Eric5h5
Jul 12, 04:16 AM
I doubt that Apple are able to charge the "normal" Mac premium after the intel transition, since it is much simpler to compare Macs with another PCs.
Er...have you seen the MacBook Pro pricing? The MacBook pricing? The iMac pricing? The Mini pricing? (Which went UP by a fair amount). If you're thinking that x86 processors are cheaper than PPC, you're sadly mistaken. Cheap computers being cheap has just about nothing whatsoever to do with the CPU....
--Eric
Er...have you seen the MacBook Pro pricing? The MacBook pricing? The iMac pricing? The Mini pricing? (Which went UP by a fair amount). If you're thinking that x86 processors are cheaper than PPC, you're sadly mistaken. Cheap computers being cheap has just about nothing whatsoever to do with the CPU....
--Eric
more...
jefhatfield
Oct 11, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
And I care why? It doesn't matter how fast you can surf on your PC. I can get around fast enough on my Mac. People who say Mac's are too slow are the same people that never take the time to watch a sunset or spend a day with their kid.
They are fast enough. They do what they are supposed to do the way they are supposed to do it.
The don't crash, don't get viruses, and don't look like something from the 1980s!
but look at dis man
gots to be able to surf da net fastest to see all da nekkid pictures before da wife comes de home:p
And I care why? It doesn't matter how fast you can surf on your PC. I can get around fast enough on my Mac. People who say Mac's are too slow are the same people that never take the time to watch a sunset or spend a day with their kid.
They are fast enough. They do what they are supposed to do the way they are supposed to do it.
The don't crash, don't get viruses, and don't look like something from the 1980s!
but look at dis man
gots to be able to surf da net fastest to see all da nekkid pictures before da wife comes de home:p
tkatz
Apr 9, 06:38 AM
LOL because swinging a wand or jumping around in front of a webcam is so hardcore.:rolleyes:
I was thinking the same thing. "In my day" a hardcore gamer was someone that custom built a gaming rig consisting of no less then 2 graphics cards (add a third and get SLI + PhysX), each costing at least if not more then a single PS3, the most expensive 'extreme' cpu they could find, and a small nuclear power plant for a PSU, then boasting about their 3D Mark scores.
I used to do this. Damn what a waste of time and money.
(ok, so I shoved a second 5870HD [XFX] into my 2010 Mac Pro for when I do play games... though it was more to see how well it worked in crossfire mode then anything else. Crysis 2 actually plays fine [and looks great] on max settings w/ the single card)
I was thinking the same thing. "In my day" a hardcore gamer was someone that custom built a gaming rig consisting of no less then 2 graphics cards (add a third and get SLI + PhysX), each costing at least if not more then a single PS3, the most expensive 'extreme' cpu they could find, and a small nuclear power plant for a PSU, then boasting about their 3D Mark scores.
I used to do this. Damn what a waste of time and money.
(ok, so I shoved a second 5870HD [XFX] into my 2010 Mac Pro for when I do play games... though it was more to see how well it worked in crossfire mode then anything else. Crysis 2 actually plays fine [and looks great] on max settings w/ the single card)
Caharin
Apr 8, 10:14 PM
Great news. Bring on more Infinity Blade-esque games! :D
Denarius
Mar 16, 01:08 PM
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I don't think the military needs to. The steady increase in global energy prices makes nuclear economic. If government says the word, nuclear stations will spring up from the private sector.
Beyond that, independence from oil is a recipe for peace. At least for us...
I don't think the military needs to. The steady increase in global energy prices makes nuclear economic. If government says the word, nuclear stations will spring up from the private sector.
Beyond that, independence from oil is a recipe for peace. At least for us...
more...
Backtothemac
Oct 7, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by TheT
I think Mac users just live in their happy little world and think their computers are still the best... well, wake up!
As of now, PCs kick every Mac's ass, they are just simply faster! Mhz may not matter that much, but a 2Ghz DP compared to a 1.25Ghz DP has to be faster, if you configure it right.
The reason I use a mac is the software, no Windows can beat OSX! And, as a matter of fact, my mac looks better than any of the pcs my friends have...
