pdjudd
Oct 7, 04:57 PM
Have you actually READ the link you posted?
Times have changed a bit since then, you know ...
Yes, I have. Several times. Things have changed, but the base premise of the article still applies - Microsoft Got Lucky - there is no way to suggest that Apple can pull that off in this day in age when the world depends too much on Microsoft. The article deals with past actions affecting the present. Its very relevant. Its point is that MS got successful because of how it parlayed successes over time, not because it embraced an "open strategy". They did that years ago. Read the whole thing. Grueber makes a point that still applies today because marketshare in the OS world has changed very little.
Due to Apple's grown popularity (if not ubiquity) it can be safely assumed that quite a few more people would install Mac OS if it were officially supported on non-Mac hardware. A highly significant number of people? Good question. To Apple's benefit? Probably not.
Popularity is irrelevant. Going up against Microsoft is suicide. Period. Their market share is too large and Apple's success is too dependent on hardware sales. Microsoft's objective is to rule the roost. They did that way back in the early 90's and they are too well entrenched to be taken out directly. They are just too big. You are simply conjecturing without any basis in reality. Apple tried the cloning market and it failed because people by in large do not want to undertake the massive pains to go to a completely different platform without somewhat of a safety platform. People want Windows because the stuff they run on depend on it. Thant and competing with Microsoft directly is a folly - going up against MS is going to be very bloody. You have better luck elephant hunting with a pea shooter.
Take a look at any other market that involves hardware and software. The article makes a good point about video games. They are totally incompatible with each other and are very closed systems. They remain successful because they can take one success and transition it to another - like the Mario franchise. MS did the same thing with computers years ago (with the objective of being really lucky thanks to boneheaded decisions by IBM). Apple did not. Of course Apple's objectives were far different back then, but Apple operates differently than MS does.
While Apple could get a few more customers, it just wouldn't last. There is no reason to think that it would or that they could sustain it. Its about making a good choice.
You cannot say that Apple's market strategy would gain them more money from copying MS business strategy, you just can't because they aren't the same. You cannot make a flawed assumption and think that Microsoft got achieved success by doing things the way the market was meant to be. They didn't. Microsoft got real lucky and rode on the coat tails of IBM business mentality and got massive market share because of that - way back in the 80's. That's just how things ended up. Doesn't mean that it works that way all the time and there is no reason to suggest that Apple is gonna want to chance it.
At this point in the game Microsoft has won - Jobs has admitted that years ago. Microsoft makes billions from the business market that by in large has no interest in making a risky and expensive change that going to Mac entails. Microsoft provides a very prediction, safe route that has massive industry support. Apple would have needed this kind of success really early on - but back in that day, they were adopting practices that were fundamentally different.
It doesn't matter that Apple's system is better - the lions share of the market made their choice years ago and that market doesn't tolerate direct competition. In Microsoft's world - they are the only game in town. And I say that the reason is that Apple is still around because they don't encroach into Microsoft's big markets. They don't license their software out to Microsoft's partners, they don't sell office software to PC's. There is a reason - Microsoft is far too big.
Times have changed a bit since then, you know ...
Yes, I have. Several times. Things have changed, but the base premise of the article still applies - Microsoft Got Lucky - there is no way to suggest that Apple can pull that off in this day in age when the world depends too much on Microsoft. The article deals with past actions affecting the present. Its very relevant. Its point is that MS got successful because of how it parlayed successes over time, not because it embraced an "open strategy". They did that years ago. Read the whole thing. Grueber makes a point that still applies today because marketshare in the OS world has changed very little.
Due to Apple's grown popularity (if not ubiquity) it can be safely assumed that quite a few more people would install Mac OS if it were officially supported on non-Mac hardware. A highly significant number of people? Good question. To Apple's benefit? Probably not.
Popularity is irrelevant. Going up against Microsoft is suicide. Period. Their market share is too large and Apple's success is too dependent on hardware sales. Microsoft's objective is to rule the roost. They did that way back in the early 90's and they are too well entrenched to be taken out directly. They are just too big. You are simply conjecturing without any basis in reality. Apple tried the cloning market and it failed because people by in large do not want to undertake the massive pains to go to a completely different platform without somewhat of a safety platform. People want Windows because the stuff they run on depend on it. Thant and competing with Microsoft directly is a folly - going up against MS is going to be very bloody. You have better luck elephant hunting with a pea shooter.
