.jpg "lindsay lohan drugs")
hansen
Aug 8, 01:47 AM
WOW, leopard looks so promising
Time machine and mail enhancements with notes and to-do's would make it all worthwhile for me. I was actually working on to-do's from mail myself as I needed it so bad. Time machine looks like the best solution to the backup/versioning problem I've ever seen. Wow, again! Can't wait.
Time machine and mail enhancements with notes and to-do's would make it all worthwhile for me. I was actually working on to-do's from mail myself as I needed it so bad. Time machine looks like the best solution to the backup/versioning problem I've ever seen. Wow, again! Can't wait.
Chundles
Jul 20, 08:14 AM
I wonder what they're going to call them, Quad sounds cool but "Octa or Octo" just sounds a bit silly.
MacPro8?
The Mactopus??
MacPro8?
The Mactopus??
maelstromr
Apr 25, 03:18 PM
So an old post says apple is exploiting them and you imply I said that then? I said on numerous occasions clearly that this is not about Apple using this data. Interesting way to quote posts you have there:rolleyes:
Now I'm confused - YOU quote MY post replying to someone suggesting exactly that Apple is exploiting customers through this, and now I'm selectively quoting you?
Though I am skeptical, to say the least, of YOUR point as well, it's not nearly as ridiculous as the people who DO claim Apple is trying to get people.
Now I'm confused - YOU quote MY post replying to someone suggesting exactly that Apple is exploiting customers through this, and now I'm selectively quoting you?
Though I am skeptical, to say the least, of YOUR point as well, it's not nearly as ridiculous as the people who DO claim Apple is trying to get people.
macfan881
Sep 7, 01:06 PM
Prologue?
no defintly saw the logo for 5 in the game.
here are some vids from other various website that are on the demohttp://www.gtplanet.net/best-buys-gt5-demo-gameplay-video-collection/
no defintly saw the logo for 5 in the game.
here are some vids from other various website that are on the demohttp://www.gtplanet.net/best-buys-gt5-demo-gameplay-video-collection/
MacRumors
Jul 20, 08:05 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
While Apple hasn't yet released its first Intel-based professional model desktop machine, many users are actively watching Intel's future roadmap for hints as to what may next appear in Apple's second revision Mac Pro and XServe machines. CNet News.com reported yesterday afternoon (http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-6096192.html) that Intel's quad-core desktop chip (Kentsfield) and Xeon-class chip (Cloverton) have been bumped up and should arrive before year's end.
Educated speculation would therefore indicate that Apple's second revision Mac Pro workstation will feature 8 cores, and other models will all become "Quad" machines. Most recent rumors (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060711225142.shtml) have indicated that the Mac Pro will use Apple's Xeon-class chips over "desktop" models such as Core 2 Duo "Conroe" and Kentsfield. With Conroe perhaps landing in a future iMac, further speculation would indicate that iMacs down the pipe will feature the 4-core Kentsfield processor.
While Apple hasn't yet released its first Intel-based professional model desktop machine, many users are actively watching Intel's future roadmap for hints as to what may next appear in Apple's second revision Mac Pro and XServe machines. CNet News.com reported yesterday afternoon (http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-6096192.html) that Intel's quad-core desktop chip (Kentsfield) and Xeon-class chip (Cloverton) have been bumped up and should arrive before year's end.
Educated speculation would therefore indicate that Apple's second revision Mac Pro workstation will feature 8 cores, and other models will all become "Quad" machines. Most recent rumors (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060711225142.shtml) have indicated that the Mac Pro will use Apple's Xeon-class chips over "desktop" models such as Core 2 Duo "Conroe" and Kentsfield. With Conroe perhaps landing in a future iMac, further speculation would indicate that iMacs down the pipe will feature the 4-core Kentsfield processor.
Bigdaddyguido
Mar 22, 05:17 PM
Wirelessly posted (Iphone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Blackberry playbook = The IPad 2 killer - you heard it here first.
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
If your still looking at specs on tablets you don't understand the market well enough to call anything. Of the 15 million people who purchased an iPad 1, how many do you think could tell you how much ram was in the system?
Until a company has a viably competitive app store with applications even approaching the quality if GarageBand, this is beyond a ridiculous statement to make.
Blackberry playbook = The IPad 2 killer - you heard it here first.
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
If your still looking at specs on tablets you don't understand the market well enough to call anything. Of the 15 million people who purchased an iPad 1, how many do you think could tell you how much ram was in the system?
Until a company has a viably competitive app store with applications even approaching the quality if GarageBand, this is beyond a ridiculous statement to make.
Greeney
Aug 11, 10:24 PM
Personally I don't care, as long as its GSM...
FreeState
Feb 28, 08:34 PM
Now you've stopped stating opinions and walked into fact territory.
CITATION NEEDED!
Has anyone ever been truly 'cured' of homosexuality? You need to produce empirical evidence. Notably brain scans showing the arousal of a homosexual to people of his same sex before and after this 'treatment.'
If you can produce that evidence, I will be satisfied that homosexuality is a treatable condition. Until then, I'm just assuming that you're stating dogma as fact to make reprehensible claims.
My guess is "untreatable" means no one has been cured.
However medical science does not view sexual orientation as needing any treatment, its not an illness.
CITATION NEEDED!
Has anyone ever been truly 'cured' of homosexuality? You need to produce empirical evidence. Notably brain scans showing the arousal of a homosexual to people of his same sex before and after this 'treatment.'
If you can produce that evidence, I will be satisfied that homosexuality is a treatable condition. Until then, I'm just assuming that you're stating dogma as fact to make reprehensible claims.
My guess is "untreatable" means no one has been cured.
However medical science does not view sexual orientation as needing any treatment, its not an illness.
nealibob
Mar 31, 03:00 PM
John Gruber's take:
Can't say I disagree.
The real Android bait-and-switch is calling the platform "open" to consumers. Sure, there are a few "Google Experience" devices that have not been mutilated by handset makers, but even those often have closed hardware. The way I see it, Google uses this ruse of openness to get geek support. Geeks then advocate their platform, which is a great form of marketing.
The reality is that any Android handset with a locked bootloader or no root access from the factory is just about as closed as any iOS device (or BlackBerry, WebOS, Windows, etc. device). The open vs. closed = Android vs. iOS argument is ridiculous, because it focuses on the part of the platform (underlying source code) that matters the least to almost all users.
Can't say I disagree.
The real Android bait-and-switch is calling the platform "open" to consumers. Sure, there are a few "Google Experience" devices that have not been mutilated by handset makers, but even those often have closed hardware. The way I see it, Google uses this ruse of openness to get geek support. Geeks then advocate their platform, which is a great form of marketing.
The reality is that any Android handset with a locked bootloader or no root access from the factory is just about as closed as any iOS device (or BlackBerry, WebOS, Windows, etc. device). The open vs. closed = Android vs. iOS argument is ridiculous, because it focuses on the part of the platform (underlying source code) that matters the least to almost all users.
MacRumors
Jul 20, 08:05 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
While Apple hasn't yet released its first Intel-based professional model desktop machine, many users are actively watching Intel's future roadmap for hints as to what may next appear in Apple's second revision Mac Pro and XServe machines. CNet News.com reported yesterday afternoon (http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-6096192.html) that Intel's quad-core desktop chip (Kentsfield) and Xeon-class chip (Cloverton) have been bumped up and should arrive before year's end.
Educated speculation would therefore indicate that Apple's second revision Mac Pro workstation will feature 8 cores, and other models will all become "Quad" machines. Most recent rumors (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060711225142.shtml) have indicated that the Mac Pro will use Apple's Xeon-class chips over "desktop" models such as Core 2 Duo "Conroe" and Kentsfield. With Conroe perhaps landing in a future iMac, further speculation would indicate that iMacs down the pipe will feature the 4-core Kentsfield processor.
While Apple hasn't yet released its first Intel-based professional model desktop machine, many users are actively watching Intel's future roadmap for hints as to what may next appear in Apple's second revision Mac Pro and XServe machines. CNet News.com reported yesterday afternoon (http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-6096192.html) that Intel's quad-core desktop chip (Kentsfield) and Xeon-class chip (Cloverton) have been bumped up and should arrive before year's end.
Educated speculation would therefore indicate that Apple's second revision Mac Pro workstation will feature 8 cores, and other models will all become "Quad" machines. Most recent rumors (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060711225142.shtml) have indicated that the Mac Pro will use Apple's Xeon-class chips over "desktop" models such as Core 2 Duo "Conroe" and Kentsfield. With Conroe perhaps landing in a future iMac, further speculation would indicate that iMacs down the pipe will feature the 4-core Kentsfield processor.
john123
Sep 19, 09:32 AM
That whole comment had the tone of a spoilt 13 year old...
