Popeye206
Apr 13, 09:21 PM
It could be a bad mod job, I doubt some random AT&T employee got a hold of an actual White iPhone 4.
Agreed... if it's not announced, it's not in the wild. Probably one of those conversion jobs... someone was selling a white conversion kit for $200.
Agreed... if it's not announced, it's not in the wild. Probably one of those conversion jobs... someone was selling a white conversion kit for $200.
ChrisGonzales90
Jun 6, 09:05 PM
As usual American's (yeah I'm American) love to blame someone for their own responsibility. It's so weird how people on here fight for freedom from the lockdowns that Apple puts on it's developers, freedoms from the limitations and restrictions Apple puts on the iPhone (hence why people jailbreak). Yet when a parent doesn't take accountability for their absence of judgement and legal obligation to be responsible for their child, everyone goes off on Apple for not having the protections in place to prevent this?
There are so many hypocrites in this country, probably because nobody wants to take accountability for their own actions. What if it were a gun. If the parent left it on the night stand with a bullet in it, and the kid picked it up and shot & killed someone, would you all be blaming the maker of the gun? No, you'd be going after the parents for failure to supervise their kid which led to actions causing someone's death.
So why is it different here?
IT'S NOT.
I always love to bring that up at those Mcdonalds debates.
There are so many hypocrites in this country, probably because nobody wants to take accountability for their own actions. What if it were a gun. If the parent left it on the night stand with a bullet in it, and the kid picked it up and shot & killed someone, would you all be blaming the maker of the gun? No, you'd be going after the parents for failure to supervise their kid which led to actions causing someone's death.
So why is it different here?
IT'S NOT.
I always love to bring that up at those Mcdonalds debates.
marksman
Apr 22, 11:15 AM
Apple doesn't compromise their overall vision and functionality for single features like all the other handset makers.
So this is no surprise. This is why the individual iOS devices completely dominate their market segments.
So this is no surprise. This is why the individual iOS devices completely dominate their market segments.
SciFrog
Oct 20, 09:48 PM
yeah for real. but that iMac sure does seem nice
Someone claim the got 43 mins frame time on the biadv with a core i860 and Linux, same CPU as the higher end iMac. That is the same as my 3Ghz 8 core Mac Pro. You think it is possible?
Someone claim the got 43 mins frame time on the biadv with a core i860 and Linux, same CPU as the higher end iMac. That is the same as my 3Ghz 8 core Mac Pro. You think it is possible?
more...
appleguy123
Jun 6, 01:22 AM
What was an 11 year old doing that required this app? I bet pressed download just for the thrill of it and when it started downloading he freaked out.
metalboy4
Apr 14, 03:42 PM
Hmmm, strange. A lot of people got caught out by that little check box, which is why I posted it.
Yeah, check box doesn't matter. No playcount updates. Can anyone confirm if it fixed in this new version? I will have to wait till I get home late this evening to test.
Yeah, check box doesn't matter. No playcount updates. Can anyone confirm if it fixed in this new version? I will have to wait till I get home late this evening to test.
more...
MagnusVonMagnum
Nov 20, 10:40 AM
If you don't address those very good reasons, your argument won't be very convincing. We do not want the CPU suck, the identity leaking, the UI inconsistencies, and the very real risk of "zero day" Adobe bugs.
Whom am I trying to convince? Illogical and irrational people who worship Steve Jobs and hate what he hates? Such people will not care or listen to any form of reason. That's why the word fanatic is in fanboy. No, I talk about an option to turn Flash on or off at will and you find it offensive to even offer an option. That is irrational at best.
Everything you fear would be avoided if someone just turned Flash OFF (or it could default to off and have to be turned on). I've said since the first post the word OPTION. You don't seem to comprehend that word or understand why those of us that would want the choice of having Flash are not asking you to give up anything in the process. You could always turn it off if it were present. We cannot turn it on if it's not present.
In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.
No, I just don't see any point in trying to carry on a logical, rational discussion with someone whose "argument" is based purely on emotion. If it weren't, you wouldn't object to an option for those of us that don't agree with Steve Jobs point of view because an option satisfies all your arguments against having Flash because you can always just leave it OFF. It cannot do harm if it's off no matter how paranoid you may become about having it on your device.
Many millions of people have Flash installed on their Macs (let alone those using Windows and Linux) and they could remove it. They know that if they do, some web sites will cease to function properly and thus they leave it on. The security concerns you mentioned will be addressed as all security bugs are in both OSX and Windows.
Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!
Free of Flash? You say that in a tone that sounds like they're free of slavery or something. No, what they're free of is the ability to access millions of web sites that require Flash to view them or much of their content and I do not see that as a good thing. But my point of view doesn't require you to see it. I said from the first post I wanted an option to use Flash. You could still choose to turn it off if it were there. I cannot turn on what is not present nor should I have to buy some absurd 3rd party converter that requires their web site to be running to use it.
The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.
And so that makes it OK for him to behave as he does? A lot of us like Apple products, but we would like them a lot better if Steve would just stick to making the products unfettered instead of trying to force his opinions and world view on people in the process. He doesn't like Flash so he decides for everyone they should not use Flash. What if Steve decided iOS shall no longer support MP3 files, only AAC? I suppose you would accept that as OK too? Update iOS and your MP3s no longer function. Yes, that would be just wonderful if they did that. After all, AAC is superior to MP3, so why should Apple support a legacy inferior heavily pirated format? By your logic, they should not.
If you really want the "full web experience" of zero-day Adobe bugs, get an Android phone. Note: Android phones were vulnerable to the last zero-day Adobe bug. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I don't want a phone period guy. I only want and use an iPod Touch. Is there an Android iPod Touch? Android didn't exist when Apple made the claims of accessing the full Internet either and it doesn't make that any less a lie.
The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.
You act as if Apple has no vulnerabilities to attack. That is extremely naive to the point of emotionalism once again. In fact it's just the opposite. Apple's security is rated as bad compared to Windows and only the fact that there are so few Mac users compared to Windows has saved it thus far. As the popularity of iOS devices has exploded, it's inevitable that it will start attracting malware. It's only a matter of time. Will you wish you never bought an iPhone on that day or will you recognize that companies simply have to find and patch vulnerabilities. Apple has patched numerous security flaws in OSX over the years. Should we plug our ears and say there is no such thing?
Do tell: what exact sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute?
A quick search (you do know how to do that don't you?) reveals offhand a few example sites that don't use HTML5 video (which could and may in the future, but that doesn't help someone today):
Gametrailers
GiantBomb
Vimeo
Playstation Blog
Stiq of Joy
Engadget
Try some of these effects on this site this with HTML5:
http://superior-web-solutions.com/
Maybe read this article on Flash. Most HTML5 is just a video player. Flash isn't just a video player and it didn't even start as one.
http://www.andrewgreig.com/2010/06/html5-is-not-a-flash-replacement-and-shouldnt-be-seen-that-way/
Perhaps you want an open standard? So when does Apple stop requiring Quicktime on their web sites? :rolleyes:
Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is holding you hostage.
If you don't like the choices that Apple made, then ditch your iOS device and get an Android. Simple.
No, they're just boring me to death with emotional arguments why everyone should either worship Steve Jobs or leave the platform and get an Android instead similar to the "love OSX or leave it" arguments the fanboys regularly produce.
This is the first little lie in your rant. The iOS users don't find it inconvenient. If Flash were so damn important to them, they would have bought some device that could run Flash.
The fact that you think my statement is a "lie" based on a subjective opinion tells me you cannot even tell fact from fiction let alone lies from opinions. Trying to see someone else's point of view is completely foreign to you. You view the world through tinted lenses. What you say is akin to if you don't like something about OSX, go buy a Windows machine, as if there aren't any compromises along the way on that platform either (not to mention having to replace possibly thousands and thousands of dollars worth of software for a given platform to do so). Not liking something about a given platform and wanting to change it doesn't mean another platform is more viable in ALL areas or that a person may wish to spend a lot of money to make that change just because of that one issue. Perhaps you'd like to send me a free Android phone to replace my aging 1st Gen iPod Touch that I bought before Android even existed? I'd happily consider such an offer. Of course I'll need replacement apps as well.
The people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.
You seem to forge that I and others that actually want Flash are part of those people dude. Get over yourself. Just because you don't like Flash doesn't mean the rest of us have hatred for it. Some of us simply don't like our iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches crippled for no reason. Besides, how you try to turn my initial argument that I'd prefer to see an option to use Flash for those of us that want it rather than no option into this flipping crusade against all things Apple and Flash alike is beyond me. You are making mountains out of mole hills and lies out of opinions. For what? I can't make you see things the way I see them. I never wanted to try. That's why I said OPTION. But you would deny everyone who wants that option to have it just like Steve Jobs. Steve does it because he's a control freak (he was once ousted from Apple for this very reason). I imagine you do it because you love Apple. Sadly, I actually prefer Steve's reason.