Take a look at any other market that involves hardware and software. The article makes a good point about video games. They are totally incompatible with each other and are very closed systems. They remain successful because they can take one success and transition it to another - like the Mario franchise. MS did the same thing with computers years ago (with the objective of being really lucky thanks to boneheaded decisions by IBM). Apple did not. Of course Apple's objectives were far different back then, but Apple operates differently than MS does.
While Apple could get a few more customers, it just wouldn't last. There is no reason to think that it would or that they could sustain it. Its about making a good choice.
You cannot say that Apple's market strategy would gain them more money from copying MS business strategy, you just can't because they aren't the same. You cannot make a flawed assumption and think that Microsoft got achieved success by doing things the way the market was meant to be. They didn't. Microsoft got real lucky and rode on the coat tails of IBM business mentality and got massive market share because of that - way back in the 80's. That's just how things ended up. Doesn't mean that it works that way all the time and there is no reason to suggest that Apple is gonna want to chance it.
At this point in the game Microsoft has won - Jobs has admitted that years ago. Microsoft makes billions from the business market that by in large has no interest in making a risky and expensive change that going to Mac entails. Microsoft provides a very prediction, safe route that has massive industry support. Apple would have needed this kind of success really early on - but back in that day, they were adopting practices that were fundamentally different.
It doesn't matter that Apple's system is better - the lions share of the market made their choice years ago and that market doesn't tolerate direct competition. In Microsoft's world - they are the only game in town. And I say that the reason is that Apple is still around because they don't encroach into Microsoft's big markets. They don't license their software out to Microsoft's partners, they don't sell office software to PC's. There is a reason - Microsoft is far too big.
intoxicated662
Mar 18, 02:17 PM
You get what you deserve and for those of you who kept telling others about an Unlock and to suffer the consequences, KARMA.
digitalbiker
Sep 12, 06:04 PM
Yeah, but that's for every NFL game, right? I'm just talking about the games for a single team, 16 total games throughout the season. I agree with you, $30 is probably too low but still, it should be a lot less than Sunday Ticket. Wouldn't they rather get most of that money directly (with a small cut to Apple) rather than getting a tiny sliver from Comcast (where it's part of the extended cable package and not charged for separately)?
Sunday Ticket is exclusive to Directv and I read where Directv only takes 5% of the profit from this package. The NFL receives the reaming 95%.
Sunday Ticket is exclusive to Directv and I read where Directv only takes 5% of the profit from this package. The NFL receives the reaming 95%.
takao
Mar 16, 06:08 AM
And now France are making $3bn EUR a year from exporting electricity - also probably laughing heartily when they see at the price of oil.
good for them that means finally the EDF can pay back those dozens of billions euro they are in debt
;)
for comparison:
EdF: 150.000 employees: 65 billion revenue, 1 billion profit in 2010
the 2 big german energy companies
RWE: 70.000 employees: 50 billion of revenue, 3 billion of profit
E.ON: 85.000 employees: 92 billion revenue, 5 billion of profit
looking at the competition which focus less on nuclear power plants they are doing actually rather bad
good for them that means finally the EDF can pay back those dozens of billions euro they are in debt
;)
for comparison:
EdF: 150.000 employees: 65 billion revenue, 1 billion profit in 2010
the 2 big german energy companies
RWE: 70.000 employees: 50 billion of revenue, 3 billion of profit
E.ON: 85.000 employees: 92 billion revenue, 5 billion of profit
looking at the competition which focus less on nuclear power plants they are doing actually rather bad
puma1552
Mar 12, 04:45 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
Common sense would tell you the reactor itself didn't explode some 4 hours ago.
Don't you think if that had been the case the headlines would be everywhere? Considering it would trigger large government response and evacuations, it wouldn't exactly be easy to hide, and given how the media jumps at any bone any source throws them just to be first rather than accurate should show that it wasn't the reactor itself because all they are reporting is an unknown explosion. These plants aren't exactly simple, "Here's the gate, there's the reactor." They are very complex, large facilities with many many parts.
Something exploded at the complex facility, but it wasn't the reactor.
Not gonna bother replying to the rest at this point being I'm on a phone.
Common sense would tell you the reactor itself didn't explode some 4 hours ago.
Don't you think if that had been the case the headlines would be everywhere? Considering it would trigger large government response and evacuations, it wouldn't exactly be easy to hide, and given how the media jumps at any bone any source throws them just to be first rather than accurate should show that it wasn't the reactor itself because all they are reporting is an unknown explosion. These plants aren't exactly simple, "Here's the gate, there's the reactor." They are very complex, large facilities with many many parts.
Something exploded at the complex facility, but it wasn't the reactor.
Not gonna bother replying to the rest at this point being I'm on a phone.
ender land
Apr 23, 09:32 PM
citizenzen, there are strong elements of faith involved in maintaining a thought-out and convicted worldview, whether theistic or atheistic.
chrono1081
May 2, 11:52 AM
Bigger, most Windows PC have anti-virus, can you say the same for Macs?
Except antivirus doesn't usually catch things like this, neither does anti-spyware since it acts like a legit program.
I fix windows machines and servers for a living an unfortunately a majority of my week is spent removing said malware from windows machines.
Except antivirus doesn't usually catch things like this, neither does anti-spyware since it acts like a legit program.
I fix windows machines and servers for a living an unfortunately a majority of my week is spent removing said malware from windows machines.
MacRumors
Apr 28, 07:18 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/28/apple-slips-to-fourth-in-worldwide-pc-sales-with-ipad-included/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/28/081408-canalys_1q2011_pc_share.jpg
Research firm Canalys today reported (http://www.canalys.com/pr/2011/r2011043.html) its data for worldwide first quarter PC shipments, pegging Apple in fourth place with 9.5% of the market when tablets such as the iPad are included in the calculation. Apple slipped one notch from its third-place finish (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/01/26/apple-ranks-third-in-global-pc-sales-with-ipad-included/) in the fourth quarter of 2010 as the company shipped fewer-than-expected iPads to begin the year as it cleared existing inventory of the first-generation models and sought to ramp up production on second-generation models.
With the iPad being added to the mix, Canalys calculates Apple's year-over-year growth for the quarter at nearly 188%, but down 31% from the previous quarter.Apple continued with its strategy to dominate the pad market, with the iPad or iPad 2 available in 59 markets by the end of Q1. A combination of strong Q4 sales and the announcement of the iPad 2's launch across major markets at the end of March contributed to Apple's iPad shipments being down 31% sequentially. The full impact of the iPad 2 launch will not register until subsequent quarters, as Apple gets the product into the hands of consumers. While pad sales continued to lift Apple's results, PC vendors with a focus on the consumer netbook and notebook market, such as Acer and Asus, did not fare so well.Canalys reports that a total of 6.4 million "pad" devices were shipped during the quarter, with Apple accounting for 74% of the total.
Article Link: Apple Slips to Fourth in Worldwide PC Sales With iPad Included (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/28/apple-slips-to-fourth-in-worldwide-pc-sales-with-ipad-included/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/28/081408-canalys_1q2011_pc_share.jpg
Research firm Canalys today reported (http://www.canalys.com/pr/2011/r2011043.html) its data for worldwide first quarter PC shipments, pegging Apple in fourth place with 9.5% of the market when tablets such as the iPad are included in the calculation. Apple slipped one notch from its third-place finish (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/01/26/apple-ranks-third-in-global-pc-sales-with-ipad-included/) in the fourth quarter of 2010 as the company shipped fewer-than-expected iPads to begin the year as it cleared existing inventory of the first-generation models and sought to ramp up production on second-generation models.
With the iPad being added to the mix, Canalys calculates Apple's year-over-year growth for the quarter at nearly 188%, but down 31% from the previous quarter.Apple continued with its strategy to dominate the pad market, with the iPad or iPad 2 available in 59 markets by the end of Q1. A combination of strong Q4 sales and the announcement of the iPad 2's launch across major markets at the end of March contributed to Apple's iPad shipments being down 31% sequentially. The full impact of the iPad 2 launch will not register until subsequent quarters, as Apple gets the product into the hands of consumers. While pad sales continued to lift Apple's results, PC vendors with a focus on the consumer netbook and notebook market, such as Acer and Asus, did not fare so well.Canalys reports that a total of 6.4 million "pad" devices were shipped during the quarter, with Apple accounting for 74% of the total.
Article Link: Apple Slips to Fourth in Worldwide PC Sales With iPad Included (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/28/apple-slips-to-fourth-in-worldwide-pc-sales-with-ipad-included/)
mscriv
Apr 12, 09:52 AM
The biggest hassle was keyboard differences for me. Some keys I use quite often like "home" and "end" are missing.
My Mac keyboard has "home" and "end" keys. They function differently in basic use from Windows though. If you are talking about being able to jump to the beginning and end of a line of text (like in Word) then the Mac shortcut is command + Left or Right Arrow depending on whether you are going to the beginning or end of the line.
My Mac keyboard has "home" and "end" keys. They function differently in basic use from Windows though. If you are talking about being able to jump to the beginning and end of a line of text (like in Word) then the Mac shortcut is command + Left or Right Arrow depending on whether you are going to the beginning or end of the line.
lazyrighteye
Oct 7, 12:21 PM
The SDK is limited only to the Apple OS, granted, it relies on hooks, however, you are alienating a hell of a lot of people from developing on the platform.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Don't we already have enough junk in the App Store?
If not, there are now millions of Flash developers eagerly waiting to do their best (worst?).
In most every other scenario, I'm very liberal... very supportive of openness. But when it comes to developing a tool or utility, like a computer, a phone, etc., I very much fall in the category that appreciates Apple's closed system approach over an Open Source approach. The closed approach helps ensure an efficient & consistent user experience. But I'm also a quality over quantity kind of guy - which clearly does not represent everyone.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Don't we already have enough junk in the App Store?
If not, there are now millions of Flash developers eagerly waiting to do their best (worst?).
In most every other scenario, I'm very liberal... very supportive of openness. But when it comes to developing a tool or utility, like a computer, a phone, etc., I very much fall in the category that appreciates Apple's closed system approach over an Open Source approach. The closed approach helps ensure an efficient & consistent user experience. But I'm also a quality over quantity kind of guy - which clearly does not represent everyone.
alust2013
Apr 5, 05:31 PM
You may not like the lack of start menu at first, however, it does end up working with a better flow overall. It's just different at first, and after using windows for many years (little bit of 3.1, a lot of 95 and 98, then ME, XP and 7), it took a little bit to get used to, but honestly not that long. You get the basic idea of where stuff is pretty quick, and it's certainly not difficult, especially if you are reasonably proficient in computers.
NathanMuir
Apr 24, 11:49 AM
I figured I'd use this wonderful Easter Sunday (a day spent celebrating the beginning of Spring and absolutely nothing else), to pose a question that I have.... What's the deal with religious people? After many a spirited thread about religion, I still can't wrap my head around what keeps people in the faith nowadays. I'm not talking about those people in third world nations, who have lived their entire lives under religion and know of nothing else. I'm talking about your Americans (North and South), your Europeans, the people who have access to any information they want to get (and some they don't) who should know better by now. And yet, in thread after thread, these people still swear that their way is the only way. No matter what logic you use, they can twist the words from their holy books and change the meaning of things to, in their minds, completely back up their point of view. Is it stubbornness, the inability to admit that you were wrong about something so important for so long? Is it fear? If I admit this is BS, I go to hell? Simple ignorance? Please remember, I'm not talking about just believing in a higher power, I mean those who believe in religion, Jews, Christian, etc.
If you strike a bias and confrontational tone, you get one in return. ;)
And people wonder why PRSI conversations revolve in endless circles, rehashing the same tired subject matter...
If you strike a bias and confrontational tone, you get one in return. ;)
And people wonder why PRSI conversations revolve in endless circles, rehashing the same tired subject matter...
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 10:42 AM
Are PR people not supposed to stop everyone hating you?
Hang on. Let me just parse the negatives in that sentence.
"Aren't PR people supposed to make everyone like you"
Right that's better.
Yes they are...
Hang on. Let me just parse the negatives in that sentence.
"Aren't PR people supposed to make everyone like you"
Right that's better.
Yes they are...
