OdduWon
Oct 11, 05:07 AM
a nice iPod Video with NEF/RAW reading capability for us photographers, I'm a waiting customer. And yes, a smaller MacBook with 10 hour battery life, non-reflective screen and a graphics card to use it with Aperture/RAW would be sooo nice... :)
the macpod pro could be a notepad device that has the ability to interface with ext hard drives adn icoul be like a wireless ouch screen 3/4 in thin
the macpod pro could be a notepad device that has the ability to interface with ext hard drives adn icoul be like a wireless ouch screen 3/4 in thin
RebootD
Apr 8, 01:29 PM
More sensationalist "reporting" from another tech blog. Best Buy has been known for holding hot items (game consoles, etc.) for Sunday flyer promotions, for years. It was obvious that was what was going on here.
But no, Tech-Crunch-Gear-Whatever has to drag Apple, even Tim Cook into it. What a bunch of gossip rags... it's embarrassing.:eek:
And fake outrage from the people here :rolleyes:
They are a store and can do as they please with their inventory. If they want to keep 20 of them locked in a sealed vault they can for as long as they want.
It only gets into the "wrong" territory if they held back stock and then charged more than MSRP creating a fake supply shortage to boost prices.
But no, Tech-Crunch-Gear-Whatever has to drag Apple, even Tim Cook into it. What a bunch of gossip rags... it's embarrassing.:eek:
And fake outrage from the people here :rolleyes:
They are a store and can do as they please with their inventory. If they want to keep 20 of them locked in a sealed vault they can for as long as they want.
It only gets into the "wrong" territory if they held back stock and then charged more than MSRP creating a fake supply shortage to boost prices.
ThePoach
Jul 21, 02:52 PM
Seems Apple just keeps on digging themselves deeper and deeper. First they tell their customers to just "deel with it" about the antenna issue.. then they say it's an arroneous calculation of the signal bars (that was a funny one since the bars are now "accurate" and shows how bad AT&T really is lol). Now they are trying to divert the focus of their antenna design flaw by pointing the finger at the other phones., and btw were was the video test of their own iphone? Perhaps if they were more sincere and honest about their own issues then nobody would mind as much.. it's the undercoating and deception that people do not like; )
Becordial
Apr 15, 02:07 PM
If you had access to these, why would your camera be this bad?
Think about it, even if you were using a 3G iPhone to take the shots, they'd be better quality than this.
Think about it, even if you were using a 3G iPhone to take the shots, they'd be better quality than this.
jclardy
Apr 29, 04:05 PM
Good to know that Apple is willing to change.
The Expose/Spaces "slider" was one of the first things I noticed that seemed strange when I installed the preview.
The slider makes sense when you have at least 3 icons but with only 2 it is not immediately apparent. I think we have been conditioned to take a darker button as being shadowed and therefore selected.
And the scrollbars being always on seems to be a good decision as well. It is nice to know where you are in a document at a glance, and the scrollbar does that pretty well.
The Expose/Spaces "slider" was one of the first things I noticed that seemed strange when I installed the preview.
The slider makes sense when you have at least 3 icons but with only 2 it is not immediately apparent. I think we have been conditioned to take a darker button as being shadowed and therefore selected.
And the scrollbars being always on seems to be a good decision as well. It is nice to know where you are in a document at a glance, and the scrollbar does that pretty well.
flir67
Nov 24, 03:53 PM
just got the macbook with nextday shipping, not bad. 101.00 off
can't beat it if you want it quick.
wish they did the discount to the refurbished units, but you can't win them all.
I can't believe they charge tax on shipping, thats just wrong... shipping should be flat fee after tax........
can't beat it if you want it quick.
wish they did the discount to the refurbished units, but you can't win them all.
I can't believe they charge tax on shipping, thats just wrong... shipping should be flat fee after tax........
aiqw9182
Mar 28, 02:42 PM
Before it was sooo.... hard. My wrist still hurts from dragging one single file to the Applications folder. Oh, and I just love having to pay sales tax on the apps. :rolleyes:
I don't hate the Mac App store, I just don't think it should be a factor in the award. With that said, its Apples award and they can do as they please with it, including making acceptance of onerous terms a prerequisite to compete.
It's a hell of a lot easier updating your apps and re-installing applications through the Mac App Store than any previous method. You don't have to check every single app on your machine to see if it's updated, nor do you have to go to the developers website if they don't have an automatic updater or even a manual updater.
I don't hate the Mac App store, I just don't think it should be a factor in the award. With that said, its Apples award and they can do as they please with it, including making acceptance of onerous terms a prerequisite to compete.
It's a hell of a lot easier updating your apps and re-installing applications through the Mac App Store than any previous method. You don't have to check every single app on your machine to see if it's updated, nor do you have to go to the developers website if they don't have an automatic updater or even a manual updater.
samiwas
Mar 4, 03:57 PM
Minimum wages = unemployment, lower growth
child labor laws = limits free will and opportunities for youngsters
max hours per week = limits free will, opportunity for higher personal revenue
workplace safety = bureaucracy, red tape, lower growth
Holy effin' Shizzle batman! You don't believe this. Come on. Fo' reals? I mean really...come on. I know it, and you know it...you're trolling. There is no way you actually believe that stuff.
Minimum wages = employer must pay at the very least a human wage...not a slave wage. If the employer cannot afford to pay people fairly, their business should fail. Isn't that what the free market is all about? You produce or you fail?
Child Labor Laws = really??? Limits free will?? Opportunities for youngsters? Do you really think that if child labor laws were done away with in this country that some warehouse wouldn't have the 6-year-old kid of some nearly-homeless family out running a meat slicer for $4 a day? Do you REALLY think that kind of thing wouldn't happen? And that something like that is an opportunity for that 6-year-old? You are truly a piece of work. Oh right, I keep forgetting...you're a troll.
Max hours per week does not limit free will. An employer is certainly allowed to let an employee work 100 hours a week if they so want to. I know because I've done it on many occasions. I had a 140-hour week a while back. It's perfectly legal. But you have to PAY OVERTIME. If you want to exploit your workers, you pay them for it. You have the free will to work them overtime, they have the free will to accept that overtime, and then you pay them for it. Don't like it, don't do it...free will, baby.
Workplace safety should not be required? Bwaahahaha. Now, I most certainly do not follow most safety rules in my line of work, because a lot of them are pretty silly. But to do away with required safety procedures for many occupations is just an amazing concept. That you actually believe that employers will willingly pay more if they are not required to in order to keep their employees safe is one of the more laughable things ever.
Don't be naive. The goals are the same, more wealth, health, prosperity, and safety for all. Conservatives simply disagree with your methods. They realize that a hand-out is NEVER the same as a hand-up, and that wealth earned is not generally earned at the expense of others, but rather to their benefit.
So being paid overtime for working crazy hours is a HAND OUT? Really?
Cutting wages and pay requirements and removing safety requirements means more wealth and safety for ALL? OK. Hold on, let me comprehend that. Wait, I can't because it's the stupidest thing ever uttered.
Yes. it has been decided. He's a <censored>swell guy</censored>. There is no one who actually thinks like this.
*edit - while I meant what I said, it's not worth getting banned over.
child labor laws = limits free will and opportunities for youngsters
max hours per week = limits free will, opportunity for higher personal revenue
workplace safety = bureaucracy, red tape, lower growth
Holy effin' Shizzle batman! You don't believe this. Come on. Fo' reals? I mean really...come on. I know it, and you know it...you're trolling. There is no way you actually believe that stuff.
Minimum wages = employer must pay at the very least a human wage...not a slave wage. If the employer cannot afford to pay people fairly, their business should fail. Isn't that what the free market is all about? You produce or you fail?
Child Labor Laws = really??? Limits free will?? Opportunities for youngsters? Do you really think that if child labor laws were done away with in this country that some warehouse wouldn't have the 6-year-old kid of some nearly-homeless family out running a meat slicer for $4 a day? Do you REALLY think that kind of thing wouldn't happen? And that something like that is an opportunity for that 6-year-old? You are truly a piece of work. Oh right, I keep forgetting...you're a troll.
Max hours per week does not limit free will. An employer is certainly allowed to let an employee work 100 hours a week if they so want to. I know because I've done it on many occasions. I had a 140-hour week a while back. It's perfectly legal. But you have to PAY OVERTIME. If you want to exploit your workers, you pay them for it. You have the free will to work them overtime, they have the free will to accept that overtime, and then you pay them for it. Don't like it, don't do it...free will, baby.
Workplace safety should not be required? Bwaahahaha. Now, I most certainly do not follow most safety rules in my line of work, because a lot of them are pretty silly. But to do away with required safety procedures for many occupations is just an amazing concept. That you actually believe that employers will willingly pay more if they are not required to in order to keep their employees safe is one of the more laughable things ever.
