balamw
Sep 21, 12:27 AM
I was assuming this "family of four" included younger kids (possibly one age 4 and one age 9). ...They do watch a boatload of TV. Between the two of them they could easily watch 8 different series.
In my experience, video on demand is exactly what younger kids want. My boys (3 and 5, so not that far off your model family) watch more than their share of TV, but they tend to be quite "clumpy" in what they watch since they've grown up with PVRs all their life, they tend to watch lots of the same show, and rewatch things over and over. For instance tonight we were treated to 3 back-to-back episodes of "The Batman" from a recently released DVD and one episode of "Teen Titans" from the TiVo. I don't have to keep buying those shows, since once purchased or recorded, I have them. Tomorrow will be the younger one's choice, so my guess is we get to watch the Wiggles on DVD for the umpteenth time.
I do buy some shows on DVD of from iTunes just to get them off the PVR, to reward the content provider for things we enjoy, and create some space for new stuff to be recorded. For instance I bought two seasons worth of Dora The Explorer (49 shows) for $60.This works out to an average cost per episode of $1.22. On DVD they sell 4 episodes for $10-$16 which means a minimum cost per episode of $2.50, and up to $4. I no longer have to TiVo these and have them at my fingertips.
I would assume they each have one or two daily show(s) that they like to watch (which is where I was counting most of the monthly cost). For example, "The Daily Show" is $20 a month multiplied by 3 different shows, equals $60/month. Plus, it would also be expected that they should watch a few series (probably at least 5 between the two).
You're also still way off on your prices. The "multi-pass" for The Daily Show or Colbert is $9.99 for 16 shows (i.e. 4 weeks Monday-Thursday). You don't pay $2/show for them unless you're a masochist. Note also that you don't pay anything for half of the year since they are in reruns about half the time, so it works out to ~$60/year per show. (BTW What's the third TDS show? I guess I haven't been watching lately. :o)
News and sports are a completely different matter though.
B
In my experience, video on demand is exactly what younger kids want. My boys (3 and 5, so not that far off your model family) watch more than their share of TV, but they tend to be quite "clumpy" in what they watch since they've grown up with PVRs all their life, they tend to watch lots of the same show, and rewatch things over and over. For instance tonight we were treated to 3 back-to-back episodes of "The Batman" from a recently released DVD and one episode of "Teen Titans" from the TiVo. I don't have to keep buying those shows, since once purchased or recorded, I have them. Tomorrow will be the younger one's choice, so my guess is we get to watch the Wiggles on DVD for the umpteenth time.
I do buy some shows on DVD of from iTunes just to get them off the PVR, to reward the content provider for things we enjoy, and create some space for new stuff to be recorded. For instance I bought two seasons worth of Dora The Explorer (49 shows) for $60.This works out to an average cost per episode of $1.22. On DVD they sell 4 episodes for $10-$16 which means a minimum cost per episode of $2.50, and up to $4. I no longer have to TiVo these and have them at my fingertips.
I would assume they each have one or two daily show(s) that they like to watch (which is where I was counting most of the monthly cost). For example, "The Daily Show" is $20 a month multiplied by 3 different shows, equals $60/month. Plus, it would also be expected that they should watch a few series (probably at least 5 between the two).
You're also still way off on your prices. The "multi-pass" for The Daily Show or Colbert is $9.99 for 16 shows (i.e. 4 weeks Monday-Thursday). You don't pay $2/show for them unless you're a masochist. Note also that you don't pay anything for half of the year since they are in reruns about half the time, so it works out to ~$60/year per show. (BTW What's the third TDS show? I guess I haven't been watching lately. :o)
News and sports are a completely different matter though.
B
Multimedia
Oct 21, 01:11 PM
Anyone know anything about these suppliers, other than Crucial Technology?I know Omni and 1-800-4MEMORY are both suppliers of good ram for less money.
I've never understood why anyone buys RAM from the more expensive Crucial. Can only be marketing 'cause I have no reason to pay more for RAM from just another supplier of the same thing. :rolleyes:
I've never understood why anyone buys RAM from the more expensive Crucial. Can only be marketing 'cause I have no reason to pay more for RAM from just another supplier of the same thing. :rolleyes:
Sounds Good
Apr 5, 06:01 PM
Also, one has to get use to dragging icons from one place to another. I did not do this while using Windows. I am not saying it cannot be done, but I closed or deleted apps with the window. However, it is not necessary to drag icons etc.. One can right click an icon and select the "get info" term from the menu.
Hmm? I'm not really sure what this means. Can you explain?
