ChazUK
Apr 28, 07:38 AM
Make up your mind what you want to count iPads as. Damn is it a mobile device a computer. Someone give them a ****ing category already.
I wonder if those people who complain about iPads not being included in smart phone market share will also complain that the iPad is included in pc sales market share?
I wonder if those people who complain about iPads not being included in smart phone market share will also complain that the iPad is included in pc sales market share?
toddybody
Apr 15, 10:17 AM
Um, they're everywhere. Statistics show gays have higher incomes. Gays are 3% of the population, yet you can't name a single new show on TV in the past few years that doesn't have at least one gay character.
They're doing fine, and I find it hard to believe kids aren't already seeing examples of that on the internet.
Sorry, but I have to disagree (respectfully) there. You bet; theres plenty of Will and Grace examples of successful Gays. Thats like saying Seth Rogan is a beacon of hope to fat Jewish kids everywhere (coming from one..well, not fat anymore). :D
When you're a gay kid who doesn't fit into the archetypal-media gay role...its hard to find those examples of normalcy. Theres so many gay kids out there that want to be Doctors, Firefighters, Soldiers, CS Engineers...etc. No different from any other kid.
They're doing fine, and I find it hard to believe kids aren't already seeing examples of that on the internet.
Sorry, but I have to disagree (respectfully) there. You bet; theres plenty of Will and Grace examples of successful Gays. Thats like saying Seth Rogan is a beacon of hope to fat Jewish kids everywhere (coming from one..well, not fat anymore). :D
When you're a gay kid who doesn't fit into the archetypal-media gay role...its hard to find those examples of normalcy. Theres so many gay kids out there that want to be Doctors, Firefighters, Soldiers, CS Engineers...etc. No different from any other kid.
.Andy
Apr 24, 10:32 PM
And just to be clear, I DID NOT make a 35 on the ACT my Junior year of high school, and I am not on scholarship to a top 25 university.
happy now? :cool:
An intellectual heavy weight right here in Macrumors! Who would have thought it!
happy now? :cool:
An intellectual heavy weight right here in Macrumors! Who would have thought it!
Silencio
Sep 12, 03:20 PM
Ah, now this is what I've been waiting for: the Airport Express for video, plus a little bit more. If it were shipping today, I'd high-tail it to the Apple Store and buy one. But given a few months to think about the $299 price tag, we shall see if that feeling holds up.
This is very wisely not a direct competitor to MCE. Those who don't want to buy an entire separate computer to play their digital media on their home entertainment systems don't have to. But I suppose you could get the full-featured MCE-type setup by simply adding a Mac mini to the mix (and perhaps one of those NewerTech 500GB Mac mini-shaped external drives while you're at it).
This is very wisely not a direct competitor to MCE. Those who don't want to buy an entire separate computer to play their digital media on their home entertainment systems don't have to. But I suppose you could get the full-featured MCE-type setup by simply adding a Mac mini to the mix (and perhaps one of those NewerTech 500GB Mac mini-shaped external drives while you're at it).
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 08:33 AM
Do you still see masses of people with White or Black iPods?
Yes. A very common sight even in 2011.
Yes. A very common sight even in 2011.
iJohnHenry
Apr 23, 11:41 AM
Yep. Now I can't get the idea of orbiting teapots out of my mind.
Or His noodley tendrils?
Some of you have seen this item, hopefully. ;)
The twisted spaghetti (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-04/21/hubble-birthday) of cosmic arms....
Or His noodley tendrils?
Some of you have seen this item, hopefully. ;)
The twisted spaghetti (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-04/21/hubble-birthday) of cosmic arms....
jettredmont
May 3, 03:44 PM
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
greenstork
Sep 12, 07:02 PM
You are making a lot of Assumptions regarding complications. The addition of USB to iTV makes a host of third party addons possible that could easily surpass Tivo.
Wait and see -- it happened quickly with the iPod 4 years ago. It will be cheaper too -- no monthly fees and all managed by Front Row.
Now that is EASY!
Please explain to me, even hypothetically, how this could be a Tivo killer DVR. As a basis for the argument, consider that TiVo (as of today) can record 2 HD channels simulteously, while watching a third previously recorded show. Plus you can pause live TV.
Elgato and Myth and all of the cable & satellite Co. DVRs haven't been able to compete with TiVo to date, what makes you thik they will be able to going forward?
Wait and see -- it happened quickly with the iPod 4 years ago. It will be cheaper too -- no monthly fees and all managed by Front Row.
Now that is EASY!
Please explain to me, even hypothetically, how this could be a Tivo killer DVR. As a basis for the argument, consider that TiVo (as of today) can record 2 HD channels simulteously, while watching a third previously recorded show. Plus you can pause live TV.
Elgato and Myth and all of the cable & satellite Co. DVRs haven't been able to compete with TiVo to date, what makes you thik they will be able to going forward?
CaoCao
Mar 26, 10:40 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kris_Kime
That is appalling, what idiot tells police to stay outside a riot zone..
That is appalling, what idiot tells police to stay outside a riot zone..
likemyorbs
Mar 25, 11:45 PM
The Catholic Church recognizes that people don't choose to be homosexual, however it does recognize that acting on those urges is entirely their choice. Chastity is what they are called to.
Are you serious? That's a horrible thing to say. They should deprive themselves of sex because your 2000 year old book says so? That's crap. God made them born that way, for what? Just to torture them for their whole lives? I hope you understand that this makes no sense. And as for the catholic church recognizing that they are born that way and do not choose it, that's a load of crap. If you believe that, then you are seriously misguided. If god is so loving, wouldn't he have made them born heterosexual so they could live a normal life and have sex with members of the opposite gender? Why would god make someone gay? Your logic is so flawed im having a hard time expressing myself in words.
Are you serious? That's a horrible thing to say. They should deprive themselves of sex because your 2000 year old book says so? That's crap. God made them born that way, for what? Just to torture them for their whole lives? I hope you understand that this makes no sense. And as for the catholic church recognizing that they are born that way and do not choose it, that's a load of crap. If you believe that, then you are seriously misguided. If god is so loving, wouldn't he have made them born heterosexual so they could live a normal life and have sex with members of the opposite gender? Why would god make someone gay? Your logic is so flawed im having a hard time expressing myself in words.
skunk
Mar 26, 02:37 PM
Ciaociao's Latin expression wasn't a phrase. It was a complete sentence that meant, "This is a sign of contradiction, brother." In the Bible "a sign of contradiction" means "someone to oppose" or "something to oppose." Our Lord was a sign of contradiction because his enemies opposed him.A sentence is also a phrase: all sentences are phrases, but not all phrases are sentences. However, frater, my Latin does not include either subcribo (unless of course he was looking up "sign" and found the word for to sign beneath or subscribe(!)), or of, or a as an indefinite article, for that matter. You could try Id est signum contradictionis, which might make slightly more sense, even in the Vatican. Actually, the id is optional. Hence dog Latin, frater.
sigamy
Jul 12, 01:58 PM
man, my head is spinning...Yonah, Mermon, Woodcrest, Core Duo 2 (isn't that redundant?)
Don't you just long for the good old days when we'd get one G4 processor for 18 months? ;)
Don't you just long for the good old days when we'd get one G4 processor for 18 months? ;)
eric_n_dfw
Mar 20, 08:01 PM
I wasn't talking about DRM or iTunes.Okay, but your comment was in reply to maticus' one about the opinion that "breaking the law is breaking the law". Who was, in turn, talking about iTMS and related issues. Sorry if I lost track somewhere but I assumed you were talking about the same thing.
neko girl
Mar 24, 11:55 PM
People can BELIEVE whatever they want.
The reason why people have a problem with what the Vatican BELIEVES it is because it is so frequently converted into something that PHYSICALLY restricts the rights of other adults.
Stop imposing on people's rights, and you can go ahead and continue believing whatever you do.
Whether or not their beliefs are bigoted are a side issue and only strays from the actual reason people don't like the Vatican.
The reason why people have a problem with what the Vatican BELIEVES it is because it is so frequently converted into something that PHYSICALLY restricts the rights of other adults.
Stop imposing on people's rights, and you can go ahead and continue believing whatever you do.
Whether or not their beliefs are bigoted are a side issue and only strays from the actual reason people don't like the Vatican.
Apple OC
Apr 22, 09:19 PM
I would be willing to bet that if given time this thread will be a carbon copy of that one.
That thread should be stickied, because I can't really think of any issue(relevant to this topic) we didn't cover in it.
well let it be the Mods to merge them ... why tell someone to post in an old thread that died and tell them not to post in this thread?
That thread should be stickied, because I can't really think of any issue(relevant to this topic) we didn't cover in it.
well let it be the Mods to merge them ... why tell someone to post in an old thread that died and tell them not to post in this thread?
iJohnHenry
Apr 27, 04:49 PM
Before Anton van Leeuwenhoek discovered bacteria with his microscope, many probably would have insisted that there was not a shred of evidence that any microbe existed.
We can see the ongoing effects of microbes all around us. Can you say the same for your god?
I expect that we will need a very big microscope to see God.
Is this why we have Hubble??
I doubt it, for with every amazing image we see, the vastness and complexity of the known Universe reduces us even further to the importance of gnats.
We can see the ongoing effects of microbes all around us. Can you say the same for your god?
I expect that we will need a very big microscope to see God.
Is this why we have Hubble??
I doubt it, for with every amazing image we see, the vastness and complexity of the known Universe reduces us even further to the importance of gnats.
levitynyc
Apr 9, 05:15 AM
I would consider myself a hardcore gamer and I'm not ashamed of it. I went to PAX East the last 2 years and own all 3 home consoles plus a PSP, 3DS, DSi, iPhone and iPad. Gaming kept me away from all the drugs and alcohol that my friends were doing in high school. I'm almost 30 now and I'm married, have a good job, have a beautiful home and a beautiful wife, so lets not get stereotyped.
True, some iPad/iPhone games are "casual time wasters" but there are also some FANTASTIC games. Dead Space iOS is fantastic and guess what, ITS WAS 10 DOLLARS. True, its not as good as the console versions, but those sold for 60 DOLLARS.
Get off your friggin high horse when saying that App store gaming isn't real gaming.
The gaming industry is upset with Apple because Apple is finally giving customers the option to pay what customers think a game is worth, not what a console manufacturer thinks a game is worth. If Pilot Wings 3DS was an App store game, it'd be AT MOST 10 dollars. I bought it, I enjoy it, but I feel ripped off by the price.
This scares the hell out of Nintendo as their mandatory priced 40 dollar games are being compared not only in quality, but in PRICE to iOS games.
Tiger Woods golf is another great game on the consoles, but that game is 60 dollars. The iPad version is very very similar (doesn't have Augusta and online modes and a few other small things) but its only 10 bucks on the iPad and I'm sure it'll be on sale shortly.
Last year I picked up the iPhone version for 99 cents. I had more fun with that than the 60 dollar console version because at any time I could play a hole or 2 when I had a few minutes of down time at work.
EDIT: Sorry for the double post
True, some iPad/iPhone games are "casual time wasters" but there are also some FANTASTIC games. Dead Space iOS is fantastic and guess what, ITS WAS 10 DOLLARS. True, its not as good as the console versions, but those sold for 60 DOLLARS.
Get off your friggin high horse when saying that App store gaming isn't real gaming.