BornAgainMac
May 6, 06:31 AM
Maybe it isn't AT&T but the iPhone caller that is bragging about his iPhone, iMac, Apple, and Microsoft is dead, Flash sucks, Google copies... <click>
Piggie
Apr 28, 10:13 AM
Piggie, I think Apple is satisfied with their Mac market trend (climbing) and is viewing phones and tablets as the future (and it's where they make the vast majority of their corporate profits now). And when a family in the UK walks into a store and sees the tablet displays, they will find that the best tablet (iPad) is also the tablet that costs no more than the rivals.
Since within ten years the average English family will care more about tablets than about desktop PCs or laptops, Apple is on this trend at the right time. Ten years from now no one will care that Apple only makes high-end desktops and laptops.
At the moment yes, I agree with you fully.
However, I'm not convinced that this will stay this way long term.
Once Asus, Acer etc etc really nail the tablet form factor, and major size component plants kicking out parts, I don't see any reason why Tablets won't drop to low end, or sub low end laptops.
If I can walk into a superstore down the road and buy a full laptop (not netbook) running Windows with a HDD etc etc, for �299. I don't believe there is any reason why a Tablet, given time will not drop to this or probably lower price points. After all, there is much less in a tablet.
I'm not saying we will, but we could be in a position at the end of this decade when Apple have the nice, but expensive tablets, and again, there are rows of cheaper ones that do the same job made by others.
�400 to �500 is still a heck of a lot of money to many. I am aware Americans have more disposable income, so it's said, than UK customers, so perhaps peoples perceptions of expensive is a little different over there.
Since within ten years the average English family will care more about tablets than about desktop PCs or laptops, Apple is on this trend at the right time. Ten years from now no one will care that Apple only makes high-end desktops and laptops.
At the moment yes, I agree with you fully.
However, I'm not convinced that this will stay this way long term.
Once Asus, Acer etc etc really nail the tablet form factor, and major size component plants kicking out parts, I don't see any reason why Tablets won't drop to low end, or sub low end laptops.
If I can walk into a superstore down the road and buy a full laptop (not netbook) running Windows with a HDD etc etc, for �299. I don't believe there is any reason why a Tablet, given time will not drop to this or probably lower price points. After all, there is much less in a tablet.
I'm not saying we will, but we could be in a position at the end of this decade when Apple have the nice, but expensive tablets, and again, there are rows of cheaper ones that do the same job made by others.
�400 to �500 is still a heck of a lot of money to many. I am aware Americans have more disposable income, so it's said, than UK customers, so perhaps peoples perceptions of expensive is a little different over there.
Edge100
Apr 15, 01:18 PM
Yeah, I was waiting for that one. It's pretty low-rent as far as fallacies go, I'm not sure why it is trotted out as often as it is. It's always used to argue stupid things like Hitler's religious beliefs represent the truest form of Christianity, and if you don't believe so, you're violating this sacred "No true Scotsman" fallacy.
No TRUE circle is square! Yeah, that one's true. You can't torpedo a well-defined institution by finding an example of someone not living up to its rules.
The point is that you don't get to redefine "Christian" to suit your argument.
Hitler was a Christian. That is a fact. That doesn't mean that Christianity is equivalent to Nazism and fascism. That would, indeed, be a fallacy.
But again, this is obfuscation. You can't explain away bad things done by Christians by redefining "Christian".
No TRUE circle is square! Yeah, that one's true. You can't torpedo a well-defined institution by finding an example of someone not living up to its rules.
The point is that you don't get to redefine "Christian" to suit your argument.
Hitler was a Christian. That is a fact. That doesn't mean that Christianity is equivalent to Nazism and fascism. That would, indeed, be a fallacy.
But again, this is obfuscation. You can't explain away bad things done by Christians by redefining "Christian".
Cromulent
Mar 27, 04:40 PM
And maybe you need to learn that when you reiterate a point that has already been made in the form of a "why not" question, you are viewed to be supporting the point. I have followed the thread, and I saw the point you were quoting.
That the Catholics believe this bit about celibacy has been apparent for a few pages - there was never any need for you to regurgitate the point. But now that you apparently have, and have assigned some sort of logic to it, I'm asking what is that logic. What reasons that apply to a priest being celibate might apply to a gay person?
You seem to be trying to defend everything about your post but the only issue anyone could ever have with it.
You are constantly missing the point. Someone said it was horrible to expect someone to be celibate just because they were gay. I simply stated that if Catholics already expected priests to be celibate then why is it so hard for gay people to remain celibate?
I mean its not like they are saying only homosexuals must be celibate if they also require their own priests to be celibate. That was the only point I was making. It seemed pretty clear given the quoted text in my very first post.
If you are saying that it makes any kind of sense, I'll ask you again, "why?"
I guess you'll have to ask a Catholic why they would require celibacy of a homosexual. I was simply pointing out that celibacy in the Catholic church was an accepted practice and not looked at in quite the same way as non-Catholic people and not as horrible as the person I originally quoted was making out. After all if a priest can cope why can't a homosexual?
Anyway I'm not entirely sure why I let myself get dragged into this after what was obviously a throw away comment simply talking about the logic of a given argument. It has nothing to do with 'why' something should or should not happen simply whether a stance is a logical one or not.
That the Catholics believe this bit about celibacy has been apparent for a few pages - there was never any need for you to regurgitate the point. But now that you apparently have, and have assigned some sort of logic to it, I'm asking what is that logic. What reasons that apply to a priest being celibate might apply to a gay person?
You seem to be trying to defend everything about your post but the only issue anyone could ever have with it.
You are constantly missing the point. Someone said it was horrible to expect someone to be celibate just because they were gay. I simply stated that if Catholics already expected priests to be celibate then why is it so hard for gay people to remain celibate?
I mean its not like they are saying only homosexuals must be celibate if they also require their own priests to be celibate. That was the only point I was making. It seemed pretty clear given the quoted text in my very first post.
If you are saying that it makes any kind of sense, I'll ask you again, "why?"
I guess you'll have to ask a Catholic why they would require celibacy of a homosexual. I was simply pointing out that celibacy in the Catholic church was an accepted practice and not looked at in quite the same way as non-Catholic people and not as horrible as the person I originally quoted was making out. After all if a priest can cope why can't a homosexual?
Anyway I'm not entirely sure why I let myself get dragged into this after what was obviously a throw away comment simply talking about the logic of a given argument. It has nothing to do with 'why' something should or should not happen simply whether a stance is a logical one or not.
sbarton
Jul 13, 08:47 AM
Originally Posted by sbarton
Smallish mid-tower case
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
250GB SATA 3.0 HD
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM
I want it at or less than $1199.00
Now gimmie
1986 Monte Carlo Ss For Sale
Smallish mid-tower case
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
250GB SATA 3.0 HD
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM
I want it at or less than $1199.00
Now gimmie
tteerts
Oct 5, 05:06 PM
Aparently the answer is "technically yes". See below. I did not know that. But from what they say and a practical point of view the answer is still no.
No worries... but it was a subtlety like that which I was thinking about. I agree that I would likely never know the difference.
No worries... but it was a subtlety like that which I was thinking about. I agree that I would likely never know the difference.
flopticalcube
Apr 22, 09:28 PM
As I said in my first post, most atheists that I speak to don't put this much thought and care into their atheism. They just take it for granted that it won't be challenged.
How can you prove something's existence that exists outside of time and space? I don't think it's possible except through pure reason.
You did not make that distinction in your post. Since the OP was talking specifically about this forum, the only logical conclusions was that you were referring to forum members.
How can you prove something's existence that exists outside of time and space? I don't think it's possible except through pure reason.
You did not make that distinction in your post. Since the OP was talking specifically about this forum, the only logical conclusions was that you were referring to forum members.
mcarnes
Oct 25, 10:39 PM
8. Pfft. I'm holding out for 64 cores.
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?
JackSYi
Jul 11, 11:41 PM
I like Appleinsider, and I believe that they are going to be right. But since this is all speculation at this point, anything can happen. Either way Mac users win.
CaoCao
Mar 24, 11:01 PM
Perhaps I missed something but these all appear to be acts of violence against homosexuals. Don't get me wrong, they are horrible acts but I believe that CaoCao specifically stated acts motivated by mainstream Catholicism.
exactly, subtract the gangs, the mentally unstable, the non-Catholics and the inconclusively because the victim was homosexual and see where we are
exactly, subtract the gangs, the mentally unstable, the non-Catholics and the inconclusively because the victim was homosexual and see where we are
No comments:
Post a Comment