Don't be naive. The goals are the same, more wealth, health, prosperity, and safety for all. Conservatives simply disagree with your methods. They realize that a hand-out is NEVER the same as a hand-up, and that wealth earned is not generally earned at the expense of others, but rather to their benefit.
So being paid overtime for working crazy hours is a HAND OUT? Really?
Cutting wages and pay requirements and removing safety requirements means more wealth and safety for ALL? OK. Hold on, let me comprehend that. Wait, I can't because it's the stupidest thing ever uttered.
Yes. it has been decided. He's a <censored>swell guy</censored>. There is no one who actually thinks like this.
*edit - while I meant what I said, it's not worth getting banned over.
fivepoint
Mar 4, 12:04 PM
No one, no one would take a poll that's seven-months out-of-date and try and pass it off as an accurate representation of current public opinion.
If you can find more recent generic ballot data, I'd love to see it.
Even if the graph was up-to-date as of today it would still not indicate one way or another what would happen in 2012, but rather just give us some general perception as to where the trend is headed, just like the graph I posted. A day, a week, a month... and certainly a year is a LIFETIME in politics.
If you can find more recent generic ballot data, I'd love to see it.
Even if the graph was up-to-date as of today it would still not indicate one way or another what would happen in 2012, but rather just give us some general perception as to where the trend is headed, just like the graph I posted. A day, a week, a month... and certainly a year is a LIFETIME in politics.
CalBoy
Apr 14, 10:50 PM
I understand the point you are trying to make (re: enhanced security measures] but technically those two incidents had nothing to do with the TSA since they both flew from non-USA airports - that is, the TSA didn't screen them at all.
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
I guess that depends on how you define "not much trouble". We can't know the actual number, since we will never know many actually get through. But they are catching over half the weapons that their own agents try to smuggle through on test/training runs. So that counts as being "some trouble". How much "trouble" is enough? Read my post above about how much risk a "bad person" organization is willing to take on 50/50 odds. My late father made his career "gaming" situations, so I have a bit of a passing knowledge of it. I am certain that the TSA has "gamed" the odds, and the TSA believe that they have reached a reasonable balance between costing the public time, money, and indignities - and - ensuring a reasonable level of safety for the flying public. They may be wrong.... but I would bet money that, to the best of their ability, they believe they have reached a balance.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent. What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
If this is the TSA's best effort and what it believes is the best balance, I want a new TSA.
OK, then why are hijackings down? I have my working hypothesis. I cited some evidence to support it. If you don't agree, then it is up to you to state an alternative one that is supported by more than unsupported statements.
I am not saying the TSA (or in my case CATSA) is perfect or haven't mucked things up sometimes. I'm just saying that I believe that they have been mostly responsible for a dramatic drop in airline hijackings. I cited some statistics. Now it's your turn.....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time. I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were. Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
ps there is no proof that it wasn't Lisa's rock. There are some very weird causal relationships in the world. Like shooting wolves causes the Aspen to die off in Wyoming. Or .... overfishing the Salmon in the Pacific changes the mix of trees along the rivers of the BC coast.....
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock. Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation. That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes. Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
I guess that depends on how you define "not much trouble". We can't know the actual number, since we will never know many actually get through. But they are catching over half the weapons that their own agents try to smuggle through on test/training runs. So that counts as being "some trouble". How much "trouble" is enough? Read my post above about how much risk a "bad person" organization is willing to take on 50/50 odds. My late father made his career "gaming" situations, so I have a bit of a passing knowledge of it. I am certain that the TSA has "gamed" the odds, and the TSA believe that they have reached a reasonable balance between costing the public time, money, and indignities - and - ensuring a reasonable level of safety for the flying public. They may be wrong.... but I would bet money that, to the best of their ability, they believe they have reached a balance.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent. What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
If this is the TSA's best effort and what it believes is the best balance, I want a new TSA.
OK, then why are hijackings down? I have my working hypothesis. I cited some evidence to support it. If you don't agree, then it is up to you to state an alternative one that is supported by more than unsupported statements.
I am not saying the TSA (or in my case CATSA) is perfect or haven't mucked things up sometimes. I'm just saying that I believe that they have been mostly responsible for a dramatic drop in airline hijackings. I cited some statistics. Now it's your turn.....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time. I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were. Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
ps there is no proof that it wasn't Lisa's rock. There are some very weird causal relationships in the world. Like shooting wolves causes the Aspen to die off in Wyoming. Or .... overfishing the Salmon in the Pacific changes the mix of trees along the rivers of the BC coast.....
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock. Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation. That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes. Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
MathiasMag
Jul 23, 12:54 AM
So with all the speak of how unacceptable this is. Who has actually decided that the iPhone 4 is so bad that they returned their phone AND bought another advanced phone? It seems to me that there are a lot of people who has never owned one that are critical, but most of those who actually has bought one are really happy with their phone.
akwok
Apr 26, 03:00 AM
apple always gives us surprise(?), so we might have
iphone 4 = the one that we have now
iphone 4S = a new one with A5 chip
iphone 4L = a new one with bigger screen but old chip
iphone 4SL = a new one with A5 chip and bigger screen
iphone 4 = the one that we have now
iphone 4S = a new one with A5 chip
iphone 4L = a new one with bigger screen but old chip
iphone 4SL = a new one with A5 chip and bigger screen
Night Spring
Apr 21, 01:05 PM
That isn't it, because I can change the scores up or down (by TWO points) at will.
Hmmm, well, when *I* do it, it goes up 2 but down 1!
Hmmm, well, when *I* do it, it goes up 2 but down 1!
SthrnCmfrtr
Jan 9, 12:03 PM
really? do you have one or is this from a distance opinion? Asking, because I am on the verge...
I wouldn't put much faith in the opinions of a person demonstrably unable to coherently express himself.
I wouldn't put much faith in the opinions of a person demonstrably unable to coherently express himself.
wordoflife
Apr 25, 03:39 PM
It doesn't look fake to me, but who am I to judge?
Anyways, I'll welcome that screen.
Anyways, I'll welcome that screen.
Nekbeth
Apr 25, 03:28 PM
I declared timer as an instance method:
- (IBAction) cancelTime: (id) sender;
- (void) cancelIt:(NSTimer*) timer;
@end
mmm.. I think I see where this comes from. I had a similar method and it was declared in inside the (IBAction) method, like this:
By Pete Souza, The White House
Mark Zuckerberg#39;s Facebook
Mark Zuckerberg Upgrades To
- (IBAction) cancelTime: (id) sender;
- (void) cancelIt:(NSTimer*) timer;
@end
mmm.. I think I see where this comes from. I had a similar method and it was declared in inside the (IBAction) method, like this:
CalBoy
Mar 13, 04:46 PM
Can you say just one company that seems to capture the needs/desires as Apple has?
I don'y see lines for the latest Droid phone or pad...
Like it or not of late; Apple knows how do things right...
I'm not sure what you're replying to...:confused:
Apple clearly does marketing and design very well, and most other tech companies are pretty honestly terrible at it.
However, good marketing and design do not make a company innovative. If those were the factors of innovation, then a host of clothing retailers are more innovative than even Apple.
I don'y see lines for the latest Droid phone or pad...
Like it or not of late; Apple knows how do things right...
I'm not sure what you're replying to...:confused:
Apple clearly does marketing and design very well, and most other tech companies are pretty honestly terrible at it.
However, good marketing and design do not make a company innovative. If those were the factors of innovation, then a host of clothing retailers are more innovative than even Apple.
miles01110
Apr 21, 12:06 PM
On IE7 I just tried to vote a post "up" and the counter incremented +2. I then tried to undo this by voting it "down" and the counter incremented +2 again. Now post #50 is at +5, when it should be at +1.
I tried a different post and the expected behavior ensued. Weird.
Edit: And now I just tried this post. I could increment up then down to get to -1, but couldn't change my vote after two instances.
I tried a different post and the expected behavior ensued. Weird.
Edit: And now I just tried this post. I could increment up then down to get to -1, but couldn't change my vote after two instances.
AidenShaw
Apr 29, 11:36 PM
I see. It's a sequence of versions but they decided to start at a a certain level of windows development or possibly a grouping of versions by category. i always wondered about that.
The internal kernel version ID for Vista is Major.Minor = "6.0".
The next major release after "6.0" would be "7" - hence "Windows 7".
However, Windows 7 is a compatible superset of Windows 6.0 kernel APIs, so Windows 7 uses the kernel version ID of "Windows 6.1". This is so that any software checking the major version sees Vista and 7 as the same version.
The internal kernel version ID for Vista is Major.Minor = "6.0".
The next major release after "6.0" would be "7" - hence "Windows 7".