You have no idea why some ppl are waiting for the next revision or upgrade - don't benchmark your rationale with others in way that dismisses other ppl who have equally legitimate reasons and opinions...
Some ppl (who don't have allot of money to drop every year for the next best thing) have to spend wisely - and perhaps just want a revB machine that is more stable and refined. I for one keep my macs until they die...so I will be waiting for revB to maximise my chances of a solid bug-free machine.
If that makes me spoilt - b/c I don't want to purchase new products year after year - then there is nothing I can do about your perceptions...
I don't know how many times we have to go round and round with this here. I've been on MacRumors since '01 and it's always the same-old, same-old. It's not legitimate. It's "I-wantism." You have no basis to believe that a Rev B would be more "stabled and refined." That's a hope, backed by nothing -- and nothing Apple ever comments on, either. The bottom line is that you can hope if you want, and you can wait if you want, but to bash Apple for being slow on the trigger, and to make the argument that Meroms are amazing and Yonahs are crap is, frankly, horse manure. Like I said, 64 bit is pretty irrelevant for most users, and the speed and battery differences are quite negligible. And the argument that Apple is losing tons of sales to PC manufactuers is, frankly, laughable too.
You have no idea why some ppl are waiting for the next revision or upgrade - don't benchmark your rationale with others in way that dismisses other ppl who have equally legitimate reasons and opinions...
Some ppl (who don't have allot of money to drop every year for the next best thing) have to spend wisely - and perhaps just want a revB machine that is more stable and refined. I for one keep my macs until they die...so I will be waiting for revB to maximise my chances of a solid bug-free machine.
If that makes me spoilt - b/c I don't want to purchase new products year after year - then there is nothing I can do about your perceptions...
I don't know how many times we have to go round and round with this here. I've been on MacRumors since '01 and it's always the same-old, same-old. It's not legitimate. It's "I-wantism." You have no basis to believe that a Rev B would be more "stabled and refined." That's a hope, backed by nothing -- and nothing Apple ever comments on, either. The bottom line is that you can hope if you want, and you can wait if you want, but to bash Apple for being slow on the trigger, and to make the argument that Meroms are amazing and Yonahs are crap is, frankly, horse manure. Like I said, 64 bit is pretty irrelevant for most users, and the speed and battery differences are quite negligible. And the argument that Apple is losing tons of sales to PC manufactuers is, frankly, laughable too.
camomac
Jul 20, 02:39 PM
eight cores + Tiger = Octopussy?!?
haha, then Doctor Q's signature could be-
"Oh do pay attention 007. In the wrong hands, this Octopussy could be very dangerous."
LOL.:D
haha, then Doctor Q's signature could be-
"Oh do pay attention 007. In the wrong hands, this Octopussy could be very dangerous."
LOL.:D
ZoomZoomZoom
Sep 18, 11:13 PM
Let the "free market" decide? Oh wait, I forgot, for Macs there is no free market, it is basically a monopoly.
Yeah. I keep on thinking of going for a Thinkpad, but every time I think to how hooked I am on OS X, I can't do it. But I refuse to pay good money for now "outdated" hardware in a flagship notebook computer line. Ridiculous.
Yeah. I keep on thinking of going for a Thinkpad, but every time I think to how hooked I am on OS X, I can't do it. But I refuse to pay good money for now "outdated" hardware in a flagship notebook computer line. Ridiculous.
SwiftLives
Mar 17, 10:55 AM
While I disagree with your statement that both parties are the same, I will concede that both parties work for interests that are not necessarily the same as those of the people who voted for them...
Timepass
Jul 15, 11:18 AM
:o
I think placing the PSU at the bottom of the case is good...heavy items near the top of the case may lead to Macs being prone to tipping over. Heat can be vented easy enough...
Come on PSU do are not that heavy and genenally speaking cases are pretty stable. Putting the PSU at the top, oh dang the computer will tip over with 1 inch of less travel. It a Tower that going to be out of the way and not hit that offen. Come on PC have been built for years with PSU at the top. Are they unstable... No they are fairly stable. Considering 95+% of all PC towers out there have the PSU at the top and are they tipping over at a slight hit.. No. you have to tip them pretty far before they will fall over.
Also there are other advatages of putting the PSU at the top. Instead of having to make another fan system to cool it and keep it separated from the rest of the case due to the heat it generatates you can now put it at the top where it not going to add heat to the case and use the PSU fans to help cool the rest of the computer.
Lets see that means less fans are needed over all in the computer which means Oh my gosh. LESS NOISE. <sarcasim>Is that possible. Using a PSU fans to help cool the entire computer...... Who as ever heard of such a thing. <sarcasim> Really people most of the agurments people are using against putting the PSU at the top are stupid and weak at best.
It WILL NOT make the computer top heavy. The base on computer is wide enough to keep it stable any how.
It WILL NOT add any more noise to the computer (it will reduce it because the PSU can now help cool the case with it own cooling fans as well)
Power plug at the top.. Um yeah not really a problem. Oh dang a wire is not 12 in higher than it was before. it is still on the back. and instead of plugging in you monitor at the top of the case and the plug on the bottom they flip locations. You the user will never notices or care.
I think placing the PSU at the bottom of the case is good...heavy items near the top of the case may lead to Macs being prone to tipping over. Heat can be vented easy enough...
Come on PSU do are not that heavy and genenally speaking cases are pretty stable. Putting the PSU at the top, oh dang the computer will tip over with 1 inch of less travel. It a Tower that going to be out of the way and not hit that offen. Come on PC have been built for years with PSU at the top. Are they unstable... No they are fairly stable. Considering 95+% of all PC towers out there have the PSU at the top and are they tipping over at a slight hit.. No. you have to tip them pretty far before they will fall over.
Also there are other advatages of putting the PSU at the top. Instead of having to make another fan system to cool it and keep it separated from the rest of the case due to the heat it generatates you can now put it at the top where it not going to add heat to the case and use the PSU fans to help cool the rest of the computer.
Lets see that means less fans are needed over all in the computer which means Oh my gosh. LESS NOISE. <sarcasim>Is that possible. Using a PSU fans to help cool the entire computer...... Who as ever heard of such a thing. <sarcasim> Really people most of the agurments people are using against putting the PSU at the top are stupid and weak at best.
It WILL NOT make the computer top heavy. The base on computer is wide enough to keep it stable any how.
It WILL NOT add any more noise to the computer (it will reduce it because the PSU can now help cool the case with it own cooling fans as well)
Power plug at the top.. Um yeah not really a problem. Oh dang a wire is not 12 in higher than it was before. it is still on the back. and instead of plugging in you monitor at the top of the case and the plug on the bottom they flip locations. You the user will never notices or care.
freeny
Aug 7, 04:05 PM
Guess we now know what this was all about now.. (Web Clip)
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=151828&highlight=safari+widget
Out of all the predictions I think I was the closest (post #29):cool:
perhaps this button will produce a widget for the page you have open? sort of like having your favorite sites in your dashboard? you wont need to open safari to check your sites or even wait for someone to create a widget for the site. safari will author its own widgets.
Even better would be the ability to frame just the part of the site you want to see like a weather bar or team score using a cmd+shft+4 like command..... any takers?
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=151828&highlight=safari+widget
Out of all the predictions I think I was the closest (post #29):cool:
perhaps this button will produce a widget for the page you have open? sort of like having your favorite sites in your dashboard? you wont need to open safari to check your sites or even wait for someone to create a widget for the site. safari will author its own widgets.
Even better would be the ability to frame just the part of the site you want to see like a weather bar or team score using a cmd+shft+4 like command..... any takers?
Ommid
Apr 25, 01:38 PM
Wounded, Apple will go on strike and remove all GPS from future devices now. ;)
Bill McEnaney
Mar 3, 04:20 AM
I'm sorry, Bill, but your logic has one big flaw.
If you decided to live celibately while other heterosexuals are open to have sex in a [monogamous] relationship, that's fine by me but what you're implying is that every homosexual should be celibate, so what's the point of being attracted to the same-sex at all in your logic?
I believe you have to label yourself asexual from now on, since not having or craving sex makes you neither a homosexual nor heterosexual.
I believe that every "gay" person should be celibate. I also think opposite-sex monogamous marriage is the only appropriate context for sex.
I'm heterosexual. I still feel opposite-sex attraction, but my sex drive has been weak for years. I'm grateful for that weakness, too, because I don't see others as mere objects.
I don't see any point in being sexually attracted to anyone of the same sex, since I think homosexuality is a psychological problem caused by nurture, not by nature. My mom used to counsel same-sex-attracted people when she was a nurse and a counselor at a local drug rehabilitation hospital. Her patients liked her, even after he told them that she thought same-sex sex was never okay. They respected her for her honesty. She was brave enough to tell them some things that they didn't want to hear, because she knew that they needed to hear them. Political correctness is evil when it prevents people from saying things that others need to hear for their own good.
In about 1962, Pope John XXII refused to condemn heresies because he thought mercy was better than severity. But he ignored that people sometimes need to be severe to show their love for others. I'm all for tact and gentleness. But I'm against political correctness that protects feeling at the expense of the potentially offended person's physical, psychological, or moral wellbeing. John XXIII was like a doctor who would say, "I don't want to talk about killing bacteria, cancer cells, and so on. I think I should just promote good heath." But what if the patient died because, say, the doctor refused to do chemo or wouldn't tell a patient that without it, she would die of cancer? Is the doctor being kind? Is he being negligent? If he doesn't care enough about his patients to tell them bad news that they need to hear, he should stop seeing them.
Here at the board, the others are welcome believe anything they want to believe about me. If I make some enemies by merely saying what I believe, then that gives me a chance to love them. But I refuse to be politically correct.
If you decided to live celibately while other heterosexuals are open to have sex in a [monogamous] relationship, that's fine by me but what you're implying is that every homosexual should be celibate, so what's the point of being attracted to the same-sex at all in your logic?
I believe you have to label yourself asexual from now on, since not having or craving sex makes you neither a homosexual nor heterosexual.
I believe that every "gay" person should be celibate. I also think opposite-sex monogamous marriage is the only appropriate context for sex.
I'm heterosexual. I still feel opposite-sex attraction, but my sex drive has been weak for years. I'm grateful for that weakness, too, because I don't see others as mere objects.
I don't see any point in being sexually attracted to anyone of the same sex, since I think homosexuality is a psychological problem caused by nurture, not by nature. My mom used to counsel same-sex-attracted people when she was a nurse and a counselor at a local drug rehabilitation hospital. Her patients liked her, even after he told them that she thought same-sex sex was never okay. They respected her for her honesty. She was brave enough to tell them some things that they didn't want to hear, because she knew that they needed to hear them. Political correctness is evil when it prevents people from saying things that others need to hear for their own good.
In about 1962, Pope John XXII refused to condemn heresies because he thought mercy was better than severity. But he ignored that people sometimes need to be severe to show their love for others. I'm all for tact and gentleness. But I'm against political correctness that protects feeling at the expense of the potentially offended person's physical, psychological, or moral wellbeing. John XXIII was like a doctor who would say, "I don't want to talk about killing bacteria, cancer cells, and so on. I think I should just promote good heath." But what if the patient died because, say, the doctor refused to do chemo or wouldn't tell a patient that without it, she would die of cancer? Is the doctor being kind? Is he being negligent? If he doesn't care enough about his patients to tell them bad news that they need to hear, he should stop seeing them.
Here at the board, the others are welcome believe anything they want to believe about me. If I make some enemies by merely saying what I believe, then that gives me a chance to love them. But I refuse to be politically correct.
rdowns
Apr 27, 02:46 PM
Really guys? We're going to argue it may be a forgery now. :rolleyes:
Chundles
Jul 20, 11:46 AM
Sorry I don't see that happening... Apple has basically always given developers a few months (to several months) lead time with the next major version of Mac OS X. That has taken place yet... so I don't see it being released at WWDC 2006.
He was referring to my post in which I was referring to MWSF '07, not the WWDC.
I still don't think we'll se a full release at MWSF but I think the date will be announced.
He was referring to my post in which I was referring to MWSF '07, not the WWDC.
I still don't think we'll se a full release at MWSF but I think the date will be announced.
peharri
Jul 14, 03:11 PM
Some of this makes sense, some of it not.
I think AppleInsider is right about the case. With the exception of the MacBook, whose design has been rumoured for years and clearly was something Apple would have done even had this been the "iBook G5", Apple has made it a point with all of their Intelizations to use the same case as the predecessor, as if to say "It's business as usual, all we've changed is the processor." So from that point of view, the PowerMac G5 case being, more or less, the Mac Pro case, makes a lot of sense.
Two optical drives? No, sorry, not seeing the reasoning. The reasons given so far don't add up:
- copying DVDs - you can't legally copy 99% of DVDs anyway, if there was no need for twin CD drives, why would there suddenly be for DVDs?
- burning two at once - few people need this, and it's a great sales opportunity for a Firewire external burner anyway. Hell, why stop at TWO?
- Blu-ray - not unless they're really screwed up BR and drives with BR will be incompatible with existing media or something.
Against this, you have the confusion generated by a Mac with two optical drives. I have a Mac with two optical drives (an in-built combo drive, and a FW DVD burner), and it's not terribly elegant. It's fine when reading disks (obviously), but writing them generates some confusion. How sure am I that I'm burning to the right drive? I'm not saying you can't do it, I'm just saying this would be unbelievably un-Mac like. It'd be like the next version of iTunes coming with a menu at the top of its window.
It's also kind of easy to see where this rumour might have originated, in some garbled communication where the rumourmonger says "Two optical drive formats", or "Two bays", or "Multiple media readers" (hey, why not put an SD/CF/MS reader on the front? Pretty much everyone uses them these days, especially the prosumer-market Apple is after. Bet there are more people who'd use an SD card reader than a Firewire port.)
I've been wrong before, but I'm going to go for a traditional PowerMac G5 enclosure, and a single optical drive which may, or may not, support Blu-ray in some shape or form.
I think AppleInsider is right about the case. With the exception of the MacBook, whose design has been rumoured for years and clearly was something Apple would have done even had this been the "iBook G5", Apple has made it a point with all of their Intelizations to use the same case as the predecessor, as if to say "It's business as usual, all we've changed is the processor." So from that point of view, the PowerMac G5 case being, more or less, the Mac Pro case, makes a lot of sense.
Two optical drives? No, sorry, not seeing the reasoning. The reasons given so far don't add up:
- copying DVDs - you can't legally copy 99% of DVDs anyway, if there was no need for twin CD drives, why would there suddenly be for DVDs?
- burning two at once - few people need this, and it's a great sales opportunity for a Firewire external burner anyway. Hell, why stop at TWO?
- Blu-ray - not unless they're really screwed up BR and drives with BR will be incompatible with existing media or something.
Against this, you have the confusion generated by a Mac with two optical drives. I have a Mac with two optical drives (an in-built combo drive, and a FW DVD burner), and it's not terribly elegant. It's fine when reading disks (obviously), but writing them generates some confusion. How sure am I that I'm burning to the right drive? I'm not saying you can't do it, I'm just saying this would be unbelievably un-Mac like. It'd be like the next version of iTunes coming with a menu at the top of its window.
It's also kind of easy to see where this rumour might have originated, in some garbled communication where the rumourmonger says "Two optical drive formats", or "Two bays", or "Multiple media readers" (hey, why not put an SD/CF/MS reader on the front? Pretty much everyone uses them these days, especially the prosumer-market Apple is after. Bet there are more people who'd use an SD card reader than a Firewire port.)
I've been wrong before, but I'm going to go for a traditional PowerMac G5 enclosure, and a single optical drive which may, or may not, support Blu-ray in some shape or form.
boncellis
Aug 27, 09:12 PM
Sifting through this thread can make one either optimistic or irrational, depending on who you ask. One point I found absent among the discussion was the possibility of a Core 2 Duo machine coinciding with the September 16th iPod offer end date.
Makes sense to me, but then I tend to get shouted down a lot in this forum. ;)
Makes sense to me, but then I tend to get shouted down a lot in this forum. ;)
CaoCao
Feb 28, 08:25 PM
It matters that you describe it as fornication.
What has this dubious claim to do with anything? :confused:
No it doesn't, not when people brag about how much they sleep around
Your link supports the idea that Greek society supported pederasty. If they have such a failing what is to say they don't have other failings
He's trying to equate in our minds homosexuality, rape, and pedophilia.
rape and paedophilia both involve lack of consent. Although paedophilia has to do with that the mind is attracted to pre-pubescent children in the same way that homosexuality causes attraction to the same sex. Both cases are untreatable.
What has this dubious claim to do with anything? :confused:
No it doesn't, not when people brag about how much they sleep around
Your link supports the idea that Greek society supported pederasty. If they have such a failing what is to say they don't have other failings
He's trying to equate in our minds homosexuality, rape, and pedophilia.
rape and paedophilia both involve lack of consent. Although paedophilia has to do with that the mind is attracted to pre-pubescent children in the same way that homosexuality causes attraction to the same sex. Both cases are untreatable.
shawnce
Aug 6, 11:33 AM
Mac OS X Leopard
Introducing Vista 2.0
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=207241438&size=l
I bet we gonna get some good t-shirts this year like we did back when Tiger was announced ("Introducing Longhorn").
Introducing Vista 2.0
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=207241438&size=l
I bet we gonna get some good t-shirts this year like we did back when Tiger was announced ("Introducing Longhorn").