TC400
Apr 30, 02:11 PM
Isn't this iMac design from fall of 2009? That's less than two years.
I seen it as more of a mid model refresh.
TECHNICALLY been the same since 2008.
I seen it as more of a mid model refresh.
TECHNICALLY been the same since 2008.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 4, 12:42 PM
What a bunch of winey gun-control people in here, the only down side was that the other two involved weren't shot and killed now they get to cost the tax payers more money in court. :rolleyes:
you're quite the hero. :rolleyes:
you're quite the hero. :rolleyes:
AppleScruff1
Apr 4, 12:24 PM
Interesting how a security guard is allowed to have a gun. Interesting to see what happens to him.
Read the articles in the links.
I'm amazed that so many people are basing their judgment of the "head shot" on 3rd person shooter games and CSI. In the real world, anyone with training will always be aiming for the center of mass, and where he actually hits depends more on luck than anything else.
In other words, just because the criminal was hit in the head, doesn't mean that the security guard was aiming for his head. A mall security guard with a pistol shooting at a moving target during a gunfight doesn't have the accuracy of a Marine sniper shooting a sniper rifle at a stationary target.
You are quite correct. Anyone with gun experience knows this. It's not a video game, it's not a movie. And the whole scene takes place in a matter of seconds. I'd like to see what the armchair cowboys would do in the real life situation.
Read the articles in the links.
I'm amazed that so many people are basing their judgment of the "head shot" on 3rd person shooter games and CSI. In the real world, anyone with training will always be aiming for the center of mass, and where he actually hits depends more on luck than anything else.
In other words, just because the criminal was hit in the head, doesn't mean that the security guard was aiming for his head. A mall security guard with a pistol shooting at a moving target during a gunfight doesn't have the accuracy of a Marine sniper shooting a sniper rifle at a stationary target.
You are quite correct. Anyone with gun experience knows this. It's not a video game, it's not a movie. And the whole scene takes place in a matter of seconds. I'd like to see what the armchair cowboys would do in the real life situation.
nagromme
Oct 12, 03:39 PM
I'm saying that Africa will sort out it's own problems in time, when those individuals who recognize the problem for themselves get a voice. We can help, and every little bit helps, but it's not ours to fix. This is FAR FAR more complex and rooted than a kid who hurts his knee on a skateboard.
I don't think anyone, from Bono to me, thinks red iPods are a complete solution. Of course complex problems have complex solutions. And yet programs like the ones Red supports--which are not limited to education--help.
And speaking of cherrypicking, you left some things unaddressed :) I'm seeing a LOT more in your original post than just "we can't fix this alone." That much is true. But going on to say that Africans must be allowed to die so they can evolve and catch up is extreme and unreasonable.
It's always nice to find a reason not to make something "my problem." That's a great feeling. But I think you have gone in a pretty bad "us and them" direction with that.
I don't think anyone, from Bono to me, thinks red iPods are a complete solution. Of course complex problems have complex solutions. And yet programs like the ones Red supports--which are not limited to education--help.
And speaking of cherrypicking, you left some things unaddressed :) I'm seeing a LOT more in your original post than just "we can't fix this alone." That much is true. But going on to say that Africans must be allowed to die so they can evolve and catch up is extreme and unreasonable.
It's always nice to find a reason not to make something "my problem." That's a great feeling. But I think you have gone in a pretty bad "us and them" direction with that.
MattSepeta
Apr 18, 04:29 PM
Ooohhh. So being on a salary, even a measly one for a basic desk job, means you are now at your employers beck and call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, come hell or high water? Got it. So, if more work comes in and the amount you are given to do increases substantially, you just suck it up and work that many more hours because they won't hire more people for the extra work? That sounds like a pretty awful world...but pretty much what goes on. Too bad people like you manage to convince people it's how life should be.
Of course that is ridiculous, and I totally agree there should be a line, but where do we draw it? Who gets to draw it?
What about a hotshot stock trader making a killing working 80+ hours a week on salary. Should we be allowed to work this much without overtime?
I realize it is an obscure analogy, but it is valid nonetheless.
Of course that is ridiculous, and I totally agree there should be a line, but where do we draw it? Who gets to draw it?
What about a hotshot stock trader making a killing working 80+ hours a week on salary. Should we be allowed to work this much without overtime?