However, Windows 7 is a compatible superset of Windows 6.0 kernel APIs, so Windows 7 uses the kernel version ID of "Windows 6.1". This is so that any software checking the major version sees Vista and 7 as the same version.
wrldwzrd89
Apr 7, 10:03 AM
Thats just the NT version. Windows 8 will be 6.2
7 was 6.1,
Vista was 6.0
XP was 5.0
Technically Windows 7 is the 10th version of Windows, if you don't count Windows Server.
Windows 7 is the 7th version if you count from Windows 95.
According to Wikipedia, Windows 8 will be NT version 6.2, not 7.0 - just in case you were wondering.
7 was 6.1,
Vista was 6.0
XP was 5.0
Technically Windows 7 is the 10th version of Windows, if you don't count Windows Server.
Windows 7 is the 7th version if you count from Windows 95.
According to Wikipedia, Windows 8 will be NT version 6.2, not 7.0 - just in case you were wondering.
jbg232
Mar 17, 10:53 AM
The poor kid simply hit the "cash" button before typing in the total. I used to work at BB (now an attorney), so I feel sorry for the kid. The OP committed retail theft by knowingly leaving the store with a product he didn't pay full value for (differentiated from receiving a computer by mistake because of the intent requirement). If the kid is not fired he will surely be written up and never able to move upward in the company to get things like health insurance and other benefits. What's worse is that this is the time of the year when BB takes on a lot of new hires.
It's sad to see people surprised at "morality police" coming out against the OP. He committed a freaking crime! Worse, he thinks he deserved to do it because he was a good boy and didnt steal the lady's iPhone earlier...
I doubt it will do any good, but I'll do my part and forward this thread to some friends at BB corporate. I'm sure they could track down the receipt and let the kids gm know why his register was off by that amount and that it wasn't internal theft. They'd also give the GM OP's info from his rz card, which could be amusing... :)
What is the law (or for these purposes, a crime) and what is ethically "right" or "good" are not always the same thing.
Acting morally is not necessarily equal to acting legally.
It's sad to see people surprised at "morality police" coming out against the OP. He committed a freaking crime! Worse, he thinks he deserved to do it because he was a good boy and didnt steal the lady's iPhone earlier...
I doubt it will do any good, but I'll do my part and forward this thread to some friends at BB corporate. I'm sure they could track down the receipt and let the kids gm know why his register was off by that amount and that it wasn't internal theft. They'd also give the GM OP's info from his rz card, which could be amusing... :)
What is the law (or for these purposes, a crime) and what is ethically "right" or "good" are not always the same thing.
Acting morally is not necessarily equal to acting legally.
Rodimus Prime
Apr 23, 11:19 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8H7)
How would they acquire the data? How would they know this is a young person they actually want to follow? Couldn't they just follow them home from somewhere? Does the person need to lose their phone for a danger to occur? Does this paedophile need to have a phone with them?
The tracking that is occurring is by cell tower identification when someone is in range of one. Will the paedophile have access to a spy satellite to zero in on the exact location of an individual?
I'm still not buying it.
from the thread on the senator asking for reasons about this someone directly ask you this question below and you seem to be refusing to answer it. It showing you true colors LTD by refusing to answer it. Instead your entire argument is well no argument. You just attack but provide no real counter argument.
for all your defending of this feature ... can you give me even one positive reason this is good for the average person that out-weighs the negative ones ... just one
How would they acquire the data? How would they know this is a young person they actually want to follow? Couldn't they just follow them home from somewhere? Does the person need to lose their phone for a danger to occur? Does this paedophile need to have a phone with them?
The tracking that is occurring is by cell tower identification when someone is in range of one. Will the paedophile have access to a spy satellite to zero in on the exact location of an individual?
I'm still not buying it.
from the thread on the senator asking for reasons about this someone directly ask you this question below and you seem to be refusing to answer it. It showing you true colors LTD by refusing to answer it. Instead your entire argument is well no argument. You just attack but provide no real counter argument.
for all your defending of this feature ... can you give me even one positive reason this is good for the average person that out-weighs the negative ones ... just one
dayloon
Apr 9, 05:28 PM
A lot of the 'rumours' you posted are nonsense. Windows 8 will not and will never be unix based
Al Coholic
Apr 8, 12:58 PM
Oh crap. 400 fear-mongering posts in the other thread were for naught. :eek:
LOL!
Come on people, think next time. Like Apple gives a rat's ass how their retailers horde iPads when Apple themselves can't even supply them.
LOL!
Come on people, think next time. Like Apple gives a rat's ass how their retailers horde iPads when Apple themselves can't even supply them.
No comments:
Post a Comment