Mord
Apr 27, 12:53 PM
Oh please. Explain to me why race is not a valid comparison?
Also, feel free to read a few more of the defining characteristics of a mammalian "female"...
"The mammalian female is characterized by having two copies of the X chromosome as opposed to the male which carries only one X and one smaller Y chromosome."
I have no problem with transgendered/sexual/vestite/whatever, but to claim you are actually a "woman" when you were born with a penis, have two X chromosomes, and can not, nor could ever produce an ova is ridiculous.
Just as ridiculous as my original example which you decided to brush away with no basis other than it does not fit with your views.
So now you're going with chromosomes, fab, you should let the intersex community know they're not entitled to be women or men anymore as they don't conform to your grade school understanding of sex and gender.
:rolleyes:
Also, feel free to read a few more of the defining characteristics of a mammalian "female"...
"The mammalian female is characterized by having two copies of the X chromosome as opposed to the male which carries only one X and one smaller Y chromosome."
I have no problem with transgendered/sexual/vestite/whatever, but to claim you are actually a "woman" when you were born with a penis, have two X chromosomes, and can not, nor could ever produce an ova is ridiculous.
Just as ridiculous as my original example which you decided to brush away with no basis other than it does not fit with your views.
So now you're going with chromosomes, fab, you should let the intersex community know they're not entitled to be women or men anymore as they don't conform to your grade school understanding of sex and gender.
:rolleyes:
zMacintoshz
Apr 10, 05:12 PM
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?id=cat13506&type=page&h=387&skuId=1000917&productId=1218207307591&viewtype=angleView&count=0
24" dynex 1080p hd tv for $200 at best buy.
24" dynex 1080p hd tv for $200 at best buy.
kernkraft
Oct 1, 04:11 PM
Wow. I suggest finding a phonebook and looking up your nearest therapist because you have major issues. House rapist? You are mental? You have gone bananas so I suppose that avatar suits you. I have no problem with people being good neighbours by not building an eye sore but ultimately those damn conservationists can stick their concerns where the sun does not shine because it is not their property and they would not have paid a single red cent to make that old house livable and earthquake safe. Everything has a life span and that includes houses.
Those conservationists should have given up early on when the facts were presented about the costs of saving the house. They are just crazy busy bodies who are jealous of Job's wealth and expected him to spend money on a house that was not worth saving.
You should realize that everything we have in the physical world deteriorates eventually and that things are not really what is important.
Give me your best shot, not this patronising, insulting crap! The house rapist part was meant to be a bit of a joke, but clearly, it was wasted on you.
I could insult you, but what's the point? You have issues with my banana, whereas you named yourself after one of the greatest classic philosophers? Who the hell do you think you are?! I suggest you suck my banana and put me on your ignore list, because I don't need a monkey on my back, whatever it's called.
Those conservationists should have given up early on when the facts were presented about the costs of saving the house. They are just crazy busy bodies who are jealous of Job's wealth and expected him to spend money on a house that was not worth saving.
You should realize that everything we have in the physical world deteriorates eventually and that things are not really what is important.
Give me your best shot, not this patronising, insulting crap! The house rapist part was meant to be a bit of a joke, but clearly, it was wasted on you.
I could insult you, but what's the point? You have issues with my banana, whereas you named yourself after one of the greatest classic philosophers? Who the hell do you think you are?! I suggest you suck my banana and put me on your ignore list, because I don't need a monkey on my back, whatever it's called.
kurt.mac
Jan 15, 04:07 PM
Reactions -
Macbook air
Pros
- Smallest laptop yet
- touch pad
- lite
Cons
- EXTREMELY TO MUCH- 1200 more that any one expected
- 64GB to 80GB hard drive, thats what i partition my boot camp on, thats what my DOG eats for breakfast
- 1.6GHz... piss poor, your lucky to run word on that
- OPTIONAL super drive, what the hell is that, having to plug something the size of a macbook air onto it just to watch a dvd, WTF., optional.. ur i think that EVERYONE needs a superdrive, if not, say good bye to installing software
Overall, i think the macbook air is so over priced and doesnt give what everyone needs, power. I dont think i will buy something just because it look good, remember the old saying
" Dont judge a book by its cover"
i shall reword this to
" Dont judge a macbook by its cover"
Overall = 3 out of 10
Time Capsule
Pros
- Airport and external time machine hd all in one
Con
Overall= 8/10
Macbook air
Pros
- Smallest laptop yet
- touch pad
- lite
Cons
- EXTREMELY TO MUCH- 1200 more that any one expected
- 64GB to 80GB hard drive, thats what i partition my boot camp on, thats what my DOG eats for breakfast
- 1.6GHz... piss poor, your lucky to run word on that
- OPTIONAL super drive, what the hell is that, having to plug something the size of a macbook air onto it just to watch a dvd, WTF., optional.. ur i think that EVERYONE needs a superdrive, if not, say good bye to installing software
Overall, i think the macbook air is so over priced and doesnt give what everyone needs, power. I dont think i will buy something just because it look good, remember the old saying
" Dont judge a book by its cover"
i shall reword this to
" Dont judge a macbook by its cover"
Overall = 3 out of 10
Time Capsule
Pros
- Airport and external time machine hd all in one
Con
Overall= 8/10
more...