Um, no. You are wrong. Just because the Intel machine is 2GHZ doesn't mean squat. Pipelines, stages, all of this matters. Don't assume anything about the quality of a 25 year old architecture. X86 blows crap, and always will.
I think Mac users just live in their happy little world and think their computers are still the best... well, wake up!
As of now, PCs kick every Mac's ass, they are just simply faster! Mhz may not matter that much, but a 2Ghz DP compared to a 1.25Ghz DP has to be faster, if you configure it right.
The reason I use a mac is the software, no Windows can beat OSX! And, as a matter of fact, my mac looks better than any of the pcs my friends have...
Um, no. You are wrong. Just because the Intel machine is 2GHZ doesn't mean squat. Pipelines, stages, all of this matters. Don't assume anything about the quality of a 25 year old architecture. X86 blows crap, and always will.
Huntn
Mar 13, 06:34 PM
I think the theory is the amount of solar energy falling on a 10sq mile area could be enough to satisfy our domestic energy needs.
That's different than building a solar power plant and actually harvesting that energy, as solar plants are very inefficient.
They were talking talking about a 100 square mile solar plant. Take this PopSci link (http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-06/solar-power) for example. A 20 acre site produces 5 Megawatts. One square mile (640 acres) would provide 160 Megawatts. Ten square miles would provide 16000 Megawatts (16 Gigawatts). The link says the country will need 20 Gigawats by 2050. The worst possible accident in this case does not result in thousands of square miles being permanently (as far as this generation is concerned) contaminated.
In contrast Japan Disaster May Set Back Nuclear Power Industry (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-14-quakenuclear14_ST_N.htm). As far as I know, solar farms don't "melt down" at least not in a way that might effect the entire population of a U.S. state. I understand the nuclear reactors are built to hold in the radiation when things go wrong, but what if they don't and what a mess afterwards.
That's different than building a solar power plant and actually harvesting that energy, as solar plants are very inefficient.
They were talking talking about a 100 square mile solar plant. Take this PopSci link (http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-06/solar-power) for example. A 20 acre site produces 5 Megawatts. One square mile (640 acres) would provide 160 Megawatts. Ten square miles would provide 16000 Megawatts (16 Gigawatts). The link says the country will need 20 Gigawats by 2050. The worst possible accident in this case does not result in thousands of square miles being permanently (as far as this generation is concerned) contaminated.
In contrast Japan Disaster May Set Back Nuclear Power Industry (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-14-quakenuclear14_ST_N.htm). As far as I know, solar farms don't "melt down" at least not in a way that might effect the entire population of a U.S. state. I understand the nuclear reactors are built to hold in the radiation when things go wrong, but what if they don't and what a mess afterwards.
more...
QCassidy352
Jul 12, 10:41 AM
seccondly, it makes no business sense. Apple knows people are holding out for merom.
not really. People are buying macbooks in droves. Only a very few people (the numbers seem inflated on a board like this) are holding out.
I can build my own PC for way less than the cost of a mac so I'm switching to XP, blah blah blah
really?? You don't say! Well stop the presses; apparently it costs less to custom build a PC than to buy a premade computer! My goodness, this is news. I think Apple, Dell, HP, Sony, and all the rest should shut down their factories now because it's clear that they can no longer do business in light of this development.
But you know, now I'm thinking that maybe some people don't have the time, know-how, or patience to build their own PCs. And I'm thinking that they like having warranties for when something goes wrong and they don't know how to fix it. And I'm thinking that for the majority of users the friendliness of the OS is going to be about 1000x more significant than having the latest omg-wtf-bbq-roxxor!!11!1! graphics card. So good for you that you're happy with a high-end home-built XP box, but please don't act like people are stupid for going with a professionally built and supported machine that does everything they need and runs a better OS.
-------
Moving on... the issue of a headless-upgradable-imac (which really isn't an imac at all because imacs are pretty much defined as being all-in-ones and non-upgradable, so I'll call it a low-end tower) has come up a lot recently. Everyone in this thread seems very sure that apple will release such a product, but I'm quite skeptical. I don't see who it appeals to. Demanding gamers, as macenforcer points out, are much better off building their own machine. Pros will want a true pro tower, not a stripped down version. Students would do better with a space saving, all-in-one design like an imac. "Average home users" like my mom will never upgrade anything (except *maybe* the RAM) so should get imacs or mac minis. The target market for this low-end tower seems to be knowledgable consumers who like upgrading. There are many such people on this board, but they're a comparatively rare breed in the real world.
