ulbador
Apr 26, 09:59 AM
The point dejo was trying to make, is that you are missing a VERY basic Objective C (well, any language really) fundamental.
This:
- (void) cancelIt:(NSTimer*)timer
does NOT create an object.
It's simply a map to say "When I call this method, I will pass in an existing timer object". It is still your responsibility to allocate/initialize a timer and then pass that into your method. Simply using the selector as you are doing wouldn't accomplish this.
At some point you would have to do something like:
[self cancelIt:MyExistingAndValidTimerObject];
This:
- (void) cancelIt:(NSTimer*)timer
does NOT create an object.
It's simply a map to say "When I call this method, I will pass in an existing timer object". It is still your responsibility to allocate/initialize a timer and then pass that into your method. Simply using the selector as you are doing wouldn't accomplish this.
At some point you would have to do something like:
[self cancelIt:MyExistingAndValidTimerObject];
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.
co.ag.2005
Oct 6, 12:55 PM
Well back in December 2008 people were telling me that AT&T and Verizon both dropped calls and had problems and whatnot so it's really all the same.
Since then my AT&T service has gotten 4 times worse.
Are you telling me that Verizon got 4 times worse over the last year too?? This is the first I've heard of that.
FWIW, ATT service has gotten 4 times better for me (ok, maybe not 4 times, but at least 2 times. new 3G tower right by my house :D). If ATT sucks so bad for you, go to VZW.
Since then my AT&T service has gotten 4 times worse.
Are you telling me that Verizon got 4 times worse over the last year too?? This is the first I've heard of that.
FWIW, ATT service has gotten 4 times better for me (ok, maybe not 4 times, but at least 2 times. new 3G tower right by my house :D). If ATT sucks so bad for you, go to VZW.
samcraig
May 2, 12:07 PM
Oh the conspiracies!!!!
As a software developer, the explanation that Apple gave seems far more plausible than "they are tracking your every move".
It makes total sense to keep a cache of cell tower positions to speed up positioning through trilateration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilateration). It also makes sense for Apple to maintain this as a crowd-sourced database and download part of it to your phone. Further, it makes sense for a developer to make an arbitrary decision to say "let's make the cache size 2MB -- that's smaller than a single song". Finally, it makes sense for QA to miss this since the file is not readily visible through the user interface. A very good article on this is here (http://www.macworld.com/article/159528/2011/04/how_iphone_location_works.html).
Oooh. You're a software developer. That makes you an expert.
Except - as someone who is surround by IT professionals - many of which create systems that are governed by strict compliance issues - ALL of them have stated that 2MB is ridiculous for a cache of the intended purpose. And that QA could have missed this - but the fact that they did is really bad.
Look - defend Apple all you want. Don't really care. At the end of the day - a switch that is supposed to turn something off should turn something off. I know it. You know it. And Apple knows it - which is why they are (for WHATEVER reason) making the switch work correctly. End of story.
P.S. - Since Apple does great marketing and pr spin (my profession) - while I don't buy all the conspiracy theories at all - but neither do I "trust" Apple's altruism nor their rhetoric just because "they say so."
As a software developer, the explanation that Apple gave seems far more plausible than "they are tracking your every move".
It makes total sense to keep a cache of cell tower positions to speed up positioning through trilateration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilateration). It also makes sense for Apple to maintain this as a crowd-sourced database and download part of it to your phone. Further, it makes sense for a developer to make an arbitrary decision to say "let's make the cache size 2MB -- that's smaller than a single song". Finally, it makes sense for QA to miss this since the file is not readily visible through the user interface. A very good article on this is here (http://www.macworld.com/article/159528/2011/04/how_iphone_location_works.html).
Oooh. You're a software developer. That makes you an expert.
Except - as someone who is surround by IT professionals - many of which create systems that are governed by strict compliance issues - ALL of them have stated that 2MB is ridiculous for a cache of the intended purpose. And that QA could have missed this - but the fact that they did is really bad.
Look - defend Apple all you want. Don't really care. At the end of the day - a switch that is supposed to turn something off should turn something off. I know it. You know it. And Apple knows it - which is why they are (for WHATEVER reason) making the switch work correctly. End of story.
P.S. - Since Apple does great marketing and pr spin (my profession) - while I don't buy all the conspiracy theories at all - but neither do I "trust" Apple's altruism nor their rhetoric just because "they say so."
Donz0r
Jan 5, 02:56 PM
Thank You!!! I always want to do this! Also, this year I have an appointment right in the middle of the keynote! You guys rock! IMO, this is The Best way to discover the new products, the way it was meant to be.
