Kwill
May 4, 04:04 PM
If you asked a parent, they might call it intuitive. If you asked a musician, they might call it inspiring. To a doctor, it's groundbreaking. To a CEO, it's powerful. To a teacher, it's the future. If you asked a child, she might call it magic. And if you asked us, we'd say it's just getting started.
To a user in a bright environment, it's a glare.
To a user in a bright environment, it's a glare.
Desertrat
May 5, 12:05 AM
Aw, Ugg, c'mon. Sounds like the NRA lobbyist merely said something on the order of, "If you're gonna do this sort of thing, don't do the fine." This issue has been a source of turmoil in Florida for quite a while. I've no idea what doofus started wanting pediatricians to snoop into family affairs, but the anti-gun crowd has pushed for it. (An appropriate answer to such an idiotic question would be, "Well, of course! What kind do you want? What do you carry?")
As far as "Couple this with the fact that the NRA has prevented any studies on guns and their impact on American society and I think we can all rest assured that we're heading towards a society ruled by the American Taliban. Heavy sarcasm intended.":
Wrong. Dead wrong. Au colntraire, support for numerous studies has come from the NRA. They've supported Prof. Gary Kleck of FSU, for example, even after he commented that as a card-carrying member of the ACLU that he thought both sides in the gun control arguments were making foolish claims.
John Lott is another. Wright/Rossi/Dalily have published several books about the inefficacy of gun control laws, and they aren't even shooters.
Overall, what I find amusing about folks taking potshots at the NRA--and missing--is that some pro-gun groups gripe that the NRA doesn't do enough. One is Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, JPFO. Another is the Gunowners of America, GOA, which I myself find to be rather severely hardline.
As far as "Couple this with the fact that the NRA has prevented any studies on guns and their impact on American society and I think we can all rest assured that we're heading towards a society ruled by the American Taliban. Heavy sarcasm intended.":
Wrong. Dead wrong. Au colntraire, support for numerous studies has come from the NRA. They've supported Prof. Gary Kleck of FSU, for example, even after he commented that as a card-carrying member of the ACLU that he thought both sides in the gun control arguments were making foolish claims.
John Lott is another. Wright/Rossi/Dalily have published several books about the inefficacy of gun control laws, and they aren't even shooters.
Overall, what I find amusing about folks taking potshots at the NRA--and missing--is that some pro-gun groups gripe that the NRA doesn't do enough. One is Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, JPFO. Another is the Gunowners of America, GOA, which I myself find to be rather severely hardline.
LightSpeed1
Apr 13, 03:19 PM
thought about getting those but im getting the samson 3i's instead. lmk how they areSure thing.What made you choose the samson's over the swans?
![hd wallpaper 1080p. 50 Beautiful Trees Full HD Wallpapers 1080p [Set 3] [nico1899] [h33t] 50 Beautiful Trees Full HD Wallpapers 1080p [Set 3] 50 JPG | 1920 X 1080 Px | 78 Mb](http://wefile.org/index.php/image/direct/mSL7P4GK8O/50-beautiful-trees-full-hd-wallpapers-1080p-set-3-www.allwallpapersfree.org-xt.jpg "50 Beautiful Trees Full HD Wallpapers 1080p [Set 3] [nico1899] [h33t] 50 Beautiful Trees Full HD Wallpapers 1080p [Set 3] 50 JPG | 1920 X 1080 Px | 78 Mb")
CalBoy
Apr 15, 04:21 PM
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 actually we know the TSA methods don't work because both of the incidents were from European airports that mirror what the TSA does. Added to the number of weapons that make it through TSA checkpoints, it's easy to see that the TSA does in fact not work to the extent that it is expected to.
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.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
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.
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
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.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
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.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
more...
Full HD Wallpapers 1080p
Landscapes Wallpapers 1080p
more...
Full HD Wallpapers 1080p
Full HD Wallpapers 1080p
more...
.jpg "Hd Nature Wallpaper 1080p.")
Hd Nature Wallpaper 1080p.
Hd Wallpapers 1080p Windows 7.
more...
hd wallpaper 1080p.
Full HD Wallpapers 1080p
more...
Full HD Wallpapers 1080p
![hd wallpaper 1080p. 20 Amazing Landscapes Full HD Wallpapers 1080p [Set 15] [nico1899] [h33t] 20 Amazing Landscapes Full HD Wallpapers 1080p [Set 15]](http://wefile.org/index.php/image/direct/2pGrP3AxTx/20-amazing-landscapes-full-hd-wallpapers-1080p-set-15-www.allwallpapersfree.org-xt.jpg "20 Amazing Landscapes Full HD Wallpapers 1080p [Set 15] [nico1899] [h33t] 20 Amazing Landscapes Full HD Wallpapers 1080p [Set 15]")
20 Amazing Landscapes Full HD Wallpapers 1080p [Set 15] [nico1899] [h33t] 20 Amazing Landscapes Full HD Wallpapers 1080p [Set 15]
more...
Full HD Wallpapers 1080p
Landscapes Wallpapers 1080p
more...
Hd Wallpapers Widescreen
free hd wallpapers 1080p
hd wallpaper 1080p. wallpaper
Well actually we know the TSA methods don't work because both of the incidents were from European airports that mirror what the TSA does. Added to the number of weapons that make it through TSA checkpoints, it's easy to see that the TSA does in fact not work to the extent that it is expected to.
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.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
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.
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
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.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
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.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
more...
skunk
Apr 22, 03:15 PM
Yeah, we can tell.It's nice to be understood so well. I have given you a +1.
Geckotek
Dec 14, 03:13 PM
But the fact remains how are they going to exactly implement two separate phones for carriers that use different cell tech, and implement them properly
You act like this is some impossible task that's never been done before. Or is Apple just not as capable as every other cell phone manufacturer in the world?
You act like this is some impossible task that's never been done before. Or is Apple just not as capable as every other cell phone manufacturer in the world?
more...
ktappe
Mar 28, 03:23 PM
What exactly is a 'hater'? Someone that disagrees with the company line? Someone with a dissenting opinion?
Strongly agree. "Dissent" does not equal "hate". On the contrary, dissenting voices are what make our society so grand.
There are LOTS of completely valid reasons for a perfectly good app to not be in the App Store. There are many apps that are very useful, productive, and of high quality that by their very nature can't get into the App store due to its rules. Rules that forbid the exact reason some of those apps exist; such as modifying the OS in ways the user needs or by doing things a better way than Apple does. As a result, these "awards" are tainted from the very get-go and I plan to dismiss them accordingly.
Strongly agree. "Dissent" does not equal "hate". On the contrary, dissenting voices are what make our society so grand.
There are LOTS of completely valid reasons for a perfectly good app to not be in the App Store. There are many apps that are very useful, productive, and of high quality that by their very nature can't get into the App store due to its rules. Rules that forbid the exact reason some of those apps exist; such as modifying the OS in ways the user needs or by doing things a better way than Apple does. As a result, these "awards" are tainted from the very get-go and I plan to dismiss them accordingly.
underblu
Apr 20, 02:17 AM
I use both OSX and Windows.
Apple has it right: simplicity and robustness. Why change the OSX UI, it's straightforwd, lacks unesesary adornments and most importantly doesn't get in the way.
I don't get the whole OS thing anyway. To me it's all about the apllications anyway.
Having been a diehard Windows fan for years they lost me with Vista and not being able to buy a powerful lightweight aluminim Laptop with good battery life made the choice of a MBP overwhelming. I really grown to like OSX and hope they keep the look and feel.
You know to this day you can look at a Porsche 911 from 1967 and see the continuity of design through the years. Because why fool with desingn perfection when refinement is all that's needed.
Apple has it right: simplicity and robustness. Why change the OSX UI, it's straightforwd, lacks unesesary adornments and most importantly doesn't get in the way.
I don't get the whole OS thing anyway. To me it's all about the apllications anyway.
Having been a diehard Windows fan for years they lost me with Vista and not being able to buy a powerful lightweight aluminim Laptop with good battery life made the choice of a MBP overwhelming. I really grown to like OSX and hope they keep the look and feel.
You know to this day you can look at a Porsche 911 from 1967 and see the continuity of design through the years. Because why fool with desingn perfection when refinement is all that's needed.
more...
bigdz68
Nov 24, 07:29 AM
I'm still seeing only one discount applied online.
I was not able to get an EDU discount and sale discount.
BUT, if you are a gvt worker you can get both discounts.
I priced out a new 80GB ipod w/2 Evo3 skins, and the applecare protection plan and it was $30 cheaper with the GVT discount ... but no luck with EDU
I was not able to get an EDU discount and sale discount.
BUT, if you are a gvt worker you can get both discounts.
I priced out a new 80GB ipod w/2 Evo3 skins, and the applecare protection plan and it was $30 cheaper with the GVT discount ... but no luck with EDU
bdj21ya
Oct 3, 12:43 PM
but I'm always convinced by ol' Steve that I'l
Aaron was suddenly whacked by the iLife secret police for even intimating that purchasing yearly upgrades might not be worth it:D
Aaron was suddenly whacked by the iLife secret police for even intimating that purchasing yearly upgrades might not be worth it:D
more...
bakerzdosen
Nov 23, 04:30 PM
I haven't seen a lower price on the iSight I bought last year on BF $135 shipped incl tax. (With one possible exception, and that was a clearance/misprint at microcenter that they still honored in a couple cases.) I only paid slightly less for a used one on eBay a month before - and it's an earlier revision. Sometimes it's not that bad of a deal.
mj_1903
Oct 21, 04:24 AM
Dividends, yes that would be a good idea, what with $10 billion in cash on hand. Microsoft finally decided that their cash horde was becoming a bit of an embarrassment and declared one.
Microsoft only paid a dividend when their share growth stagnated.
Apple on the other hand has had stellar share growth recently so there is really no need to pay dividends.
Microsoft only paid a dividend when their share growth stagnated.
Apple on the other hand has had stellar share growth recently so there is really no need to pay dividends.
more...
twoodcc
May 14, 06:09 AM
oh thats not very hot! might be the PSU struggling maybe?
i'm really not sure. it's a 1200 watt PSU, so it should be good
i'm really not sure. it's a 1200 watt PSU, so it should be good
Zwhaler
Apr 15, 09:55 PM
Agreed.
http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=222299&d=1271355038
Owned that's all I have to say...
http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=222299&d=1271355038
Owned that's all I have to say...
more...
rdowns
Apr 12, 06:21 PM
What a joke this illusion of airport security is.
Video shows young girl receiving full pat-down from TSA (http://www.boston.com/travel/blog/2011/04/video_shows_you.html)
The TSA's pat-down policy has been widely criticized, but a video that popped up on YouTube today illustrates the possibly absurd levels to which agents take the process.
Here's a clip of what is said to be a six-year-old girl receiving a full pat-down from a TSA agent, who then apparently leads her to another area of the security checkpoint to perform a drug test. It's not clear whether the girl's parents elected not to put their child through a body scan, however the opening moments of the video do show a woman, believed to be the girl's mother, asking the TSA agent, "Can't you just re-scan her?"
Video shows young girl receiving full pat-down from TSA (http://www.boston.com/travel/blog/2011/04/video_shows_you.html)
The TSA's pat-down policy has been widely criticized, but a video that popped up on YouTube today illustrates the possibly absurd levels to which agents take the process.
Here's a clip of what is said to be a six-year-old girl receiving a full pat-down from a TSA agent, who then apparently leads her to another area of the security checkpoint to perform a drug test. It's not clear whether the girl's parents elected not to put their child through a body scan, however the opening moments of the video do show a woman, believed to be the girl's mother, asking the TSA agent, "Can't you just re-scan her?"
gnasher729
Oct 2, 05:12 PM
I'm surprised how many people are interpreting this wrong.
The point of this is that Amazon can go to this new company and license Fairplay-compatable DRM. That way they can sell movies/music on their website (Unbox) and sell it with DRM that is iPod/iTV/iTunes Compatible.
This could mean, for example, Napster could be iTunes/iPod compatible.
Or Vongo (unlimited movie downloads $9.95/month) could be iPod compatible.
Personally, I'm not sure how long it will go. Either Apple will shut them down (if legally capable) or simply start licensing Fairplay themselves and cut out the middleman (which could be an inadvertant positive result of this effort)
Napster (and Vongo, never heard of them) couldn't do that. Fairplay doesn't have any time limit. If you buy a song from the iTunes Music Store, it will work forever (or as long as Apple Computer exists). If you have a Napster subscription, and Napster made it possible that you download a song and add the Fairplay DRM to it, then iTunes would play it today and forever.
The point of this is that Amazon can go to this new company and license Fairplay-compatable DRM. That way they can sell movies/music on their website (Unbox) and sell it with DRM that is iPod/iTV/iTunes Compatible.
This could mean, for example, Napster could be iTunes/iPod compatible.
Or Vongo (unlimited movie downloads $9.95/month) could be iPod compatible.
Personally, I'm not sure how long it will go. Either Apple will shut them down (if legally capable) or simply start licensing Fairplay themselves and cut out the middleman (which could be an inadvertant positive result of this effort)
Napster (and Vongo, never heard of them) couldn't do that. Fairplay doesn't have any time limit. If you buy a song from the iTunes Music Store, it will work forever (or as long as Apple Computer exists). If you have a Napster subscription, and Napster made it possible that you download a song and add the Fairplay DRM to it, then iTunes would play it today and forever.
more...
SilentPanda
Apr 21, 11:53 AM
You were asking for that.
It's a test of a feature. I do agree that you should be able to revert to a no vote. Mostly I was explaining that you really aren't moving the post vote by 2.
It's a test of a feature. I do agree that you should be able to revert to a no vote. Mostly I was explaining that you really aren't moving the post vote by 2.
stevehp
Jan 5, 04:16 PM
great idea. thanks.
sanford
Jan 11, 08:50 PM
not me. the video was sooo hilarious. CES = the most prominent electronics show in the world with the MOST HIGH TECH tech you can find. and they allow for a 14.99 POS hack to ruin almost every booth.
HILARIOUS. i actually laughed out loud almost the whole video. childish yes. hilarious yes.
eye opening? yes. next year you can imagine there will be a few more companies that disable IR ports in public displays.
I'm sure you're not a journalism professional. I don't think the point of this should be whether it was funny or not. Fine, you found it funny, others didn't, that's the nature of jokes. The point is: the press observes. One cannot observe something without influencing it or changing it in some, at least, small way. But it is not the business of the press *to set about to* change or influence that which they observe.
HILARIOUS. i actually laughed out loud almost the whole video. childish yes. hilarious yes.
eye opening? yes. next year you can imagine there will be a few more companies that disable IR ports in public displays.
I'm sure you're not a journalism professional. I don't think the point of this should be whether it was funny or not. Fine, you found it funny, others didn't, that's the nature of jokes. The point is: the press observes. One cannot observe something without influencing it or changing it in some, at least, small way. But it is not the business of the press *to set about to* change or influence that which they observe.
Rocketman
Oct 2, 10:19 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Earlier this summer, Jon joined with Monique Farantzos to create DoubleTwist Ventures, the company face to Jon's recent endeavor. Apparently,
Having read a few messages in this thread, why doesn't Apple simply BUY Doubletwist. That seems their basis for calling Steve, who didn't give the idea the time of day.
Doubletwist should make an offer to Apple. Apple might be precluded from even making/initiating the offer for anti-trust reasons. Doubletwist should not go down this road to a vastly inferior consumer experience.
Rocketman
Earlier this summer, Jon joined with Monique Farantzos to create DoubleTwist Ventures, the company face to Jon's recent endeavor. Apparently,
Having read a few messages in this thread, why doesn't Apple simply BUY Doubletwist. That seems their basis for calling Steve, who didn't give the idea the time of day.
Doubletwist should make an offer to Apple. Apple might be precluded from even making/initiating the offer for anti-trust reasons. Doubletwist should not go down this road to a vastly inferior consumer experience.
Rocketman
apfhex
Jan 9, 03:36 PM
9.41 on the ****.
Nice theory there, but out here in California, Pacific Standard Time, that wouldn't make a bit of sense as the time for the posting of the keynote.
In fact 9:41am PST is nearly the exactly time during the keynote that Steve announced the ****.
Nice theory there, but out here in California, Pacific Standard Time, that wouldn't make a bit of sense as the time for the posting of the keynote.
In fact 9:41am PST is nearly the exactly time during the keynote that Steve announced the ****.
Lord Blackadder
Jul 28, 05:48 PM
I think we have to start somewhere. Whether we like it or not, diesel/petroleum aren't going to last forever so sooner or later something has to change.
I completely agree.
If a critical mass of electric cars is reached, it'll start to make business sense to develop charging stations (or stations with stocks of swappable cells?) on major routes.
Perhaps - but maybe that would just cause us to burn more fuel at power plants rather than look for alternative fuels...and who knows what that would do to the price and availability of electricity? To me, it feels like we'd just be exchanging one problem for another.
If we wait for these charging stations to appear before starting to buy electric cars, we'll end up in a Catch 22. And (stating the obvious, but) electricity for the cars can be generated cleanly and renewably, even if it isn't at present.
You may be right about California & other parts of the US having power generation problems, and that may well hamper electric car adoption in those areas; but that shouldn't stop others from switching.
I think we should be less worried (in the short term) about hybrids and electric cars and more concerned with just lowering per capita fuel consumption.
I completely agree.
If a critical mass of electric cars is reached, it'll start to make business sense to develop charging stations (or stations with stocks of swappable cells?) on major routes.
Perhaps - but maybe that would just cause us to burn more fuel at power plants rather than look for alternative fuels...and who knows what that would do to the price and availability of electricity? To me, it feels like we'd just be exchanging one problem for another.
If we wait for these charging stations to appear before starting to buy electric cars, we'll end up in a Catch 22. And (stating the obvious, but) electricity for the cars can be generated cleanly and renewably, even if it isn't at present.
You may be right about California & other parts of the US having power generation problems, and that may well hamper electric car adoption in those areas; but that shouldn't stop others from switching.
I think we should be less worried (in the short term) about hybrids and electric cars and more concerned with just lowering per capita fuel consumption.
Mattie Num Nums
Apr 8, 12:51 PM
ok, now i can go back to best buy. they aren't evil anymore and the sales people are the most knowledgeable i've seen
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/funny-pictures-cats-see-what-you-did.jpg
Best Buy knows who D:apple:ddy is... They know who's keeping that company afloat and relevant in todays chaotic economy.
They wouldn't do anything to jeopardize a business relationship they NEED.
Again they know who D:apple:ddy is.
Yeah because before Apple came to Best Buy, Best Buy was in a lot of trouble.
Give me a break dude.
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/funny-pictures-cats-see-what-you-did.jpg
Best Buy knows who D:apple:ddy is... They know who's keeping that company afloat and relevant in todays chaotic economy.
They wouldn't do anything to jeopardize a business relationship they NEED.
Again they know who D:apple:ddy is.
Yeah because before Apple came to Best Buy, Best Buy was in a lot of trouble.
Give me a break dude.
Eduardo1971
Nov 24, 02:52 AM
I'll go for the 4GB Pink nano for my girlfriend ($21.00 discount).
I *might* buy Photoshop Elements (BUT it is not Universal Binary) for $68.00.
The Shure E4C 'phones are $61.95 less!
Umm...:o
I *might* buy Photoshop Elements (BUT it is not Universal Binary) for $68.00.
The Shure E4C 'phones are $61.95 less!
Umm...:o
No comments:
Post a Comment