When you close a window via the famous "X" to the top left of the window, technically it is not closed, as you must officially close the window from the dock or reopen the window and select "quit 'x' app." Underneath the dock there is a circular light informing you that the app is still open. This experience, while it is petty, has caused slight grief. I was use to the absolutism of closing the program the first time by clicking 'X.'
Wow. I could see this being a pain in the butt when we're used to just clicking on 'Close Window' and we're done.
Are you guys sure that switching is really "worth it"? (serious question)
Hmm? I'm not really sure what this means. Can you explain?
When you close a window via the famous "X" to the top left of the window, technically it is not closed, as you must officially close the window from the dock or reopen the window and select "quit 'x' app." Underneath the dock there is a circular light informing you that the app is still open. This experience, while it is petty, has caused slight grief. I was use to the absolutism of closing the program the first time by clicking 'X.'
Wow. I could see this being a pain in the butt when we're used to just clicking on 'Close Window' and we're done.
Are you guys sure that switching is really "worth it"? (serious question)
dextertangocci
Sep 12, 04:14 PM
What is up with that price???:confused: :eek:
Is it a mistake?!?!?
It is SO cheap!
Is it a mistake?!?!?
It is SO cheap!
franswa za
Apr 9, 02:38 AM
Apple will buy Nintendo eventually.
It's over for Nintendo.
Get ready for the iwii
+1
and the ipipi
:D
It's over for Nintendo.
Get ready for the iwii
+1
and the ipipi
:D
TraceyS/FL
Oct 7, 03:12 PM
Apple already seems to have lost some parts of the European market with the 3GS because they didn't add the features that are frequently used there (like HSUPA, (r)SAP, etc.). For example GFK numbers showed that the Android based HTC Hero outsold the 3GS in Germany.
I have no clue if this is true, BUT, this is what Apple needs to deal with. Cell phones are cut-throat, and certain areas demand certain features. If you are going to compete globally and long term, you need to be ready to play ball.
Which means, looking at what is coming from your competitors and matching them with features, not relying on the user experience. And a year is huge in phone life cycle.
Otherwise, give up on the PHONE and concentrate on the Touch... let the phone follow it. A Touch with a phone if you want it.
I don't think we are going to see a drop in data charges anywhere though.... even if it comes to Verizon in the US. Everyone charges mostly the same thing...
I have no clue if this is true, BUT, this is what Apple needs to deal with. Cell phones are cut-throat, and certain areas demand certain features. If you are going to compete globally and long term, you need to be ready to play ball.
Which means, looking at what is coming from your competitors and matching them with features, not relying on the user experience. And a year is huge in phone life cycle.
Otherwise, give up on the PHONE and concentrate on the Touch... let the phone follow it. A Touch with a phone if you want it.
I don't think we are going to see a drop in data charges anywhere though.... even if it comes to Verizon in the US. Everyone charges mostly the same thing...
peharri
Sep 20, 11:58 AM
That's pretty much my question too. The iTV is a mini without DVD, storage, OS, or advanced interface? I guess I just don't see a market for this at $300. Waste of time, unless I'm missing something.
Well, it isn't "without storage", it has storage.
It's fairly simple: it's a Set Top Box. It's another one, to add to your DVD player, cable box, and DVR. Well, I say "add to", but actually, you'll probably not need them. What is does is show whatever Quicktime will show that's accessable via iTunes.
- That means anything on the iTunes Store
- It means anything in your .Mac storage.
- It means anything on your network, if you have one, that's exported via an iTunes Library.
You'll go home after work, pick up the remote, and maybe you'll:
- Buy a movie and watch it.
- (Rent a movie and watch it, assuming Apple eventually supports the idea, or someone else finds a way to interface to it)
- Watch a new episode of a TV show you subscribe to
- Watch a free pilot of a show you're interested in.
- Listen to a streamed radio station
- Watch a subscribed-to video blog or browse other blogs, and watch them
- Watch that highly amusing rip from "America's Funniest Videos" that your friend told you to watch, from Google Video, or other Google video clips.
What will be available? Anything you want. As this becomes more and more popular, more and more content will become available. Expect CNN news to be just as available as episodes from ABC mini-serieses.
How will you get it? Over your $25/month broadband connection. Which you'd have anyway for web and email.
That's how you use it. For many people, cable, as a "just put on background noise and forget it" medium, will still rule. For others, such as myself, the prospect of TV built for me, rather than advertisers, is more compelling.
I think it's awesome.
Well, it isn't "without storage", it has storage.
It's fairly simple: it's a Set Top Box. It's another one, to add to your DVD player, cable box, and DVR. Well, I say "add to", but actually, you'll probably not need them. What is does is show whatever Quicktime will show that's accessable via iTunes.
- That means anything on the iTunes Store
- It means anything in your .Mac storage.
- It means anything on your network, if you have one, that's exported via an iTunes Library.
You'll go home after work, pick up the remote, and maybe you'll:
- Buy a movie and watch it.
- (Rent a movie and watch it, assuming Apple eventually supports the idea, or someone else finds a way to interface to it)
- Watch a new episode of a TV show you subscribe to
- Watch a free pilot of a show you're interested in.
- Listen to a streamed radio station
- Watch a subscribed-to video blog or browse other blogs, and watch them
- Watch that highly amusing rip from "America's Funniest Videos" that your friend told you to watch, from Google Video, or other Google video clips.
What will be available? Anything you want. As this becomes more and more popular, more and more content will become available. Expect CNN news to be just as available as episodes from ABC mini-serieses.
How will you get it? Over your $25/month broadband connection. Which you'd have anyway for web and email.
That's how you use it. For many people, cable, as a "just put on background noise and forget it" medium, will still rule. For others, such as myself, the prospect of TV built for me, rather than advertisers, is more compelling.
I think it's awesome.
blindzero
May 5, 05:49 PM
I'm just outside of DC and don't have any issues with dropped calls or missed voicemails.
I did when I was on Edge, but since 3G it's been great.
Call quality on the other hand wildly variesfrom unbearable to decent sometimes within the same call.
I did when I was on Edge, but since 3G it's been great.
Call quality on the other hand wildly variesfrom unbearable to decent sometimes within the same call.
NathanMuir
Mar 25, 01:37 PM
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
All Christians are not Catholics. ;)
That's the only item I was trying to 'underscore' so to speak.
Christians cannot be used interchangeably with Catholics. By using the term 'Christians' one includes a multitude of other peoples with varying religious beliefs.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
And if one goes back and reads the entire exchange, one would see that I used that term so that Appleguy123 could not go find some obscure article on some obscure Catholic sect that murders Homosexuals for fun, a sect that the mainstream governing body of the Catholic church does not endorse nor have control over.
As I understand it, the Vatican is the mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic church. Is there another hierarchy that governs the Catholic church?
This is a thread on the Vatican's position regarding homosexuality and homosexual marriage, not violence, correct? Please correct me if that's not right.
And...?
IIRC, you're the one that introduced a timeline and then could not prove what link(s) at all it had with the topic of violence and Catholicism. IIRC, you're also the one that made up a statistic about how many of the offenses on the list were by 'Christians', not even Catholics. IIRC, you're also the one that attempted to introduce the umbrella term of 'Christians' as a synonym for Catholics (which it is not).
All Christians are not Catholics. ;)
That's the only item I was trying to 'underscore' so to speak.
Christians cannot be used interchangeably with Catholics. By using the term 'Christians' one includes a multitude of other peoples with varying religious beliefs.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
And if one goes back and reads the entire exchange, one would see that I used that term so that Appleguy123 could not go find some obscure article on some obscure Catholic sect that murders Homosexuals for fun, a sect that the mainstream governing body of the Catholic church does not endorse nor have control over.
As I understand it, the Vatican is the mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic church. Is there another hierarchy that governs the Catholic church?
This is a thread on the Vatican's position regarding homosexuality and homosexual marriage, not violence, correct? Please correct me if that's not right.
And...?
IIRC, you're the one that introduced a timeline and then could not prove what link(s) at all it had with the topic of violence and Catholicism. IIRC, you're also the one that made up a statistic about how many of the offenses on the list were by 'Christians', not even Catholics. IIRC, you're also the one that attempted to introduce the umbrella term of 'Christians' as a synonym for Catholics (which it is not).
dante@sisna.com
Oct 26, 11:28 AM
Wow. You must be using some uber version of PS.
I havent managed to break 110% whatever I am doing with my MP.
You have the CS 3 or 4?
Ooooh..
Have you tought that that might be the reason for the high cpu usage? Eh? By any coincidence?
No -- WE DO THIS KIND OF WORK EVERYDAY. We are a production lab with a 20 year history. We have used Photoshop in Isolation on multiple One Gig Files using Actions to process as many as 40 files at one -- so nearly 40 Gig.
Run an RGB to CMYK conversion on a 1 Gig Photoshop file with embedded profiles -- watch activity monitor. See that all four processors kick in for this processes. Many Photoshop processes efficiently use all four processors.
Besides the main point of the original post is that users don't see much improvement with Quad Cores --- this is just plain WRONG.
I havent managed to break 110% whatever I am doing with my MP.
You have the CS 3 or 4?
Ooooh..
Have you tought that that might be the reason for the high cpu usage? Eh? By any coincidence?
No -- WE DO THIS KIND OF WORK EVERYDAY. We are a production lab with a 20 year history. We have used Photoshop in Isolation on multiple One Gig Files using Actions to process as many as 40 files at one -- so nearly 40 Gig.
Run an RGB to CMYK conversion on a 1 Gig Photoshop file with embedded profiles -- watch activity monitor. See that all four processors kick in for this processes. Many Photoshop processes efficiently use all four processors.
Besides the main point of the original post is that users don't see much improvement with Quad Cores --- this is just plain WRONG.
r1ch4rd
Apr 22, 10:39 PM
Would it make a difference if a huge portion of what you've been exposed to, regarding religion/Christianity, was fundamentally incorrect? For example, there's no such place as hellfire; nobody is going to burn forever. Everybody isn't going to heaven; people will live right here on the earth. If you learned that a huge portion of those really crazy doctrines were simply wrong, would it cause you to view Christianity/religion differently?
I was thinking about this after appleguy123 mentioned the idea of hellfire. My initial thought is that the heaven/hell idea is boring! It's so much less interesting and inspiring than what really happens to you. The processes and work and how every living being fits into the ecosystem is just amazing. I think the idea that this has evolved over millions of years is just brilliant. Science adds such wonder to the world. The majesty of god has nothing on this!
I also love the idea that anybody can challenge an idea and change the way everybody thinks. How dull would it be if we just accepted everything at face value (ie. God did it!)?
I was thinking about this after appleguy123 mentioned the idea of hellfire. My initial thought is that the heaven/hell idea is boring! It's so much less interesting and inspiring than what really happens to you. The processes and work and how every living being fits into the ecosystem is just amazing. I think the idea that this has evolved over millions of years is just brilliant. Science adds such wonder to the world. The majesty of god has nothing on this!
I also love the idea that anybody can challenge an idea and change the way everybody thinks. How dull would it be if we just accepted everything at face value (ie. God did it!)?
Edge100
Apr 15, 11:59 AM
No but hold on a second. I don't know what scientific evidence has to say about something like morality. It may certainly be that sexuality is immutable. But if you're referring to my quote from the Catechism (and I lost track)... that doesn't say homosexuals are required to change their sexuality.
Nope; it says that they are required to deny their sexuality; to deny who they really are.
And if the argument goes that they have to deny their sexuality because they aren't married (just as non-married heterosexual people do), well isn't that grand: you've also denied them the right to marry. Why do you do that, pray tell? Because the invisible creator the universe told you that only men and women may marry.
That's a nice little roundabout way of making you feel better for your discrimination, isn't it?
Nope; it says that they are required to deny their sexuality; to deny who they really are.
And if the argument goes that they have to deny their sexuality because they aren't married (just as non-married heterosexual people do), well isn't that grand: you've also denied them the right to marry. Why do you do that, pray tell? Because the invisible creator the universe told you that only men and women may marry.
That's a nice little roundabout way of making you feel better for your discrimination, isn't it?
maxspivak
Sep 12, 04:00 PM
This device eliminates the need to burn discs for video and makes it easier to view content - however acquired - that's already on your computer. Bravo. Simple.
But at what quality??? Q1 2007 is as late as end of March. HD-DVD came out in April and BluRay in -- what -- May? So almost a year later Apple introduces a device that will play *near* (i.e. lower than) DVD-quality when the market is finally warming up to HD quality disks.
Regular DVD is 480i. Say that near-dvd quality is 420i. It will look like crap on that "big screen plasma" Jobs talked about.
He's marketing it to someone who will plug it into a $5K+ TV. At that price point, give us HD playback, both optical and streaming/downloaded, legally. I'd be happy to pay double or triple for a box that does it smoothly.
But at what quality??? Q1 2007 is as late as end of March. HD-DVD came out in April and BluRay in -- what -- May? So almost a year later Apple introduces a device that will play *near* (i.e. lower than) DVD-quality when the market is finally warming up to HD quality disks.
Regular DVD is 480i. Say that near-dvd quality is 420i. It will look like crap on that "big screen plasma" Jobs talked about.
He's marketing it to someone who will plug it into a $5K+ TV. At that price point, give us HD playback, both optical and streaming/downloaded, legally. I'd be happy to pay double or triple for a box that does it smoothly.
PeckhamBog
Apr 20, 05:12 PM
It's interesting how Apple seem to put the customer (and the customer's experience) first and profit big time in the process.
Note to self - note the above.
Note to self - note the above.
iJohnHenry
Apr 23, 07:44 PM
But this doesn't answer the question at all.
Apple users question. Atheists/Agnostics question.
You see a trend yet?
Apple users question. Atheists/Agnostics question.
You see a trend yet?
latergator116
Mar 20, 06:15 PM
Therein lay the problem. Most people are using the music illegally.
The record industry is right.
In your own analogy of Joe Public burning a track on his wedding video.
Guess what? when he distributes those copies to wedding guests he breaks the law.
It's illegal for him to do that. It is stealing. He pirated it.
The problem is we have become so used to stealing that we don't recognize it as such anymore. We justify it away.
Almost no one would even consider it to be wrong if they bought a cd copied it and gave it to their friends. It is wrong. It's stealing/pirating.
It is wrong? How so? If I burn a track for my wedding video, yes, I'm technically breakeing the law, but there is nothing immoral about doing that. No one is losing out on any money. No one is being hurt. He isn't stealing anything. He's breaking a copyright law that makes no sense in that case.
The record industry is right.
In your own analogy of Joe Public burning a track on his wedding video.
Guess what? when he distributes those copies to wedding guests he breaks the law.
It's illegal for him to do that. It is stealing. He pirated it.
The problem is we have become so used to stealing that we don't recognize it as such anymore. We justify it away.
Almost no one would even consider it to be wrong if they bought a cd copied it and gave it to their friends. It is wrong. It's stealing/pirating.
It is wrong? How so? If I burn a track for my wedding video, yes, I'm technically breakeing the law, but there is nothing immoral about doing that. No one is losing out on any money. No one is being hurt. He isn't stealing anything. He's breaking a copyright law that makes no sense in that case.
strabes
May 2, 04:05 PM
I despise the "X is a file downloaded from the Internet" dialog introduced in SL. Really wish you could disable it.
http://www.macworld.com/article/145324/2010/01/filewarnings.html
Basically just run this:
defaults write com.apple.LaunchServices LSQuarantine -bool NO
http://www.macworld.com/article/145324/2010/01/filewarnings.html
Basically just run this:
defaults write com.apple.LaunchServices LSQuarantine -bool NO
archipellago
May 2, 04:47 PM
Really? Find a source that makes the statements you suggest above that is unbiased. By unbiased, I mean a source that doesn't sell vulnerabilities to ZDI which then produces and markets specific hardware security appliances to generate revenue.
Hooking the APIs to log protected passwords in Mac OS X requires privilege escalation.
unbiased as opposed to a Mac site.... yeah right!
Mac users tend to be a better target for old fashioned phishing/vishing because...well, 'nothing bad happens on a Mac..' right?
Hooking the APIs to log protected passwords in Mac OS X requires privilege escalation.
unbiased as opposed to a Mac site.... yeah right!
Mac users tend to be a better target for old fashioned phishing/vishing because...well, 'nothing bad happens on a Mac..' right?
mattwolfmatt
May 5, 10:43 AM
Every time it happens (I seem to get a string of dropped calls about once a month) I call ATT customer support. They talk as if this is unheard of and "we'll get this fixed right away". So far they have replaced my SIM card for free; they said the next step is a new phone.
I was hoping for a reduction in monthly price. We'll see.
I was hoping for a reduction in monthly price. We'll see.
alexdrinan
Sep 12, 04:18 PM
It's already there they call it export to iPod.
Well there you go. But I assume it's converting the video to the low res format that the ipod can play. Do they have an export option that keeps it at the same quality it was recorded at?
Well there you go. But I assume it's converting the video to the low res format that the ipod can play. Do they have an export option that keeps it at the same quality it was recorded at?
Apple 26.2
Apr 15, 04:09 PM
Whatever differences exist, you'll get used to them.
tbrinkma
Apr 28, 08:27 AM
Right, but how is that not a fad? By definition, it doesn't matter how said fad ends, it simply means that it's overall existence is temporary.
I agree that it it was replaced by newer technology that does more, but it still was a fad in the end.
By that definition, the internal combustion engine is nothing but a fad. I think maybe you're just not familiar with what the word "fad" actually means Check it out: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fad
I agree that it it was replaced by newer technology that does more, but it still was a fad in the end.
By that definition, the internal combustion engine is nothing but a fad. I think maybe you're just not familiar with what the word "fad" actually means Check it out: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fad
BJNY
Nov 1, 05:14 PM
If one follows the link,
the cooler Clovertons are much lower GHz.
the cooler Clovertons are much lower GHz.
mrwalker
Aug 29, 12:39 PM
As a Norwegian I can say that Apple has way more credibility than Greenpeace over here. We have seen what they are all about. Greenpeace is a bunch of spoiled city kids that has no idea what nature is.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق