lharvest
Apr 6, 11:47 AM
Shot out of the window on a recent trip back from Pittsburgh. I was a bored passenger and decided to experiment a little. Came across a stretch of trees and thought a longer exposure would make an interesting photo. It's fairly drab, but I like the earthy tones it exhibits. Reminds me of some abstract art I've seen.
Chase R
Dec 4, 02:35 AM
Blah don't get an Evo, they suck all the fun out of downhill. Look into an Earthwing Belly Racer or a Comet VooDoo Doll
Suck out all the fun! But I can see where your coming from. I've just always liked low-rider boards, though.
here is my wish list:
http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh313/tjsdaname27/sig_552_22lr-01.jpg
Why not .223?
My choice for a 22LR would be the GSG-5. And for the AR platform... the DPMS LR-308 :cool: hell of a gun.
Suck out all the fun! But I can see where your coming from. I've just always liked low-rider boards, though.
here is my wish list:
http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh313/tjsdaname27/sig_552_22lr-01.jpg
Why not .223?
My choice for a 22LR would be the GSG-5. And for the AR platform... the DPMS LR-308 :cool: hell of a gun.
archer75
Apr 26, 01:44 PM
Love the 27". I'd love a 30" more. And I really like the glossy screen.
Belly-laughs
Apr 29, 06:37 AM
There is very little difference between the two masses. 2.4mg difference. That is less than 2% of 140g.
It is not a matter of "thinking too much" about it but a matter of simply "thinking" about it.
...
It's actually 2.4 grams, which may not be a huge difference per se but in a product with such tight parts tollerance to me suggest differences in parts used. It may be the white casing, it may be a reshaped chassis or even a different chip. iFixit will tell.
It is not a matter of "thinking too much" about it but a matter of simply "thinking" about it.
...
It's actually 2.4 grams, which may not be a huge difference per se but in a product with such tight parts tollerance to me suggest differences in parts used. It may be the white casing, it may be a reshaped chassis or even a different chip. iFixit will tell.
more...
ArtOfWarfare
Apr 13, 08:16 PM
Might get this, might not. Don't do contracts so it would be a simple case of buying and selling. Something most people I know do. You lot (Americans) should start doing the same and stop being beholden to 24 month contracts.
Supposedly it keeps our costs down to sign up for such long term contracts.
My monthly bill is $50 for unlimited texts, unlimited data, some number of minutes (I'm splitting a family bill with AT&T,) plus the $300 upfront for the iPhone itself. What's your bill come to?
Supposedly it keeps our costs down to sign up for such long term contracts.
My monthly bill is $50 for unlimited texts, unlimited data, some number of minutes (I'm splitting a family bill with AT&T,) plus the $300 upfront for the iPhone itself. What's your bill come to?
nies
Apr 25, 11:16 PM
So i make one post and get the group to turn on me.. but someone like Dont Panic is quiet with the posting and his name doesnt get thrown around?
more...
rovex
Apr 27, 12:58 PM
You must have seen a lot of people having fits to be able to make such a confident judgement. Personally, having only lived with a severe epileptic in the household for nine years, I would unhesitatingly defer to you expertise. What do I know?
We can't have an opinion (which is shared by others) it seems. Yeah, what exactly do you know?
We can't have an opinion (which is shared by others) it seems. Yeah, what exactly do you know?
trojanvillage
Apr 14, 08:20 AM
I'm an iOS dev, and this showed up on my pages. I have no idea what it means, or what this device is, I have not made an update to support a new device, and I doubt other devs have either.
Devs usually never get pre-release access to a new device.
Devs usually never get pre-release access to a new device.
more...
NoNothing
Mar 29, 01:50 PM
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).
Another big reason is Google had pre-announced Google I/O with pre-registration active for over a week. This is important if you need to work out schedules at work and such. With Apple, you had 1day to work that out. For Google I/O, you had over a week to decide if the schedule worked for you.
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).
Another big reason is Google had pre-announced Google I/O with pre-registration active for over a week. This is important if you need to work out schedules at work and such. With Apple, you had 1day to work that out. For Google I/O, you had over a week to decide if the schedule worked for you.
nishioka
Apr 28, 04:19 PM
I LOLed. Episode was a bit too silly IMO.
A bit?? :D
A bit?? :D
more...
kingtj
Jun 24, 03:18 PM
I'm honestly not too surprised. On one hand, Apple keeps pushing the iPod Touch as a great little portable gaming system (so kids are getting them left and right), yet on the other, they make it a big pain to prevent a kid from purchasing unwanted software on it.
I know first-hand, because my g/f used to work for Apple, and got refurbished iPod Touches for both of her young kids, after they were constantly borrowing her iPhone. My own daughter got a refurbished Touch last Xmas as well.
I thought I'd be slick and create a whole new iTunes account for my kid that wasn't linked to any credit/debit card at all. That way, she can only purchase FREE apps unless I pre-load her account with some money from a gift-card first. (My g/f didn't do this, and her 3 year old started buying herself quite a few games one day! Until then, she just assumed said 3 year old wouldn't even be capable of navigating the App Store on her own and doing it!)
But then I realized all the little games we bought and put on my iPhone a long time ago were not going to be transferable to her iPod Touch without re-purchasing them. No way I was going to re-buy them, and she was getting all upset she had stuff on my phone that wasn't on her Touch. So I wound up redoing her Touch so it shared MY iTunes account. Not happy about that though, and sure enough, despite my warnings, she bought about $10 in software one time!
Apple really needs to re-think the way this stuff works. I'd be all for something like Android's store apparently does where you can request a refund for anything you download within the first 24 hours.... but frankly, some people will still abuse that too. (They'll start using it as a "free rental" service, grabbing things for a day and then requesting refunds.) So maybe a setup where you can refund apps up to 24 hours later up to the first X number of times, and then the account reverts to only giving refunds within the first hour or 30 minutes?
haha, this makes it onto MR?
My little cousin purchased $2,820.75 from the app store on an iPod Touch. And Apple wasn't going to refund any of it until a transcript from an internal chat was somehow included in a email to my Aunt that consisted of very rude talk behind her back.
I have the emails, but my aunt and uncle aren't finished with the fiasco with Apple's legal team, so I can't show them.
I know first-hand, because my g/f used to work for Apple, and got refurbished iPod Touches for both of her young kids, after they were constantly borrowing her iPhone. My own daughter got a refurbished Touch last Xmas as well.
I thought I'd be slick and create a whole new iTunes account for my kid that wasn't linked to any credit/debit card at all. That way, she can only purchase FREE apps unless I pre-load her account with some money from a gift-card first. (My g/f didn't do this, and her 3 year old started buying herself quite a few games one day! Until then, she just assumed said 3 year old wouldn't even be capable of navigating the App Store on her own and doing it!)
But then I realized all the little games we bought and put on my iPhone a long time ago were not going to be transferable to her iPod Touch without re-purchasing them. No way I was going to re-buy them, and she was getting all upset she had stuff on my phone that wasn't on her Touch. So I wound up redoing her Touch so it shared MY iTunes account. Not happy about that though, and sure enough, despite my warnings, she bought about $10 in software one time!
Apple really needs to re-think the way this stuff works. I'd be all for something like Android's store apparently does where you can request a refund for anything you download within the first 24 hours.... but frankly, some people will still abuse that too. (They'll start using it as a "free rental" service, grabbing things for a day and then requesting refunds.) So maybe a setup where you can refund apps up to 24 hours later up to the first X number of times, and then the account reverts to only giving refunds within the first hour or 30 minutes?
haha, this makes it onto MR?
My little cousin purchased $2,820.75 from the app store on an iPod Touch. And Apple wasn't going to refund any of it until a transcript from an internal chat was somehow included in a email to my Aunt that consisted of very rude talk behind her back.
I have the emails, but my aunt and uncle aren't finished with the fiasco with Apple's legal team, so I can't show them.
leekohler
Mar 1, 11:26 AM
This is Hollywood we're talking about here. Sheen is hardly through. Look at Robert Downey Jr and Lindsay Lohan. They don't operate in the real world out there.
Both of them seem to at least be trying to get better. Sheen seems to be embracing his madness and going deeper into it. He's not sorry for anything he's done and seems to be actually proud of it. That doesn't spell "comeback" to me. That spells "checkout". As in, he ain't gonna be with us much longer.
Both of them seem to at least be trying to get better. Sheen seems to be embracing his madness and going deeper into it. He's not sorry for anything he's done and seems to be actually proud of it. That doesn't spell "comeback" to me. That spells "checkout". As in, he ain't gonna be with us much longer.
more...
Onigiri
Sep 13, 11:03 AM
awesome .. i might pick one up .. what journals are you using in them .. so i can pick one up
I use THIS (http://www.amazon.com/Moleskine-Ruled-Notebook-Large/dp/8883701127/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1284393671&sr=8-1) one for the Large Moleskine Cover and THIS (http://www.amazon.com/Kikkerland-Moleskine-Ruled-Notebook-Pocket/dp/8883701003/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=office-products&qid=1284393693&sr=8-4) one for the Small Moleskine Cover.
I think you'll love them. They're really pretty amazing.
I use THIS (http://www.amazon.com/Moleskine-Ruled-Notebook-Large/dp/8883701127/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1284393671&sr=8-1) one for the Large Moleskine Cover and THIS (http://www.amazon.com/Kikkerland-Moleskine-Ruled-Notebook-Pocket/dp/8883701003/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=office-products&qid=1284393693&sr=8-4) one for the Small Moleskine Cover.
I think you'll love them. They're really pretty amazing.
KnightWRX
Dec 30, 10:43 PM
Under normal circumstances, you're more or less right.
No, I'm 100% right. Weight control is about calories. End of story. Calories in < Calories out and you lose weight. Opposite and you gain weight. There's no more or less here, that is the very basic premise. You want to discuss specifics that affect calories in/calories out, but that's flawed. Teach people the base first, and let them balance themselves out. You can very easily test your metabolic rate.
However, many supersize people have participated in crash diets, drugs and other questionable regimens over the years in search of quick-fix thinness. Doing so can, after a while, sabotage the body's normal metabolic rate and endocrine output, making it much harder for these people to find the balance in their caloric equation without depriving themselves of needed micronutrients (vitamins, minerals).
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but the question that runs through my mind is: if it's so easy, why do people struggle with it? Why are there entire industries built around people that struggle with losing weight on their own?
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm going to just assume you are young and have time on your hands. Because when I was young and had time staying trim was quite easy., Let's talk when you're in your 30's and are a busy professional :rolleyes:
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
look. I'm not trying to make excuses. I'm not THAT out of shape. I do bikram yoga 4 times per week and walk a lot. I just can't be as extensive about it as I was in my youthful years. I'm very healthy but I do need to drop 20ish lbs. per doctors orders. I've completely cut out any sugar drinks other than water and a few organic smoothies and an occaional glass of wine here and there. But at my age and with my busy schedule it's just not as easy as it was when I was 25. Not an excuse, just a simple fact.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
No, I'm 100% right. Weight control is about calories. End of story. Calories in < Calories out and you lose weight. Opposite and you gain weight. There's no more or less here, that is the very basic premise. You want to discuss specifics that affect calories in/calories out, but that's flawed. Teach people the base first, and let them balance themselves out. You can very easily test your metabolic rate.
However, many supersize people have participated in crash diets, drugs and other questionable regimens over the years in search of quick-fix thinness. Doing so can, after a while, sabotage the body's normal metabolic rate and endocrine output, making it much harder for these people to find the balance in their caloric equation without depriving themselves of needed micronutrients (vitamins, minerals).
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but the question that runs through my mind is: if it's so easy, why do people struggle with it? Why are there entire industries built around people that struggle with losing weight on their own?
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm going to just assume you are young and have time on your hands. Because when I was young and had time staying trim was quite easy., Let's talk when you're in your 30's and are a busy professional :rolleyes:
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
look. I'm not trying to make excuses. I'm not THAT out of shape. I do bikram yoga 4 times per week and walk a lot. I just can't be as extensive about it as I was in my youthful years. I'm very healthy but I do need to drop 20ish lbs. per doctors orders. I've completely cut out any sugar drinks other than water and a few organic smoothies and an occaional glass of wine here and there. But at my age and with my busy schedule it's just not as easy as it was when I was 25. Not an excuse, just a simple fact.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
more...
dethmaShine
Apr 12, 10:14 AM
TB isn't redundant right now, it's dormant. The TB port on the MBPs right now is effectively useless until there are peripherals to connect to it. But as this thread demonstrates they are coming. First to the pro market but it will drip down during the course of the year. I think Mac OS X 10.7 and iOS5 are going to provide more urgency for TB in consumer markets as well. WWDC will be the big kick off.
Cool.
First has to be first somehow. ;)
I hope that iOS 5.0 and Mac OS X 10.7 (esp FCP) make TB much more clear to the peripheral makers and to the mass consumer.
Cheers.
Cool.
First has to be first somehow. ;)
I hope that iOS 5.0 and Mac OS X 10.7 (esp FCP) make TB much more clear to the peripheral makers and to the mass consumer.
Cheers.
MacinDoc
Apr 13, 09:06 PM
Spec bump?
32 and 64?
Snowball's hope in hell...
32 and 64?
Snowball's hope in hell...
more...
jameselson
May 3, 07:55 AM
It was possible to use the previous 27" as an external display for a MacBook. Can't see any mention of that after a brief scan, and it's a deal-breaker for me. Anyone spot such a feature?
im a celebrity gt me out of
Forjedward are jedward are
lilo777
Apr 23, 01:15 AM
This is exactly what I am saying. They aren't making devices for people who demand to have the latest and greatest regardless of the consequences. They make devices that work and meet their internal standards.
What you don't understand is that Apple makes a device that meets their goals and standards. They don't want to ship a phone that gets four hours of battery life because they know that very few people will be happy with that.
Of course people may want something different, which is why, strangely enough, Apple isn't the only phone manufacturer in the world. You are not forced to buy Apple if you don't like their philosophy.
Well, it looks like we actually agree. I just wanted to make this point clear that Apple cares only about profits (as all companies) which puts iOS users in a position where they have very few options: Apple way or highway. It's different with Android.
Then leave these forums. Clearly apple-related news is not for you. Clearly you want a phone that apple does not provide. Why are you even here? The truth is, nobody is stopping you from buying that android with 4 hours of battery life if it is more suited to your tastes. You are not entitled in any way to force Apple to make a device that suits your needs. Go buy the Thunderbolt. Enjoy it.
Are you saying that only people who love each and every Apple decision should post here? Probably not but you sound like it. I thought we were just discussing the merits of tech gadgets here.
What you don't understand is that Apple makes a device that meets their goals and standards. They don't want to ship a phone that gets four hours of battery life because they know that very few people will be happy with that.
Of course people may want something different, which is why, strangely enough, Apple isn't the only phone manufacturer in the world. You are not forced to buy Apple if you don't like their philosophy.
Well, it looks like we actually agree. I just wanted to make this point clear that Apple cares only about profits (as all companies) which puts iOS users in a position where they have very few options: Apple way or highway. It's different with Android.
Then leave these forums. Clearly apple-related news is not for you. Clearly you want a phone that apple does not provide. Why are you even here? The truth is, nobody is stopping you from buying that android with 4 hours of battery life if it is more suited to your tastes. You are not entitled in any way to force Apple to make a device that suits your needs. Go buy the Thunderbolt. Enjoy it.
Are you saying that only people who love each and every Apple decision should post here? Probably not but you sound like it. I thought we were just discussing the merits of tech gadgets here.
sonnys
Jul 28, 02:11 PM
Once you are a market leader, it's almost impossible to be unseated in that market unless you make a lot of mistakes. It comes down to top-of-mind awareness. When you think portable music, what is the first thing you think about? iPod. 90% of consumers will buy from the brand with the #1 top-of-mind awareness, and it goes down steeply from there.
Apple needs the competition in order to evolve better products, but it's not a huge threat in terms of Apple losing the top spot. It may lose a few points of market share, but it will certainly continue to lead the market no matter how much cash Microsoft throws down. Apple is simply better at marketing, better at making things cool, and those are the two things that have made the iPod a success -- two things that, I might add, Microsoft is terrible at.
I wish Microsoft luck with this, but would advise stockholders to get out now.
Apple needs the competition in order to evolve better products, but it's not a huge threat in terms of Apple losing the top spot. It may lose a few points of market share, but it will certainly continue to lead the market no matter how much cash Microsoft throws down. Apple is simply better at marketing, better at making things cool, and those are the two things that have made the iPod a success -- two things that, I might add, Microsoft is terrible at.
I wish Microsoft luck with this, but would advise stockholders to get out now.
br0adband
Nov 4, 10:29 PM
I've reinstalled OS X twice in the last 9 months. The latest being about 3 weeks ago when I upgraded to a 160GB hard drive. There is nothing wrong with my computer. (OK there is something wrong with its sleeping mech but that has nothing to do with performance.)
Parallels just sucks. Also I�m willing to bet the more you use the disk image and Windows the more parallels slows down. I�ve got a 14GB disk image, a ton of apps loaded, along with being in it every day for 8+ hours, USB peripherals all over the place, network settings for home and work, firewall enabled along with antivirus software. (I can�t use Office 2003 with SAP in OS X.) I probably use it more extensively then most Mac users. The simple fact is the reason why I keep reinstalling the demo instead of outright buying it is because I�m waiting on VMWare�s solution. VMWare is THE industry�s Microsoft when it comes to virtualizing. Just without the whole evilness thing. I�ve used Parallels extensively. I�m not impressed.
So let me get this straight: You keep reinstalling the demo of Parallels, thereby ripping off the company and not supporting it to make it the best product it can be and keep the company in business, and then you have the gall to come out in public and say as such, and then on top of that you have the even greater gall to say it sucks?
Oh yeah, your opinions mean a lot to us now, that's for sure.
Not.
I'll reiterate: something is wrong with your computer, and now I can see why.
bb
Parallels just sucks. Also I�m willing to bet the more you use the disk image and Windows the more parallels slows down. I�ve got a 14GB disk image, a ton of apps loaded, along with being in it every day for 8+ hours, USB peripherals all over the place, network settings for home and work, firewall enabled along with antivirus software. (I can�t use Office 2003 with SAP in OS X.) I probably use it more extensively then most Mac users. The simple fact is the reason why I keep reinstalling the demo instead of outright buying it is because I�m waiting on VMWare�s solution. VMWare is THE industry�s Microsoft when it comes to virtualizing. Just without the whole evilness thing. I�ve used Parallels extensively. I�m not impressed.
So let me get this straight: You keep reinstalling the demo of Parallels, thereby ripping off the company and not supporting it to make it the best product it can be and keep the company in business, and then you have the gall to come out in public and say as such, and then on top of that you have the even greater gall to say it sucks?
Oh yeah, your opinions mean a lot to us now, that's for sure.
Not.
I'll reiterate: something is wrong with your computer, and now I can see why.
bb
rovex
Apr 22, 04:35 PM
Josh tweeted
I was among those that thought it was ugly, and that was an actual leaked device.
Save your breath for something a little more detailed than a mockup based on some guy's sketch.
Lol, I knew that he's lurking these boards. Very funny to even contemplate people saying the iPhone 4 was ugly, it's perhaps the most aesthectically pleasing electronic product that has ever been released to this date.
I was among those that thought it was ugly, and that was an actual leaked device.
Save your breath for something a little more detailed than a mockup based on some guy's sketch.
Lol, I knew that he's lurking these boards. Very funny to even contemplate people saying the iPhone 4 was ugly, it's perhaps the most aesthectically pleasing electronic product that has ever been released to this date.
brotato
Apr 28, 10:59 PM
Sweet pics. :D
Great pictures.
Proof positive that Apple did modify the phone but not the antenna. How do I know that?
Because you've all convinced me that Steve The Great, is never wrong.
Oh crap! Did I just say that? LOL
Thanks! :D
Great pictures.
Proof positive that Apple did modify the phone but not the antenna. How do I know that?
Because you've all convinced me that Steve The Great, is never wrong.
Oh crap! Did I just say that? LOL
Thanks! :D
Timepass
Aug 1, 01:13 AM
The reason you don't see it much is because the new default in XP is to just reboot the machine instead of sitting on that screen. It's still there.
also the blue screen of death is not really in XP. Yeah the screen is blue and cause a reboot but it is a very differnt screen compared to the one that was in the windows 9.x line and has very different infomation displayed in it.
Now the screen is still blue and cause a reboot but it also a lot rarer to see it and does not really happen as offen. But it not the same blue screen of death so it tecnolly XP does not have THE blue screen of death. it has a different blue screen of death.
also the blue screen of death is not really in XP. Yeah the screen is blue and cause a reboot but it is a very differnt screen compared to the one that was in the windows 9.x line and has very different infomation displayed in it.
Now the screen is still blue and cause a reboot but it also a lot rarer to see it and does not really happen as offen. But it not the same blue screen of death so it tecnolly XP does not have THE blue screen of death. it has a different blue screen of death.
iCrizzo
Mar 31, 12:09 PM
Looks good to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment