tjmrpm04
Jun 6, 07:36 AM
$1000 worth of a beating he'd get if i were his parent. Luckily for kids, i hate them and would never have one. Ever.
Going out on a limb here, but I am guessing this is not going to be an issue. Now go upstairs because your mom just finished cooking the brisket.
Going out on a limb here, but I am guessing this is not going to be an issue. Now go upstairs because your mom just finished cooking the brisket.
twoodcc
Nov 23, 04:32 PM
Hi everyone, just joined the team.
I have an iMac core duo going at it. She isn't much with her 1.83Ghz but it'll be at it 24h a day. It's about to complete it's first WU after 1day 19hours. It sounds a bit long to me compared to the times a say reading the thread, is this normal?
glad to have you!
I also just joined. Let see what my '08 Octo 2.8 MP can contribute to our score/rankings:D
glad to have you! like SciFrog said, get a passkey and run the bigadv units on that mac pro!
Strange it hasn't been done yet. It would help as we struggle to take on ClubLexus as they have raised their production very close to our level.
On another note, it looks like the Gulftown 6 core that will be next in the Mac Pro are screaming. It will be hard to resist getting a 12 core machine (24 with hyperthreading) unless the price is ridiculous. Should be good for 60k PPD ;)
yeah i'm surprised that they said they would give us the points, and still haven't.
have you read some info about the Gulftown's? please share if you have! oh i know it will be hard to resist buying one!
I have an iMac core duo going at it. She isn't much with her 1.83Ghz but it'll be at it 24h a day. It's about to complete it's first WU after 1day 19hours. It sounds a bit long to me compared to the times a say reading the thread, is this normal?
glad to have you!
I also just joined. Let see what my '08 Octo 2.8 MP can contribute to our score/rankings:D
glad to have you! like SciFrog said, get a passkey and run the bigadv units on that mac pro!
Strange it hasn't been done yet. It would help as we struggle to take on ClubLexus as they have raised their production very close to our level.
On another note, it looks like the Gulftown 6 core that will be next in the Mac Pro are screaming. It will be hard to resist getting a 12 core machine (24 with hyperthreading) unless the price is ridiculous. Should be good for 60k PPD ;)
yeah i'm surprised that they said they would give us the points, and still haven't.
have you read some info about the Gulftown's? please share if you have! oh i know it will be hard to resist buying one!
madoka
Apr 24, 02:39 PM
From what I understand:
- transgendered guy walks into the women's restroom at a ghetto McD
- a couple of women in the restroom see him peeing while standing up and/or his penis
- they feel threatened and freak out
- beating ensues
I don't want to blame the victim nor do I think the beating was in any way justified, but if I were a transgendered guy, I would not be going to the women's room in the ghetto when there are hood rats around.
- transgendered guy walks into the women's restroom at a ghetto McD
- a couple of women in the restroom see him peeing while standing up and/or his penis
- they feel threatened and freak out
- beating ensues
I don't want to blame the victim nor do I think the beating was in any way justified, but if I were a transgendered guy, I would not be going to the women's room in the ghetto when there are hood rats around.
digitalnicotine
Sep 15, 06:39 PM
After my Panasonic 32" HDTV bit the dust after only 13 months (1 year warranty, of course!), I got this 42" Vizio 1080P 120 MHZ to replace it. Panasonic, I hate you!
Also got a PS3 Slim recently when my old fatty died. It's in the upper left adjacent to the 360, but you can't really see in photo because I am no photographer. :o
Due to my bad luck with electronics of late, I went against my previous convictions, and got extended warranties this time. :rolleyes:
For those considering this TV model, I'm extremely satisfied with the picture quality.
Also got a PS3 Slim recently when my old fatty died. It's in the upper left adjacent to the 360, but you can't really see in photo because I am no photographer. :o
Due to my bad luck with electronics of late, I went against my previous convictions, and got extended warranties this time. :rolleyes:
For those considering this TV model, I'm extremely satisfied with the picture quality.
agentdavo
Apr 18, 12:14 PM
The all new AppleTV. Available in a range of colours. ;-)
Thunderhawks
Apr 13, 02:36 PM
SMART TV? Come on. Only a few year ago we were advised to kill our TVs.
LOL!
%IMG_DESC_7%
%IMG_DESC_8%
%IMG_DESC_9%
%IMG_DESC_10%
%IMG_DESC_11%
%IMG_DESC_12%
%IMG_DESC_13%
%IMG_DESC_14%
%IMG_DESC_15%
%IMG_DESC_16%
%IMG_DESC_17%
%IMG_DESC_18%
%IMG_DESC_19%
LOL!
FloatingBones
Nov 25, 12:34 AM
For the last time, STOP SPEAKING FOR OTHER PEOPLE!!! You have NO right what-so-ever to speak for anyone but yourself and yet you continue to state that EVER SINGLE iOS USER hates Flash and is glad to be rid of it and yet this Skyfire app proves just the opposite.
What I said: Users of the 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash plugins is completely true. There are no Flash plugins for this device. Nobody can run a shred of Flash content in their browser on this device.
No amount of nonsensical shouting will change the facts.
You have every right to give your opinion on the matter, but it is your opinion, not the opinion of every single iOS user in existence.
But owners of those 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash. Nobody forced them to buy those devices. If they were somehow "disappointed" because there are no Flash plugins available, nobody prevented them from returning them or reselling them.
That is NOT a shortcoming of Flash dude.
Also incorrect. There are huge shortcomings of Flash, and you've never addressed them.
You've never addressed the identity-leaking of Flash cookies: Flash doesn't honor the cookie privacy settings of the browser. More than half of the top 100 websites are now using Flash cookies to track users and store information about them. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt) Do you actually like the fact that those sites do an end-run around the cookie privacy settings by using Flash? I can't find a single rational person that likes the identity-leaking.
You've never addressed the quirkiness that Flash brings to the browser UI. On my Mac, scrolling works differently when my mouse is over a Flash region. Certain keyboard shortcuts cease to work. Text that appears in a Flash window is not searchable with the browser's text-finding feature. My Mac doesn't behave like a Mac inside of a Flash window.
The engineering choice made for iOS is simplicity. Layering Flash on top of the browser would compromise that simplicity. Click-to-flash semantics would add yet another layer of clutter and obfuscation to the UI.
You've never addressed Adobe's inability to deal competently to secure their software. Security experts believe that Adobe is going to surpass Microsoft as the #1 target for security attacks. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-231.htm) Besides Flash, Adobe Reader is a vector for zero day bugs (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt). I really don't know how you do that: it's a PDF reader! The bugs have been around in Adobe Reader for years and Adobe still hasn't fixed them.
If Apple enabled Flash in iOS Safari, they would be farming out the correct operation of their iOS browser to a company that has proven to be one of the least competent companies in dealing with malware attacks. Noted security expert Steve Gibson mocks their cluelessness:
"[Adobe:] how is that quarterly update cycle going for you?" (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I have yet to find a single Flash enthusiast who can address those issues. I'm hardly surprised that you can't address them, either.
That is a shortcoming of Steve Jobs' choosing.
Nonsense. They are engineering and design choices. If Apple made bad engineering and design choices, they would never have sold 120M+ of these devices.
If you think they are a "shortcoming": there are simple solutions. Don't buy an iOS device. If you did buy one, sell it. Or maybe you can see if it will blend (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAl28d6tbko).
One thing is certain: Apple will not compromise their iOS browser with Flash, and complaining about that is rather silly.
Even if Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete, that doesn't mean people don't want to be able to access the entire Web in the here and now.
Adobe Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete. Even Adobe acknowledges the fact (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999).
Between the 120M+ iOS devices, the click-to-flash plugins disable Flash downloads on Windows, Mac OS X and Linux machines, and Adobe's new Flash-to-HTML5 conversion tools (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999), the abandonment of Flash will continue to accelerate.
You just don't seem to comprehend that.
You are correct. Flash is a legacy technology, and its day has passed.
You seem to have this deep seated hatred of Flash
There are fundamental failings in both the design and deployment of Flash. I listed three of those earlier in my reply.
The thing that got my attention was when I realized that Flash was maintaining its own set of cookies and that those cookies did not honor the privacy settings of my browser. I then learned about click-to-flash plugins to minimize my exposure to Flash. The shocking thing to me was how much disabling Flash improved the browsing experience: faster page loads, less flashing advertisements, and far less CPU usage.
and I can tell that if Steve had said "I LOVE Flash" instead you would almost undoubtedly be here fighting against HTML5 and for Flash.
You imply that I blindly agree with Apple's (and Jobs's) decisions. That is not the case.
I strongly disagree with Apple's decision to prevent Hypermac from selling external batteries for Mac computers (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1032695). Hypermac makes a quality product, and they are filling a niche that Apple ignores. Magsafe is a wonderful technology, but they should be licensing this tech to third-party vendors. I fondly hope that Apple addresses this deficiency in their strategy and product accessories soon.
If you search, you can find where I commented on this in the public record weeks ago.
Yes, I honestly believe that. You have no vested interest in either one. You're just being Steve's doormat.
Now you know better.
I see no reason why ANYONE should have to convert to HTML5.
Too many laptop users are tired of the CPU loading and battery suck of Flash apps.
Too many users don't like that Flash alters the UI inside of the browsers: altered scrolling behavior, keyboard shortcuts that don't work in Flash, text searches that don't work with text in a Flash app.
Too many privacy advocates are bothered that Flash maintains a separate set of cookies and those cookies do not honor the privacy settings of the browser. Commercial websites are using those Flash cookies to track users. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt)
Too many security advocates are wary of using Adobe products because of Adobe's poor track record against security attacks.
Even if all those four large concerns were addressed, websites have to deal with the growing number of users that use Flash-blocking plugins. Advertisers that deliver their ads with Flash have no guarantee that users will allow those Flash apps to be downloaded and run on their machines.
Those are the reasons why Flash's viability for delivering web content is in decline. Even if you don't see the reasons, Adobe does (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/10/adobe-demos-flash-to-html5-conversion-tool.html).
What I said: Users of the 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash plugins is completely true. There are no Flash plugins for this device. Nobody can run a shred of Flash content in their browser on this device.
No amount of nonsensical shouting will change the facts.
You have every right to give your opinion on the matter, but it is your opinion, not the opinion of every single iOS user in existence.
But owners of those 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash. Nobody forced them to buy those devices. If they were somehow "disappointed" because there are no Flash plugins available, nobody prevented them from returning them or reselling them.
That is NOT a shortcoming of Flash dude.
Also incorrect. There are huge shortcomings of Flash, and you've never addressed them.
You've never addressed the identity-leaking of Flash cookies: Flash doesn't honor the cookie privacy settings of the browser. More than half of the top 100 websites are now using Flash cookies to track users and store information about them. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt) Do you actually like the fact that those sites do an end-run around the cookie privacy settings by using Flash? I can't find a single rational person that likes the identity-leaking.
You've never addressed the quirkiness that Flash brings to the browser UI. On my Mac, scrolling works differently when my mouse is over a Flash region. Certain keyboard shortcuts cease to work. Text that appears in a Flash window is not searchable with the browser's text-finding feature. My Mac doesn't behave like a Mac inside of a Flash window.
The engineering choice made for iOS is simplicity. Layering Flash on top of the browser would compromise that simplicity. Click-to-flash semantics would add yet another layer of clutter and obfuscation to the UI.
You've never addressed Adobe's inability to deal competently to secure their software. Security experts believe that Adobe is going to surpass Microsoft as the #1 target for security attacks. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-231.htm) Besides Flash, Adobe Reader is a vector for zero day bugs (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt). I really don't know how you do that: it's a PDF reader! The bugs have been around in Adobe Reader for years and Adobe still hasn't fixed them.
If Apple enabled Flash in iOS Safari, they would be farming out the correct operation of their iOS browser to a company that has proven to be one of the least competent companies in dealing with malware attacks. Noted security expert Steve Gibson mocks their cluelessness:
"[Adobe:] how is that quarterly update cycle going for you?" (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I have yet to find a single Flash enthusiast who can address those issues. I'm hardly surprised that you can't address them, either.
That is a shortcoming of Steve Jobs' choosing.
Nonsense. They are engineering and design choices. If Apple made bad engineering and design choices, they would never have sold 120M+ of these devices.
If you think they are a "shortcoming": there are simple solutions. Don't buy an iOS device. If you did buy one, sell it. Or maybe you can see if it will blend (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAl28d6tbko).
One thing is certain: Apple will not compromise their iOS browser with Flash, and complaining about that is rather silly.
Even if Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete, that doesn't mean people don't want to be able to access the entire Web in the here and now.
Adobe Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete. Even Adobe acknowledges the fact (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999).
Between the 120M+ iOS devices, the click-to-flash plugins disable Flash downloads on Windows, Mac OS X and Linux machines, and Adobe's new Flash-to-HTML5 conversion tools (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999), the abandonment of Flash will continue to accelerate.
You just don't seem to comprehend that.
You are correct. Flash is a legacy technology, and its day has passed.
You seem to have this deep seated hatred of Flash
There are fundamental failings in both the design and deployment of Flash. I listed three of those earlier in my reply.
The thing that got my attention was when I realized that Flash was maintaining its own set of cookies and that those cookies did not honor the privacy settings of my browser. I then learned about click-to-flash plugins to minimize my exposure to Flash. The shocking thing to me was how much disabling Flash improved the browsing experience: faster page loads, less flashing advertisements, and far less CPU usage.
and I can tell that if Steve had said "I LOVE Flash" instead you would almost undoubtedly be here fighting against HTML5 and for Flash.
You imply that I blindly agree with Apple's (and Jobs's) decisions. That is not the case.
I strongly disagree with Apple's decision to prevent Hypermac from selling external batteries for Mac computers (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1032695). Hypermac makes a quality product, and they are filling a niche that Apple ignores. Magsafe is a wonderful technology, but they should be licensing this tech to third-party vendors. I fondly hope that Apple addresses this deficiency in their strategy and product accessories soon.
If you search, you can find where I commented on this in the public record weeks ago.
Yes, I honestly believe that. You have no vested interest in either one. You're just being Steve's doormat.
Now you know better.
I see no reason why ANYONE should have to convert to HTML5.
Too many laptop users are tired of the CPU loading and battery suck of Flash apps.
Too many users don't like that Flash alters the UI inside of the browsers: altered scrolling behavior, keyboard shortcuts that don't work in Flash, text searches that don't work with text in a Flash app.
Too many privacy advocates are bothered that Flash maintains a separate set of cookies and those cookies do not honor the privacy settings of the browser. Commercial websites are using those Flash cookies to track users. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt)
Too many security advocates are wary of using Adobe products because of Adobe's poor track record against security attacks.
Even if all those four large concerns were addressed, websites have to deal with the growing number of users that use Flash-blocking plugins. Advertisers that deliver their ads with Flash have no guarantee that users will allow those Flash apps to be downloaded and run on their machines.
Those are the reasons why Flash's viability for delivering web content is in decline. Even if you don't see the reasons, Adobe does (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/10/adobe-demos-flash-to-html5-conversion-tool.html).
joris538
Apr 14, 02:47 AM
Interesting, think it's Apple TV, seems most logic.
caspersoong
Apr 13, 05:00 AM
As long as it isn't 2011.
AlanAudio
Jul 28, 08:02 AM
When Microsoft claim that their investment might not pay off for five years, they're paving the way for failure. For the next two or three years, when pressed about the lack of profits, they can claim that the payoff will be in a couple of years from then. They won't have to actually admit that they've failed until after 2010. It's not dissimilar to Bill Gates claiming that there's an 80% chance of Vista shipping on time, it sounds positive, but few people believe it actually will ship in January. It's just paving the way for the next excuse.
It's very important that Microsoft try very hard with Zune. They keep claiming that the iPod succeeded simply because of slick marketing, whereas everybody else knows that it succeeded by being an attractive proposition, combining style with ease of use. It was word-of-mouth publicity that really worked for the iPod. You can't buy that, it added massive value to the money that was spent on advertising.
So here's Microsoft's opportunity to look at the last five years of the iPod, together with three years of iTMS, take it all in and apply their 'innovation', show us the ultimate product and then spend a fortune marketing it. There must be no doubt that Microsoft must be seen to throw everything into this project. Then Steve Jobs will be delighted to rise to the challenge and delight in humiliating Bill Gates.
It's very important that Microsoft try very hard with Zune. They keep claiming that the iPod succeeded simply because of slick marketing, whereas everybody else knows that it succeeded by being an attractive proposition, combining style with ease of use. It was word-of-mouth publicity that really worked for the iPod. You can't buy that, it added massive value to the money that was spent on advertising.
So here's Microsoft's opportunity to look at the last five years of the iPod, together with three years of iTMS, take it all in and apply their 'innovation', show us the ultimate product and then spend a fortune marketing it. There must be no doubt that Microsoft must be seen to throw everything into this project. Then Steve Jobs will be delighted to rise to the challenge and delight in humiliating Bill Gates.
chris975d
Apr 28, 04:30 PM
I can tell you from first hand experience many of the knock off conversion kits have a slightly thicker battery door which causes issues with certain cases - mostly hard ones, like snap on back covers or sliders.
They simply don't fit. They're just a hair off due to the thicker door.
I've also seen some white doors which are fine and fit with all cases.
Not saying these pics aren't of the Apple iPhone 4 or not......
Agreed. This is what I was saying (or trying to) in my earlier post. That many of the existing replacement backplates out there are just ever so slightly thicker than the stock black battery door, and therefore mess up the fit of quite a few cases. I know most of the aluminum "sandwich" design cases I use (where front and back pieces screw together) won't fit at all if the battery door is even a hair thicker, due to the precise measurements those cases are made to.
They simply don't fit. They're just a hair off due to the thicker door.
I've also seen some white doors which are fine and fit with all cases.
Not saying these pics aren't of the Apple iPhone 4 or not......
Agreed. This is what I was saying (or trying to) in my earlier post. That many of the existing replacement backplates out there are just ever so slightly thicker than the stock black battery door, and therefore mess up the fit of quite a few cases. I know most of the aluminum "sandwich" design cases I use (where front and back pieces screw together) won't fit at all if the battery door is even a hair thicker, due to the precise measurements those cases are made to.
Rodimus Prime
Apr 29, 02:57 PM
can anyone tell me why this market is so important? even at .99 cents a song the margins for the retailer can't be that much.
well per song not much but it adds up fast. Even if Amazon and Apple only bring in 10-15 cents per song at .99 cents per song. That adds up fast.
Between Amazon and Apple I like Amazon better. Plus I get like 10 bucks a year in free song from Amazon for text books I buy threw them. It is a nice bonus and I can promise you doing that little give away has pushed me to buy more text books from Amazon proving they are the same price as lets say B&N or the campus book store but often times Amazon is the cheapest and I am running on my free Amazon Prime for student member ship 2 day shipping to boot.
Apple pays 70% straight to the record companies, which would be $0.90. If Amazon pays the same, then they have $0.21 loss before they even start. Or Amazon gets different prices than Apple, which would need some explaining.
depends on the song what Apple and Amazon pays.
But as for the explain why Amazon would get a lower price. Record company hate the control Apple has and they are trying to break it and chances are Amazon has other options for those same record company to sell products threw them. like CD and if they owned or own other companies that sell complete different products like Sony which sells TV, dvd players ect.
well per song not much but it adds up fast. Even if Amazon and Apple only bring in 10-15 cents per song at .99 cents per song. That adds up fast.
Between Amazon and Apple I like Amazon better. Plus I get like 10 bucks a year in free song from Amazon for text books I buy threw them. It is a nice bonus and I can promise you doing that little give away has pushed me to buy more text books from Amazon proving they are the same price as lets say B&N or the campus book store but often times Amazon is the cheapest and I am running on my free Amazon Prime for student member ship 2 day shipping to boot.
Apple pays 70% straight to the record companies, which would be $0.90. If Amazon pays the same, then they have $0.21 loss before they even start. Or Amazon gets different prices than Apple, which would need some explaining.
depends on the song what Apple and Amazon pays.
But as for the explain why Amazon would get a lower price. Record company hate the control Apple has and they are trying to break it and chances are Amazon has other options for those same record company to sell products threw them. like CD and if they owned or own other companies that sell complete different products like Sony which sells TV, dvd players ect.
Aetherhole
Mar 15, 08:19 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
Nice! That gives me hope! I'll be at the spectrum in half an hour.
Nice! That gives me hope! I'll be at the spectrum in half an hour.
Andrew Henry
Oct 2, 11:45 PM
HORSE *****!
I HAD NOT ONE DROPPED CALL WITH VERIZON IN 5 YEARS.
That's awesome would you like a cookie? If you like VZW so much, you're more than welcome to go back to them so you can have another 5 wonderful years of no dropped calls.
I HAD NOT ONE DROPPED CALL WITH VERIZON IN 5 YEARS.
That's awesome would you like a cookie? If you like VZW so much, you're more than welcome to go back to them so you can have another 5 wonderful years of no dropped calls.
Surely
Apr 29, 02:48 PM
Oooh things are heating up :D
I'm not gonna buy music from Amazon again though, I downloaded 1 song for my Dad once from there. Because iTunes didn't have it, and Amazon emailed me for weeks with spam.
Just change your Amazon account settings. The only emails I get from them are to tell me if an order I placed has shipped.
I'm not gonna buy music from Amazon again though, I downloaded 1 song for my Dad once from there. Because iTunes didn't have it, and Amazon emailed me for weeks with spam.
Just change your Amazon account settings. The only emails I get from them are to tell me if an order I placed has shipped.
Eidorian
Jul 25, 09:56 AM
How rude.:mad:All that I have is Apple Store experience and testing one at work. We did get a Software Update for it but back in 10.4.2 for the wired one.
cms2
Apr 15, 01:50 PM
Looks like mostly bug fixes. Only thing new I have found is the result of putting a window out of focus.
iCal is still same design too.
Is there an option to make iCal look normal?
iCal is still same design too.
Is there an option to make iCal look normal?
Mrawr
Apr 14, 01:34 PM
I can confirm this. I have had the Mulititasking Gestures on my iPad(1) and I'm running 4.3.
Odd... I'm running 4.3 on my original iPad as well and don't have the gestures as an option.
Odd... I'm running 4.3 on my original iPad as well and don't have the gestures as an option.
Marvin1379
Jun 6, 05:31 PM
As for wanting / not wanting kids. I don't know. Part of me would like kids one day. On the other hand, I'm afraid I'd mess them up.
Ah, sterile?
Had I done this as a kid, I would have been beaten for it.
Not like bamboo cane or whip beating though, just paddle and maybe belt beating. TBH, in retrospect it really wasn't that bad, and I really did learn to be a pretty decent human being. I turned out just fine too, in fact, I'd like to think better than some of my peers. But that's a bit pretentious, so I digress.
There's obviously a large debate over child punishment though, with adamant supporters on either side of the fence. Which one is right is really a gray zone in my opinion, and while I would like to think soft punishment would be sufficient for my future kids, I definitely see the use for the other side. I think moderation is key in this area; I mean you don't want to see kids running around wild, but at the same time you shouldn't beat your kid senseless. Unfortunately, in today's society everything is construed as child abuse, and I fear that we have strayed a little too far left towards "soft" punishment. But that's just me, I'm sure many of you feel differently.
That was a little off topic.
90 day refund policy w/ iTunes, if I do recall correctly; but I'm sure there's many caveats.
Just bc someone doesn't want children (gasp!!), doesn't mean they can't have them, or even if sterility was the prblem, there's a little thing called adoption. Thousands of unwanted children...
There are many, MANY parents that SHOULDN'T have children. For one of the posters to say that he doesn't want a child for fear he/she will "mess them up," i applaud you. You actually have forethought and restraint when it comes to coitus and relationships.
Wow, think of that...someone you thinks *before* they act......maybe a lot more people should take *that* lead...
Off topic, fine. I didn't bring it up, but if they can insinuate someone is sterile bc they don't want kids, we can have a say in it too.
On topic, if I had accidentally purchased this same app, and not an 11-year-old, would i have gotten that same refund?
Ah, sterile?
Had I done this as a kid, I would have been beaten for it.
Not like bamboo cane or whip beating though, just paddle and maybe belt beating. TBH, in retrospect it really wasn't that bad, and I really did learn to be a pretty decent human being. I turned out just fine too, in fact, I'd like to think better than some of my peers. But that's a bit pretentious, so I digress.
There's obviously a large debate over child punishment though, with adamant supporters on either side of the fence. Which one is right is really a gray zone in my opinion, and while I would like to think soft punishment would be sufficient for my future kids, I definitely see the use for the other side. I think moderation is key in this area; I mean you don't want to see kids running around wild, but at the same time you shouldn't beat your kid senseless. Unfortunately, in today's society everything is construed as child abuse, and I fear that we have strayed a little too far left towards "soft" punishment. But that's just me, I'm sure many of you feel differently.
That was a little off topic.
90 day refund policy w/ iTunes, if I do recall correctly; but I'm sure there's many caveats.
Just bc someone doesn't want children (gasp!!), doesn't mean they can't have them, or even if sterility was the prblem, there's a little thing called adoption. Thousands of unwanted children...
There are many, MANY parents that SHOULDN'T have children. For one of the posters to say that he doesn't want a child for fear he/she will "mess them up," i applaud you. You actually have forethought and restraint when it comes to coitus and relationships.
Wow, think of that...someone you thinks *before* they act......maybe a lot more people should take *that* lead...
Off topic, fine. I didn't bring it up, but if they can insinuate someone is sterile bc they don't want kids, we can have a say in it too.
On topic, if I had accidentally purchased this same app, and not an 11-year-old, would i have gotten that same refund?
Matt-M
Apr 28, 04:36 PM
That ones not really too accurate due to the camera angle...its on a slope.
It was on a slope. I used a guide line in Photoshop and rotated the original photo 0.9 degrees CCW to remove the slope. Check my photo vs. the original.
It was on a slope. I used a guide line in Photoshop and rotated the original photo 0.9 degrees CCW to remove the slope. Check my photo vs. the original.
poppe
Nov 4, 01:01 AM
Ok so here's the newb question of the day!!
Have to buy Windows correct regardless of Parallels or VMware?
Have to buy Windows correct regardless of Parallels or VMware?
IJ Reilly
Jul 22, 11:22 AM
Microsoft bought 150 million in non-voting stock. Hardly a controlling interest. They have since sold most if not all of that stock for a tidy profit. Apple in turn dropped the "Look and Feel" lawsuit (which they weren't going to win anyway) and MS promised updates to "Office" and IE. Microsoft has NO significant financial stake in Apple.
It had nothing to do with the "look and feel" lawsuit. Apple had lost that one five years earlier. The legal issues still remaining between Apple and Microsoft in 1997 were over multimedia.
Edit: And FWIW, Microsoft's "investment" in Apple amounted to about 5% of their market value at the time, which would hardly have been a controlling interest even if they stock bought them any votes, which it did not. Microsoft is thought to have divested the shares in 2000.
It had nothing to do with the "look and feel" lawsuit. Apple had lost that one five years earlier. The legal issues still remaining between Apple and Microsoft in 1997 were over multimedia.
Edit: And FWIW, Microsoft's "investment" in Apple amounted to about 5% of their market value at the time, which would hardly have been a controlling interest even if they stock bought them any votes, which it did not. Microsoft is thought to have divested the shares in 2000.
iGary
Aug 15, 10:06 AM
Still... meh.
nishioka
Apr 28, 04:19 PM
I LOLed. Episode was a bit too silly IMO.
A bit?? :D
A bit?? :D