This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.
Didn't they? It doesn't violate their rules for an app so how could they not approve it without being outright liars? Oh wait. They have done that before so I can see your point. ;)
Apple has also announced they will approve Flash Apps using Adobe's cross-compiler for iOS. If there actually are crucial Flash apps -- you haven't named a single specific one so far -- the owners of those apps should be able to easily cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store.
Apple formerly announced they would NOT support it. Why did they change their minds? Could it have something to do with the Justice Department starting an investigation into anti-trust behaviors by Apple policies? Noooo....it couldn't be that. Apple is allowed to single out companies it doesn't like and compete with to just willy-nilly throw specifically into their license agreements.
And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.
I say if you don't have Flash you don't have the full Internet and you call that a "lie" based on the above quote? What freaking UNIVERSE do you live in??????? ROTFLMAO. You cannot tell a statement of fact from an idea in your head that somehow says that the "full internet" doesn't include sites that use "propriety" formats. Come on man. That position not only ignore reality it even invalidiates Apple's own web site as being part of the "full Internet" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to try harder. Calling someone a liar when they are obviously stating facts and/or opinions just makes you look immature.
because accusing someone of lying when it's obvious
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
First of all, you are the one that is calling it a "bankrupt strategy". I see nothing in that thread by Adobe that even addresses the matter. Adobe is simply trying to sell products and if they can easily sell more products to Apple users by providing an easy way to convert their hard work Flash sites into HTML5, they are going to do so and laugh all the way to the bank. That in NO WAY invalidates the fact that there are still plenty of Flash only sites out there and plenty of flash uses (e.g. Flash games) that HTML5 is no simple substitute for regardless. Until the Internet is Flash free, there is going to be a need and a will by people to have the option to view Flash.
The mere fact that this Skyfire app has raked in over $1 MILLION in sales already shows just how big that will is. Yet you reject the desire to be able to use Flash web sites as meaningless and unnecessary while the thread title alone proves you wrong.
The Oprah Winfrey Network.
more...
the Oprah Winfrey Network
Oprah Winfrey Network
more...
6: Oprah Winfrey arrives
Oprah+winfrey+network+logo
more...
The Oprah Winfrey Network
Oprah Winfrey#39;s network has
more...
Oprah Winfrey is expanding her
Oprah Winfrey, who is gearing
more...
Oprah Winfrey Network Jobs
OWN: The Oprah Winfrey Network
oprah winfrey network canada
Whom am I trying to convince? Illogical and irrational people who worship Steve Jobs and hate what he hates? Such people will not care or listen to any form of reason. That's why the word fanatic is in fanboy. No, I talk about an option to turn Flash on or off at will and you find it offensive to even offer an option. That is irrational at best.
Everything you fear would be avoided if someone just turned Flash OFF (or it could default to off and have to be turned on). I've said since the first post the word OPTION. You don't seem to comprehend that word or understand why those of us that would want the choice of having Flash are not asking you to give up anything in the process. You could always turn it off if it were present. We cannot turn it on if it's not present.
In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.
No, I just don't see any point in trying to carry on a logical, rational discussion with someone whose "argument" is based purely on emotion. If it weren't, you wouldn't object to an option for those of us that don't agree with Steve Jobs point of view because an option satisfies all your arguments against having Flash because you can always just leave it OFF. It cannot do harm if it's off no matter how paranoid you may become about having it on your device.
Many millions of people have Flash installed on their Macs (let alone those using Windows and Linux) and they could remove it. They know that if they do, some web sites will cease to function properly and thus they leave it on. The security concerns you mentioned will be addressed as all security bugs are in both OSX and Windows.
Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!
Free of Flash? You say that in a tone that sounds like they're free of slavery or something. No, what they're free of is the ability to access millions of web sites that require Flash to view them or much of their content and I do not see that as a good thing. But my point of view doesn't require you to see it. I said from the first post I wanted an option to use Flash. You could still choose to turn it off if it were there. I cannot turn on what is not present nor should I have to buy some absurd 3rd party converter that requires their web site to be running to use it.
The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.
And so that makes it OK for him to behave as he does? A lot of us like Apple products, but we would like them a lot better if Steve would just stick to making the products unfettered instead of trying to force his opinions and world view on people in the process. He doesn't like Flash so he decides for everyone they should not use Flash. What if Steve decided iOS shall no longer support MP3 files, only AAC? I suppose you would accept that as OK too? Update iOS and your MP3s no longer function. Yes, that would be just wonderful if they did that. After all, AAC is superior to MP3, so why should Apple support a legacy inferior heavily pirated format? By your logic, they should not.
If you really want the "full web experience" of zero-day Adobe bugs, get an Android phone. Note: Android phones were vulnerable to the last zero-day Adobe bug. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I don't want a phone period guy. I only want and use an iPod Touch. Is there an Android iPod Touch? Android didn't exist when Apple made the claims of accessing the full Internet either and it doesn't make that any less a lie.
The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.
You act as if Apple has no vulnerabilities to attack. That is extremely naive to the point of emotionalism once again. In fact it's just the opposite. Apple's security is rated as bad compared to Windows and only the fact that there are so few Mac users compared to Windows has saved it thus far. As the popularity of iOS devices has exploded, it's inevitable that it will start attracting malware. It's only a matter of time. Will you wish you never bought an iPhone on that day or will you recognize that companies simply have to find and patch vulnerabilities. Apple has patched numerous security flaws in OSX over the years. Should we plug our ears and say there is no such thing?
Do tell: what exact sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute?
A quick search (you do know how to do that don't you?) reveals offhand a few example sites that don't use HTML5 video (which could and may in the future, but that doesn't help someone today):
Gametrailers
GiantBomb
Vimeo
Playstation Blog
Stiq of Joy
Engadget
Try some of these effects on this site this with HTML5:
http://superior-web-solutions.com/
Maybe read this article on Flash. Most HTML5 is just a video player. Flash isn't just a video player and it didn't even start as one.
http://www.andrewgreig.com/2010/06/html5-is-not-a-flash-replacement-and-shouldnt-be-seen-that-way/
Perhaps you want an open standard? So when does Apple stop requiring Quicktime on their web sites? :rolleyes:
Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is holding you hostage.
If you don't like the choices that Apple made, then ditch your iOS device and get an Android. Simple.
No, they're just boring me to death with emotional arguments why everyone should either worship Steve Jobs or leave the platform and get an Android instead similar to the "love OSX or leave it" arguments the fanboys regularly produce.
This is the first little lie in your rant. The iOS users don't find it inconvenient. If Flash were so damn important to them, they would have bought some device that could run Flash.
The fact that you think my statement is a "lie" based on a subjective opinion tells me you cannot even tell fact from fiction let alone lies from opinions. Trying to see someone else's point of view is completely foreign to you. You view the world through tinted lenses. What you say is akin to if you don't like something about OSX, go buy a Windows machine, as if there aren't any compromises along the way on that platform either (not to mention having to replace possibly thousands and thousands of dollars worth of software for a given platform to do so). Not liking something about a given platform and wanting to change it doesn't mean another platform is more viable in ALL areas or that a person may wish to spend a lot of money to make that change just because of that one issue. Perhaps you'd like to send me a free Android phone to replace my aging 1st Gen iPod Touch that I bought before Android even existed? I'd happily consider such an offer. Of course I'll need replacement apps as well.
The people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.
You seem to forge that I and others that actually want Flash are part of those people dude. Get over yourself. Just because you don't like Flash doesn't mean the rest of us have hatred for it. Some of us simply don't like our iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches crippled for no reason. Besides, how you try to turn my initial argument that I'd prefer to see an option to use Flash for those of us that want it rather than no option into this flipping crusade against all things Apple and Flash alike is beyond me. You are making mountains out of mole hills and lies out of opinions. For what? I can't make you see things the way I see them. I never wanted to try. That's why I said OPTION. But you would deny everyone who wants that option to have it just like Steve Jobs. Steve does it because he's a control freak (he was once ousted from Apple for this very reason). I imagine you do it because you love Apple. Sadly, I actually prefer Steve's reason.
This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.
Didn't they? It doesn't violate their rules for an app so how could they not approve it without being outright liars? Oh wait. They have done that before so I can see your point. ;)
Apple has also announced they will approve Flash Apps using Adobe's cross-compiler for iOS. If there actually are crucial Flash apps -- you haven't named a single specific one so far -- the owners of those apps should be able to easily cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store.
Apple formerly announced they would NOT support it. Why did they change their minds? Could it have something to do with the Justice Department starting an investigation into anti-trust behaviors by Apple policies? Noooo....it couldn't be that. Apple is allowed to single out companies it doesn't like and compete with to just willy-nilly throw specifically into their license agreements.
And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.
I say if you don't have Flash you don't have the full Internet and you call that a "lie" based on the above quote? What freaking UNIVERSE do you live in??????? ROTFLMAO. You cannot tell a statement of fact from an idea in your head that somehow says that the "full internet" doesn't include sites that use "propriety" formats. Come on man. That position not only ignore reality it even invalidiates Apple's own web site as being part of the "full Internet" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to try harder. Calling someone a liar when they are obviously stating facts and/or opinions just makes you look immature.
because accusing someone of lying when it's obvious
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
First of all, you are the one that is calling it a "bankrupt strategy". I see nothing in that thread by Adobe that even addresses the matter. Adobe is simply trying to sell products and if they can easily sell more products to Apple users by providing an easy way to convert their hard work Flash sites into HTML5, they are going to do so and laugh all the way to the bank. That in NO WAY invalidates the fact that there are still plenty of Flash only sites out there and plenty of flash uses (e.g. Flash games) that HTML5 is no simple substitute for regardless. Until the Internet is Flash free, there is going to be a need and a will by people to have the option to view Flash.
The mere fact that this Skyfire app has raked in over $1 MILLION in sales already shows just how big that will is. Yet you reject the desire to be able to use Flash web sites as meaningless and unnecessary while the thread title alone proves you wrong.
Blakjack
Apr 22, 05:30 PM
That dewing would mean the phone be top heavy and be more pruned to falling the hand.
When holding our phones, a lot of times, the top half hangs over. With thinner bottom, we could easily drop.
That's my opinion.
When holding our phones, a lot of times, the top half hangs over. With thinner bottom, we could easily drop.
That's my opinion.
more...
StealthGhost
Mar 11, 08:47 PM
I'm sure all the Best Buys are sold out, but Orange@Tustin and Yorba Linda are for sure.
Pretty stupid.
Pretty stupid.
Linito
Dec 4, 12:36 PM
what does not kill us makes us stronger however this is a wake-up call :eek:
Go Apple kick but :D
Go Apple kick but :D
more...
Dagless
Apr 28, 07:04 AM
The wait is killing me! I'm sitting here working on my old model trying to develop a shader heavy action game, I'll need to record footage for a trailer soon and I don't think my iMac will be able to handle it. Come on May the 3rd!
Seriously, why not an Imac with touch-screen right now? Will we need to wait for the next iMac update to see this technology implemented?
Apple is surely working on it:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/7961480/Apple-files-iMac-touch-patent.html
And, besides that, OS X Lion will be 100% focused on touch technology... and we�re not talking about an Ipad OS...
Touchscreen computers are terrible. I used to do design work for a company that sold them. Computers in their current form do not work well as touchscreens. They even gave me a large touchscreen display as a gift... great display, terrible arm pain!
Leave touchscreens where they work - portable devices. The mouse is so much more precise, comfortable and cheaper.
Seriously, why not an Imac with touch-screen right now? Will we need to wait for the next iMac update to see this technology implemented?
Apple is surely working on it:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/7961480/Apple-files-iMac-touch-patent.html
And, besides that, OS X Lion will be 100% focused on touch technology... and we�re not talking about an Ipad OS...
Touchscreen computers are terrible. I used to do design work for a company that sold them. Computers in their current form do not work well as touchscreens. They even gave me a large touchscreen display as a gift... great display, terrible arm pain!
Leave touchscreens where they work - portable devices. The mouse is so much more precise, comfortable and cheaper.
AppleFanatic10
Dec 2, 02:59 AM
To be honest, I kind of have everything I want. (mainly my Mac and phone). I think for Christmas I would like a few hundred bucks (just incase I wanted to buy something) and certainly a new watch, which I might end up buying myself before then.
LOL same here; Finally got a mac after begging my parents for 3+ years.... ended up buying it myself :). And I have my Blackberry; so there's actually nothing I want this christmas. And if I did end up wanting anything I'd buy it myself sooo.... nope there's nothing :cool:
LOL same here; Finally got a mac after begging my parents for 3+ years.... ended up buying it myself :). And I have my Blackberry; so there's actually nothing I want this christmas. And if I did end up wanting anything I'd buy it myself sooo.... nope there's nothing :cool:
more...
/user/me
May 1, 11:48 PM
On that note:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhnUgAaea4M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhnUgAaea4M
liquidsnake621
Sep 30, 03:14 AM
well then maybe i'll pay 30% of my bill... =P
more...
dgree03
Mar 29, 09:09 AM
The difference being:
1. 1/3 the price at $450.
2. Google gives all attendees an Android phone.
3. A scalper bought a huge portion of the tickets to resell. Apple does not let you transfer tickets. You must check-in at the registration desk with government issued ID (4th year attending).
So the reason apple charges more is because??? Seems like google is a better deal.
Not like that matters, if you develop for OSX, iOS or both... Then the sky high price might be worth it.
1. 1/3 the price at $450.
2. Google gives all attendees an Android phone.
3. A scalper bought a huge portion of the tickets to resell. Apple does not let you transfer tickets. You must check-in at the registration desk with government issued ID (4th year attending).
So the reason apple charges more is because??? Seems like google is a better deal.
Not like that matters, if you develop for OSX, iOS or both... Then the sky high price might be worth it.
Cigsm
Apr 30, 07:41 PM
You can't beat it because it's a pirate site. NONE of the money from the site goes to the artists, songwriters, producers, labels, etc.
There's a reason it's based out of Russia. So I hope you're happy knowing your essentially buying stolen property.
I don't buy from either of these any more after being introduced to Gomusicnow.com (or any of the other 25 similar sites). 9 cents per song, or ~$.80-$1.5 per ALBUM. Quality 320 for most newer albums and 220-300 for older. Can't beat it.
There's a reason it's based out of Russia. So I hope you're happy knowing your essentially buying stolen property.
I don't buy from either of these any more after being introduced to Gomusicnow.com (or any of the other 25 similar sites). 9 cents per song, or ~$.80-$1.5 per ALBUM. Quality 320 for most newer albums and 220-300 for older. Can't beat it.
more...
spencers
Sep 15, 12:19 PM
http://i56.tinypic.com/2z4adlc.jpg
And correct terms, too (myosin/actin)!
And correct terms, too (myosin/actin)!
!� V �!
Apr 25, 02:07 PM
Wake me when iMacs have matte screens again.
Agreed.
Agreed.
tabasco70
Jan 12, 09:10 AM
I feel bad for her kids.
Umbongo
May 3, 09:14 AM
Specs don't mention IPS panel like with previous models.
It is mentioned in the screen section under features.
It is mentioned in the screen section under features.
yetanotherdave
Apr 15, 03:06 PM
Well Apple has used up all the "big cat" names like Tiger and Lion which means that either OS 11 is underway or they will be in the embarassing situation of having to use lesser cat names which imply "less".
Ocelot, Cheetah, Cougar, Fluffy, etc......:cool:
I for one am ready for OS 11.0 "Merlot"
Snow Lion? :rolleyes:
Ocelot, Cheetah, Cougar, Fluffy, etc......:cool:
I for one am ready for OS 11.0 "Merlot"
Snow Lion? :rolleyes:
SAD*FACED*CLOWN
Apr 25, 07:57 AM
For all the T-Mobile users just keep your fingers crossed and hope that the merger doesn't pass. wouldn't it be really nice to finally have an iphone at an affordable rate.:o
why do people believe this is possible? Apple will not allow one carrier to undersell the other on the SAME DEVICE...just won't happen it's bad for sales...which is why there is no competition between AT&T and Verizon...similar plans on voice text and data...otherwise everyone would play carrier swap every few month to get the best deal...if Tmobile gets the iPhone while still independent from AT&T you better believe you won't get unlimited everything for 70 bucks
why do people believe this is possible? Apple will not allow one carrier to undersell the other on the SAME DEVICE...just won't happen it's bad for sales...which is why there is no competition between AT&T and Verizon...similar plans on voice text and data...otherwise everyone would play carrier swap every few month to get the best deal...if Tmobile gets the iPhone while still independent from AT&T you better believe you won't get unlimited everything for 70 bucks
SeanZy
Mar 11, 01:40 PM
OMG :eek: Wow.
I'll probably try to hit the local Walmart of BestBuy instead.
Im gonna be driving past the Fullerton Best Buy in about 10 minutes... Ill post info here
I'll probably try to hit the local Walmart of BestBuy instead.
Im gonna be driving past the Fullerton Best Buy in about 10 minutes... Ill post info here
Rooskibar03
Jan 26, 11:27 AM
Wish I could get my taxes done, worked 3 jobs last year and only got my W2 for one of them :( didnt make much though...probably about 4k so maybe a $200 refund if that. Anyone have a guess? I always mark no dependencies or whatever so they take all the taxes out.
?? So you spent almost everything you made last year on the computer in your signature?
?? So you spent almost everything you made last year on the computer in your signature?
No comments:
Post a Comment