Also, apple is not going to have very high margins on such a machine, I'd wager. After all, it's a budget tower, right? But the people who buy them are going to keep them and upgrade them (with 3rd party hardware) for a very long time. So apple has one initial sale at low margins and then doesn't see that consumer again for years. If I were apple I'd either want to make a really big sale up front (like with a mac pro), or sell a not-very upgradable machine that will have you coming back in 2 or 3 years rather than 5 or 6.
So IMO, while this low-end tower would fill a gap in apple's line up and be ideal for many on this board, I'm not sure it's a gap that many consumers fit in to, or that apple particularly cares about filling.
not really. People are buying macbooks in droves. Only a very few people (the numbers seem inflated on a board like this) are holding out.
I can build my own PC for way less than the cost of a mac so I'm switching to XP, blah blah blah
really?? You don't say! Well stop the presses; apparently it costs less to custom build a PC than to buy a premade computer! My goodness, this is news. I think Apple, Dell, HP, Sony, and all the rest should shut down their factories now because it's clear that they can no longer do business in light of this development.
But you know, now I'm thinking that maybe some people don't have the time, know-how, or patience to build their own PCs. And I'm thinking that they like having warranties for when something goes wrong and they don't know how to fix it. And I'm thinking that for the majority of users the friendliness of the OS is going to be about 1000x more significant than having the latest omg-wtf-bbq-roxxor!!11!1! graphics card. So good for you that you're happy with a high-end home-built XP box, but please don't act like people are stupid for going with a professionally built and supported machine that does everything they need and runs a better OS.
-------
Moving on... the issue of a headless-upgradable-imac (which really isn't an imac at all because imacs are pretty much defined as being all-in-ones and non-upgradable, so I'll call it a low-end tower) has come up a lot recently. Everyone in this thread seems very sure that apple will release such a product, but I'm quite skeptical. I don't see who it appeals to. Demanding gamers, as macenforcer points out, are much better off building their own machine. Pros will want a true pro tower, not a stripped down version. Students would do better with a space saving, all-in-one design like an imac. "Average home users" like my mom will never upgrade anything (except *maybe* the RAM) so should get imacs or mac minis. The target market for this low-end tower seems to be knowledgable consumers who like upgrading. There are many such people on this board, but they're a comparatively rare breed in the real world.
Also, apple is not going to have very high margins on such a machine, I'd wager. After all, it's a budget tower, right? But the people who buy them are going to keep them and upgrade them (with 3rd party hardware) for a very long time. So apple has one initial sale at low margins and then doesn't see that consumer again for years. If I were apple I'd either want to make a really big sale up front (like with a mac pro), or sell a not-very upgradable machine that will have you coming back in 2 or 3 years rather than 5 or 6.
So IMO, while this low-end tower would fill a gap in apple's line up and be ideal for many on this board, I'm not sure it's a gap that many consumers fit in to, or that apple particularly cares about filling.
more...
alex_ant
Oct 10, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by TheFink
Do you have any pics of your closest attempt at an 8 lb turd?
Yes actually!
Do you have any pics of your closest attempt at an 8 lb turd?
Yes actually!
Evangelion
Jul 13, 02:57 AM
The point was that pretty much everything he said was bogus and flame bait. Sadly, I took the bait.
I don't see much baiting in his post.
I don't see much baiting in his post.
more...
illegalprelude
Sep 20, 04:06 AM
This indeed makes a nice add on to the Soon Blue-Ray player and the home theater setup but this will never replace a tivo. The amount of things I can do with my Tivo, the fact that im always wirelessly streaming media from it to my computer and the fact that my Tivo can have slide shows and play my music like the iTV says alot. Again, it will be a nice add on if it dosent limit you to just iTunes downloads but never will it replace my trusty Tivo
Huntn
Mar 13, 05:53 PM
It's the cleanest and usually the safest type of electricity available that can produce energy on a large scale.
When there are no accidents it is a good source of power except for the incredibly toxic waste. Murphy's Law says there must be accidents and unforeseen events.
There are inherent risks with nuclear power and there is the waste issue yet to be solved. But likewise, there are risks for other types of power, whether it's gas, oil, coal or even hydroelectric. Choose your poison.
Speaking of poison- ten thousand barrels of radioactive waste with a half life of 1000 years... Who gets to keep that in their backyard? I'd say launch it into space, but then have visions of a rocket malfunction requiring explosive detonation.
Granted in the history of nuke power, there has only been one worse case scenarios, but that one was a doozy. Sure they say it can never happen but when a coal fired plant blows up it does not contaminate 4000 square miles. This makes nuclear power both wonderful and terrifying at the same time, because we all know accidents must happen. The question is how long and how big will the worst of those accidents be? Personally I'd look for other green not yellow solutions.
http://www.scienceprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/radioactive_symbol_250.jpg
I've read in Russia, there are areas with posted signs that say something to the effect of "Roll Up Your Windows and Drive as Fast as You can for the Next 50 miles"... Read about Chernobyl here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg/400px-Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg.png
When there are no accidents it is a good source of power except for the incredibly toxic waste. Murphy's Law says there must be accidents and unforeseen events.
There are inherent risks with nuclear power and there is the waste issue yet to be solved. But likewise, there are risks for other types of power, whether it's gas, oil, coal or even hydroelectric. Choose your poison.
Speaking of poison- ten thousand barrels of radioactive waste with a half life of 1000 years... Who gets to keep that in their backyard? I'd say launch it into space, but then have visions of a rocket malfunction requiring explosive detonation.
Granted in the history of nuke power, there has only been one worse case scenarios, but that one was a doozy. Sure they say it can never happen but when a coal fired plant blows up it does not contaminate 4000 square miles. This makes nuclear power both wonderful and terrifying at the same time, because we all know accidents must happen. The question is how long and how big will the worst of those accidents be? Personally I'd look for other green not yellow solutions.
http://www.scienceprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/radioactive_symbol_250.jpg
I've read in Russia, there are areas with posted signs that say something to the effect of "Roll Up Your Windows and Drive as Fast as You can for the Next 50 miles"... Read about Chernobyl here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg/400px-Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg.png
more...
nmrrjw66
Mar 25, 10:46 AM
It's astonishing that people still listen and follow a bunch of kid ****ers.
more...
ready2switch
Sep 20, 09:38 AM
I'm wondering why they couldn't/wouldn't just combine the mini and the iTV into a single unit. The mini's size could allow for a DVD slot/player/burner and maybe even allow for the Mac OS in the box, so you don't need another computer to stream your media from. In fact, I assumed that was what the Mini was ultimately destined for anyway.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
arn
Oct 7, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by samdweck
well then just get the heck out of here, leave, please, it may happen soon! godspeed!
Sam... you need to chill.
Personal attacks and pure emotional posts are not very helpful. The point of this site is not to be Pro-Mac at all costs.
A fast enough Pentium will beat a 1.25GHz G4. How fast the Pentium has to be appears to be a point of contention... but that's all it is... as long as people keep it civil... it's cool.
Besides, alex_ant's post was a joke. Slow down, and read the intent of the posts.
arn
well then just get the heck out of here, leave, please, it may happen soon! godspeed!
Sam... you need to chill.
Personal attacks and pure emotional posts are not very helpful. The point of this site is not to be Pro-Mac at all costs.
A fast enough Pentium will beat a 1.25GHz G4. How fast the Pentium has to be appears to be a point of contention... but that's all it is... as long as people keep it civil... it's cool.
Besides, alex_ant's post was a joke. Slow down, and read the intent of the posts.
arn
skunk
Mar 14, 06:18 PM
Nobody seems to think of abandoning coal when a bunch of miners die. I think there have been more coal related deaths than nuclear ones.What coal-fired power station had the capability of endangering so many people?
more...
skunk
Apr 27, 02:51 PM
I hope I'm not being condescending. Maybe you know about definite descriptions and I'm preaching to the converted...I'm afraid you are.
The Hebrew god is the same god as in polytheistic days, but once he had conquered all his fellow gods, he was left with unrivalled power. The Hebrew religion became monotheistic, and their new old god acquired sole power, but the root of the deity was no more or less than a shared and ancient mythology.
The Hebrew god is the same god as in polytheistic days, but once he had conquered all his fellow gods, he was left with unrivalled power. The Hebrew religion became monotheistic, and their new old god acquired sole power, but the root of the deity was no more or less than a shared and ancient mythology.
nixd2001
Oct 8, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
one thing is certain, the athlon is faster than the duron, the pentium 4 is faster than the celeron, and the G4 is faster (in photoshop) than the G3...but beyond that, it is hard to get a perfect reading
True, but hardly going to provoke torrents of postings of heated debate and disagreement - surely a necessity in modern society :p
my overclocked 2 cents;)
So that's 2 cents of irrational exuberence then?
one thing is certain, the athlon is faster than the duron, the pentium 4 is faster than the celeron, and the G4 is faster (in photoshop) than the G3...but beyond that, it is hard to get a perfect reading
True, but hardly going to provoke torrents of postings of heated debate and disagreement - surely a necessity in modern society :p
my overclocked 2 cents;)
So that's 2 cents of irrational exuberence then?
Macaddicttt
Mar 18, 02:35 PM
Anyone care to make this interesting? I'm taking all bets. How long until Apple fixes the problem?
more...
fewture
Jul 12, 01:34 PM
Jiggy2g - yes its all very 'disturbing'... whatever! calm down dude, the geekness is just too much (whoa man did you see that conroe at 4ghz!!)...
(the tone of your post just cracked me up) - we are all very 'disappointed' in you.
(the tone of your post just cracked me up) - we are all very 'disappointed' in you.
more...
MacCoaster
Oct 11, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by WanaPBnow
How does it run on an UltraSparc III 900?
I don't know. I'll run it on an UltraSPARC II sometime when I can. My step-dad's box isn't loaded up yet.
Lets get an assortment of score, there could be a code bug for the G4, I am not an expert, but 10-20 times slower sounds like science fiction.
Really? Code bug? How? It's a simple C/C#/Java/obj-C program. The G4 shouldn't be so slow with a task oh so simple. It's also no bug that Altivec doesn't include hardware double precision floating point. But then again, we weren't testing them with hardware support--just testing the pure CPU power. In fact, if you don't believe us--please, we beg you, look at the source code. Nothing Altivec/SSE/SSE2/3DNow/any of that crap there. 10-20 times slower isn't science fiction when it comes to double precision floating point on the G4. It simply blows.
How does it run on an UltraSparc III 900?
I don't know. I'll run it on an UltraSPARC II sometime when I can. My step-dad's box isn't loaded up yet.
Lets get an assortment of score, there could be a code bug for the G4, I am not an expert, but 10-20 times slower sounds like science fiction.
Really? Code bug? How? It's a simple C/C#/Java/obj-C program. The G4 shouldn't be so slow with a task oh so simple. It's also no bug that Altivec doesn't include hardware double precision floating point. But then again, we weren't testing them with hardware support--just testing the pure CPU power. In fact, if you don't believe us--please, we beg you, look at the source code. Nothing Altivec/SSE/SSE2/3DNow/any of that crap there. 10-20 times slower isn't science fiction when it comes to double precision floating point on the G4. It simply blows.
iJohnHenry
Mar 26, 03:16 PM
Confucius say: Foolish is man who questions skunk in ancient tongues.
more...
whooleytoo
Sep 21, 02:47 PM
I think there's (at least!) two separate debates going on here -
- what is the best home entertainment network design/topology?
- how well does the iTV serve the topology Apple has chosen?
The first question is a doozy. Personally, I think Apple's choice is a bit unwieldy. Have your entertainment network rely on your Mac/PC is fine; except when you need to restart after installing software (could the hard disk in the iTV buffer enough content to keep going until the Mac restarts? Possibly). Another problem is if your home PC is a laptop, which might not be in the home, or will sleep if inadvertently shut.
Also, it is a bit tedious if you have to get up from your sofa to your Mac, start downloading the film/show, then return to the couch and wait for the film/show to start playing. Wouldn't it be far better if you could purchase the film via the iTV, without having to go to your Mac/PC? (If this is possible, feel free to ignore this paragraph. ;) )
Personally, I'd prefer to have a home entertainment storage server, essentially something akin to the iTV but with a large hard disk (or RAID) attached, which stores all my iTunes and other media. Anything I buy on my MacBook - songs, TV shows, movies - are backed up to the server when I plug it into my home network (could the Leopard backup APIs achieve this?) and thus always available regardless of where my Mac is. And, I'd watch far more moves if they were just a menu click away, rather than rooting around the house for a DVD case.
As for the second question, if you accept Apple's argument that the Mac/PC will be the entertainment centre for the home, the iTV is probably the simplest device you could come up with. It's basically an Airport Express with "AirFlicks".
One thing puzzles me though - the iTV is not a complicated piece of kit, hardly any more so than the mini or any other Mac. So, why did Apple pre-announce earlier this month for release early next year, and not release a finished product?
Did they think of it too late to finish it in time for the iTunes Movie store announcement? Unlikely - people have been calling for video streaming for some time; and Apple would have been working behind the scenes on the iTunes movie store for some months. The fact that they appear to have finalised the configuration, aesthetics and price would indicate it's more or less done. More likely - iTV is waiting on some other key piece of technology before it can be released. And the obvious answer would be - Leopard.
iTV isn't being released until the Leopard timeframe, and Leopard has major unannounced features which we won't hear about until Macworld '07. Could it be some Mac media centre functionality as some have suggested?
p.s. as for a name, how about the "Apple Jack"? Rhymes with Apple Mac, and implies "jacking" all your content into your TV? Whaddya think?
Eeek! sorry. This post was far longer than I expected!
- what is the best home entertainment network design/topology?
- how well does the iTV serve the topology Apple has chosen?
The first question is a doozy. Personally, I think Apple's choice is a bit unwieldy. Have your entertainment network rely on your Mac/PC is fine; except when you need to restart after installing software (could the hard disk in the iTV buffer enough content to keep going until the Mac restarts? Possibly). Another problem is if your home PC is a laptop, which might not be in the home, or will sleep if inadvertently shut.
Also, it is a bit tedious if you have to get up from your sofa to your Mac, start downloading the film/show, then return to the couch and wait for the film/show to start playing. Wouldn't it be far better if you could purchase the film via the iTV, without having to go to your Mac/PC? (If this is possible, feel free to ignore this paragraph. ;) )
Personally, I'd prefer to have a home entertainment storage server, essentially something akin to the iTV but with a large hard disk (or RAID) attached, which stores all my iTunes and other media. Anything I buy on my MacBook - songs, TV shows, movies - are backed up to the server when I plug it into my home network (could the Leopard backup APIs achieve this?) and thus always available regardless of where my Mac is. And, I'd watch far more moves if they were just a menu click away, rather than rooting around the house for a DVD case.
As for the second question, if you accept Apple's argument that the Mac/PC will be the entertainment centre for the home, the iTV is probably the simplest device you could come up with. It's basically an Airport Express with "AirFlicks".
One thing puzzles me though - the iTV is not a complicated piece of kit, hardly any more so than the mini or any other Mac. So, why did Apple pre-announce earlier this month for release early next year, and not release a finished product?
Did they think of it too late to finish it in time for the iTunes Movie store announcement? Unlikely - people have been calling for video streaming for some time; and Apple would have been working behind the scenes on the iTunes movie store for some months. The fact that they appear to have finalised the configuration, aesthetics and price would indicate it's more or less done. More likely - iTV is waiting on some other key piece of technology before it can be released. And the obvious answer would be - Leopard.
iTV isn't being released until the Leopard timeframe, and Leopard has major unannounced features which we won't hear about until Macworld '07. Could it be some Mac media centre functionality as some have suggested?
p.s. as for a name, how about the "Apple Jack"? Rhymes with Apple Mac, and implies "jacking" all your content into your TV? Whaddya think?
Eeek! sorry. This post was far longer than I expected!
Eraserhead
Mar 27, 02:21 PM
What he's saying is that sometimes its the person thats the issue not the article, and using the word homo is funny because that also refers to homosexual.
There's probably a phrase which sums it up more concisely.
There's probably a phrase which sums it up more concisely.
more...
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий