FreeState
Mar 4, 04:41 PM
Logic is my source. Society needs people, no people means no society. If there were no more babies society would eventually collapse.
About as logical as "Concerned" Women of America. Somehow you start recognizing gay families rights under the government and men will lose all interest in women, even at the alter!
(Unfortunately this is an actual screen grab of their website from today - they are not homophobic at all, really...)
About as logical as "Concerned" Women of America. Somehow you start recognizing gay families rights under the government and men will lose all interest in women, even at the alter!
(Unfortunately this is an actual screen grab of their website from today - they are not homophobic at all, really...)
triceretops
Apr 27, 09:13 AM
And assume you go to a place you have been a month ago, wouldn't having the database speed things up when you return to that location a month later?
(Though I agree the effect will be very minor, as soon as you land with a plane, the iPhone will start populating that database, thus having the data from a month ago will only be relevant if you need location data right away after landing.)
How else are you going to check in on Facebook?:p
My layover at some airports is only 45 minutes.
(Though I agree the effect will be very minor, as soon as you land with a plane, the iPhone will start populating that database, thus having the data from a month ago will only be relevant if you need location data right away after landing.)
How else are you going to check in on Facebook?:p
My layover at some airports is only 45 minutes.
Eidorian
Sep 13, 08:17 AM
DAMN :eek:
so 2-3 years from now are people going to be asking "why am I stuck with dual core in my macbook?" oh yeah I'll mostly be surfing the web and maybe editing a photo once and a while" :rolleyes:Fixed
so 2-3 years from now are people going to be asking "why am I stuck with dual core in my macbook?" oh yeah I'll mostly be surfing the web and maybe editing a photo once and a while" :rolleyes:Fixed
AppliedVisual
Oct 15, 03:47 PM
... hmmm ... i just ordered a mac pro quad 3ghz ... 8 cores would be somehow nicer ;)
.a
The 8-core Mac Pro @ 2.33GHz should be about the same price as the quad-core 2.66GHz. Theoretically, the 8-core 2.66GHz should be about the same price as what you just ordered.
Before you seriously consider canceling, just be sure that your workflow can benefit from the various CPU cores. Very few applications can take advantage of dual-core CPUs, let alone quad-core. In most situations, you need to be running various instances or multiple apps at once that can handle 2 or more threads to benefit from these newer multi-core systems. If you do any 3D animation or heavy rendering, scientific computing, visualization, massive database management/development, etc... You may be a candidate. Depending on your requirements, a quad-core 3GHz may still be the best performing system for you.
.a
The 8-core Mac Pro @ 2.33GHz should be about the same price as the quad-core 2.66GHz. Theoretically, the 8-core 2.66GHz should be about the same price as what you just ordered.
Before you seriously consider canceling, just be sure that your workflow can benefit from the various CPU cores. Very few applications can take advantage of dual-core CPUs, let alone quad-core. In most situations, you need to be running various instances or multiple apps at once that can handle 2 or more threads to benefit from these newer multi-core systems. If you do any 3D animation or heavy rendering, scientific computing, visualization, massive database management/development, etc... You may be a candidate. Depending on your requirements, a quad-core 3GHz may still be the best performing system for you.
skunk
Feb 28, 07:12 PM
2) okay, they can pretend to get marriedNo, you are absolutely wrong., They can get married like any other couple where the laws allow. Marriage is not a special preserve of any religion. You cannot just commandeer it.
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornicationWho cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?No, not proof
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
The most celebrated account of homosexual love comes in Plato's Symposium, in which homosexual love is discussed as a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety. This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion. Platonic homosexuality had very little to do with sex; Plato believed ideally that love and reason should be fused together, while concern over the body and the material world of particulars should be annihilated. Even today, "Platonic love" refers to non-sexual love between two adults.
Behind Plato's contempt for heterosexual desire lay an aesthetic, highly intellectual aversion to the female body. Plato would have agreed with Schopenhauer's opinion that "only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex".
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornicationWho cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?No, not proof
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
The most celebrated account of homosexual love comes in Plato's Symposium, in which homosexual love is discussed as a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety. This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion. Platonic homosexuality had very little to do with sex; Plato believed ideally that love and reason should be fused together, while concern over the body and the material world of particulars should be annihilated. Even today, "Platonic love" refers to non-sexual love between two adults.
Behind Plato's contempt for heterosexual desire lay an aesthetic, highly intellectual aversion to the female body. Plato would have agreed with Schopenhauer's opinion that "only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex".
