks. :D
http://www.math.purdue.edu/~abarreno/affinitydlg.gifWow so if that's in XP already it's gotta be a feature in Leopard.
You call that Application Core Affinity or what's the correct full termonology? And where in the OS do you choose the applications to assign x number of cores with that dialog box. Looks like they're ready for a lot of cores coming up?!?! :eek:
32. I'd say that's planning ahead.
Are we hijacking this thread? Don't mean to go so far Off Topic folks. :D
topmounter
Apr 4, 12:15 PM
Maybe you're right, maybe not... I mean, I doubt the guys went in in Kevlar suit saying "we take the loot, not matter what. If someones try to stop us, we kill him". In a bank robbery maybe they would but I doubt they were ready to kill somebody only for a few iPads...
But that's just me.
Feel free to sympathize with the crooks, but this does not sound like a case of "Han shot first".
But that's just me.
Feel free to sympathize with the crooks, but this does not sound like a case of "Han shot first".
EagerDragon
Sep 4, 07:03 PM
Unless it's just the 23" iMac I have been hearing about, then it's ok. But if it's a totally new iMac that'll fire me off pretty good.
Same imac with more disk space, faster processor, 23'' screen, better wireless, maybe a second disk drive, and the same price as the old 20 Incher.
Happens every 8 to 12 months, more offten now with Intel.:cool:
Same imac with more disk space, faster processor, 23'' screen, better wireless, maybe a second disk drive, and the same price as the old 20 Incher.
Happens every 8 to 12 months, more offten now with Intel.:cool:
Ach111es
Apr 25, 01:10 PM
Was thinking of springing for a mid 15 for 2000 and the education deal...now I may just buy a base 13 or even MBA refresh and plan on reselling for the awesome update (which I will also buy with education deal).
entwife
Apr 4, 12:21 PM
How sad,
I mean a person lost his life because of his actions, and the guard now has to live with the fact that he took a life. All for what - some iToys? Doesn't seem worth it. :(
Exactly.
What a waste.
I mean a person lost his life because of his actions, and the guard now has to live with the fact that he took a life. All for what - some iToys? Doesn't seem worth it. :(
Exactly.
What a waste.
No comments:
Post a Comment