Ja Di ksw
Oct 13, 12:10 AM
From looking at the picture, should it be a fact that the red iPod nano is coming out? It doesn't look like a rumor that I see red iPod nanos on display.
It's fact, not rumor. One of my friends was there while they were doing stuff with it, and the picture is obviously not photoshopped. They talked about it on CBS as well.
It's fact, not rumor. One of my friends was there while they were doing stuff with it, and the picture is obviously not photoshopped. They talked about it on CBS as well.
Multimedia
Sep 9, 01:15 PM
Oh yeah, I forgot about the Windows socket limitations. I know it'll be a great performer but a "better" chip will always come out later. Kentsfield appears to be an Extreme Edition chip until quad core trickles down to more normal desktops. Still, I can see some new Mac Pro running off a single Kentsfield.Yeah that will be the Mac Pro Jr. while the rest of the Mac Pros will be running pairs of Clovertowns.
QCassidy352
Jul 14, 10:29 AM
I'm working with Arn on that one... Woodcrest is pretty much slated towards the PowerMacs. We may have to update the story...
sorry about that. story updated.
arn
yay, I feel special now. ;) Thanks guys. :)
I really think the iMac should use Conroe now. I think the reason they used the Yonah chip is that they had no desktop "Core" architecture chips available. While using Merom is the easy thing to do, I hope they don't do it. The iMac is supposedly a desktop, it should use a desktop chip.
My thoughts exactly. Now that intel has a real desktop processor, why shouldn't apple's desktop computer use it?
Did anyone pay attention to the power and thermal requirements of Conroe?
The 2.40 and 2.66 (which would be great for the imacs) use 114 Watts at idle and 158-162 at load (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=7). Here's info on power draw for original G5s (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=32486), early 2005 G5s (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=302439), and late 2005 G5s (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303540). I fail to see the problem. I'm not being flip - I really fail to see the problem. They fit G5s in to imacs, and those power draw numbers look worse than conroe's, unless I'm missing something.
sorry about that. story updated.
arn
yay, I feel special now. ;) Thanks guys. :)
I really think the iMac should use Conroe now. I think the reason they used the Yonah chip is that they had no desktop "Core" architecture chips available. While using Merom is the easy thing to do, I hope they don't do it. The iMac is supposedly a desktop, it should use a desktop chip.
My thoughts exactly. Now that intel has a real desktop processor, why shouldn't apple's desktop computer use it?
Did anyone pay attention to the power and thermal requirements of Conroe?
The 2.40 and 2.66 (which would be great for the imacs) use 114 Watts at idle and 158-162 at load (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=7). Here's info on power draw for original G5s (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=32486), early 2005 G5s (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=302439), and late 2005 G5s (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303540). I fail to see the problem. I'm not being flip - I really fail to see the problem. They fit G5s in to imacs, and those power draw numbers look worse than conroe's, unless I'm missing something.
mmmcheese
Sep 15, 05:58 PM
A shame about scrapping the idea of a ground up design - I hope that doesn't lead to a lack of innovation. That's what really leads Apple along! Although if they just make a killer phone (I'm sure they will at some point...) it's bound to sell buckets loads!
Uber
This doesn't mean they will just re-brand a phone...it might just mean they are buying transmitters/etc. from other sources rather than engineering their own. Depending on what they buying "off the shelf," this only makes sense...why re-create the wheel?
Of course they may end up just re-branding a phone, but that doesn't really seem like the Apple thing to do.
Uber
This doesn't mean they will just re-brand a phone...it might just mean they are buying transmitters/etc. from other sources rather than engineering their own. Depending on what they buying "off the shelf," this only makes sense...why re-create the wheel?
Of course they may end up just re-branding a phone, but that doesn't really seem like the Apple thing to do.
AppleScruff1
Mar 23, 07:23 PM
If it was a Microsoft app most here would have a different opinion.
GGJstudios
Mar 19, 02:17 PM
Malware includes computer viruses, worms, trojan horses, spyware and other malicious and unwanted software or programs. The idea that OSX and/or Unix/Linux based operating systems is free from such threats is absurd.
