Cars 2006 Dvd
Mac Fly (film)
Oct 12, 02:55 PM
Bono, whilst playing a gig in Glasgow, got the whole crowd to be silent and then began slowly clapping his hands. He got the crowd to clap along for a while, the stadium quiet except for the rhythmic clapping...
After a short period Bono spoke, saying that everytime he clapped his hands a child in Africa died...
Suddenly, from the front row of the venue a voice broke out in thick Scottish brogue, ending the silence as it echoed across the crowd, the voice cried out to Bono "Well stop f***king doing it then!!"
True story.
Red glossy 1G nano - blergh, red anodised 2G nano - could be cool.
Great story too!!
After a short period Bono spoke, saying that everytime he clapped his hands a child in Africa died...
Suddenly, from the front row of the venue a voice broke out in thick Scottish brogue, ending the silence as it echoed across the crowd, the voice cried out to Bono "Well stop f***king doing it then!!"
True story.
Red glossy 1G nano - blergh, red anodised 2G nano - could be cool.
Great story too!!
skunk
Apr 11, 01:22 PM
So does a centipede. :oThey would if they had a hundred legs...
deputy_doofy
Sep 14, 08:24 AM
Is there any chance that they'll release the MBPs here?
Funny how we're all looking for that same glimmer of hope. :)
If nothing else, 9-24 is extremely close to 9-27 - the date on which Dell claims to be shipping their (Merom) Core 2's.
Signs look good, but by now, I'm not getting my hopes up.
Funny how we're all looking for that same glimmer of hope. :)
If nothing else, 9-24 is extremely close to 9-27 - the date on which Dell claims to be shipping their (Merom) Core 2's.
Signs look good, but by now, I'm not getting my hopes up.
rmhop81
Apr 22, 08:26 AM
I pity the children of the future when I think back to how I am my friends used to swap Video's, CD's and Computer games with each other, as we only had enough Birthday/Christmas money to afford to buy so much, so we had great fun and enjoyment swapping what we had between friends.
In the same way my elderly mother goes to her weekly meeting and they all bring books they have read in, so others can read their books when they have finished with them. Not everyone can afford to buy new every time.
you are focusing too much on the physical items. maybe bc i like to live simple/minimal....but nowadays too many people want so many physical possessions. to me, less is more.....
In the same way my elderly mother goes to her weekly meeting and they all bring books they have read in, so others can read their books when they have finished with them. Not everyone can afford to buy new every time.
you are focusing too much on the physical items. maybe bc i like to live simple/minimal....but nowadays too many people want so many physical possessions. to me, less is more.....
Analog Kid
Sep 16, 05:09 AM
GPS, whay arent you accurate? Oh right, security issues....
This is off topic, and maybe I'm misunderstanding to boot... Are you saying GPS isn't accurate? It's been running at full accuracy for years now-- you can get to a couple feet with WAAS, better than a centimeter using differential techniques. The principle limitation on accuracy is atmospheric effects, not security concerns.
This is off topic, and maybe I'm misunderstanding to boot... Are you saying GPS isn't accurate? It's been running at full accuracy for years now-- you can get to a couple feet with WAAS, better than a centimeter using differential techniques. The principle limitation on accuracy is atmospheric effects, not security concerns.
noservice2001
Sep 4, 07:34 PM
go apple!
NickFalk
Apr 29, 12:25 AM
You do realize that this image could end up biting Apple in the butt? In 3 years time the iPad will be where the iPhone is now: Loosing some (not all) of its marketshare to the knockoffs.
Cars 2006 DVD
Download Cars (2006) DVDRip
This DVD is coded for Regions
Cars 2006 DVD Rip Disney Pixar
2011/03/cars-2006-dvd.html
Cars 2006 DvDrip XviD
MacSync
Sep 26, 02:34 PM
Wouldn't it be nice to have a phone that was able to switch to VOIP in areas with free 802.11 service if you choose to? It could be a part of .Mac Moblie that was discussed earlier. At home it would be on your existing wireless network and could sync with iTunes and all the other Apple Apps and serve as a remote. Away from a 802.11 network it could pick up the cell carrier towers. Would something like this be worth developing?
peharri
Sep 21, 08:10 AM
Finally, someone gets it right.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
LandOfTech
Apr 25, 01:04 PM
Hilarious to all those people who jumped on the THUNDERBOLT bandwagon. No thunderbolt devices yet and they have the hideous old case design.
:rolleyes:
I didn't want to buy it because i had a feeling 2012 will be new design but i had to buy it because i needed a mac and couldn't wait another year!
and its not like the 2011 MBP's are the same old thing just with thunderbolt! It had a faster processer (with **** GPU in the 13" lol)
:rolleyes:
I didn't want to buy it because i had a feeling 2012 will be new design but i had to buy it because i needed a mac and couldn't wait another year!
and its not like the 2011 MBP's are the same old thing just with thunderbolt! It had a faster processer (with **** GPU in the 13" lol)
bdj21ya
Sep 15, 07:04 PM
Most current phones have 64 MB of memory. According to actviity monitor, simple widgets like Gas, and Sol take between 6.2 - 8 MB of memory, where the more gui type of widgets take 20 - 32 MB of memory. Put that load on a typical phone with a OS and apps like iChat, iTunes, etc... It won't fly unless you can cram 1 GB into iPhone.
