leekohler
Mar 1, 10:23 AM
Lee, you should already know my answer to that question. It's an emphatic "no." Nor do I support the gay rights movement.
I don't tell others what to do, but that doesn't mean I think it's all right for them do everything they want to do. I'll share my opinions with others if they're willing to hear them. I don't want to control anyone, and I will not be a codependent caregiver. I refuse to protect others from negative consequences when they need to learn from them.
But you ARE trying to control others Bill. It's quite obvious. There are no negative consequences inherent to being gay. I'm a 43 year old man, and quite happy. The only negative consequences I've suffered have been at the hands of people like you, who think you know how everyone should live and try to force your beliefs on us with laws. You absolutely want to control others, or at the very least, impose your punishments on us.
My parents, especially my Mom, hated to see me do some foolish things when I was a boy. They let me walk the half mile to the steakhouse when they knew that I probably would have been too tired to walk back home. They let me stand outdoors in the winter when I tried to run away from home in the winter. The front porch was too icy for me to stand on, so I couldn't walk down the steps.
Hmm...but did they make any laws against you doing any of those things?
I believe that people with same-sex attractions are endangering themselves at least physically when they have sex with each other. So I'll post a link to some evidence for my opinion (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html). Notice, the document's author is a medical doctor.
There are risks inherent in any sexual activity Bill, heterosexual or homosexual. I'm well aware of the risks of both. Apparently, you seem to feel that all gay men engage in sodomy, which is far from the truth. Also, many of these statistics are based on the results of promiscuous behavior. Gay people marrying would discourage promiscuity, which would most likely reduce those statistics. One would think you should be pro gay marriage rights in that case. But hey, we all know that's not what your real concern is. Your concern is to get everyone to conform to your rules.
I don't tell others what to do, but that doesn't mean I think it's all right for them do everything they want to do. I'll share my opinions with others if they're willing to hear them. I don't want to control anyone, and I will not be a codependent caregiver. I refuse to protect others from negative consequences when they need to learn from them.
But you ARE trying to control others Bill. It's quite obvious. There are no negative consequences inherent to being gay. I'm a 43 year old man, and quite happy. The only negative consequences I've suffered have been at the hands of people like you, who think you know how everyone should live and try to force your beliefs on us with laws. You absolutely want to control others, or at the very least, impose your punishments on us.
My parents, especially my Mom, hated to see me do some foolish things when I was a boy. They let me walk the half mile to the steakhouse when they knew that I probably would have been too tired to walk back home. They let me stand outdoors in the winter when I tried to run away from home in the winter. The front porch was too icy for me to stand on, so I couldn't walk down the steps.
Hmm...but did they make any laws against you doing any of those things?
I believe that people with same-sex attractions are endangering themselves at least physically when they have sex with each other. So I'll post a link to some evidence for my opinion (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html). Notice, the document's author is a medical doctor.
There are risks inherent in any sexual activity Bill, heterosexual or homosexual. I'm well aware of the risks of both. Apparently, you seem to feel that all gay men engage in sodomy, which is far from the truth. Also, many of these statistics are based on the results of promiscuous behavior. Gay people marrying would discourage promiscuity, which would most likely reduce those statistics. One would think you should be pro gay marriage rights in that case. But hey, we all know that's not what your real concern is. Your concern is to get everyone to conform to your rules.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 23, 05:50 PM
Here we have an article laying out the case for non intervention (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011322135442593945.html) by a Princeton law professor (emeritus) published by Al Jazeera. A worthy read, and here are two exerpts I've commented on.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
Eidorian
Jul 27, 02:32 PM
Actually, the merom in not completely compatible with the yonah chips. There will have to be some redesign on Apple's part that is supposed to delay the new MBPs. This article somewhat explains it:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=249
Also, since Apple is now kind of competeing with PCs who get the newest and fastest, it would be in Apple's best interest to get these chips in MBPs asap. Also, it is easy to see that a lot of people are waiting to purchase a new Apple laptop with this technology. MBP's current sales are going to slump from here on out until this technology is put into some new computers.WRYYYYYY!!!
Looks like I'm going with a tower or iMac for school then.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=249
Also, since Apple is now kind of competeing with PCs who get the newest and fastest, it would be in Apple's best interest to get these chips in MBPs asap. Also, it is easy to see that a lot of people are waiting to purchase a new Apple laptop with this technology. MBP's current sales are going to slump from here on out until this technology is put into some new computers.WRYYYYYY!!!
Looks like I'm going with a tower or iMac for school then.
Zwhaler
Aug 27, 03:08 PM
PowerBook G5 next tuesday?
I havn't been here long, but I don't get it. :confused:
I havn't been here long, but I don't get it. :confused:
Erasmus
Aug 27, 02:58 AM
I already have those stats, I want to see them drop in a high-end Conroe (~3GHz) so I would know that I could feasibly upgrade my 2GHz Core Duo in the future. It's possible, isn't it? I mean, the G5's were really hot, and the iMac enclosure could handle that, wouldn't the new Intel ones be able to handle the Conroe Extremes?
See Apple???
Yet another potential customer for iMac Ultra. We Want C2DE + X1900 and a 23" screen!
It has been demonstrated an iMac can take large amounts of heat. I should expect (With almost certainty) that iMac will get at least 2.4 Conroe, which should be quite a significant increase on its own, and possibly higher. 2.4 on the low end 17" model, 2.66 in 20" and the option of 2.93 or 3.2 in iMac Ultra! (Then Apple can gift me with one for coming up with such a great idea)
X1800's for the 17 and 20 inches, and X1900 for the 23".
Sounds good to me.
Extra space due to 23" could be used for the cooling of the twin fires of CPU and GPU.
See Apple???
Yet another potential customer for iMac Ultra. We Want C2DE + X1900 and a 23" screen!
It has been demonstrated an iMac can take large amounts of heat. I should expect (With almost certainty) that iMac will get at least 2.4 Conroe, which should be quite a significant increase on its own, and possibly higher. 2.4 on the low end 17" model, 2.66 in 20" and the option of 2.93 or 3.2 in iMac Ultra! (Then Apple can gift me with one for coming up with such a great idea)
X1800's for the 17 and 20 inches, and X1900 for the 23".
Sounds good to me.
Extra space due to 23" could be used for the cooling of the twin fires of CPU and GPU.
Ahheck01
Apr 12, 10:27 AM
The SuperMeet stage show aka FCP (or if **** hits the fan then iMovie Pro) preview begins at 7 pm.
7pm Vegas Time? If so, for others scheduling your availability like me :cool::
Pacific Time: 7:00pm
Mountain Time: 8:00pm
Central Time: 9:00pm
Eastern Time: 10:00pm
7pm Vegas Time? If so, for others scheduling your availability like me :cool::
Pacific Time: 7:00pm
Mountain Time: 8:00pm
Central Time: 9:00pm
Eastern Time: 10:00pm
brepublican
Nov 28, 10:29 PM
This is ridiculous. The record companies are obsessed with money. They didnt seek royalties on CD players but iPods are somehow different. They are MUSIC PLAYERS. They record industry should have no part in music hardware, its just ridiculous.:mad:
I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesnt understand why they would want money for every iPod sold. Is this how Microsoft plans to "kill" the iPod with their Zune? By distorting the mp3 market with such kind of BS :mad:
Idiots
I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesnt understand why they would want money for every iPod sold. Is this how Microsoft plans to "kill" the iPod with their Zune? By distorting the mp3 market with such kind of BS :mad:
Idiots
matznentosh
Jul 27, 02:54 PM
Don't ask! Hahahaha, the G5's run hot, I'd hate to know how much they're sucking but with a 600W power supply...it's a lot;)
Reminds me of the time I borrowed my brother's very old Volkswagon Beetle, the air cooled kind. I noticed there was no temperature gage and asked him how hot it gets - he laughed and said "you don't want to know... think cherry red hot metal".
Reminds me of the time I borrowed my brother's very old Volkswagon Beetle, the air cooled kind. I noticed there was no temperature gage and asked him how hot it gets - he laughed and said "you don't want to know... think cherry red hot metal".
Midirose
Nov 28, 10:56 PM
Here is another little tid bit about Universal Music you may not be aware of. The original MP3.com was bought out by Universal Music a few years back. Prior to Universal, MP3.com was privately owned and had music from thousands of indie artist from around the world and no major label artist. You could listen to the artist music for free, but you could also purchase their music for download or actual CD. There was a lot of really awful music there but there was a lot of very good music there also. Some unsigned artist sold thousands of CD around the world like my band. After Universal bought MP3.com they destroyed the catalog even though the original owner offered to purchase it. Economics would lead me to think that Universal believed that the millions of indie songs sold on MP3.com was a direct threat to them not meeting their year over year projections, and it was. Get rid of the competition and get money for nothing.........sounds like big business trying to please their share holders. It is no wonder that our culture is going to hel#, when fair play and morals give way to profits. And yes most labels are pimps and you know who their hoes are.......our favorite artists. I hope Apple does not cave to this type of extortion!!!
gauriemma
Jul 27, 01:25 PM
I never thought there'd come a day when I needed to know anything about what kind of chips Intel was coming out with.
Taustin Powers
Aug 4, 05:50 PM
I'll pass on the game altogether.
What it does, Gran Turismo does to perfection....I'm just really not into what it does.
I'm more of an arcade racing guy, so I'll stick with Burnout Paradise until it gets a worthy sequel!
What it does, Gran Turismo does to perfection....I'm just really not into what it does.
I'm more of an arcade racing guy, so I'll stick with Burnout Paradise until it gets a worthy sequel!
ivladster
Mar 22, 01:40 PM
Blackberry playbook = The IPad 2 killer - you heard it here first.
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
Is this a joke? What specs? Where are the apps, where are amazing games, where are publications and magazines? No where to be found.
Playbook will not even scratch the surface - you heart it here first.
lulz:apple:
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
Is this a joke? What specs? Where are the apps, where are amazing games, where are publications and magazines? No where to be found.
Playbook will not even scratch the surface - you heart it here first.
lulz:apple:
maverick18x
Aug 5, 03:43 PM
I heard a rumour somewhere of an all metallic ipod nano, can anyone else tell me if they have heard anything similar.
The rumor that we'd see new nanos at WWDC was first written about by ThinkSecret. They've recently gone back on their claim and suggestted a Setember timeframe.
Personally, I highly doubt we'll see ANY iPod/iTunes updates here... WWDC is historically a developer/pro event and not a consumer event. Plus, Apple is still clearing inventory by giving away nanos to college students who purchase a Mac (ends October 16th). I feel like any new iPods will get their own special event, in the October to November timeframe.
My Predictions for WWDC
Headliners:
- Leopard Preview (VMware Demo?)
- Mac Pro (Quad-core Xenon?)
- Cinema Display Updates (iSight? +30"?)
- "One More Thing..." (Something Unexpected)
Without much fanfare:
- Core 2 Duo Updates (MacBook Pro? iMac?)
- Xserve Updates (Quad-core Xenon?)
The rumor that we'd see new nanos at WWDC was first written about by ThinkSecret. They've recently gone back on their claim and suggestted a Setember timeframe.
Personally, I highly doubt we'll see ANY iPod/iTunes updates here... WWDC is historically a developer/pro event and not a consumer event. Plus, Apple is still clearing inventory by giving away nanos to college students who purchase a Mac (ends October 16th). I feel like any new iPods will get their own special event, in the October to November timeframe.
My Predictions for WWDC
Headliners:
- Leopard Preview (VMware Demo?)
- Mac Pro (Quad-core Xenon?)
- Cinema Display Updates (iSight? +30"?)
- "One More Thing..." (Something Unexpected)
Without much fanfare:
- Core 2 Duo Updates (MacBook Pro? iMac?)
- Xserve Updates (Quad-core Xenon?)
notjustjay
Nov 29, 09:14 AM
If all of you on here bought all of your music either from iTunes or from a record store, then, absolutely, complain away if that dollar is passed on to you. But, which is likely in just about every case, you have a few songs you burned off a friend's CD or downloaded from a file-sharing site, then shut up, you are the reason this is necessary.
You're welcome to audit my iPod. I guarantee you'll find nothing but legal tunes.
Given your stance, I wonder how you feel about public libraries offering whole collections of CDs for patrons to "borrow". I think we all know what (many, not all) people are really doing with those CDs when they borrow them. Shouldn't we be doing something about these public institutions turning a blind eye to what is essentially sanctioned piracy?
You're welcome to audit my iPod. I guarantee you'll find nothing but legal tunes.
Given your stance, I wonder how you feel about public libraries offering whole collections of CDs for patrons to "borrow". I think we all know what (many, not all) people are really doing with those CDs when they borrow them. Shouldn't we be doing something about these public institutions turning a blind eye to what is essentially sanctioned piracy?
tf843364
Aug 26, 04:36 PM
I happen to have a Yonah Macbook, and im a little concerned.
I wonder, if merom does make it into the Macbooks did i make a mistake by buying my computer before i had to (as in next friday is the cutoff)
I wonder if Merom is really that good. *it sucks that macbooks dont have PGA slots*
well im hoping to sell this one next year, and thatll get me most of the way to my santa rosa beast, cuz i KNOW santa rosa is that good.
I wonder, if merom does make it into the Macbooks did i make a mistake by buying my computer before i had to (as in next friday is the cutoff)
I wonder if Merom is really that good. *it sucks that macbooks dont have PGA slots*
well im hoping to sell this one next year, and thatll get me most of the way to my santa rosa beast, cuz i KNOW santa rosa is that good.
mBox
Apr 6, 08:44 AM
Folks there are cheaper options out there if you really need this.
If your a real professional then get a BD-drive plus Toast.
If your making tons of money then chances are you can afford Production or Master CS from Adobe.
Back in the day if we wanted to do high-end video, the peripherals for Mac alone would cost twice to three times the cost of the Mac itself.
Dont even bring up that other PC mfg have BD built in.
There is a reason for that :P
If your a real professional then get a BD-drive plus Toast.
If your making tons of money then chances are you can afford Production or Master CS from Adobe.
Back in the day if we wanted to do high-end video, the peripherals for Mac alone would cost twice to three times the cost of the Mac itself.
Dont even bring up that other PC mfg have BD built in.
There is a reason for that :P
KnightWRX
Apr 9, 11:12 AM
I thought the 320m was also integrated? Wouldn't that mean that would be your only graphics card were nvidia allowed to add them to sandy bridge? I don't see why you would have integrated intel hd 3000 along with an integrated 320m (or successor).
Why not ? A 320m successor would just destroy the Intel HD 3000 which is sub-par compared to the current 320m. Why not use 2 IGPs and go for a 2 chip solution instead of using a dedicated GPU and have to rely on a 3 chip solution if that 2nd IGP just blows away the first ?
Heck, just disable the Intel 3000 HD entirely.
Intel got greedy.
Why not ? A 320m successor would just destroy the Intel HD 3000 which is sub-par compared to the current 320m. Why not use 2 IGPs and go for a 2 chip solution instead of using a dedicated GPU and have to rely on a 3 chip solution if that 2nd IGP just blows away the first ?
Heck, just disable the Intel 3000 HD entirely.
Intel got greedy.
AppleScruff1
Apr 9, 10:01 PM
I'd wait for Haswell or maybe even Rockwell which will be the 16nm shrink of Haswell.
Geckotek
Apr 7, 10:29 PM
Every day Apple stores get shipments of iPads....but they don't sell them when the arrive. They hold them for the line that forms the next morning.
Seems odd to me. Like they are purposely making a spectacle in front of the store every morning.
This morning the store I went to had NO AT&T models?!?!?! So tomorrow morning there will be yet another line of those that failed today (including myself).
On topic, I called Best Buy and was told that unless I pre-ordered before the day of the sale, I could not get an iPad 2. My co-worker walked in last week off the street and purchased one. Why the inconsistent message? I don't get it.
Seems odd to me. Like they are purposely making a spectacle in front of the store every morning.
This morning the store I went to had NO AT&T models?!?!?! So tomorrow morning there will be yet another line of those that failed today (including myself).
On topic, I called Best Buy and was told that unless I pre-ordered before the day of the sale, I could not get an iPad 2. My co-worker walked in last week off the street and purchased one. Why the inconsistent message? I don't get it.
70355
Aug 7, 04:54 PM
But Steve always likes to try to be ahead of his own schedules ....underpromising and overdelivering. :)
Like the whole 3ghz thing?
Like the whole 3ghz thing?
milo
Jul 27, 04:07 PM
They will not replace the dual core version, they will exist as an additional product offering.
I never said otherwise. My point is they are the follow-ups to conroe and woodcrest and will use the same sockets as those two. Which means they can be swapped in, which I believe was the original question.
I never said otherwise. My point is they are the follow-ups to conroe and woodcrest and will use the same sockets as those two. Which means they can be swapped in, which I believe was the original question.
ccrandall77
Aug 11, 01:59 PM
As I said before GSM has 81% of the market. UMTS (W-CDMA) enable hand-over back and forth UMTS and GSM. CDMA2000 can not do hand-over between GSM and CDMA2000. (See Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W-CDMA): "The CDMA family of standards (including cdmaOne and CDMA2000) are not compatible with the W-CDMA family of standards that are based on ITU standards.")
Hence all networks that has GSM will transfer to UMTS since this decrases their initial investment as they transfer from 2/2.5G to 3G. Changing network standad is expensive, but the GSM/EDGE marketshare has been growing in US and will most likely continue to grow. At the same time CDMA is non-existant in europe.
The conclusion is simple - CDMA2000 is in the long run as dead as betamax.
If long run is 10yrs, I'll grant you that. But in the US and much of Asia (Australia maybe) where there's CDMA carriers, CDMA2000 1x-EVDx is going to be around for a while.
Actually WCDMA also inherits much of it's tech from CDMA/IS-95 and I have seen some documentation that shows that WCDMA can be compatible with CDMA2000 just like UTMS/WCDMA is compatible with GSM. But it sounds as if the upgrade path for GSM/GPRS/EDGE to WCDMA is easier than going from CDMA2000 1x to WCDMA.
But since for the next several years CDMA2000 1x-EVDO will be better than the GSM related technologies. And by the time WCDMA takes over, the iPhone will be as antiquated as the Newton.
Apple needs to create both versions as CDMA has about 5x% of the US market... and Apple has and probably will continue to cater to the US market first.
Hence all networks that has GSM will transfer to UMTS since this decrases their initial investment as they transfer from 2/2.5G to 3G. Changing network standad is expensive, but the GSM/EDGE marketshare has been growing in US and will most likely continue to grow. At the same time CDMA is non-existant in europe.
The conclusion is simple - CDMA2000 is in the long run as dead as betamax.
If long run is 10yrs, I'll grant you that. But in the US and much of Asia (Australia maybe) where there's CDMA carriers, CDMA2000 1x-EVDx is going to be around for a while.
Actually WCDMA also inherits much of it's tech from CDMA/IS-95 and I have seen some documentation that shows that WCDMA can be compatible with CDMA2000 just like UTMS/WCDMA is compatible with GSM. But it sounds as if the upgrade path for GSM/GPRS/EDGE to WCDMA is easier than going from CDMA2000 1x to WCDMA.
But since for the next several years CDMA2000 1x-EVDO will be better than the GSM related technologies. And by the time WCDMA takes over, the iPhone will be as antiquated as the Newton.
Apple needs to create both versions as CDMA has about 5x% of the US market... and Apple has and probably will continue to cater to the US market first.
littleman23408
Dec 14, 06:26 AM
Lookin good SevenInchScrew:cool:
cfanyc
Sep 19, 09:54 AM
I think the no new mpb's today is hope that the special event b4 photokina will be about the mbp's with hopefully some new stuff as opposed to a release tues/wed with just a processor swap...
all this waiting is certainly a build up, if it was just the processor swap, it would blow big time....
all this waiting is certainly a build up, if it was just the processor swap, it would blow big time....