No one has presented the idea that Mac OS X is free from all malware threats. Since your reading comprehension might need some help, I'll repeat my statement again:
there is no Mac malware in the wild that can't be avoided with some common sense and prudent action on the part of the user.
Viruses for Mac OS X don't exist, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Trojans for Mac OS X do exist, but can be avoided by the user being careful what they install, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Meanwhile, the answer on here to avoiding potential pitfalls in things like Flash is to (surprise), not install or use it. Hey guys, don't power on your computers and you will always be safe! :rolleyes:
I use Flash all the time and have never had any issues with it.
Even Apple themselves regularly release security updates. WTF is the point of a security update if there's no possible threat to OSX?
Again, no one has said there are not threats to Mac OS X; only that those threats don't require any AV software to defend against them.
Just because a threat is less likely than on other systems does not mean that it does not exist. Yet people on here won't even admit that much.
Either you're not reading or not comprehending the posts that have been made. No one is saying that NO threats exist; only that those threats can be avoided by the user without the need for AV software.
Only a fanboy would take a post that suggests that a false sense of security can lead to dangerous behavior that might be a liability in the future (good advice in almost any market/situation) and twist it into "Boy you're ignorant; we are INVULNERABLE! OSX cannot be hacked or attacked! It's impossible!
Who are you referring to? I haven't seen anyone say such things in this thread or any other.
"fanboy"
Again, who are you referring to? I'm not a fanboy, or a boy of any kind. I have no allegiance or loyalty to any brand or manufacturer (except Harley-Davidson, but for very different reasons). It's amusing to see how people try to bash Apple or Macs for the wrong reasons, then resort to calling people "fanboys" when their arguments aren't accepted. Apple and Macs have plenty of weaknesses. Attack one of the legitimate ones and you'll have sensible people agree with you. Make a case against Apple or John Deere or Mattel or Coca-Cola or any other company that isn't based in fact, and you'll get resistance. That doesn't make those who oppose such a case "fanboys".
Malware includes computer viruses, worms, trojan horses, spyware and other malicious and unwanted software or programs. The idea that OSX and/or Unix/Linux based operating systems is free from such threats is absurd.
No one has presented the idea that Mac OS X is free from all malware threats. Since your reading comprehension might need some help, I'll repeat my statement again:
there is no Mac malware in the wild that can't be avoided with some common sense and prudent action on the part of the user.
Viruses for Mac OS X don't exist, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Trojans for Mac OS X do exist, but can be avoided by the user being careful what they install, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Meanwhile, the answer on here to avoiding potential pitfalls in things like Flash is to (surprise), not install or use it. Hey guys, don't power on your computers and you will always be safe! :rolleyes:
I use Flash all the time and have never had any issues with it.
Even Apple themselves regularly release security updates. WTF is the point of a security update if there's no possible threat to OSX?
Again, no one has said there are not threats to Mac OS X; only that those threats don't require any AV software to defend against them.
Just because a threat is less likely than on other systems does not mean that it does not exist. Yet people on here won't even admit that much.
Either you're not reading or not comprehending the posts that have been made. No one is saying that NO threats exist; only that those threats can be avoided by the user without the need for AV software.
Only a fanboy would take a post that suggests that a false sense of security can lead to dangerous behavior that might be a liability in the future (good advice in almost any market/situation) and twist it into "Boy you're ignorant; we are INVULNERABLE! OSX cannot be hacked or attacked! It's impossible!
Who are you referring to? I haven't seen anyone say such things in this thread or any other.
No one has presented the idea that Mac OS X is free from all malware threats. Since your reading comprehension might need some help, I'll repeat my statement again:
there is no Mac malware in the wild that can't be avoided with some common sense and prudent action on the part of the user.
Viruses for Mac OS X don't exist, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Trojans for Mac OS X do exist, but can be avoided by the user being careful what they install, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Meanwhile, the answer on here to avoiding potential pitfalls in things like Flash is to (surprise), not install or use it. Hey guys, don't power on your computers and you will always be safe! :rolleyes:
I use Flash all the time and have never had any issues with it.
Even Apple themselves regularly release security updates. WTF is the point of a security update if there's no possible threat to OSX?
Again, no one has said there are not threats to Mac OS X; only that those threats don't require any AV software to defend against them.
Just because a threat is less likely than on other systems does not mean that it does not exist. Yet people on here won't even admit that much.
Either you're not reading or not comprehending the posts that have been made. No one is saying that NO threats exist; only that those threats can be avoided by the user without the need for AV software.
Only a fanboy would take a post that suggests that a false sense of security can lead to dangerous behavior that might be a liability in the future (good advice in almost any market/situation) and twist it into "Boy you're ignorant; we are INVULNERABLE! OSX cannot be hacked or attacked! It's impossible!
Who are you referring to? I haven't seen anyone say such things in this thread or any other.
"fanboy"
Again, who are you referring to? I'm not a fanboy, or a boy of any kind. I have no allegiance or loyalty to any brand or manufacturer (except Harley-Davidson, but for very different reasons). It's amusing to see how people try to bash Apple or Macs for the wrong reasons, then resort to calling people "fanboys" when their arguments aren't accepted. Apple and Macs have plenty of weaknesses. Attack one of the legitimate ones and you'll have sensible people agree with you. Make a case against Apple or John Deere or Mattel or Coca-Cola or any other company that isn't based in fact, and you'll get resistance. That doesn't make those who oppose such a case "fanboys".
Malware includes computer viruses, worms, trojan horses, spyware and other malicious and unwanted software or programs. The idea that OSX and/or Unix/Linux based operating systems is free from such threats is absurd.
No one has presented the idea that Mac OS X is free from all malware threats. Since your reading comprehension might need some help, I'll repeat my statement again:
there is no Mac malware in the wild that can't be avoided with some common sense and prudent action on the part of the user.
Viruses for Mac OS X don't exist, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Trojans for Mac OS X do exist, but can be avoided by the user being careful what they install, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Meanwhile, the answer on here to avoiding potential pitfalls in things like Flash is to (surprise), not install or use it. Hey guys, don't power on your computers and you will always be safe! :rolleyes:
I use Flash all the time and have never had any issues with it.
Even Apple themselves regularly release security updates. WTF is the point of a security update if there's no possible threat to OSX?
Again, no one has said there are not threats to Mac OS X; only that those threats don't require any AV software to defend against them.
Just because a threat is less likely than on other systems does not mean that it does not exist. Yet people on here won't even admit that much.
Either you're not reading or not comprehending the posts that have been made. No one is saying that NO threats exist; only that those threats can be avoided by the user without the need for AV software.
Only a fanboy would take a post that suggests that a false sense of security can lead to dangerous behavior that might be a liability in the future (good advice in almost any market/situation) and twist it into "Boy you're ignorant; we are INVULNERABLE! OSX cannot be hacked or attacked! It's impossible!
Who are you referring to? I haven't seen anyone say such things in this thread or any other.
iStudentUK
Apr 18, 12:04 PM
Depends where you work. My job, I get 10 holiday days, and 20 vacation/sick leave days. But at former jobs, I got no paid time off.
That's incredible! How can that be the case? Here it is 28 days paid days off if you work a normal 5 day week.
That's incredible! How can that be the case? Here it is 28 days paid days off if you work a normal 5 day week.
tonkaxxtuph
Mar 30, 11:46 AM
This whole thing is getting silly. Seriously MS, do something better with your money.
Multimedia
Sep 10, 09:29 PM
Well here at work I could replace 4 PC draughting workstations with a Conroe based system. We already have 23" monitors so we are not going to purchase iMacs, and while Mac Pro's are nice they are too expensive for us... A $1500 headless system would do wonders! (and yes the mini is too little).
If Apple cannot release such a system we will have to continue purchasing PCs... :(You are the market Apple has got to be planning on winning. I have been using two monitors since 1986 when the Mac II made that possible. I might consider a mini - just for fooling around - if it had two moniotr ports.
This I see as the primary problem with the iMac as well. Although it does now allow spanning, the screens are going to outlast contemporary power levels over time thus making the idea of all-in-one very unattractive to those of us who want state-of-the-art power every 12-18 months or so and don't like the idea of a computer behind our screens. I like my computers on the floor.
What I want is the ability to have significant power along with the ability to hook up to 4 screens to that power not one or two - especially not the computer married to any displays.
I guess there are three types of people in the world:
1. Someone who only wants one screen hooked to a separate small computer that can only hook to one screen.
2. Someone who wants a screen married to the computer with the option of adding only one more.
3. Someone who wants one or more screens hooked to a computer on the floor with room for two dual display video cards.
I can see the mobile MacBook Pros as justifiably containing a computer married to a screen - but only with a Dual Link DVI port - unlike the mini and iMacs. Price of the MacBook explains the missing Dual Link DVI.
If Apple cannot release such a system we will have to continue purchasing PCs... :(You are the market Apple has got to be planning on winning. I have been using two monitors since 1986 when the Mac II made that possible. I might consider a mini - just for fooling around - if it had two moniotr ports.
This I see as the primary problem with the iMac as well. Although it does now allow spanning, the screens are going to outlast contemporary power levels over time thus making the idea of all-in-one very unattractive to those of us who want state-of-the-art power every 12-18 months or so and don't like the idea of a computer behind our screens. I like my computers on the floor.
What I want is the ability to have significant power along with the ability to hook up to 4 screens to that power not one or two - especially not the computer married to any displays.
I guess there are three types of people in the world:
1. Someone who only wants one screen hooked to a separate small computer that can only hook to one screen.
2. Someone who wants a screen married to the computer with the option of adding only one more.
3. Someone who wants one or more screens hooked to a computer on the floor with room for two dual display video cards.
I can see the mobile MacBook Pros as justifiably containing a computer married to a screen - but only with a Dual Link DVI port - unlike the mini and iMacs. Price of the MacBook explains the missing Dual Link DVI.
dbales
Mar 29, 11:12 AM
Early April Fools...nice!
Yea, I'm not buying this neither the hook, nor the line and certainly it's a stinker.
Yea, I'm not buying this neither the hook, nor the line and certainly it's a stinker.
jz1492
Nov 13, 03:56 PM
The difference is with a client I can show them a prototype, or mock up, prior to having to put all the resources into creating a fully functioning app.
I don't know about you, but I have done it many, many times, and I have never encountered a client who doesn't want at the end to tweak and add and tweak and sometimes reject, then conditionally approve, their way to deployment.
I don't know about you, but I have done it many, many times, and I have never encountered a client who doesn't want at the end to tweak and add and tweak and sometimes reject, then conditionally approve, their way to deployment.
iEvolution
Apr 22, 01:08 PM
Cloud is a awful idea, and I hate streaming video technology too because you never can "own" or store the items on YOUR computer in the event something happens.
I can't believe so many people are following this cloud crap like its a good thing.
Essentially you'd be paying for items that run on the companies servers in which they pretty much can hold the data hostage.
2nd, servers do go down and most broadband companies employ caps now (which is ridiculous since internet use is increasing) so that is another issue.
3rd, if becoming hugely popular, storage space on devices is no longer going to be a priority. (though really hasn't been the last few years for apple anyway)
If I pay for something it should be on MY computer not some company that can change their policies at any time for any reason. Including boosting prices.
Now cloud based services would make a nice side kick to storage but it definitely should not kill the current module of downloading stuff to your computer and allowing you to "own" the content and move it how you please.
Unfortunately the general population don't have the brains to really see the negatives to any apple ideas.
I can't believe so many people are following this cloud crap like its a good thing.
Essentially you'd be paying for items that run on the companies servers in which they pretty much can hold the data hostage.
2nd, servers do go down and most broadband companies employ caps now (which is ridiculous since internet use is increasing) so that is another issue.
3rd, if becoming hugely popular, storage space on devices is no longer going to be a priority. (though really hasn't been the last few years for apple anyway)
If I pay for something it should be on MY computer not some company that can change their policies at any time for any reason. Including boosting prices.
Now cloud based services would make a nice side kick to storage but it definitely should not kill the current module of downloading stuff to your computer and allowing you to "own" the content and move it how you please.
Unfortunately the general population don't have the brains to really see the negatives to any apple ideas.
Popeye206
Apr 19, 08:17 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Do no buckle to these power hungry tyrants Samsung. The stinger you fight, the more I will buy your products in the future.
LOL! Why do you have a problem with companies trying to protect their intellectual property?
At least Apple didn't wait years to file suit and if you remember, they did file many patents on the iPhone when it was introduced. They have every right to protect their IP.
But I know... this goes against your anti-Apple ranting.
Do no buckle to these power hungry tyrants Samsung. The stinger you fight, the more I will buy your products in the future.
LOL! Why do you have a problem with companies trying to protect their intellectual property?
At least Apple didn't wait years to file suit and if you remember, they did file many patents on the iPhone when it was introduced. They have every right to protect their IP.
But I know... this goes against your anti-Apple ranting.
bretm
Sep 9, 12:53 PM
And I'm thinking... why?! 10 years ago BeOS had this down pat. The whole system was multi-threaded and multi-processor aware from the kernel all the way up through the user interface including the system services used by all native applications. It was amazingly responsive and was reported (in major publications) to gain as much as 60-70% performance by having a second CPU. I realize MacOS X is based on some old NeXTStep code which was not made for multiple processors, but come on! This is the 21st century and Apple's been selling dual processor machines for about 5 years now.
Anyway, this is great news. I'd been drooling over the new iMacs since they were announced and wondering how much I might gain by upgrading from my 2GHz G5 PowerMac. It's very enticing.
Well they were selling them back in 1996 so you might want to add 5 years to your 5 year statement. You could buy dual 604e in the 9500 and the 9600 too I think.
Anyway, this is great news. I'd been drooling over the new iMacs since they were announced and wondering how much I might gain by upgrading from my 2GHz G5 PowerMac. It's very enticing.
Well they were selling them back in 1996 so you might want to add 5 years to your 5 year statement. You could buy dual 604e in the 9500 and the 9600 too I think.
jwdsail
Apr 14, 06:19 PM
USB must DIE! Die die die!!! Kill it! Kill it dead! DEAD!!!!!
Not that I'm bitter about slow as molasses in MN in January transfer speeds or anything...
Not that I'm bitter about slow as molasses in MN in January transfer speeds or anything...
rtharper
Sep 14, 12:10 PM
I work in a government building. With ours there is a rule about cameras but it isn't strict.
Basically they say there is a difference between holding your phone as if you're going to take a picture and holding your camera when your texting, which we're supposed to at break (unless you're a manager and you have a work phone)
Do you deal with classified material? The rule isn't important at the facility I worked at unless it was an area where clearance was required to enter.
Basically they say there is a difference between holding your phone as if you're going to take a picture and holding your camera when your texting, which we're supposed to at break (unless you're a manager and you have a work phone)
Do you deal with classified material? The rule isn't important at the facility I worked at unless it was an area where clearance was required to enter.
Gem�tlichkeit
Apr 11, 07:44 AM
THIS
As you correctly highlight, the significance of this isn't that it enables others to implement 3rd party Airplay clients for innocent playback... it's that it allows Airplay-based software rippers to be constructed.
Want an un-encrypted copy of that iTMS rental movie? Stream it to an airplay-ripper you've downloaded off the 'net, and it'll be re-compressed in non-DRM form for you to play back whenever you wish.
This is the biggest worry for Apple. They can't raise lawsuits against free software apps hosted outside the US in the same way they could block the selling of non-licenced hardware in the US.
Sounds like a ghetto way of saving a buck.
As you correctly highlight, the significance of this isn't that it enables others to implement 3rd party Airplay clients for innocent playback... it's that it allows Airplay-based software rippers to be constructed.
Want an un-encrypted copy of that iTMS rental movie? Stream it to an airplay-ripper you've downloaded off the 'net, and it'll be re-compressed in non-DRM form for you to play back whenever you wish.
This is the biggest worry for Apple. They can't raise lawsuits against free software apps hosted outside the US in the same way they could block the selling of non-licenced hardware in the US.
Sounds like a ghetto way of saving a buck.
dlastmango
Sep 13, 09:09 PM
I assume the screen would be a touch screen. I would hate to start dialing numbers using the click wheel.
I hope it isnt a touch screen. I miss my old rotary phone. It did suck if you messed up a 1-800 number though...:p :eek: :rolleyes:
I hope it isnt a touch screen. I miss my old rotary phone. It did suck if you messed up a 1-800 number though...:p :eek: :rolleyes:
whooleytoo
Sep 14, 06:22 AM
It seems very odd that Apple would adopt the iPod nano look 'n' feel on the iPhone, when they've just dropped it on the nano itself. On the other hand, it's possible the nano's look was changed to differentiate it from the upcoming iPhone - though I don't buy it.
The scroll wheel looks very low on the front of the device, meaning it's hard to use it with your thumb without the phone toppling out of your hand (as with many current phones).
Whatever about the design, if Apple could make any attractive phone, which is stable(!!), with a snappy UI (!!!), and with tight integration with the Mac (contacts, calendars/schedulers, perhaps even tighter integration with Address Book), I'd snap it up.
The scroll wheel looks very low on the front of the device, meaning it's hard to use it with your thumb without the phone toppling out of your hand (as with many current phones).
Whatever about the design, if Apple could make any attractive phone, which is stable(!!), with a snappy UI (!!!), and with tight integration with the Mac (contacts, calendars/schedulers, perhaps even tighter integration with Address Book), I'd snap it up.
macquariumguy
Apr 19, 11:33 AM
There is an upside to being exempt. While it's true I don't get paid extra if I work 45 hours this week, I will also not be paid less if I work 35 hours next week. In my job one is just as likely as the other.
firewood
Mar 23, 04:50 PM
The way to solve this is to put a sobriety test in the app that has to be passed before the user can view any checkpoints. That way sober drivers won't have to take a route that wastes their valuable time. And sufficiently impaired drunk should be locked out of the app.
The app's sobriety test "login" can check a person's balance using the accelerometer and gyro, measure their reflex time, and maybe run a short N-back memory and attention span test that should discourage anyone who can't pass these tests from driving in the first place, maybe even display the length of the latest prison sentences doled out to people who drove impaired in their county.
The app's sobriety test "login" can check a person's balance using the accelerometer and gyro, measure their reflex time, and maybe run a short N-back memory and attention span test that should discourage anyone who can't pass these tests from driving in the first place, maybe even display the length of the latest prison sentences doled out to people who drove impaired in their county.
rmwebs
Apr 25, 02:38 PM
I'd like to see something along the lines of carbon fiber. I'm fed up of being shocked by my unearthed mac book pro, and very fed up of the razor sharp edges they seem to like so much. It makes me look like I've tried slitting my wrists :p
The obvious downside with using a non-metal is the heat. They have relied on the aluminium to act as a giant heatsink, and I fear not using aluminium again would result in a thicker, hotter model!
The obvious downside with using a non-metal is the heat. They have relied on the aluminium to act as a giant heatsink, and I fear not using aluminium again would result in a thicker, hotter model!
poppe
Sep 5, 08:54 PM
HecubusPro:
"C2D laptop information has come to a near stop"
Based on all of our POOR experience it is obvious that little real information on the Merom based MBP exists. I do not want to admit to all of the time I have wasted on this decision / upgrade. A new notebook is needed within a week - I can not bring myself to by a Yonah since I've waited this long - but............
Now - the next Tuesday (hahahahahahahahahaha) - 9/12 - then what:mad:
I've heard speculation of fricken october... So much for us all waiting if it doesnt come out next week...
"C2D laptop information has come to a near stop"
Based on all of our POOR experience it is obvious that little real information on the Merom based MBP exists. I do not want to admit to all of the time I have wasted on this decision / upgrade. A new notebook is needed within a week - I can not bring myself to by a Yonah since I've waited this long - but............
Now - the next Tuesday (hahahahahahahahahaha) - 9/12 - then what:mad:
I've heard speculation of fricken october... So much for us all waiting if it doesnt come out next week...
Survivor61
Mar 23, 04:32 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8C148)
Doesn't really matter out here in Sacramento. Law enforcement posts the date and location in the local paper anyway.
Doesn't really matter out here in Sacramento. Law enforcement posts the date and location in the local paper anyway.
0 comments:
Post a Comment