RMo
Apr 5, 08:43 PM
they should allow users to like or dislike iAds to help cater the iAds that are sent to the user :cool:
Read the description: "...lets you tag your favorites to a Loved section that�s all your own."
You can't "dislike" them and it doesn't say what they're doing with the "loved" section other than saving it for your personal viewing pleasure, but I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually catered to your preferences using something like this.
Read the description: "...lets you tag your favorites to a Loved section that�s all your own."
You can't "dislike" them and it doesn't say what they're doing with the "loved" section other than saving it for your personal viewing pleasure, but I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually catered to your preferences using something like this.
JonYo
Nov 23, 10:46 PM
ok another question...if i go into a retail store and their sold out of hte macbook i want...can i pay and have it shipped...i know i can use the online store its just that i cant use a credit card or have access to one....
so would i still get the same discount?
and also....at the retail store...do u think they'll be SUPER busy with other things and too busy for me?
Nope, the discounts are only going to apply to purchases of stuff that day, no rainchecks for out of stock items or anything like that. Sorry for the bad news!
so would i still get the same discount?
and also....at the retail store...do u think they'll be SUPER busy with other things and too busy for me?
Nope, the discounts are only going to apply to purchases of stuff that day, no rainchecks for out of stock items or anything like that. Sorry for the bad news!
more...
Hastings101
May 3, 09:52 PM
And I'll buy one when it comes with dual fold-out screens in a**-kicking neon colors and a choice of animal stripes, lightning bolts or fire emblems, and is sold at Wal-mart in shrink-wrapped packaging for $9.99 and has commercials featuring hot girls in bikinis jumping on a trampoline.
In other words, we're both out of luck.
I would buy that. I would buy two of that.
In other words, we're both out of luck.
I would buy that. I would buy two of that.
.jpg "rose wallpapers for desktop.")
snberk103
Apr 15, 12:29 PM
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
more...
marktwain
Nov 23, 07:13 PM
Well, since I didn't open it yet hopefully they will be helpful. If not I'll return it and just get one online. I'm also hoping that the girl knew what she was talking about...
If you didn't open it then they HAVE to return it, then you can repurchase. The only exception would be if you had purchased online and configured it differently than what they stock in the store. That would HAVE to be returned via the online store.
If you didn't open it then they HAVE to return it, then you can repurchase. The only exception would be if you had purchased online and configured it differently than what they stock in the store. That would HAVE to be returned via the online store.
QuarterSwede
Apr 22, 10:03 PM
I had suggested to one of your moderators that MR should disable the tagging feature in the PRSI. I think you should disable this up/down voting thing as well.
Agreed. This is going to be a disaster in PRSI if enabled.
Agreed. This is going to be a disaster in PRSI if enabled.
more...
lordonuthin
May 10, 08:13 PM
Seing your "adventures", no way I would ever try to do anything on a custom rig...
But it's so fun cursing at the thing because you did something wrong and have to reboot into the firmware yet again. Ahhh, but once you get it right it feels good that you only took 3 days this time, the last time took a week or more :p each time gets a little less painful, usually anyway. :rolleyes:
But it's so fun cursing at the thing because you did something wrong and have to reboot into the firmware yet again. Ahhh, but once you get it right it feels good that you only took 3 days this time, the last time took a week or more :p each time gets a little less painful, usually anyway. :rolleyes:
geenosr
Sep 28, 02:52 PM
Did anybody see an ATT cell tower on his property so SJ can use his iPhone with enough signal strength?
The windows joke was a good one!
The windows joke was a good one!
more...
hob
Jan 9, 04:05 PM
Unfortunately, the keynote itself is on a product page for a new product, so before you watch it, you will know what the new product is.
It's still not up yet though...
It's still not up yet though...
kzoojason76
Apr 29, 01:36 PM
Does it come in "white"?
No, but I think it will make Safari snappier!!
No, but I think it will make Safari snappier!!
more...
yoda13
Sep 12, 12:39 AM
I can't wait to see what they got up their sleeve, hope I am stoked...:D
Pressure
Oct 19, 10:23 AM
Aye, international numbers would be good to see.
Good news for Apple :)
Good news for Apple :)
more...
Full of Win
Apr 29, 04:45 PM
I heard microsoft is making some changes to its next OS release too. Apparently the blue screen of death will be a black screen of death in Windows 8.
btw- does anyone know why the current version is named Windows 7? Why 7?
As for Lion, I am looking forward to having the ability to switch to an iOS appearance for apps. It will be nice to organize then like that. The idea has grown on me.
To stay ahead of the 6 in 10.6. When the XBOX 2 was released, the rumor was that it was called the 360, as to put it on equal naming as the Playstation 3. Microsoft did not want to be '2' and them '3', so they added a number that started with 3.
btw- does anyone know why the current version is named Windows 7? Why 7?
As for Lion, I am looking forward to having the ability to switch to an iOS appearance for apps. It will be nice to organize then like that. The idea has grown on me.
To stay ahead of the 6 in 10.6. When the XBOX 2 was released, the rumor was that it was called the 360, as to put it on equal naming as the Playstation 3. Microsoft did not want to be '2' and them '3', so they added a number that started with 3.
OllyW
May 3, 01:50 PM
And why is this on mac rumors.
Does it really matter what the competition does.
Why read it if you are not interested?
Does it really matter what the competition does.
Why read it if you are not interested?
DylanLikesPorn
Jul 21, 08:40 PM
go Apple. fight fire with fire.
charliex5
Sep 28, 01:25 PM
In an age where architect and design firms are just starting to apply to Apple's design principles to the building of homes, Steve Jobs has gone and designed the iPhone of houses.
WTH? Whoever wrote this clearly doesn't have any idea about what has been going on in architecture in, oh, the past 150 years. I met Peter Bohlin last year and we got to talking about his design strategies. He's been doing similar work throughout his career, even before BCJ (then Bohlin Powell) was founded in 1965. Check out Japanese architecture from the past 1,500 years.
As an architecture major and architectural history minor I find this comment to be Jobs-worship. Thinking that nobody else could come up with the concept of a simple and sophisticated design is just asinine.
My rant aside, I love the floor plan and can't wait to see some elevations/perspectives. Go BCJ!
Also, on a side note, BCJ is the firm that designed Bill Gates' house...
WTH? Whoever wrote this clearly doesn't have any idea about what has been going on in architecture in, oh, the past 150 years. I met Peter Bohlin last year and we got to talking about his design strategies. He's been doing similar work throughout his career, even before BCJ (then Bohlin Powell) was founded in 1965. Check out Japanese architecture from the past 1,500 years.
As an architecture major and architectural history minor I find this comment to be Jobs-worship. Thinking that nobody else could come up with the concept of a simple and sophisticated design is just asinine.
My rant aside, I love the floor plan and can't wait to see some elevations/perspectives. Go BCJ!
Also, on a side note, BCJ is the firm that designed Bill Gates' house...
French iPod
Apr 9, 10:13 AM
http://img.game.co.uk/ml/3/5/3/6/353636ps_500h.jpg
Pokemon DSI, with pokemon black for �99 \M/
O.o i love the packaging :D it's so black:p never played a pokemon game since the gold edition on my gameboy color and i was around 14...
anyway i'm going to get my Just Cause 2 copy today @ EBGAMES so freaking exciting squeee:D
Pokemon DSI, with pokemon black for �99 \M/
O.o i love the packaging :D it's so black:p never played a pokemon game since the gold edition on my gameboy color and i was around 14...
anyway i'm going to get my Just Cause 2 copy today @ EBGAMES so freaking exciting squeee:D
motherduce
Jan 9, 01:49 PM
I promise promise promise its not a spoiler.
Ahh, almost worse with the Gates keynote...ha.
Ahh, almost worse with the Gates keynote...ha.
David G.
Jan 11, 07:19 PM
Ban. Them. Now.
jzuena
Oct 6, 12:28 PM
First, Apple must build an iPhone that will work on Verizon's CDMA network (iPhone is GSM & HPDA), OR Verizon must upgrade their network to handle GSM/HDMA. I don't thing either will ever happen.
I think first Verizon has to back a truck full of money up to Apple's campus, then Apple has to build a CDMA iPhone :D
I think first Verizon has to back a truck full of money up to Apple's campus, then Apple has to build a CDMA iPhone :D
