jmbear
Nov 29, 12:39 PM
See, that's the catch-22 for new artists. The labels are the ones that get tunes played on the radio. In the 50's and 60's they would strong-arm their stuff in, but I'm sure even nowadays they provide incentives (read: bribes) to get new stuff on the air. Especially if they think the band is really good and will make it in the long run. And don't fool yourself into thinking a new band can get huge without radio.
The internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don�t I delete them. You don�t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn�t kill it. But its importance will diminish.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend..
iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It�s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ�s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label..
I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels� business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.
Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can�t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. Exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
The internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don�t I delete them. You don�t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn�t kill it. But its importance will diminish.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend..
iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It�s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ�s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label..
I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels� business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.
Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can�t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. Exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
OutThere
Apr 27, 09:13 AM
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2711155/posts?q=1&;page=101
There you have it. The birthers aren't satisfied. I knew it.
The tinfoilhatism in the comments on that link is out of hand.
There you have it. The birthers aren't satisfied. I knew it.
The tinfoilhatism in the comments on that link is out of hand.
Multimedia
Jul 21, 12:20 PM
It really depends on your application.
On the desktop, if you're a typical user that's just interested in web surfing, playing music files, organizing your photo collection, etc., more than two cores will probably not be too useful. For these kinds of users, even two cores may be overkill, but two are useful for keeping a responsive UI when an application starts hogging all the CPU time.
If you start using higher-power applications (like video work - iMovie/iDVD, for instance) then more cores will speed up that kind of work (assuming the app is properly multithreaded, of course.) 4-core systems will definitely benefit this kind of user.
With current applications, however, I don't think more than 4 cores will be useful. The kind of work that will make 8 cores useful is the kinds that requires expensive professional software - which most people don't use...
Cluster computing has similar benefits. With 8 cores in each processor, it is almost as good as having 8 times as many computers in the cluster, and a lot less expensive. This concept will scale up as the number of cores increases, assuming motherbaords can be designed with enough memory and FSB bandwidth to keep them all busy.
I think we might see a single quad-core chip in consumer systems, like the iMac. I think it is likely that we'll see them in Pro systems, like the Mac Pro (including a high-end model with two quad-core chips.)
I think processors with more than 4 cores will never be seen outside of servers - Xserves and maybe some configurations of Mac Pro. Mostly because that's where there is a need for this kind of power.I strongly disagree. I could use 16 cores right now for notihng more than simple consumer electronics video compression routines. There will be a Mac Pro with 8 cores this Winter 2007.
You are completely blind to the need for many cores right now for very simple stupid work. All I want to do is run 4 copies of Toast while running 4 copies of Handbrake simultaneously. Each wants 2 cores or more. So you are not thinking of the current need for 16 cores already.
This is not even beginning to discuss how many Final Cut Studio Editors need 16 Cores. Man, I can't believe you wrote that. I think you are overlooking the obvious - the need to run multiple copies of today's applicaitons simultaneously.
So as long as the heat issue can be overcome, I don't see why 8 Cores can't belong inside an iMac by the end of 2008.
I apologize if I read a little hot. But I find the line of thought that 4 or 8 Cores are enough or more than enough to really annoy me. They are not nearly enough for those of us who see the problem of not enough cores EVERY DAY. The rest of you either have no imagination or are only using your Macs for word processing, browsing and email.
I am sincerely frustrated by not having enough cores to do simple stupid work efficiently. Just look at how crippled this G5 Quad is already only running three things. They can't even run full speed due to lack of cores.
On the desktop, if you're a typical user that's just interested in web surfing, playing music files, organizing your photo collection, etc., more than two cores will probably not be too useful. For these kinds of users, even two cores may be overkill, but two are useful for keeping a responsive UI when an application starts hogging all the CPU time.
If you start using higher-power applications (like video work - iMovie/iDVD, for instance) then more cores will speed up that kind of work (assuming the app is properly multithreaded, of course.) 4-core systems will definitely benefit this kind of user.
With current applications, however, I don't think more than 4 cores will be useful. The kind of work that will make 8 cores useful is the kinds that requires expensive professional software - which most people don't use...
Cluster computing has similar benefits. With 8 cores in each processor, it is almost as good as having 8 times as many computers in the cluster, and a lot less expensive. This concept will scale up as the number of cores increases, assuming motherbaords can be designed with enough memory and FSB bandwidth to keep them all busy.
I think we might see a single quad-core chip in consumer systems, like the iMac. I think it is likely that we'll see them in Pro systems, like the Mac Pro (including a high-end model with two quad-core chips.)
I think processors with more than 4 cores will never be seen outside of servers - Xserves and maybe some configurations of Mac Pro. Mostly because that's where there is a need for this kind of power.I strongly disagree. I could use 16 cores right now for notihng more than simple consumer electronics video compression routines. There will be a Mac Pro with 8 cores this Winter 2007.
You are completely blind to the need for many cores right now for very simple stupid work. All I want to do is run 4 copies of Toast while running 4 copies of Handbrake simultaneously. Each wants 2 cores or more. So you are not thinking of the current need for 16 cores already.
This is not even beginning to discuss how many Final Cut Studio Editors need 16 Cores. Man, I can't believe you wrote that. I think you are overlooking the obvious - the need to run multiple copies of today's applicaitons simultaneously.
So as long as the heat issue can be overcome, I don't see why 8 Cores can't belong inside an iMac by the end of 2008.
I apologize if I read a little hot. But I find the line of thought that 4 or 8 Cores are enough or more than enough to really annoy me. They are not nearly enough for those of us who see the problem of not enough cores EVERY DAY. The rest of you either have no imagination or are only using your Macs for word processing, browsing and email.
I am sincerely frustrated by not having enough cores to do simple stupid work efficiently. Just look at how crippled this G5 Quad is already only running three things. They can't even run full speed due to lack of cores.
iGary
Feb 28, 05:14 PM
A same-sex attracted person is living a "gay lifestyle" when he or she dates people of the same sex, "marries" people of the same sex, has same-sex sex, or does any combination of these things. I think that if same-sex attracted people are going to live together, they need to do that as though they were siblings, not as sex partners. In my opinion, they should have purely platonic, nonsexual relationships with one another.
Heterosexual couples need to reserve sex for opposite-sex monogamous marriage. If I had a girlfriend, I might kiss her. But I wouldn't do that to deliberately arouse either of us. If either of us felt tempted to have sex with each other, the kissing would stop right away. I know of a woman who gave an excellent answer when men asked her why saved sex for marriage. She said, "I"m worth waiting for." She lived by her Catholic convictions, and she wouldn't risk letting any man use her as a mere object, as a mere tool.
Some may say, "I have sex with my girlfriend to show her that I love her." If I had a girlfriend, I would hope I would love her enough to protect her from the physical and psychological risks that come with non-marital sex. The best way for me to do that is for my hypothetical girlfriend and me to be celibate before marriage.
Sacramentally same-sex "marriage" isn't marriage. Neither is merely civil marriage of any sort. If I understand what the Catholic Church's teachings about marriage merely civil, it teaches non-sacramental marriage, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, is legal fornication.
Whatever crutch gets you through life.
Heterosexual couples need to reserve sex for opposite-sex monogamous marriage. If I had a girlfriend, I might kiss her. But I wouldn't do that to deliberately arouse either of us. If either of us felt tempted to have sex with each other, the kissing would stop right away. I know of a woman who gave an excellent answer when men asked her why saved sex for marriage. She said, "I"m worth waiting for." She lived by her Catholic convictions, and she wouldn't risk letting any man use her as a mere object, as a mere tool.
Some may say, "I have sex with my girlfriend to show her that I love her." If I had a girlfriend, I would hope I would love her enough to protect her from the physical and psychological risks that come with non-marital sex. The best way for me to do that is for my hypothetical girlfriend and me to be celibate before marriage.
Sacramentally same-sex "marriage" isn't marriage. Neither is merely civil marriage of any sort. If I understand what the Catholic Church's teachings about marriage merely civil, it teaches non-sacramental marriage, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, is legal fornication.
Whatever crutch gets you through life.
andrewm
Aug 23, 11:07 AM
I did...:D
DIE POWER PC...DIE!!!
Most agreed. I'm using an iBook G4 right now, but I'd practically sell my kidneys (both of 'em!) to convert it to a MacBook Pro.
Let us continue to pray for a speedy death to the Macintosh PowerPC computer.
DIE POWER PC...DIE!!!
Most agreed. I'm using an iBook G4 right now, but I'd practically sell my kidneys (both of 'em!) to convert it to a MacBook Pro.
Let us continue to pray for a speedy death to the Macintosh PowerPC computer.
hyperpasta
Aug 5, 05:53 PM
why no mbp? its a pro machine so shouldnt it be updated?
The upcoming MacBook Pro is expected to use a chip known as the Core 2 Duo, versus today's Core Duo. Code-named Merom, this chip will not ship in volume until later this month/early next month. Therefore, IF a Merom laptop is shown, it will not ship for month(s). It is much more likely that we see new Macs using the desktop version of the Core 2 Duo, which is codenamed Conroe and is already being readied to ship as I write this.
The upcoming MacBook Pro is expected to use a chip known as the Core 2 Duo, versus today's Core Duo. Code-named Merom, this chip will not ship in volume until later this month/early next month. Therefore, IF a Merom laptop is shown, it will not ship for month(s). It is much more likely that we see new Macs using the desktop version of the Core 2 Duo, which is codenamed Conroe and is already being readied to ship as I write this.
kdarling
Apr 6, 02:14 PM
That's actually more than I expected.
Yep, not bad considering it's $800 without contract.
Yep, not bad considering it's $800 without contract.
Surreal
Aug 27, 02:11 PM
jeez, i thought the thread might cool off in a day or so, but there is no sign of that happening, is there?
well, i have wondered for some time, how many people have had problems with the 17" mavbook pros?
i have one...it's fine. i heard a few small scale problems about it, but nothing on the scale of the 15"
well, i have wondered for some time, how many people have had problems with the 17" mavbook pros?
i have one...it's fine. i heard a few small scale problems about it, but nothing on the scale of the 15"
bibbz
Jun 14, 08:51 PM
Nice to meet you Jersey.
Are the gift cards good indefinitely?
Yes
ok definitely not going to radio shack... they changed the time from 7AM to 1PM and are now giving out pins which will put your name on a list and they will call you as they are received to the store.... definitely not guaranteed!
wrong, read my posts from today.
Radio Shack employees are clueless and have very little information about the Iphone 4 preorder. It looks like they are only taking names and they'll call you when they get them, whenever that is.
wrong, read my posts from today.
Are the gift cards good indefinitely?
Yes
ok definitely not going to radio shack... they changed the time from 7AM to 1PM and are now giving out pins which will put your name on a list and they will call you as they are received to the store.... definitely not guaranteed!
wrong, read my posts from today.
Radio Shack employees are clueless and have very little information about the Iphone 4 preorder. It looks like they are only taking names and they'll call you when they get them, whenever that is.
wrong, read my posts from today.
kenaustus
Jul 20, 08:52 PM
If Intel designates Kentsfield as a desktop processor it will make its way into Mac Pros as fast as the competition can deliver their desktop versions. Apple is now one of the "Intel Big Boys" and there will be continual (internal & external) pressure not to be left behind.
I would also think Apple is getting ready for Kentsfield - they have had the same pre-release information that the other Intel Big Boys have received.
I think that the surprise will be next month when Steve J is talking about Leopard. He'll mention something like, "You might have read a bit about a new chip from Intel called Kentsfield. You might like to know that Leopard is designed to take full advantage of Kentsfield when it's released." He really doesn't need to say anything else - that alone will drive MS nuts.
With a quad core arriving rather fast I believe that Apple may be looking at the headless range. Right now there is only the mini and (upcoming) Pro. Lots of room in between the two and that room gets bigger with Kentsfield. It presents a very good argument for a mid range headless to fill the gap.
SInce the mini has been out for a while there will be a lot of users that "switched" to a Mac because of the mini and now went something more powerful - without loosing their investment in their display. If the Pro is overkill then APple is going to loose the upgrade. Others, like me, use a PB with a large display - mine is the 23". I don't want a huge tower under the table and I don't see the value of moving to a mini. I'll reach for the credit card after Kentsfield is released IF there is a mid-range that excites me.
I would also think Apple is getting ready for Kentsfield - they have had the same pre-release information that the other Intel Big Boys have received.
I think that the surprise will be next month when Steve J is talking about Leopard. He'll mention something like, "You might have read a bit about a new chip from Intel called Kentsfield. You might like to know that Leopard is designed to take full advantage of Kentsfield when it's released." He really doesn't need to say anything else - that alone will drive MS nuts.
With a quad core arriving rather fast I believe that Apple may be looking at the headless range. Right now there is only the mini and (upcoming) Pro. Lots of room in between the two and that room gets bigger with Kentsfield. It presents a very good argument for a mid range headless to fill the gap.
SInce the mini has been out for a while there will be a lot of users that "switched" to a Mac because of the mini and now went something more powerful - without loosing their investment in their display. If the Pro is overkill then APple is going to loose the upgrade. Others, like me, use a PB with a large display - mine is the 23". I don't want a huge tower under the table and I don't see the value of moving to a mini. I'll reach for the credit card after Kentsfield is released IF there is a mid-range that excites me.
ugp
Jun 10, 06:33 PM
Without any adapters and just the phone this is what Radio Shack says...
My phone was just replaced by Apple a few weeks ago. I am curious to see if the value drops as each day goes on. I don't want to be without a phone right now but that isn't a bad value being the value of them on eBay right now. Making $30-40 isn't worth the trouble on eBay. I will be trading mine in for sure.
http://i50.tinypic.com/1z9nbd.jpg
My phone was just replaced by Apple a few weeks ago. I am curious to see if the value drops as each day goes on. I don't want to be without a phone right now but that isn't a bad value being the value of them on eBay right now. Making $30-40 isn't worth the trouble on eBay. I will be trading mine in for sure.
http://i50.tinypic.com/1z9nbd.jpg
asterizk
Nov 28, 07:05 PM
I think they'll be a long way off getting money from every iPod sold. For a start its such an illogical thing to ask for (Did the music companies ask for money for every CD player or Tape Recorder sold? Nope), plus I suspect the main reason that Microsoft agreed to pay money in the first place is that they needed to get the music labels on board to boost the Zune Music Store, Microsoft was in the weaker position here and I believe the labels exploited that weakness.
Yup.. Gruber made a similar statement (http://daringfireball.net/2006/11/buy_that_for_a_dollar) recently.
Yup.. Gruber made a similar statement (http://daringfireball.net/2006/11/buy_that_for_a_dollar) recently.
ghall
Aug 25, 02:59 PM
Hey, I'm not about to complain, they sent me a brand new MacBook Pro (even though I was on hold for an hour). Yeah, I have certainly noticed longer hold times on the support lines. Crazy, huh?
leekohler
Mar 1, 07:47 AM
It's amazing how the message can be impacted so much by where it is coming from. If leekohler would have said "I'm chronically gay," many of us might've gotten a chuckle out of it. ;)
The sheer willful ignorance is astounding. People like this do not want to understand others who are different from them. They want to remain ignorant.
The sheer willful ignorance is astounding. People like this do not want to understand others who are different from them. They want to remain ignorant.
RedTomato
Aug 11, 09:31 PM
Apple won't put GPS in unless they can create a whole new 'Apple' interface for it.
I'm no GPS expert, but I'm not sure how they could do that with a simple candybar phone. It would need to be some sort of smartphone / pocketPC thing.
I'm no GPS expert, but I'm not sure how they could do that with a simple candybar phone. It would need to be some sort of smartphone / pocketPC thing.
Cachiro
Apr 6, 04:55 PM
[QUOTE=
Xoom.... I say Fail.
[/QUOTE]
Popeye, you hit a nail on the head.
:D
Xoom.... I say Fail.
[/QUOTE]
Popeye, you hit a nail on the head.
:D
AppleKrate
Sep 19, 10:49 AM
The MacBookPro is still too new a release to have the major type of changes you and others are hoping for. All you're going to get for the next year or two is speed bumps and maybe an upgrade in HD capacity, Graphics card, or Optical Drive (Blue-Ray or HD-DVD)
Basically I see two types of users in here pleading for the newer chips: the average users who just "like the idea of fast" when it really does them no good, and the professionals who are consistantly holding out for something better. The professionals are few and far between.
Please tell me what is majorly new about the current MacBook Pro besides an intel chip :confused: (and the name of course :rolleyes: )
PS how about an amateur professional? If not, maybe a professional amateur?
Basically I see two types of users in here pleading for the newer chips: the average users who just "like the idea of fast" when it really does them no good, and the professionals who are consistantly holding out for something better. The professionals are few and far between.
Please tell me what is majorly new about the current MacBook Pro besides an intel chip :confused: (and the name of course :rolleyes: )
PS how about an amateur professional? If not, maybe a professional amateur?
amccune
Apr 12, 09:13 AM
I think the User's Group meeting isn't until 4:30, so we are in for a wait...
runninmac
Aug 17, 01:01 AM
This is a very dumb question but is Photoshop running under rosetta in this test?
If Photoshop is that is nuts.
Oh, please believe it is.
:eek:
If Photoshop is that is nuts.
Oh, please believe it is.
:eek:
Digital Skunk
Mar 22, 12:55 PM
Assuming this gets out of vaporware status, it looks pretty good. The custom interface also looks good. Apple better have some improvements to the UI (ahem, notifications) in iOS 5
Sorry, completely forgot about that.
iOS rocks in apps, but it does suck *** in terms of notifications and true multitasking.
Apple should've been the ones to buy Palm.
Sorry, completely forgot about that.
iOS rocks in apps, but it does suck *** in terms of notifications and true multitasking.
Apple should've been the ones to buy Palm.
Silentwave
Aug 26, 04:48 PM
You're screwing up, intel. We don't want 300 trillion transistors on a 1 nm die. We want longer battery life. Idiots.
But there's no die size change here....
and doesn't transitioning to a smaller process usually mean improvements in that department anyways?
Next die change is the 45nm Intel Core Microarchitecture "Penryn" core for mobile- mid-2007 or thereabouts.
But there's no die size change here....
and doesn't transitioning to a smaller process usually mean improvements in that department anyways?
Next die change is the 45nm Intel Core Microarchitecture "Penryn" core for mobile- mid-2007 or thereabouts.
rdowns
Apr 28, 06:29 PM
Look...I'll be the first to admit..there are some wacko Christians out there..like this dude from florida who burned the Quran..i mean wth was he thinking? but we're not all wacko as alot of you suggest... the posts a lot of people on here make, lump ALL of us together. And thats just not cool...
Same goes for conservatives and tea party members...Yes a lot of tea party members are quite radical. But not ALL of them you can probably safely say 99% of racists would consider themselves tea party..but that doesn�t mean everyone in the tea party is racist...
Consider this please before any of you go lumping all of a particular group into one derogatory name..
And I see you throw a liberal label on anyone you disagree with so please spare me Mr. Kettle.
Same goes for conservatives and tea party members...Yes a lot of tea party members are quite radical. But not ALL of them you can probably safely say 99% of racists would consider themselves tea party..but that doesn�t mean everyone in the tea party is racist...
Consider this please before any of you go lumping all of a particular group into one derogatory name..
And I see you throw a liberal label on anyone you disagree with so please spare me Mr. Kettle.
alphaod
Dec 4, 05:08 PM
I've been doing B-spec the whole time. Just set a race up and then go do other stuff. Come back it's done; repeat. :p
Multimedia
Aug 27, 01:57 AM
How do you get black aluminum? Or is this just a wish? Cause that'd be pretty ill.
And what is the easy access HD bay?It is speculated by some of us that the next MacBook Pro revision will include a Black Anodized Aluminum case. Here is the MacWorld video showing the MacBook's Easy Access HD Bay (http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/macword/2006/05/macbookvideo/index.php) which many of us here think is a Pro feature Apple must implement in the next revision of the MacBook Pro. :)
Here is the Apple documentation on the MacBook's Easy Access Hard Drive Bay (http://manuals.info.apple.com/en/MacBook_13inch_HardDrive_DIY.pdf).
And what is the easy access HD bay?It is speculated by some of us that the next MacBook Pro revision will include a Black Anodized Aluminum case. Here is the MacWorld video showing the MacBook's Easy Access HD Bay (http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/macword/2006/05/macbookvideo/index.php) which many of us here think is a Pro feature Apple must implement in the next revision of the MacBook Pro. :)
Here is the Apple documentation on the MacBook's Easy Access Hard Drive Bay (http://manuals.info.apple.com/en/MacBook_13inch_HardDrive_DIY.pdf).
No comments:
Post a Comment