Coolerking
Sep 12, 08:34 AM
I can hear it now "By the way, Macbooks and Macbook Pro's now come with Core 2 Duo Processors...Now on with the show!"
Eh well, A guy can dream can't he?
Eh well, A guy can dream can't he?
MathiasMag
Jul 23, 12:54 AM
So with all the speak of how unacceptable this is. Who has actually decided that the iPhone 4 is so bad that they returned their phone AND bought another advanced phone? It seems to me that there are a lot of people who has never owned one that are critical, but most of those who actually has bought one are really happy with their phone.
krestfallen
Oct 17, 10:01 AM
1. VHS had longer tapes, Betamax's tapes were smaller, so had difficulty coming out with larger capacity tapes. Faced with one system that's standard tapes could record 1 hour and one that could do 3 hours, most people chose the latter (VHS).
2. Sony's tight grip on the Betamax format kept prices high and innovation low. VHS decks were cheaper and made by more manufacturers, and hence consumers had more choice.
3. The porn industry chose VHS.
so it's kind of a mixture here.
1. more capacity -> blu-ray
2. lower price -> hd-dvd
3. porn industry choses the cheapest format -> hd-dvd
the big thing will be the players. blu-ray players had a bad start (frames were dropped, image quality wasn't that good, delays).
it looks like blu-ray will have a hard fight.
2. Sony's tight grip on the Betamax format kept prices high and innovation low. VHS decks were cheaper and made by more manufacturers, and hence consumers had more choice.
3. The porn industry chose VHS.
so it's kind of a mixture here.
1. more capacity -> blu-ray
2. lower price -> hd-dvd
3. porn industry choses the cheapest format -> hd-dvd
the big thing will be the players. blu-ray players had a bad start (frames were dropped, image quality wasn't that good, delays).
it looks like blu-ray will have a hard fight.
zim
Nov 24, 08:04 AM
$8 cheaper this year.
I know! :) Looks like I am buying another (replacing one that fried after a power outage). So to those who doubted me :p
I know! :) Looks like I am buying another (replacing one that fried after a power outage). So to those who doubted me :p
JoeG4
Mar 19, 04:27 PM
On this note, I thought I'd point out that I hate it when Mac users give me **** for using a Sony laptop when I have more Macs then they've ever owned. :D
wingnut8
Apr 25, 02:35 PM
Wirelessly posted (iPhone 3GS: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
4S would be dumb. Every phone from here on out is going to be faster. No need for the "speed" added on the the end.
4S would be dumb. Every phone from here on out is going to be faster. No need for the "speed" added on the the end.
Mac-Addict
Oct 3, 12:53 PM
I definalty will be angry if the iPhone doesnt come out but at the same time i wouldnt be shocked.. but steve jobs giving it up? pfft no way hes still got a few years left in him :P unlike billy boy..
rtdgoldfish
Mar 24, 01:00 AM
This is fascinating!
Out of curiosity how built up is your area? Is this a neighbour you've spoke too before? I think I'd feel worse if one of my neighbours stole something rather than some thief I never met before. That said they're mostly old folk, Paul Scholes and a pub so I don't expect any of them to steal from me!
Anyway. I can't wait to hear how this ends. It sounds like it's all going to work out if you can just get the police into that house. Surely you'll be able to prove it's yours there and then by some serial number, hard drive key or something?
I've seen the neighbors around when I walk my dog but I have never spoken to them. I usually have my iPod on so I ignore just about everyone. :D
The houses around here are pretty well spread out. I drove around in my car and determined that about 10 houses are in range of my wireless network. Three across the street, my house and the two next-door neighbors, three houses on the street behind mine and two houses on a side street.
Of these houses, I know all three families across the street, they would not break into my place, nice families. Two of the houses on the street behind me are either for sale or undergoing renovations so that eliminates them. The third house is this 80 year old man who I would guess still has a black and white TV and can walk about as fast as a snail. Don't think he's the burglar type.
The other couple of houses are the ones I don't know the neighbors. One has some teenage kids (I believe) and that is the one that always seems to be home or having the TV on when my 360 is on my network.
Right now, I'm just hoping that whoever has it doesn't try to get rid of it before the cops can get over there and check things out.
And yes, it will be fairly easy to prove it is mine. The serial number is on the back and even if they scratched it off, you can get to it via the settings in the Dashboard. I also have reciepts for the system, wireless adapter, controllers, play and charge kit, and most of the games.
Out of curiosity how built up is your area? Is this a neighbour you've spoke too before? I think I'd feel worse if one of my neighbours stole something rather than some thief I never met before. That said they're mostly old folk, Paul Scholes and a pub so I don't expect any of them to steal from me!