I realize it is an obscure analogy, but it is valid nonetheless.
vvebsta
Mar 23, 05:20 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Drunk people aren't gonna be coherent enough to check their phones for check points. Let's the other sane people avoid the added traffic.
Drunk people aren't gonna be coherent enough to check their phones for check points. Let's the other sane people avoid the added traffic.
cube
Apr 14, 12:37 PM
The PC industry is plagued with lowest common denominator, low cost crap.
Apple and Intel are trying to move forward. We should support that.
Thunderbolt is a step backwards.
The MBPs could have DisplayPort 1.2 if it were not for the damned connector merge.
Apple and Intel are trying to move forward. We should support that.
Thunderbolt is a step backwards.
The MBPs could have DisplayPort 1.2 if it were not for the damned connector merge.
munkery
Jan 13, 01:41 PM
There's nothing to set up. You should increase the setting to maximum when you first install Windows 7, but other than that it has nothing to do with playing games online.
You should have a unique identifier (password) attached to authentication mechanism (UAC in Windows). So, Windows users should run as standard users. But, using a standard account in Windows causes issues with some software, such as some online games, that require admin accounts (or "run as administrator"; superuser) to function. Many online games on Windows 7 still require running as Administrator (superuser privileges) to function. This requires setting the "Properties" to allow "run as Administrator" or turning off UAC. This is risky as the games connect to remote servers and download content. Trojans are installed without authentication if accessed with superuser privileges. This example, using online games, shows the problem with how software is being written for Windows. This problem lead to DLL hijacking exploits (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9181513/Hacking_toolkit_publishes_DLL_hijacking_exploit). You definitely need good antivirus software in Windows to more safely play games that require Administrator privileges.
The issue with online games found in Windows is not problematic on Mac OS X given that software for Mac is written following the guidelines of the principle of least privilege (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Principle_of_least_privilege) more so than Windows software. For example, I have played online FPS games on my Mac with standard account privileges that require "run as Administrator" (superuser privileges) in Windows systems. Mac OS X is much better insulated from Malware.
Flash, Adobe, Java, etc. all have virtually identical issues under all three OSes. It's rare you see something that only affects one, unless it's a significantly different program.
Vulnerabilities in those components in Mac OS X are attributed as OS X vulnerabilities because OS X includes them by default so this artificially inflates the number of vulnerabilities in OS X when looking at vulnerability comparisons. These components have worse security in Windows. How these vulnerabilities manifest in Windows is through Internet Explorer.
2011 Calendar Baseball Canada
Friday, February 4, 2011
february 2011 calendar canada.
july 2011 calendar canada.
may 2011 calendar canada.
February 2011 Calendar Canada
march calendar 2011 canada
2011 calendar canada
february 2011 calendar canada.
Print the March 2011 Calendar
Economic Calendar, February 11
You should have a unique identifier (password) attached to authentication mechanism (UAC in Windows). So, Windows users should run as standard users. But, using a standard account in Windows causes issues with some software, such as some online games, that require admin accounts (or "run as administrator"; superuser) to function. Many online games on Windows 7 still require running as Administrator (superuser privileges) to function. This requires setting the "Properties" to allow "run as Administrator" or turning off UAC. This is risky as the games connect to remote servers and download content. Trojans are installed without authentication if accessed with superuser privileges. This example, using online games, shows the problem with how software is being written for Windows. This problem lead to DLL hijacking exploits (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9181513/Hacking_toolkit_publishes_DLL_hijacking_exploit). You definitely need good antivirus software in Windows to more safely play games that require Administrator privileges.
The issue with online games found in Windows is not problematic on Mac OS X given that software for Mac is written following the guidelines of the principle of least privilege (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Principle_of_least_privilege) more so than Windows software. For example, I have played online FPS games on my Mac with standard account privileges that require "run as Administrator" (superuser privileges) in Windows systems. Mac OS X is much better insulated from Malware.
Flash, Adobe, Java, etc. all have virtually identical issues under all three OSes. It's rare you see something that only affects one, unless it's a significantly different program.
Vulnerabilities in those components in Mac OS X are attributed as OS X vulnerabilities because OS X includes them by default so this artificially inflates the number of vulnerabilities in OS X when looking at vulnerability comparisons. These components have worse security in Windows. How these vulnerabilities manifest in Windows is through Internet Explorer.
KPOM
Apr 22, 12:03 PM
I don't see why this will it make cheaper. Beside MBA price lowered drastically from the previous iteration and had good sales recently because of it - so, don't hope too much about it.
True. I'm guessing that Apple has found the right price point. Now that the 13" Pro has been updated, it is probably cannibalizing sales of the 13" Air, which may be why the sales have reportedly dropped so much. At the same time, Samsung and others have competing designs with the Core i5.
I don't game, so I'd definitely consider putting the 11" up for sale and getting the 11" Sandy Bridge model. Perhaps I'll wait for them to appear as refurbs. If history is any guide, that would be the October timeframe, assuming these do come out in June.
True. I'm guessing that Apple has found the right price point. Now that the 13" Pro has been updated, it is probably cannibalizing sales of the 13" Air, which may be why the sales have reportedly dropped so much. At the same time, Samsung and others have competing designs with the Core i5.
I don't game, so I'd definitely consider putting the 11" up for sale and getting the 11" Sandy Bridge model. Perhaps I'll wait for them to appear as refurbs. If history is any guide, that would be the October timeframe, assuming these do come out in June.
hamis92
Apr 25, 01:27 PM
If this involves matte displays that don't look like they've been retrofitted, I can't wait to see what they have in store for us :cool:
Evan_11
Sep 4, 08:55 PM
How about an iPod dock but with an airport express built-in. That way you could either stream video off of your iPod or your Mac. This is important since any device they introduce will have to be both Mac and PC compliant and there is no version of front row currently available for Windows.
bpaluzzi
Apr 20, 12:09 PM
I can't dumb this statement down any further, sorry.
You certainly can't make that statement any dumber, that's true.
You certainly can't make that statement any dumber, that's true.
BRLawyer
Oct 12, 12:35 PM
It's a nice cause, but red iPods are really ugly, I must say...
suneohair
Sep 14, 06:42 PM
Seriously though. What are the chances of new display? I plan on buying one soon. If I did buy it next week, and they released new ones on the 25th could I return my old one?
Is there a restocking fee? Thanks.
Is there a restocking fee? Thanks.
kbmb
Mar 29, 11:11 AM
Remember, having the largest market share != the best experience.
Good for MSFT if they can get back in the game. If anything I look forward to Google and MSFT battling it out. Apple needs these two to help drive their own innovation forward.
-Kevin
Good for MSFT if they can get back in the game. If anything I look forward to Google and MSFT battling it out. Apple needs these two to help drive their own innovation forward.
-Kevin
sord
Sep 10, 08:31 PM
No, PowerBook G7 on Monday's keynote
I don't know about a G7, but PowerBook G5s for sure!!!
I don't know about a G7, but PowerBook G5s for sure!!!
Fubar1977
Apr 25, 06:06 AM
So you just about ran a woman who, quite possibly, had kids in the car, off the road?
I hate being slowed down on the motorway but you are a dangerous moron with anger management issues.
Sort it out before you kill someone.
Oh, sorry, did I lecture you?
:rolleyes:
I hate being slowed down on the motorway but you are a dangerous moron with anger management issues.
Sort it out before you kill someone.
Oh, sorry, did I lecture you?
:rolleyes:
Rodimus Prime
Apr 25, 10:22 AM
But Don would never do that, he is an experienced driver for a 16 year old. And he was only doing 90, not 100. Big difference. There would barely be any damage if he hit a bridge at 90 - nothing that wouldn't buff out with a bit of polish and some elbow grease. Not that he'd ever have to worry about that, because Don is such an awesome driver, he'd never hit the bridge.
so true.
Even going the speed limit some random things can happen. I was driving back to Dallas a few years ago going speed limit (65 or 70 mph) and was common around a gentel bend in the road. bend end and font of my car is not facing straight down the road but off towards the side. I thinking "something is not right" clicks to me that I am sliding. From there I started fishing tailing and then just lovely skid and went off the road and spun. I come to a stop off the road facing the direction I was coming from.
Threw off the fire chief driving from the other direction and the road workers who all witnessed it. To them it looked like I had a blow out and just could not recover from it.
Nope what happen was TXDOT had just re-rocked the road and the new asphalt had not been pounded in yet by the cars. Complete a freak thing.
Now they did tell me they would send the sweeper down to clean up the road again since that should not of happened. I will tell you that it was rather freaky having that happen. I can tell you that most people never experience a true skid at speed and telling you to turn into the skid works in theory but in reality it is very hard not to over correct.
so true.
Even going the speed limit some random things can happen. I was driving back to Dallas a few years ago going speed limit (65 or 70 mph) and was common around a gentel bend in the road. bend end and font of my car is not facing straight down the road but off towards the side. I thinking "something is not right" clicks to me that I am sliding. From there I started fishing tailing and then just lovely skid and went off the road and spun. I come to a stop off the road facing the direction I was coming from.
Threw off the fire chief driving from the other direction and the road workers who all witnessed it. To them it looked like I had a blow out and just could not recover from it.
Nope what happen was TXDOT had just re-rocked the road and the new asphalt had not been pounded in yet by the cars. Complete a freak thing.
Now they did tell me they would send the sweeper down to clean up the road again since that should not of happened. I will tell you that it was rather freaky having that happen. I can tell you that most people never experience a true skid at speed and telling you to turn into the skid works in theory but in reality it is very hard not to over correct.
kingtj
Oct 27, 10:41 AM
Shopping malls are private property, rented out in parcels at extremely high prices, so their tenants can run their shops with a perceived better shot at attracting passers-by than if they had a stand-alone store.
If you owned your own shop and some people kept standing out in front of your store without your permission, handing out political flyers, you'd probably run them off, right? In this case, the owners of the shopping mall are providing a similar service to the merchants paying to be there. It's FAR from a "public space".
As I said, fewer and fewer spaces where public debate can take place. Shopping malls are the same - 'public spaces' that aren't. Soon streets that have been public for years will start to be be privatised to provide 'better value for taxpayers' and the takeover will continue.
Then where can free debate take place? Some postage-stamp size bit of turf you call home?
If you owned your own shop and some people kept standing out in front of your store without your permission, handing out political flyers, you'd probably run them off, right? In this case, the owners of the shopping mall are providing a similar service to the merchants paying to be there. It's FAR from a "public space".
As I said, fewer and fewer spaces where public debate can take place. Shopping malls are the same - 'public spaces' that aren't. Soon streets that have been public for years will start to be be privatised to provide 'better value for taxpayers' and the takeover will continue.
Then where can free debate take place? Some postage-stamp size bit of turf you call home?
vitaboy
Aug 24, 03:49 AM
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about just exactly what the settlement means. But I would like to remind people not to take things at face value - Apple is smarter than that.
I suspect that it was Apple who proposed the settlement to Creative. More than that, I suspect it was Apple who dictated the actual terms. Creative had no choice but to accept, which was just as well because at first appearance, they look like the winner.
However, I believe Apple is playing corporate jujitsu here. The settlement is a strategic move that greatly benefits Apple in the long term even as Apple is willing to suffer an apparent loss of face.
Why?
Because the settlement gives Creative much needed ammunition (in both cash and legal standing) to go after every one of the iPod's competitors. You can be sure Creative is getting ready to send out letters to Sandisk, which has raced past them in the music player space this year. You can be sure Creative will be sending letters to iRiver.
And most certainly, you can be certain that Creative will be sending letters to Microsoft with regards to Zune.
Really, Apple was not playing from a weak position. There's no other way to say it, but that's a simplistic and naive interpretation. Patent battles are very, very expensive, lasting years and thousands of man-months of time. Creative not only had to fight Apple over its original patents, but simultaneously defends itself against Apple's countersuit (which were filed in a different state, just to make life more difficult for Creative's legal team).
Without any effort at all, Apple could drag the case through the courts for 5+ years and force Creative to cough up tens of millions of dollars in legal expenses. Creative simply does not have that kind of money, after blowing through $100 million in cash to write of unsold inventory last year. The company's cash position is very weak and the company was undoubtedly sweating blood trying to determine if it would have enough cash to see things through the end - an end which was far from guaranteed. Even if Creative won its original patent suit, they would have lost the countersuit for the same reasons.
The prospect of blowing $50 million over 5 years to pay lawyers for a net gain of nothing was weighing heavily on their minds, I'm sure.
I think what really motivated the settlement is the sudden appearance of Zune. That basically gave Apple the ace it needed to give it a four-of-a-kind. Why? Because while Creative might have been able to tough it out before Zune, the existence of Zune would basically kill the company before the case could wind through the court system.
I mean, we saw Creative's share of the music player market dive from 8% to just 4% in about a year. Sandisk, which was a virtually unknown brand in the music player space, went from nothing to 8% in a short time.
Even if Zune is far from being an "iPod killer", with Microsoft's marketing machine backing it up, I think any reasonable person could see that it is quite likely that Creative's marketshare would be dropping to nothing a year from now.
So Apple basically gave Creative an offer it couldn't refuse.
Settle with us now and forget this silly patent threat of yours. We'll give you $100 million to license your patents, if only because you got them first. And now that we're all family, why don't you go after some of our competitors. You'll probably be able to get just as much, if not more, which is a lot better than what you were getting trying to fight us with that Zen thing.
And if you want to let your pride get in the way, I don't think we need to remind you that Zune is just a few months away from demolishing what little is left of your company. A year from now, it will be iPod, Sandisk, Zune....everyone will have forgotten about Creative because frankly, you don't have any loyal customers like we do.
In fact, we'll be nice and help you gain some loyal customers, too. By making great iPod accessories, you'll be truly a welcome part of the family and more importantly, you'll have products that people actually buy. How about that!
Just remember, the $100 million is a kind of loan, of sorts. When you talk to that Microsoft fella, remember to share some of the payments you extract with us. We're all family, right?
Given that the writing was on the wall, I figure Creative realized that if you can't beat 'em, it was far, far better to join Apple.
I suspect that it was Apple who proposed the settlement to Creative. More than that, I suspect it was Apple who dictated the actual terms. Creative had no choice but to accept, which was just as well because at first appearance, they look like the winner.
However, I believe Apple is playing corporate jujitsu here. The settlement is a strategic move that greatly benefits Apple in the long term even as Apple is willing to suffer an apparent loss of face.
Why?
Because the settlement gives Creative much needed ammunition (in both cash and legal standing) to go after every one of the iPod's competitors. You can be sure Creative is getting ready to send out letters to Sandisk, which has raced past them in the music player space this year. You can be sure Creative will be sending letters to iRiver.
And most certainly, you can be certain that Creative will be sending letters to Microsoft with regards to Zune.
Really, Apple was not playing from a weak position. There's no other way to say it, but that's a simplistic and naive interpretation. Patent battles are very, very expensive, lasting years and thousands of man-months of time. Creative not only had to fight Apple over its original patents, but simultaneously defends itself against Apple's countersuit (which were filed in a different state, just to make life more difficult for Creative's legal team).
Without any effort at all, Apple could drag the case through the courts for 5+ years and force Creative to cough up tens of millions of dollars in legal expenses. Creative simply does not have that kind of money, after blowing through $100 million in cash to write of unsold inventory last year. The company's cash position is very weak and the company was undoubtedly sweating blood trying to determine if it would have enough cash to see things through the end - an end which was far from guaranteed. Even if Creative won its original patent suit, they would have lost the countersuit for the same reasons.
The prospect of blowing $50 million over 5 years to pay lawyers for a net gain of nothing was weighing heavily on their minds, I'm sure.
I think what really motivated the settlement is the sudden appearance of Zune. That basically gave Apple the ace it needed to give it a four-of-a-kind. Why? Because while Creative might have been able to tough it out before Zune, the existence of Zune would basically kill the company before the case could wind through the court system.
I mean, we saw Creative's share of the music player market dive from 8% to just 4% in about a year. Sandisk, which was a virtually unknown brand in the music player space, went from nothing to 8% in a short time.
Even if Zune is far from being an "iPod killer", with Microsoft's marketing machine backing it up, I think any reasonable person could see that it is quite likely that Creative's marketshare would be dropping to nothing a year from now.
So Apple basically gave Creative an offer it couldn't refuse.
Settle with us now and forget this silly patent threat of yours. We'll give you $100 million to license your patents, if only because you got them first. And now that we're all family, why don't you go after some of our competitors. You'll probably be able to get just as much, if not more, which is a lot better than what you were getting trying to fight us with that Zen thing.
And if you want to let your pride get in the way, I don't think we need to remind you that Zune is just a few months away from demolishing what little is left of your company. A year from now, it will be iPod, Sandisk, Zune....everyone will have forgotten about Creative because frankly, you don't have any loyal customers like we do.
In fact, we'll be nice and help you gain some loyal customers, too. By making great iPod accessories, you'll be truly a welcome part of the family and more importantly, you'll have products that people actually buy. How about that!
Just remember, the $100 million is a kind of loan, of sorts. When you talk to that Microsoft fella, remember to share some of the payments you extract with us. We're all family, right?
Given that the writing was on the wall, I figure Creative realized that if you can't beat 'em, it was far, far better to join Apple.
spaz
Sep 20, 01:24 PM
Well after 8 pages I'm not sure my 2 cents counts for much, but after buying MY "test movie" last night (the brilliant Romy and Michele's High School Reunion), I have a few observations.
Video Quality: Definitely looks a little soft on my widescreen 34" Sony HDTV, but not really bothersome. I'd argue with those who say you can't tell the difference from a DVD, but then again if you just threw the digital file on, I doubt anyone would complain.
Download speed: I must be lucky, because I got the entire movie in 20 minutes flat on my Cable modem. I don't expect that to be the standard, though.
Audio quality: Granted, this was not Revenge of the Sith, but the audio was totally satisfactory. I listened on headphones to get a better sense and the sound was perfectly fine.
My initial reaction was similar to many, in that I couldnt' imagine why people would want a digital file with no physical media, no artwork, and digital rights management, but I've begun to feel this will gain the same appeal as digital audio has. When iTunes started selling music, I was the first to poo-pooh the concept. I am a rabid music collector and couldn't imagine paying for a product without the jewel case, liner notes, etc... now I buy most of my music from iTunes (most, not all) and I don't regret it. I realized i really didn't WANT to cart around cases and discs when I could just have it all digitally, ready to watch, on my device. It's too early to say the same will happen with movies (which, admittedly, are a different animal) but I can definitely see the possibility of lightning striking twice.
Video Quality: Definitely looks a little soft on my widescreen 34" Sony HDTV, but not really bothersome. I'd argue with those who say you can't tell the difference from a DVD, but then again if you just threw the digital file on, I doubt anyone would complain.
Download speed: I must be lucky, because I got the entire movie in 20 minutes flat on my Cable modem. I don't expect that to be the standard, though.
Audio quality: Granted, this was not Revenge of the Sith, but the audio was totally satisfactory. I listened on headphones to get a better sense and the sound was perfectly fine.
My initial reaction was similar to many, in that I couldnt' imagine why people would want a digital file with no physical media, no artwork, and digital rights management, but I've begun to feel this will gain the same appeal as digital audio has. When iTunes started selling music, I was the first to poo-pooh the concept. I am a rabid music collector and couldn't imagine paying for a product without the jewel case, liner notes, etc... now I buy most of my music from iTunes (most, not all) and I don't regret it. I realized i really didn't WANT to cart around cases and discs when I could just have it all digitally, ready to watch, on my device. It's too early to say the same will happen with movies (which, admittedly, are a different animal) but I can definitely see the possibility of lightning striking twice.
rlhamil
Mar 23, 07:13 PM
Idiots. Someone taking the trouble to be more aware of their situation is probably cold sober. More information is likely to prevent more dangerous behavior than it causes. At worst...what? People go faster in the boonies? They do that anyway, at least with something like this they stay awake while they do it.
Senators are not supposed to be a hundred little tinhorn dictators telling people what to do, either. They ought to do something useful, like _cut_the_budget_, instead!
Senators are not supposed to be a hundred little tinhorn dictators telling people what to do, either. They ought to do something useful, like _cut_the_budget_, instead!
daneoni
Apr 22, 01:33 PM
Again, why bother unless they will include a coupon for a free OS upgrade when Lion comes out in a couple of months?
Option. Lion WILL be buggy and if i'm doing critical work i want a tried and tested OS with the option of updating to the newer OS once it less buggy. Buying a new computer with Lion as default means you can't go back to Snow Leopard...ever.
Option. Lion WILL be buggy and if i'm doing critical work i want a tried and tested OS with the option of updating to the newer OS once it less buggy. Buying a new computer with Lion as default means you can't go back to Snow Leopard...ever.
Rodimus Prime
Mar 30, 11:27 AM
i love when big companies publicly fight like this. Dont really care about the actual issue, but the details are so interesting. The lawyers basically make it look like children are fighting.
It goes to show you what our legal system really is like. Kind of goes to show you that much of our legal system is nothing more than expensive babies fighting. Also goes to show you why our government is such a mess because guess what most of our political leaders are........ You guessed it LAWYERS. This is pretty much a world wide thing.
It goes to show you what our legal system really is like. Kind of goes to show you that much of our legal system is nothing more than expensive babies fighting. Also goes to show you why our government is such a mess because guess what most of our political leaders are........ You guessed it LAWYERS. This is pretty much a world wide thing.