Cachiro
Apr 6, 04:10 PM
There is one thing some people don't see, this is one company against an entire army of companies & this one company is doing a hole lot better. Apple will alway be on top when it comes to all this type of gadget get over it people and by the way, I always thought this was Mac rumor forum.
Maybe they should change there name :apple: :D
Maybe they should change there name :apple: :D
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 11, 06:49 PM
Confused.
Can somebody explain me the differences between the cellphone market between the US and Europe.
Will a 'iPhone' just be marketed to the US or worldwide (as the iPod does)?
C.:confused:
The biggest difference would be that in europe we use GSM-system (900 Mhz and 1800Mhz) whereas US use both CDMA and GSM (850MHz and 1900Mhz)
A typical triband GSM phone enables you to call more or less all over the world whereas a CDMA is more or less restricted to use it in US and some countries in Asia. CDMA and GSM are two incompatible system like windows and OSX, i.e they dont "speak" with each other. One difference you notice as a user is that GSM phones has a SIM card which more or less is your identity. That is, if you have an unlocked cellphone you can change operators whenever you feel like it. This is not possible with CDMA cellphones.
Celphones are also much more common in europe and the "typical" cellphone user is not that tied up to an operator as a "typical" US user. Carriers in europe don't cripple the phones like some do in US.
I am sure there are man more differences, but these were the only that came to my mind right now.
Can somebody explain me the differences between the cellphone market between the US and Europe.
Will a 'iPhone' just be marketed to the US or worldwide (as the iPod does)?
C.:confused:
The biggest difference would be that in europe we use GSM-system (900 Mhz and 1800Mhz) whereas US use both CDMA and GSM (850MHz and 1900Mhz)
A typical triband GSM phone enables you to call more or less all over the world whereas a CDMA is more or less restricted to use it in US and some countries in Asia. CDMA and GSM are two incompatible system like windows and OSX, i.e they dont "speak" with each other. One difference you notice as a user is that GSM phones has a SIM card which more or less is your identity. That is, if you have an unlocked cellphone you can change operators whenever you feel like it. This is not possible with CDMA cellphones.
Celphones are also much more common in europe and the "typical" cellphone user is not that tied up to an operator as a "typical" US user. Carriers in europe don't cripple the phones like some do in US.
I am sure there are man more differences, but these were the only that came to my mind right now.
Eidorian
Aug 27, 09:50 AM
Are you sure that discount applies to the NEW Merom based Macs - I don't think so?The Mac Pro was added into the Major In Mac promo. Considering it was released 2 months after the promo started.
Kelmon
Aug 27, 05:11 AM
Arrgh! The anticipation! While I'd like to be able to hold off on a new laptop until Santa Rosa and a supporting MacBook Pro hits the market I can't. My old Ti PowerBook is way too slow these days and it will be replaced by the first 17" Merom-based MacBook Pro that Apple releases. While there's a few things that I'd like to see updated in the new models beyond the processor, I think my #1 will be 4GB RAM limit (2GB is fine for one OS but I want to be running OS X and Windows side-by-side at work) and #2 will be an updated GPU.
It will certainly be interesting to see what happens next week (personally, I'm not expecting an announcement, but hey, I'm happy to be wrong) and it will nicely coincide with the finances becoming available for the muther of all portable Macs. As long as the new one doesn't have any QA or design issues, I'll be as happy as a pig in ****...
It will certainly be interesting to see what happens next week (personally, I'm not expecting an announcement, but hey, I'm happy to be wrong) and it will nicely coincide with the finances becoming available for the muther of all portable Macs. As long as the new one doesn't have any QA or design issues, I'll be as happy as a pig in ****...
inkswamp
Jul 28, 04:34 AM
gnasher729, thanks for taking the time to explain that. I had to read it twice, but I get it.
So it seems that in many ways we're getting the best of the G5 and the best of Intel with the Core 2 Duo chips. As these kinds of things unfold, Apple's decision to switch to Intel chips makes more and more sense. They probably knew where Intel was going. Interesting.
So it seems that in many ways we're getting the best of the G5 and the best of Intel with the Core 2 Duo chips. As these kinds of things unfold, Apple's decision to switch to Intel chips makes more and more sense. They probably knew where Intel was going. Interesting.
Object-X
Aug 26, 05:44 PM
Anyone know of benchmarks comparing the core duo with the core 2 duo?
Blue Velvet
Mar 23, 06:11 AM
Libya is more like Bosnia than Iraq. A moment of force has the potential to change the scope of the conflict, hopefully for the positive, in a way that a full-blown invasion would merely complicate. That's the central part that fivepoint, who is merely interested in making another partisan screed, is ignoring.
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
dejunky
Apr 6, 03:41 PM
What is the obsession with back-lit keys?
Do you actually look at the keyboard when you're typing?
Yes.
Do you actually look at the keyboard when you're typing?
Yes.
bibbz
Jun 9, 07:34 PM
Bibbz,
I have a couple questions.. I want to preorder with radioshack. I am NOT the primary account holder, but I am an authorized user. I also know the last 4 digits of the account holders social. Will this be a problem when picking up the phone?
I also have a FAN account. Will these be a problem?
FAN account isnt an issue.
At the shack we can only do an upgrade or add a line if the account holder is in the store. Some stores will do it, bc physically the computer will let us, but we are not supposed to.
I have a couple questions.. I want to preorder with radioshack. I am NOT the primary account holder, but I am an authorized user. I also know the last 4 digits of the account holders social. Will this be a problem when picking up the phone?
I also have a FAN account. Will these be a problem?
FAN account isnt an issue.
At the shack we can only do an upgrade or add a line if the account holder is in the store. Some stores will do it, bc physically the computer will let us, but we are not supposed to.
VanNess
Aug 5, 05:52 PM
As far as I'm concerned, my interest in WWDC rumor mongering is closed. Now that we're in the final weekend, there's too much potential for bogus, wild info from anonymous but suddenly "in the know" sources that will get a kick out seeing false info entertained in sites like this.
Insofar as all of the present rumors/claims combined, there just isn't enough there to justify the amount of "to be announced" sessions for developers that are on the WWDC event schedule, and it isn't likely they are Intel/Universal Binary-related (that particular cat is obviously already out of the bag), so at this point I have no idea what Leopard will bring. All bets are still off.
And what's this nonsense from Thinksecret?
A release date for Leopard is not expected at WWDC and it appears unlikely that the operating system will ship by the close of based on its current development status, sources say.
Well, they certainly aren't going to give an exact day and time of release, but you don't have to be "in the know" to understand that they are going to give a time frame for it's release (i.e., first quarter 07 or first half 07), as they typically do. Common sense tells you that. What's Jobs supposed to say? "Oh, I don't know. Not sure when we are going to release it. But we'll definitely get around to it one of these days."
My guess is that it won't happen until 07, about the same time frame Tiger was released. Although Apple may finish it's hardware transition for the present generation of machines come Monday, Universal Binaries are still very much in progress. Throwing in major new OS changes, new API's etc., courtesy of Leopard on top of the existing Universal Binary transition efforts isn't likely to sit well with developers if the release date for Leopard is too soon - as in by the end of the year. Risks developers either throttling back on UB support or support for whatever goodies that are new in Leopard. And by the looks of the number of yet to be announced sessions at WWDC, there may quite a number of new goodies.
With Microsoft's Vista constantly trying to steer it's way out of oblivion, in this case time is on Apple's side.
Insofar as all of the present rumors/claims combined, there just isn't enough there to justify the amount of "to be announced" sessions for developers that are on the WWDC event schedule, and it isn't likely they are Intel/Universal Binary-related (that particular cat is obviously already out of the bag), so at this point I have no idea what Leopard will bring. All bets are still off.
And what's this nonsense from Thinksecret?
A release date for Leopard is not expected at WWDC and it appears unlikely that the operating system will ship by the close of based on its current development status, sources say.
Well, they certainly aren't going to give an exact day and time of release, but you don't have to be "in the know" to understand that they are going to give a time frame for it's release (i.e., first quarter 07 or first half 07), as they typically do. Common sense tells you that. What's Jobs supposed to say? "Oh, I don't know. Not sure when we are going to release it. But we'll definitely get around to it one of these days."
My guess is that it won't happen until 07, about the same time frame Tiger was released. Although Apple may finish it's hardware transition for the present generation of machines come Monday, Universal Binaries are still very much in progress. Throwing in major new OS changes, new API's etc., courtesy of Leopard on top of the existing Universal Binary transition efforts isn't likely to sit well with developers if the release date for Leopard is too soon - as in by the end of the year. Risks developers either throttling back on UB support or support for whatever goodies that are new in Leopard. And by the looks of the number of yet to be announced sessions at WWDC, there may quite a number of new goodies.
With Microsoft's Vista constantly trying to steer it's way out of oblivion, in this case time is on Apple's side.
Miles Davis
Sep 19, 04:26 AM
Perhaps I didn't read this already, but has anyone thought that the reason Macbooks are pushed back is because Apple seems to be having serious problems with their Random Shutting Down? Computers are still out on repair for lots of people, they might be waiting for a new heatsicnk or logic board. I know I have to bring mine in for repair when i get back to the states...
obeygiant
Apr 27, 09:51 AM
I was once proud of the Trump Tower here in Chicago. Now I'd like to see it burned to the ground.
What are you, a terrorist? lol
What are you, a terrorist? lol
Ladybug
Aug 7, 06:28 PM
If you were picking on Mail.app's Stationery I'd probably agree with you.
None of the things that Time Machine have been compared to seem even close to what they are planning to do. Including my own VMS file versioning analogies. System Restore is not capable of restoring a single file, and particularly not within a running application. It seems kind of more like a system wide undo function when it comes to files...
B
Norton's GoBack, which was purchased from some other company, has a similar feature for restoring single files. This isn't quite the same thing, but the whole concept isn't entirely new. GoBack was introduced well before Microsoft came out with System Restore... That said, I think its a great feature to include and I'm sure I'll find many uses for it.
None of the things that Time Machine have been compared to seem even close to what they are planning to do. Including my own VMS file versioning analogies. System Restore is not capable of restoring a single file, and particularly not within a running application. It seems kind of more like a system wide undo function when it comes to files...
B
Norton's GoBack, which was purchased from some other company, has a similar feature for restoring single files. This isn't quite the same thing, but the whole concept isn't entirely new. GoBack was introduced well before Microsoft came out with System Restore... That said, I think its a great feature to include and I'm sure I'll find many uses for it.
Blue Velvet
Mar 23, 04:03 PM
Is it your position that Libya represents a larger danger to American assets/security than Iraq?
American assets and security are deeply entwined with Nato. An emboldened Gaddafi would encourage the continued use of repression across the region, thus destabilising it even more. He would also probably renew his threats towards the West, bearing in mind the downing of Pan Am Flight 103. Gaddafi was also actively and genuinely pursuing weapons of mass destruction until the Gulf War bought him to heel.
These are just a few reasons that immediately come to mind from someone with only a surface reading of media that aren't parroting the conservative line, you should try it some time. I'm sure those who know more about the geopolitics of the region can outline more...
Why you keep on referring to Iraq when the scale of action in scope of resources and time isn't remotely on the size of the Iraq invasion, is a complete mystery. If you're attempting to make this Obama's 'Iraq' folly, then you will fail. This will be off the front pages of US papers in terms of US engagement within a week or two.
As for asking why not North Korea, I'm staggered you could even make a nonsensical comparison. A nuclear-armed nation bordering China?
"It is in America’s national interests to participate . . . because no one has a bigger stake in making sure that there are basic rules of the road that are observed, that there is some semblance of order and justice, particularly in a volatile region that’s going through great changes," Obama said
http://www.boston.com/news/world/africa/articles/2011/03/23/obama_insists_actions_in_libya_serve_us_interests/
Translated: Above all, we want an arc of governmental and societal stability from North Africa to Afghanistan in order to protect oil supplies and our commitments to Israel.
What I personally expect is people to stand on principles, and not on parties. What I expect is that people live their lives in a honorable way and present a consistent philosophy.
Even though that philosophy might be bereft of any factual basis? You have an important lesson in life ahead of you:
When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
American assets and security are deeply entwined with Nato. An emboldened Gaddafi would encourage the continued use of repression across the region, thus destabilising it even more. He would also probably renew his threats towards the West, bearing in mind the downing of Pan Am Flight 103. Gaddafi was also actively and genuinely pursuing weapons of mass destruction until the Gulf War bought him to heel.
These are just a few reasons that immediately come to mind from someone with only a surface reading of media that aren't parroting the conservative line, you should try it some time. I'm sure those who know more about the geopolitics of the region can outline more...
Why you keep on referring to Iraq when the scale of action in scope of resources and time isn't remotely on the size of the Iraq invasion, is a complete mystery. If you're attempting to make this Obama's 'Iraq' folly, then you will fail. This will be off the front pages of US papers in terms of US engagement within a week or two.
As for asking why not North Korea, I'm staggered you could even make a nonsensical comparison. A nuclear-armed nation bordering China?
"It is in America’s national interests to participate . . . because no one has a bigger stake in making sure that there are basic rules of the road that are observed, that there is some semblance of order and justice, particularly in a volatile region that’s going through great changes," Obama said
http://www.boston.com/news/world/africa/articles/2011/03/23/obama_insists_actions_in_libya_serve_us_interests/
Translated: Above all, we want an arc of governmental and societal stability from North Africa to Afghanistan in order to protect oil supplies and our commitments to Israel.
What I personally expect is people to stand on principles, and not on parties. What I expect is that people live their lives in a honorable way and present a consistent philosophy.
Even though that philosophy might be bereft of any factual basis? You have an important lesson in life ahead of you:
When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
RedTomato
Sep 13, 08:49 AM
Who knows, the hot setup may be a refurb'ed MacPro 2.0Ghz, then drop in better CPUs!
Damn, yes, that would be the ultimate future hot machine - a second hand or refurb Mac Pro 2ghz, - I reckon by October they will about �1200 second hand, then in the new year, down to about �800, get one, then pop in 2 x 4 cores.
Anyone know if the chipset will be pin-compatible with the next generation quad-cores?
Seems we are stuck as far as increasing MHZ goes, 3ghz seems to be near the realistic limit. Now we're just adding more and more cores in. How many cores will be the feasible limit?
After that, what will be the next method of radically increasing computing throughput?
Damn, yes, that would be the ultimate future hot machine - a second hand or refurb Mac Pro 2ghz, - I reckon by October they will about �1200 second hand, then in the new year, down to about �800, get one, then pop in 2 x 4 cores.
Anyone know if the chipset will be pin-compatible with the next generation quad-cores?
Seems we are stuck as far as increasing MHZ goes, 3ghz seems to be near the realistic limit. Now we're just adding more and more cores in. How many cores will be the feasible limit?
After that, what will be the next method of radically increasing computing throughput?
joecool85
Jul 27, 09:41 AM
Yay! Chips that don't suck and are fast! (I hate P4s)
62tele
Mar 31, 05:19 PM
Good. I hope they take one of the last strengths of the iPad ecosystem away from it.
I thought your post was stupid and full of vitriol. Then I read your tag line and considered your level of intellect!
I thought your post was stupid and full of vitriol. Then I read your tag line and considered your level of intellect!
Eidorian
Mar 26, 10:25 AM
I will wait to see what Spotlight is like.
kdarling
Apr 27, 09:52 AM
Incorrect - it's not tracking your direct location as you assert.
For instance, when you're visiting "Harry's Sex Shop and under the counter Heroin sales" it doesn't track that you're actually at that business.
Depends.
Someone could infer that info, if the cell cache says that around 2am you visited the town Harry's is in, and it's the only store open at that time.
:)
For instance, when you're visiting "Harry's Sex Shop and under the counter Heroin sales" it doesn't track that you're actually at that business.
Depends.
Someone could infer that info, if the cell cache says that around 2am you visited the town Harry's is in, and it's the only store open at that time.
:)
SevenInchScrew
Dec 9, 06:38 PM
GT5 is a game for people who love cars. Not people who only love fast cars. People who love all cars.
But, I DO love all types of cars. I just don't think they all have a place in a RACING game.
I'm sure you'd be happy if everyone started with a Zonda in their garage, but for people who like to drive something fresh and fun the exhaustive list in GT5 is perfect.
The game doesn't have to be only 700hp exotics, that isn't what I'm saying. There have been PLENTY of wildly varied cars throughout history that would be fun to drive, on a track, in a racing game. The VW K�belwagen and Citro�n DS, for example, aren't some of them.
But, I DO love all types of cars. I just don't think they all have a place in a RACING game.
I'm sure you'd be happy if everyone started with a Zonda in their garage, but for people who like to drive something fresh and fun the exhaustive list in GT5 is perfect.
The game doesn't have to be only 700hp exotics, that isn't what I'm saying. There have been PLENTY of wildly varied cars throughout history that would be fun to drive, on a track, in a racing game. The VW K�belwagen and Citro�n DS, for example, aren't some of them.
spencers
Jun 15, 02:29 PM
So did I! She called me and gave me my pin 24000000xxxxx.
Neat, I'm 22000000xxxxx
Neat, I'm 22000000xxxxx
GoodWatch
Apr 6, 02:16 PM
Topics like this one are just a showcase for Apple's dominating brilliance (but they don't need this) and a watering hole for Apple fanboys. Buzzwords: Apple great, competition crappy and MS :p
SuperCachetes
Mar 22, 06:53 PM
Oh yeah... and here's a fun little nugget for those who like to tout Obama's coalition:
Here's a little fun little nugget for those who say "Obama's just Bush all over again."
UN Resolution 1441 (2002) was drafted by the US and UK, and presented at the UN by Bush.
UN Resolution 1973 (2011) was drafted by France, Lebanon, and the UK, and not presented by the US.
Like you, I would rather us not be involved at all - but we hardly have quite the same hand in this latest business as we did when we went WMD-hunting...
Here's a little fun little nugget for those who say "Obama's just Bush all over again."
UN Resolution 1441 (2002) was drafted by the US and UK, and presented at the UN by Bush.
UN Resolution 1973 (2011) was drafted by France, Lebanon, and the UK, and not presented by the US.
Like you, I would rather us not be involved at all - but we hardly have quite the same hand in this latest business as we did when we went WMD-hunting...
raymondso
Sep 19, 09:18 AM
0710 PDT - no updates yet - keep counting :-(
1:40 to go :p
1:40 to go :p