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
DoFoT9
Nov 29, 03:28 PM
lots of negativity, but i was happy with GT3&4 for the pure racing side of things.
what i REALLY enjoyed from GT3, was the endurance events - how are they in GT5?
what i REALLY enjoyed from GT3, was the endurance events - how are they in GT5?
ergle2
Sep 14, 01:17 PM
True (today anyway; in the NT era they were indeed separate platforms though. Which brings me to my next point..)
Point of total (and obnoxious) pedantry here -- XP and W2K3 Server aren't strictly the same codebase; The latter was a huge rewrite job with some fairly significant internal changes.
XP 64bit is based on W2K3, and Vista originally started out on the XP code base and then was scrapped, and was started over using the W2K3 codebase.
It doesn't invalidate your point in any way and the latter is most definitely descended from the former, but unlike previous products they weren't released in parallel. I mention it purely because I find it interesting, and it's also an example of how Windows is "evolving", so to speak.
I think people who say stuff like that are exhibiting a syndrome common to Mac folk who've never spent any time in the PC world -- they take negative comments they remember regarding versions of Windows or the PC experience from about 5 years back and assume they apply to today. XP, for example, really was for the most part a window-dressing of Windows 2000, but that is not the case for Vista. You see similar statements regarding "blue screens of death", overall system stability, etc, which suggest they haven't seen or used a PC since the late 90s/early 00's.
This is very common on both sides of the divide. Many Mac-only people seem to think Windows is still stuck in the Win9x days, and many of the Windows-only types seem to think MacOS is still in the 8.x days.
I guess it's a little like when your friend has kids and you don't see them for a few years, and you're surprised that instead of still being little kids they're teenagers... :)
Point of total (and obnoxious) pedantry here -- XP and W2K3 Server aren't strictly the same codebase; The latter was a huge rewrite job with some fairly significant internal changes.
XP 64bit is based on W2K3, and Vista originally started out on the XP code base and then was scrapped, and was started over using the W2K3 codebase.
It doesn't invalidate your point in any way and the latter is most definitely descended from the former, but unlike previous products they weren't released in parallel. I mention it purely because I find it interesting, and it's also an example of how Windows is "evolving", so to speak.
I think people who say stuff like that are exhibiting a syndrome common to Mac folk who've never spent any time in the PC world -- they take negative comments they remember regarding versions of Windows or the PC experience from about 5 years back and assume they apply to today. XP, for example, really was for the most part a window-dressing of Windows 2000, but that is not the case for Vista. You see similar statements regarding "blue screens of death", overall system stability, etc, which suggest they haven't seen or used a PC since the late 90s/early 00's.
This is very common on both sides of the divide. Many Mac-only people seem to think Windows is still stuck in the Win9x days, and many of the Windows-only types seem to think MacOS is still in the 8.x days.
I guess it's a little like when your friend has kids and you don't see them for a few years, and you're surprised that instead of still being little kids they're teenagers... :)
BillyShears
Aug 7, 09:32 PM
all the pictures i've seen of leopard show a unified interface :D
Safari appears to be brushed metal. Go here (http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/dashboard.html) and go to about 1/6 of the way through.
Safari appears to be brushed metal. Go here (http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/dashboard.html) and go to about 1/6 of the way through.
Radoo
Apr 19, 01:30 PM
I understood one post about this,the second, but three for the same stupid lawsuit? Have you heard about updating a post? :) When you're out of ideas, bringing the same news over and over again it just denotes being unprofessional.
zacman
Apr 19, 02:53 PM
What is the present smartphone marketshare?
For Q1/11 aprox. 15% for Apple.
Q4/10 numbers were:
http://www.canalys.com/pr/images/r2011013.gif
Again: Apple sold 3 million more devices in Q4/10 than they did in Q3/10 (16 million compared to 13 million in total numbers) but they lost 0.7% marketshare in that 3 month (Q3/10: 16.7% marketshare, see first graph, Q4/10: 16.0%, see above).
For Q1/11 aprox. 15% for Apple.
Q4/10 numbers were:
http://www.canalys.com/pr/images/r2011013.gif
Again: Apple sold 3 million more devices in Q4/10 than they did in Q3/10 (16 million compared to 13 million in total numbers) but they lost 0.7% marketshare in that 3 month (Q3/10: 16.7% marketshare, see first graph, Q4/10: 16.0%, see above).
KnightWRX
Apr 9, 06:17 AM
Most people use their MBA for browsing, youtube videos, email, office apps and perhaps video conferencing. None of which will be bottlenecked by the Intel IGP. If you're doing something above and beyond this that will be negatively affected by the CPU, you are in fact, the minority.
Fixed that there for you. ;)
Goes both ways really. It's just that more casual tasks (ie, gaming and watching videos) max out the GPU more than they do the CPU. CPU bottlenecks are usually caused by niche tasks like video editing/raw photo editing/scientific number crunching.
Fixed that there for you. ;)
Goes both ways really. It's just that more casual tasks (ie, gaming and watching videos) max out the GPU more than they do the CPU. CPU bottlenecks are usually caused by niche tasks like video editing/raw photo editing/scientific number crunching.
darkplanets
Mar 31, 10:56 PM
You mean AntennaGates 1 & 2, iOS 4 on iPhone 3G, the light bleeding on the iPads before shipping, the Macbook Airs crashing when using iTunes aren't examples of Apple cutting corners to get a product to release? I will buy Mac probably for the rest of my life so long as the company is in business and putting out great products with great operating systems.
And they didn't spin it perfectly. Steve Jobs told consumers they were holding the phone wrong and pretended the problem would go away.
I feel like Apple fails more on the hardware front than the software front, especially with the iDevices. Regardless, both companies have flaws, but having your next gen OS NOT work on phones is a big uh-oh. Obviously they'll optimize it; perhaps they'll skip honeycomb for phones, and then come out with a unified "faster" approach for both tablets and phones.
And they didn't spin it perfectly. Steve Jobs told consumers they were holding the phone wrong and pretended the problem would go away.
I feel like Apple fails more on the hardware front than the software front, especially with the iDevices. Regardless, both companies have flaws, but having your next gen OS NOT work on phones is a big uh-oh. Obviously they'll optimize it; perhaps they'll skip honeycomb for phones, and then come out with a unified "faster" approach for both tablets and phones.
jb510
Mar 25, 10:52 PM
Whatever happened to:
Alpha -> Beta -> Release Candidate -> Golden Master
I guess I can uncross my fingers of a file system miracle...
(yes I know and am looking forward to Z410, but would rather have Apple come up with something).
Alpha -> Beta -> Release Candidate -> Golden Master
I guess I can uncross my fingers of a file system miracle...
(yes I know and am looking forward to Z410, but would rather have Apple come up with something).
rickag
Nov 29, 08:55 AM
This is a dangerous game Universal is playing. If Apple refuses and Universal pulls their songs, who wins?
How many of the artists might bolt from Universal, how many might become indie producers online?
Will consumers abandon the iPod? Especially considering most of the music on their iPods is from ripped CDs. Or if you're to believe the record executives it is stolen music? Where's the incentive for the consumer to abandon the iPod?
just saying
How many of the artists might bolt from Universal, how many might become indie producers online?
Will consumers abandon the iPod? Especially considering most of the music on their iPods is from ripped CDs. Or if you're to believe the record executives it is stolen music? Where's the incentive for the consumer to abandon the iPod?
just saying
pixelpp
Nov 29, 03:08 AM
I heard about this.
This garbage is making me furious.
Microsoft, get your butt out of the music business, you're lame, so very lame.
This garbage is making me furious.
Microsoft, get your butt out of the music business, you're lame, so very lame.
MacBoobsPro
Jul 20, 09:17 AM
I think you're a bit confused, 8x 3GHz cores doesn't equal 1x 24GHz processor.
No I think you are confused. :) I meant "Is having more cores, lets say 8, more efficient than one big core equal in processing power to the 8 cores?"
No I think you are confused. :) I meant "Is having more cores, lets say 8, more efficient than one big core equal in processing power to the 8 cores?"
fastlane1588
Jul 30, 10:36 PM
why not just upgrade a new macpro w/ ur hard drives and all that stuff, and then just bootcamp into windows....ud have a pretty sweet pc if the mac pros have all the goodies that people keep saying they will have
BRLawyer
Aug 27, 10:43 AM
Especially the last paragraph of your rebuttal shows that you have not read ALL the threads about MB and MBp problems. I really would like to hear you, when you had your MBP replaced 3 times and still have problems... I have friends who just upgraded to MBPs all have one or more problems, ranging from screen, heat, whine, keyboard, and other problems, some of which they still have to discover. Sorry, buddy, but it truly looks like getting a good MBP is LUCK. I own a couple of laptops, my oldest ones are 9 years old (TOSHIBA), and never ever did I have problems like the ones described on these boards.
Proof my butt.... Wouldn"t it be nice if these threads had only happy APPLE fans? Dream on.
We are consumers, and should not accept getting a refurb lemon... but a new, preferably working product.
Well, it seems like you are the one having hard feelings...so chill out, since we all try to be polite in this forum...otherwise, just go visit some other place where you can vent your anger on people.
As I said above, I am talking about facts and statistics...I am sure there a few cases where guys are just unlucky and receive one lemon after another...but this does NOT represent a trend nor a relevant percentage. You must have this impression because you go to an Apple Support forum and see 100 posts complaining the hell out of it...you just fail, and fail badly, to realize that there are some 1,000,000 users out there with no problems at all.
Anyway, before you start babbling again, check the link below...these are FACTS, not whines.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2006502,00.asp
So please, before you spit out some fire, bring me some real facts, like percentage of failures and so on...the report I've read above shows Apple as having the LOWEST repair rate and HIGHEST trust of all makers. This, for me, is relevant; not random screams in Mac forums.
Proof my butt.... Wouldn"t it be nice if these threads had only happy APPLE fans? Dream on.
We are consumers, and should not accept getting a refurb lemon... but a new, preferably working product.
Well, it seems like you are the one having hard feelings...so chill out, since we all try to be polite in this forum...otherwise, just go visit some other place where you can vent your anger on people.
As I said above, I am talking about facts and statistics...I am sure there a few cases where guys are just unlucky and receive one lemon after another...but this does NOT represent a trend nor a relevant percentage. You must have this impression because you go to an Apple Support forum and see 100 posts complaining the hell out of it...you just fail, and fail badly, to realize that there are some 1,000,000 users out there with no problems at all.
Anyway, before you start babbling again, check the link below...these are FACTS, not whines.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2006502,00.asp
So please, before you spit out some fire, bring me some real facts, like percentage of failures and so on...the report I've read above shows Apple as having the LOWEST repair rate and HIGHEST trust of all makers. This, for me, is relevant; not random screams in Mac forums.
iGary
Aug 11, 10:06 AM
*woot*
Please let it be good so I can trash my Treo.
Please let it be good so I can trash my Treo.
laidbackliam
Aug 7, 10:39 AM
I'd like to see your "Mac" model bumped up past the iMac. I think a lot of people, myself included, would pay a premium for the ability to upgrade. In fact, I wouldn't care if they didn't offer a completely new model as long as they offer some "affordable" manifestations of the Mac Pro. So how's this (and go easy on me here because I rarely delve into the technical aspect of things):
-Squire
yes, but i see the price point being under the iMac still. but again, this is just something i'd LIKE to see, and don't expect. and i know some people would pay a premium. but i'm not some people.
-Squire
yes, but i see the price point being under the iMac still. but again, this is just something i'd LIKE to see, and don't expect. and i know some people would pay a premium. but i'm not some people.
toddybody
Apr 19, 02:53 PM
The First Commercial GUI
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/5659/star1vg.gif
Xerox's Star workstation was the first commercial implementation of the graphical user interface. The Star was introduced in 1981 and was the inspiration for the Mac and all the other GUIs that followed.
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7892/leopardpreviewdesktop4.jpghttp://img714.imageshack.us/img714/5733/xerox8010star.gif
Fantastic UI for the day
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/5659/star1vg.gif
Xerox's Star workstation was the first commercial implementation of the graphical user interface. The Star was introduced in 1981 and was the inspiration for the Mac and all the other GUIs that followed.
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7892/leopardpreviewdesktop4.jpghttp://img714.imageshack.us/img714/5733/xerox8010star.gif
Fantastic UI for the day
Tymmz
Aug 8, 01:09 AM
Nothing impressive really... top secrets should be good.
Time Machine is ok. It looks awful for an Apple product, what is up with that background? Ugly.
I totally agree, it looked quite ugly.
Time Machine is ok. It looks awful for an Apple product, what is up with that background? Ugly.
I totally agree, it looked quite ugly.
toddybody
Mar 22, 02:57 PM
wait, theres other tablets out there? :rolleyes:
crees!
Jul 14, 03:01 PM
Could ThinkSecret's "radical design" posting have been geared toward the rumor of a compact motherboard which is now suspected to be more "normal" in dimensions?