Cram 1GB? Have you seen the 8GB iPod Nano? What are you talking about? Isn't flash memory capable of being used for running processes, or is it too slow?
Cram 1GB? Have you seen the 8GB iPod Nano? What are you talking about? Isn't flash memory capable of being used for running processes, or is it too slow?
iMeowbot
Sep 14, 11:14 AM
Just checked again. It does appear that laptops are ready to go on 9-22, 9-25, and 9-27, depending on which model and size. Still, that gives Apple some "breathing room" to release theirs.
Well... there is a backlog now, but Merom Dell notebooks are already shipping (http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=77155).
Well... there is a backlog now, but Merom Dell notebooks are already shipping (http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=77155).
chedda
Apr 19, 07:21 AM
If they try shafting apple on parts i'm sure another crippling law suit would occur. Isn't apple now capable of making it's own chips didn't they buy up something ? Lot's of telephones and all the tablets are mac copies to some degree i suppose it's the best form of flattery, most people see this.If i'm right all these items are at a lower price point than apple ? I mean come on you would never pay more than an apple product for an item which is heavily influenced right ?
Cars (2006
-Cars2006DvdRipDublado-MJD
(DVD).jpg "2006, Family, Region 2,")
2006, Family, Region 2,
2006 Hyundai Starex GRX CRDI
Cars 2006 Wide Screen Thai DVD
Cars (2006) - Trailer 2.12 min. | 0 user rating | Views 470. Powered by www.
asdf542
Apr 14, 12:18 PM
unfortunately, also bingo.
Err... no.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2380954,00.asp
Err... no.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2380954,00.asp
mwayne85
Apr 22, 04:42 PM
Apple should produce a really light and small MacBook Air: 400 to 600 g and 7-inches. The Mac in your pocket. Always.
Apple would have to sacrifice the full-size keyboard and probably the trackpad... and according to Steve, "These are areas that you do not want to sacrifice." Making them smaller would be borderline useless.
Apple would have to sacrifice the full-size keyboard and probably the trackpad... and according to Steve, "These are areas that you do not want to sacrifice." Making them smaller would be borderline useless.
donlphi
Sep 5, 08:25 PM
I agree with everyone here who says that when Apple starts their own movie store they should also release a new Application along with it.
Playing video in iTunes is pretty bad.
They could call it iMovie... wait that won't work.
iFlix (too netflix-ee)? iPix(too pixarish)? iMedia (too micro$oftish)? nah.. just stick with iTunes... everybody knows how to use it, but fix the video playback.
Playing video in iTunes is pretty bad.
They could call it iMovie... wait that won't work.
iFlix (too netflix-ee)? iPix(too pixarish)? iMedia (too micro$oftish)? nah.. just stick with iTunes... everybody knows how to use it, but fix the video playback.
Eduardo1971
Sep 12, 02:46 PM
Dear Apple,
YOU SUCK!
Love,
Nathan
PS- I will still buy your stuff.
:D :) :D
YOU SUCK!
Love,
Nathan
PS- I will still buy your stuff.
:D :) :D
SPUY767
Sep 14, 09:59 AM
There is no way in hell that they will introduce laptops at this event.
Period.
Wht the hell not? I don't know a single pro photographer who's laptop isn't crucial to their workflow. Photographers are probably the #1 users of pro-grade laptops and the ones who would most welcome the new hardware and the performance boost it afforded.
Period.
Wht the hell not? I don't know a single pro photographer who's laptop isn't crucial to their workflow. Photographers are probably the #1 users of pro-grade laptops and the ones who would most welcome the new hardware and the performance boost it afforded.
lmalave
Oct 27, 10:12 AM
Exactly. There was no violence, no rowdiness. This is how the current mindf*cks work. People hear that a group or activist with views counter to the needs of govenrment and big business and their heads immediately fills with images of extreme millitancy. As I said - they handed out leaflets. That's it.
It's the same when the intelligence services and police stage 'terror raids' on houses where the inhabitants have no connection to terror. People immediately think 'Ahh, they've got those terrorist scum...' When the suspects are released without charge no one asks how zero evidence can possibly lead to an armed raid.
No, in the case of Greenpeace, most people's experience is probably formed from *first-hand* experience of being approached on city streets. I've certainly been approached dozens of times here in NYC. Personally, Greenpeace doesn't bother me. But Greenpeace reps usually *are* quite insistent, and that behavior is legal on a city street, but does not have to be tolerated on private property.
I mean, it's easy for me to brush people off here in NYC because I'm used to it (constantly get approached by panhandlers, palm readers, political activists, etc.). But at a convention, people whoe weren't used to that probably allowed themselves to be stopped and then had their ears talked off for a few minutes, because they were just too nice to brush off a pretty young girl (which most Greenpeace reps are because they know that people will be much nicer to them on average than to, say, a young punk-ass male). So these people probably didn't say anything to the Greenpeace rep's face, but then turned around and noted a complaint with MacExpo. MacExpo probably received a few of these complaints and decided enough was enough...
It's the same when the intelligence services and police stage 'terror raids' on houses where the inhabitants have no connection to terror. People immediately think 'Ahh, they've got those terrorist scum...' When the suspects are released without charge no one asks how zero evidence can possibly lead to an armed raid.
No, in the case of Greenpeace, most people's experience is probably formed from *first-hand* experience of being approached on city streets. I've certainly been approached dozens of times here in NYC. Personally, Greenpeace doesn't bother me. But Greenpeace reps usually *are* quite insistent, and that behavior is legal on a city street, but does not have to be tolerated on private property.
I mean, it's easy for me to brush people off here in NYC because I'm used to it (constantly get approached by panhandlers, palm readers, political activists, etc.). But at a convention, people whoe weren't used to that probably allowed themselves to be stopped and then had their ears talked off for a few minutes, because they were just too nice to brush off a pretty young girl (which most Greenpeace reps are because they know that people will be much nicer to them on average than to, say, a young punk-ass male). So these people probably didn't say anything to the Greenpeace rep's face, but then turned around and noted a complaint with MacExpo. MacExpo probably received a few of these complaints and decided enough was enough...
1984
Aug 23, 09:08 PM
Don't 90% or more of the MP3 players on the market also infringe this patent (including the forthcoming Zune). By making this payout Apple have given Creative the means to fight other companies (such as Microsoft, Sandisk, etc) which could tie them up for years and possibly even delay the launch of Zune. Meanwhile, Apple have their nice license agreement and can continue unabated...
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
kdarling
Apr 19, 01:44 PM
Wait, people actually still listen to actual radios?
Please read post #162 above (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12421810&postcount=162), for a definition of "radio controls" that is different from what you thought.
Please read post #162 above (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12421810&postcount=162), for a definition of "radio controls" that is different from what you thought.
tigress666
Apr 25, 01:16 PM
Understandable, seeing as you wear Adidas. LOL. :D
On a more serious and intelligent note, let's hope the screen and the rest of the body have a more seamless and look. The current mirror screen looks like it was slapped on a random body. They just don't go together like the previous gen. The Air looks much better.
Ah, I kinda like the two tone look. Though I certainly wouldn't mind if the whole computer was black (though it might look a little bland that way imho).
I will be annoyed if the computer gets a lighter color or they frame the screen in something other than black (sorry, silver and white are both horrible colors to frame a screen with, and besides those and black no other color is really neutral enough for a screen since you need neutrality cause the colors on the screen will change).
On a more serious and intelligent note, let's hope the screen and the rest of the body have a more seamless and look. The current mirror screen looks like it was slapped on a random body. They just don't go together like the previous gen. The Air looks much better.
Ah, I kinda like the two tone look. Though I certainly wouldn't mind if the whole computer was black (though it might look a little bland that way imho).
I will be annoyed if the computer gets a lighter color or they frame the screen in something other than black (sorry, silver and white are both horrible colors to frame a screen with, and besides those and black no other color is really neutral enough for a screen since you need neutrality cause the colors on the screen will change).
YEMandy
Sep 12, 03:30 PM
You can return or exchange it but you'll have to pay a 10% restock fee ($25 or $29 depending on which one you bought). If you bought the 30GB just stick with the "old" 5G. If you bought the 60GB version then $30 is worth the price for another 20GB of storage. But my question to you is, what were you thinking buying an iPod the night before an Apple Special Event focusing on "it's showtime?"
You can return ANY apple product for a FULL refund if the product was updated within 10 days of the original purchase date!! Or you can get money back if the price was lowered!
You can return ANY apple product for a FULL refund if the product was updated within 10 days of the original purchase date!! Or you can get money back if the price was lowered!
flopticalcube
Apr 16, 01:55 PM
Whats the speed of thunderbolt? and will it be faster then sata 3.0
Capped at 10gb/s on the copper version. SATA 3 is 6gbps.
Capped at 10gb/s on the copper version. SATA 3 is 6gbps.
entrada de Vukahynew @ 8:16
0 comentarios
Entradas anteriores
- Space Jam 11 Box
- Love Poems For Her
- Bullwinkle The Moose
- Labelling The Heart
- Casper Van Dien
- Footsteps In The Snow
- Yellowstone Volcano Eruption Prediction
- Referred Pain Chart
- Mutations In Dna
- Cartoon Girl And Boy Fighting
Suscribirse a
Entradas [Atom]
0 comentarios:
Publicar un comentario
Suscribirse a Enviar comentarios [Atom]
<< Inicio