The gaming industry is upset with Apple because Apple is finally giving customers the option to pay what customers think a game is worth, not what a console manufacturer thinks a game is worth. If Pilot Wings 3DS was an App store game, it'd be AT MOST 10 dollars. I bought it, I enjoy it, but I feel ripped off by the price.
This scares the hell out of Nintendo as their mandatory priced 40 dollar games are being compared not only in quality, but in PRICE to iOS games.
Tiger Woods golf is another great game on the consoles, but that game is 60 dollars. The iPad version is very very similar (doesn't have Augusta and online modes and a few other small things) but its only 10 bucks on the iPad and I'm sure it'll be on sale shortly.
Last year I picked up the iPhone version for 99 cents. I had more fun with that than the 60 dollar console version because at any time I could play a hole or 2 when I had a few minutes of down time at work.
EDIT: Sorry for the double post
ender land
Apr 23, 10:31 PM
Frankly, it doesn't take much faith to claim that nothing and no-one stands above nature (i.e. being supernatural).
...
Do you realize the sheer magnitude of this statement?
If even 0.0000001% of an incredibly lowball estimate as to the number of current Christians in the world (not to mention past Christians or other theistic religions) have legitimately experienced a supernatural event - pick one, doesn't matter which or how large or small it is - this is an incorrect statement.
Even if 99.9999% of a billion people claiming supernatural events such as religion are lying, that is still a thousand experiences which invalidate your premise.
Everything we can see is derived from nature.
Spoken like a true empiricist.
Where would God come from then?
I have never understood why this is used as an argument against a god(s). Clearly, something exists now (as an aside, if you disagree with this statement there is absolutely no grounds to say religion is not true either, so I'm going to assume you do agree something does in fact exist, namely the universe). No matter how you believe, either atheism, creationism, flying spagetti monsterism, anything, at some point, there will be the problem that something always existed. Or existed "before." Whether it's God or a singularity point or whatever, all rational beliefs agree upon this point.
Asking how God existed prior to the known universe is meaningless in terms of invalidating any religion.
If there are spiritual entities which stand above us humans, they do certainly not stand above these laws. It doesn't make sense, and was never even supposed to make sense to the human mind in the first place (ask any priest about the latter, he will confirm it).
Simple example: I make some robots. I put them into a world (let's say I put them in a room with no visible or perceptible interior doors/windows/etc). They interact and are reasonably self aware. Their entire world is this room. Gravity is "obvious" to them. Suddenly, I rotate the entire room 90 degrees. They would have a situation where the statement "no spiritual entity.. stand[s] above these laws."
Clearly this does not necessarily prove god(s). But it does mean your belief as stated above is illogical (unless starting from the assumed premise that no god(s) exist, in which case your faith rests upon this belief).
...
Do you realize the sheer magnitude of this statement?
If even 0.0000001% of an incredibly lowball estimate as to the number of current Christians in the world (not to mention past Christians or other theistic religions) have legitimately experienced a supernatural event - pick one, doesn't matter which or how large or small it is - this is an incorrect statement.
Even if 99.9999% of a billion people claiming supernatural events such as religion are lying, that is still a thousand experiences which invalidate your premise.
Everything we can see is derived from nature.
Spoken like a true empiricist.
Where would God come from then?
I have never understood why this is used as an argument against a god(s). Clearly, something exists now (as an aside, if you disagree with this statement there is absolutely no grounds to say religion is not true either, so I'm going to assume you do agree something does in fact exist, namely the universe). No matter how you believe, either atheism, creationism, flying spagetti monsterism, anything, at some point, there will be the problem that something always existed. Or existed "before." Whether it's God or a singularity point or whatever, all rational beliefs agree upon this point.
Asking how God existed prior to the known universe is meaningless in terms of invalidating any religion.
If there are spiritual entities which stand above us humans, they do certainly not stand above these laws. It doesn't make sense, and was never even supposed to make sense to the human mind in the first place (ask any priest about the latter, he will confirm it).
Simple example: I make some robots. I put them into a world (let's say I put them in a room with no visible or perceptible interior doors/windows/etc). They interact and are reasonably self aware. Their entire world is this room. Gravity is "obvious" to them. Suddenly, I rotate the entire room 90 degrees. They would have a situation where the statement "no spiritual entity.. stand[s] above these laws."
Clearly this does not necessarily prove god(s). But it does mean your belief as stated above is illogical (unless starting from the assumed premise that no god(s) exist, in which case your faith rests upon this belief).
chaoticbear
Apr 14, 04:36 PM
Stick shared files on a NAS or in the cloud. Problem solved.
My last PC laptop decided not to go to sleep one one trip, I put it away in my backpack and when I took it out the battery was drained and the sleeve was discolored by the heat.
Plus, I just love trying to shut down or log off and be told that Windows needs to install updates. Right now? WTF! If I need to shut you down it's because I need to go. Now.
This is really better?
B
Regarding the first point - we have a NAS set up at home, but trying to format that sucker to where both of our computers could use it, the NAS recognized it, and to where we could stick >4GB files on there was a wreck. At this point, I don't remember what we put each partition in, but I know the onboard BT client only accepted one format, I had to download some tool to make a small partition for that, and then we partitioned the rest as... something. If I ever need to plug directly into my computer for anything, I'm sure it'll be a blast.
And I don't generally mind the close = sleep behavior, but it'd be nice to have the option, you know? At least my new MBA charges my phone while it's closed; the old MB had to be open. It spent a lot of time open and idle.
My last PC laptop decided not to go to sleep one one trip, I put it away in my backpack and when I took it out the battery was drained and the sleeve was discolored by the heat.
Plus, I just love trying to shut down or log off and be told that Windows needs to install updates. Right now? WTF! If I need to shut you down it's because I need to go. Now.
This is really better?
B
Regarding the first point - we have a NAS set up at home, but trying to format that sucker to where both of our computers could use it, the NAS recognized it, and to where we could stick >4GB files on there was a wreck. At this point, I don't remember what we put each partition in, but I know the onboard BT client only accepted one format, I had to download some tool to make a small partition for that, and then we partitioned the rest as... something. If I ever need to plug directly into my computer for anything, I'm sure it'll be a blast.
And I don't generally mind the close = sleep behavior, but it'd be nice to have the option, you know? At least my new MBA charges my phone while it's closed; the old MB had to be open. It spent a lot of time open and idle.
Howdr
Mar 18, 12:22 PM
You could also man up and admit that at the heart of your argument - you don't like that you signed a contract that up until now - was just fine and dandy. Now that ATT wants to actually hold you and others responsible for an element of that contract that you think you are entitled to - you want to cry "illegal."
Good luck. ATT would be better off losing you as a customer rather than dealing with the, no doubt, obnoxious posts and calls into CSRs you will no doubt make.
Reacent Post
Good luck. ATT would be better off losing you as a customer rather than dealing with the, no doubt, obnoxious posts and calls into CSRs you will no doubt make.
TheRealTVGuy
Mar 18, 01:44 AM
Do napster and limewire even exist anymore?
Probably not, I just felt the need to rant...
Sorry.
Probably not, I just felt the need to rant...
Sorry.
matthew23
Mar 18, 12:36 PM
I wonder if MyWi will patch their program some how to get around all of this. Anyone know if they have said anything?
ciTiger
May 2, 09:25 AM
So few virus for MAC than when one appears it is news... :)
Rt&Dzine
Apr 26, 05:16 PM
You gotta do better than youtube videos.
Can you cite anything verified scientifically?
The Nun Bun. Verified to look like Mother Theresa.
283095
The Jesus toast. Verified to look like Jesus or Jeff Daniels.
283096
Can you cite anything verified scientifically?
The Nun Bun. Verified to look like Mother Theresa.
283095
The Jesus toast. Verified to look like Jesus or Jeff Daniels.
283096
0 comments:
Post a Comment