Anyway. I can't wait to hear how this ends. It sounds like it's all going to work out if you can just get the police into that house. Surely you'll be able to prove it's yours there and then by some serial number, hard drive key or something?
I've seen the neighbors around when I walk my dog but I have never spoken to them. I usually have my iPod on so I ignore just about everyone. :D
The houses around here are pretty well spread out. I drove around in my car and determined that about 10 houses are in range of my wireless network. Three across the street, my house and the two next-door neighbors, three houses on the street behind mine and two houses on a side street.
Of these houses, I know all three families across the street, they would not break into my place, nice families. Two of the houses on the street behind me are either for sale or undergoing renovations so that eliminates them. The third house is this 80 year old man who I would guess still has a black and white TV and can walk about as fast as a snail. Don't think he's the burglar type.
The other couple of houses are the ones I don't know the neighbors. One has some teenage kids (I believe) and that is the one that always seems to be home or having the TV on when my 360 is on my network.
Right now, I'm just hoping that whoever has it doesn't try to get rid of it before the cops can get over there and check things out.
And yes, it will be fairly easy to prove it is mine. The serial number is on the back and even if they scratched it off, you can get to it via the settings in the Dashboard. I also have reciepts for the system, wireless adapter, controllers, play and charge kit, and most of the games.
DiamondMac
Mar 25, 11:33 AM
The ability to know that my computer will load, not break down, etc...has been price-less for me with Mac OS's
Love it and will continue using it
Love it and will continue using it
InTheUnion
Mar 24, 03:21 PM
I'm so proud to say that I share the same birthday as an operating system :p
bloodycape
Nov 16, 02:08 PM
I could DEFINITELY see them doing this. It could also be for an iPhone or iTablet.
iTablet I doubt that. That would most likely use an intel chip. iPhone, I think that would be TI chips in there(after all TI makes half the worlds cell phone chips). If you want to see the capabilities of the AMD Alchemy chip just check out the iStaion V43 and T43. This a great 4.3in portable multimedia player than can do GPS, DMBTV, and wifi.
iTablet I doubt that. That would most likely use an intel chip. iPhone, I think that would be TI chips in there(after all TI makes half the worlds cell phone chips). If you want to see the capabilities of the AMD Alchemy chip just check out the iStaion V43 and T43. This a great 4.3in portable multimedia player than can do GPS, DMBTV, and wifi.
benhollberg
Apr 6, 11:49 PM
Is Windows 8 then Windows 7.0, like Windows Seven is actually Windows 6.1?
I believe Windows 8 will actually be Windows 6.2.
I believe Windows 8 will actually be Windows 6.2.
Surf Monkey
Mar 17, 01:46 AM
I just told a story and everybody is entitled to their personal opinion, what's done is done, I wasn't look for any congrats for this posting, but I Thank you all for the laughs
You didn't "just tell a story," you crowed about ripping someone off.
You didn't "just tell a story," you crowed about ripping someone off.
SFStateStudent
Oct 7, 11:33 PM
I have not had a single dropped call. I can also finally browse the web without Safari crashing all the time.
Oh yeah; my dad can take your dad 24/7.....lol:p
Does Safari come with your BB?:confused:
Oh yeah; my dad can take your dad 24/7.....lol:p
Does Safari come with your BB?:confused:
-y0-
Apr 13, 02:31 AM
-Audioengine 2
-Audioengine DS1
-BJC MSA-1 Audio Cable
-BJC Twelve White Speaker Cables
-OGIO Drifter
-OGIO Doppler
-Audioengine DS1
-BJC MSA-1 Audio Cable
-BJC Twelve White Speaker Cables
-OGIO Drifter
-OGIO Doppler
illegalprelude
Jan 13, 04:02 AM
I cant believe this is a topic that is being discussed. Who cares. If you like the products, sweet, if not, oh well. But to say he is arrogant? isnt that arrogence itself? (sp lol)
theLimit
Jan 8, 09:08 PM
All I want are updated MacBook Pros and displays. I'll have a wad of cash come February and my ADC student subscription expires in March, so I'm ready to use that one-time hardware discount.
chrono1081
Apr 23, 04:18 PM
I love how most of the people in this thread bashing LTD, calling him a fanboy for not giving MS credit where it is due are the same people in every other thread who do nothing but bash Apple and never give Apple credit where its due.
You all know who you are...and its funny you call someone else a fanboy.
You all know who you are...and its funny you call someone else a fanboy.
DoFoT9
Aug 11, 06:53 PM
^^ is 200mhz really that important :p
No comments:
Post a Comment