new york knicks wallpaper
Ace25
Sep 4, 05:48 PM
It's a shame that these $65.00 chinese 1GB MP4 players with the Samsung chip have MP3 playback - Video - FM Radio - eBook Reader - Photo Viewer - Voice & FM Recorder, yet the Nano at three times the price does not!
Not sure about you, but I like Apple for its industrial design and simplicity, not feature bloat.
Not sure about you, but I like Apple for its industrial design and simplicity, not feature bloat.
new york knicks wallpaper
diehldun
Apr 17, 11:07 AM
I see them at the Best Buy Kiosk's in all the major airports around the country.
If you have flown anywhere lately you have notice Apple products, IPads, MacBooks are the preferred electronic device on most major flights. I was at JFK last week, The waiting areas had 100's of Ipads built into the seats for all those waiting so they could surf the web.
Which terminal was this? Or are you getting confused with those generic touch-screen devices at JetBlue T5? Those are to order food and have them delivered to you at the gate- not iPads.
If you have flown anywhere lately you have notice Apple products, IPads, MacBooks are the preferred electronic device on most major flights. I was at JFK last week, The waiting areas had 100's of Ipads built into the seats for all those waiting so they could surf the web.
Which terminal was this? Or are you getting confused with those generic touch-screen devices at JetBlue T5? Those are to order food and have them delivered to you at the gate- not iPads.
new york knicks wallpaper.
jorasho
Nov 8, 08:11 AM
It would be really disappointing if they waited with this upgrade for mwsf 2007. I mean, what's new, apart from the very expected Core 2 Duo and the very slow upper hard drive option.
No, I expected at least a different Intel graphical chipset and an upgrade to 1 GB RAM over the full line. Also, it's still $1099, not $999.
Rather disappointing upgrade, Apple, whas this all you did in almost half a year of development?
No, I expected at least a different Intel graphical chipset and an upgrade to 1 GB RAM over the full line. Also, it's still $1099, not $999.
Rather disappointing upgrade, Apple, whas this all you did in almost half a year of development?
anthony knicks wallpaper.
tjwaido
Apr 13, 10:12 PM
"However, this does not mean these other applications are dead - simply that Apple is not talking about them... yet."
So maybe this explains the low price point. $299 for Final Cut Pro X and $999 for the full suite? I hope not. All looks amazing though!
I love the new Final Cut Pro X. I don't feel I need to upgrade unless it comes in the suite. $999.00 would be a great price for the suite, considering I paid that price for FCP alone, no suite, in 2001.
So maybe this explains the low price point. $299 for Final Cut Pro X and $999 for the full suite? I hope not. All looks amazing though!
I love the new Final Cut Pro X. I don't feel I need to upgrade unless it comes in the suite. $999.00 would be a great price for the suite, considering I paid that price for FCP alone, no suite, in 2001.
New York Knicks
ddrueckhammer
Sep 12, 06:23 PM
Yeah, seems sly to give away iPod nanos for free, those bastards...:rolleyes:
Get a grip.
Get a grip? I don't care if you are a Demi-god that is pretty freakin rude. Considering the Apple owns much of the flash market and the competition already sells higher capacities at lower prices I would say they are making plenty of profit. Not offering student discounts like they have in the past is just pure greed. College students provide plenty of free marketing for them and help increase their cool factor and college students are poor. They should get a break.
Get a grip.
Get a grip? I don't care if you are a Demi-god that is pretty freakin rude. Considering the Apple owns much of the flash market and the competition already sells higher capacities at lower prices I would say they are making plenty of profit. Not offering student discounts like they have in the past is just pure greed. College students provide plenty of free marketing for them and help increase their cool factor and college students are poor. They should get a break.
new york knicks wallpaper
fjpoblam
Mar 21, 08:21 PM
Great story...
Is that Apple said Yes in Comic Sans MS? :eek:
Is that Apple said Yes in Comic Sans MS? :eek:
new york knicks wallpaper
Edge100
Nov 27, 01:58 PM
Correction, They are ALL mixed well. the Separation was done on purpose, and frankly it is brilliant, and I dont find it Annoying in the slightest. (unless i am using one of those cassette adaptors in my car and it has developed a problem and only puts the left side through both speakers. yes, thats happened to me)
I honestly can't wrap my head around anyone complaining about the way those were mixed. I wish more albums these days were recorded with more experimentation on this level. i would make a huge stink if anyone Remixed those albums, and I certainly wouldnt buy them. hey why not just re-record them? george and john are dead, but we could have clapton do georges parts, and john's son Sean do his! bet we could get it to sound "Better"
If you think the stereo mixes are good, you NEED to find a copy of the mono mixes. They are much better, and much more in keeping with the original vision of the songs. The Beatles (and Martin/Emerick/others) largely ignored the stereo mixes until the late 60s' because it wasn't a popular format. In some cases, the mono mixes are drastically different than the stereo. And THAT was the way the songs were originally intended.
The word "remix" has taken on a bad connotation lately. The songs shouldn't be "rearranged" (as is the common understanding of "remix"), but the actual elements need re-balancing, mostly in the area of placement in the stereo field (as others have pointed out). Plus the actual sonic quality of the CDs is poor, and the mixes, as they stand today, need to be remastered in higher quality digital.
I honestly can't wrap my head around anyone complaining about the way those were mixed. I wish more albums these days were recorded with more experimentation on this level. i would make a huge stink if anyone Remixed those albums, and I certainly wouldnt buy them. hey why not just re-record them? george and john are dead, but we could have clapton do georges parts, and john's son Sean do his! bet we could get it to sound "Better"
If you think the stereo mixes are good, you NEED to find a copy of the mono mixes. They are much better, and much more in keeping with the original vision of the songs. The Beatles (and Martin/Emerick/others) largely ignored the stereo mixes until the late 60s' because it wasn't a popular format. In some cases, the mono mixes are drastically different than the stereo. And THAT was the way the songs were originally intended.
The word "remix" has taken on a bad connotation lately. The songs shouldn't be "rearranged" (as is the common understanding of "remix"), but the actual elements need re-balancing, mostly in the area of placement in the stereo field (as others have pointed out). Plus the actual sonic quality of the CDs is poor, and the mixes, as they stand today, need to be remastered in higher quality digital.
new york knicks wallpaper
emotion
Nov 8, 09:52 AM
I'm guessing they did that so they could use the same adapters for both. The laptop itself still has a 60W ps.
A shame really if true...the MBP power supply is pretty big and not that portable (compared to the old pbooks and even old MBs).
A shame really if true...the MBP power supply is pretty big and not that portable (compared to the old pbooks and even old MBs).
new york knicks wallpaper
rxse7en
Aug 3, 06:02 PM
MacBook Pro 17" C2D + Adobe Creative Suite Universal
MacBook Pro 17" C2D + Adobe Creative Suite Universal
MacBook Pro 17" C2D + Adobe Creative Suite Universal
MacBook Pro 17" C2D + Adobe Creative Suite Universal
MacBook Pro 17" C2D + Adobe Creative Suite Universal
My mantra for announcements voodoo. :D
MacBook Pro 17" C2D + Adobe Creative Suite Universal
MacBook Pro 17" C2D + Adobe Creative Suite Universal
MacBook Pro 17" C2D + Adobe Creative Suite Universal
MacBook Pro 17" C2D + Adobe Creative Suite Universal
My mantra for announcements voodoo. :D
new york knicks wallpaper.
thesheep
Nov 8, 03:03 AM
Flash can be very good in websites, or it can be badly misused. Just like most other tools. It exists as a powerful option for adding animation, video and various other effects and functionality.
It is a big shame that Flash is a closed standard, as it gives one company (Adobe) too much power in the web, which should be all about openness. So this sort of gives some credibility to Apple's decision not to support it. But not really. Afterall, Apple is happy for Flash to run in desktop versions of Safari.
Apple needs to be pragmatic and provide the best user experience they can. My guess is that there were originally significant technical hurdles to making Flash work well in the iPhone. But that was only 1 reason. They also wanted to push their own solutions (quicktime) and so maybe they haven't tried particularly hard to make Flash work. It hasn't been a top priority. It obviously is a bit of a problem now and they need to do something about it.
The best thing of all, however, is if Adobe would make Flash an open standard. So they can also stop whining here.
It is a big shame that Flash is a closed standard, as it gives one company (Adobe) too much power in the web, which should be all about openness. So this sort of gives some credibility to Apple's decision not to support it. But not really. Afterall, Apple is happy for Flash to run in desktop versions of Safari.
Apple needs to be pragmatic and provide the best user experience they can. My guess is that there were originally significant technical hurdles to making Flash work well in the iPhone. But that was only 1 reason. They also wanted to push their own solutions (quicktime) and so maybe they haven't tried particularly hard to make Flash work. It hasn't been a top priority. It obviously is a bit of a problem now and they need to do something about it.
The best thing of all, however, is if Adobe would make Flash an open standard. So they can also stop whining here.
new york knicks wallpaper. new
roxygal9
Mar 11, 03:52 PM
It was judged to be a hoax, just like all the MBP rumors so far.
Thanks for the clarification
:(
Thanks for the clarification
:(
new york knicks wallpaper
Jcoz
Mar 28, 12:55 PM
Thats all I ever get there. Pretty much everything else they sell is overpriced.
Alot of people use them for mobile phone services
Alot of people use them for mobile phone services
new york knicks wallpaper.
FasterQuieter
Apr 2, 08:47 AM
I do hope if they are going to up the megapixelage for marketing purposes, they at least give us more memory in the base configuration to handle all the extra space the photos are gonna waste.
Unless of course Sony has secretly created the greatest sensor in the history of the world and the 8MP can be justified. That would be nice.
Unless of course Sony has secretly created the greatest sensor in the history of the world and the 8MP can be justified. That would be nice.
new york knicks wallpaper 2011
Piarco
Jul 23, 06:23 AM
This would persuade more to get the new iPod more than the ability to play full screen movies.... all the rumours around the 6G are quite interesting, lets hope it plays out into something that lives up to them.
new york knicks wallpaper
dernhelm
Mar 28, 12:08 PM
Man, that picture gives me a headache. For future reference, image stabilization can help with that sort of thing.
knicks wallpaper.
mscriv
Apr 11, 11:57 AM
I object to the notion that good deeds I do are due to vanity, pride etc.
No, sorry, you cannot have that one. "Altruistic" does not coincide with "vanity and self glorification". In my filthy heathen state of unsaved gracelessness, I still do things for which my only reward is a smile. And even when I do have an ulterior motive ("you can return the favor at your leisure, to me or to someone else"), how does that detract from my having done well and good by someone else?
I find this statement utterly appalling. Do those who sacrifice themselves for others do so from selfish motives?
I agree. There is so much wrong with the original statement in addition to your point. I consider "goodness" to get your spot in heaven the ultimate in selfishness. Also, what about gods other than Jesus, are the good things performed in their name just as "selfless"?
Ok, good questions and thoughts. Let me explain/expound upon my statement. The bolded part below seems to be what is drawing the most reaction.
An accurate understanding of original sin does not mean that man is completely "evil" in the sense that we are incapable of doing works that would be considered "good" or altruistic. The human spirit is capable of many good things, but without an accurate understanding of who God is and our relationship to him these good works become nothing but acts of vanity and self glorification that serve only to advance pride and promote self-reliance.
I am not speaking about conscious motivation within an individuals actions/behavior, although that could be true as we all know people do at times act out of selfish and prideful intentions.
I'm talking about a theological understanding of man's state before God. For those that do not believe in a higher power or absolute truth, man, in and of himself, is the highest order of existence/being/evolution, etc. etc.. Thus, any and all accomplishments of man ("good works") are then viewed as self evident truths to this proposition. Man's capacity for altruism, self sacrifice, and compassion are seen as proof of his independence from God. "See what we can accomplish on our own... we don't need God." In this manner all of man's action is an act of self glorification and self reliance.
I'm in a "helping profession" and work daily with people who seek to support and serve others. Many do this out of the "goodness of their own heart" and genuinely do not seek any form of return for their efforts. On a human level these actions are noble and sacrificial and I applaud them. However, on a spiritual level, I must recognize that scripture teaches us that our "good deeds" are worthless if our heart is not right with God.
Please understand, this doesn't mean that the positive results of these actions are meaningless. For example, giving food to the homeless is a sacrificial act that does help people in need, but it will in no way earn you "points" with God. The Bible does not teach a theology of works. It's not about what you do, it's about your relationship with Christ.
Again, as I always say, this is ultimately an issue of faith and I completely understand that it can be hard to comprehend for some. And it is a subtle nuance to understand the difference between doing something because you adhere to a set of principles (right vs. wrong) and doing it because it is an outflow of your relationship with God.
It's like I told someone recently in a conversation we were having. I don't stay true to my wife because being unfaithful to her would be the morally wrong thing to do. I could care less about the moral principle of marital faithfulness. My motivation for staying true to my wife is that I have an intimate loving relationship with her and I would never want to hurt her or damage that relationship in any way.
Which takes us into rougher territory. If works are relatively insignificant in the scheme of salvation, your absolute moral code starts to crumble and fall in on itself. For, why should a believer bother to follow it if the saviour is always near at hand to forgive and redeem?
You may not realize it Sydde, but what you are saying is still along the lines of a works based relationship with God and that is not what the Bible teaches. It's not about a revolving door of "messing up" and and then asking for forgiveness. Christ death paid the price in full for all sin (past, present, and future). What matters is the condition of your heart before him and the intimacy of your relationship with him. Within that context are you seeking your own way including your own selfish desires or are you seeking to be the servant leader he wants you to be. The examples you gave in your post were all of people being selfishly motivated for their own gain.
In light of the examples of history (perhaps including those in the bible itself), how can you say that religion has made anyone a better person than they would have been? To me, it looks like religion has made the world a worse place than it might have been without it.
I'd think you would agree that people like Mother Theresa were able to successfully live out their faith with the goal of bringing glory to God while serving others. She's just the first example that pops into my head, but there are countless others. Again, it's not about "religion" making us "better people", that's a selfish manner of thinking. My relationship with God is not about me, it's about him.
"Many people mistake our work for our vocation. Our vocation is the love of Jesus."
"There is always the danger that we may just do the work for the sake of the work. This is where the respect and the love and the devotion come in - that we do it to God, to Christ, and that's why we try to do it as beautifully as possible."
~ Mother Theresa
Every time I hear about how we are naturally selfish and corrupt, I hear the utterer trying to apologize for their own faults by expanding them upon all others. As a counselor, you should be familiar with the mechanism called "projection".
I'm very familiar with projection. I can assure you that is not what's happening here. I'm merely presenting what God has communicated to us through the Bible. Could it be that your skepticism and cynicism is a projection of something within you? Why don't you come over he and lie on this couch and tell me about your mother... ;)
Yet, again, the absolutes get bent. When believers run up against a moral wall that divides them from their goals, they seek the counsel of a cleric. The cleric typically sympathizes with the believer's plight and very often finds a way to interpret the scripture to turn the question to the believer's favor. So you have your absolutes, but they are also flexible. What good then are they, that they can be molded to suit your needs? How is this better than situational ethics (logic, reason and compromise), other than to employ scholars in the service of the almighty?
Well, first of all, "clerics" are not required for us to interpret scripture or have a relationship with God. When Christ was crucified he tore the temple veil representing that his sacrifice has made the way for man to have a direct relationship with God, no human intermediary is required. As far as prooftexting or manipulating scripture for your own personal motives due to a presenting dilemma, well, I'm sure you already know my answer to this based on my previous comments. Scripture stands alone as authoritative regardless of how I "feel" about it or what I "want" it to say. If I'm seeking to find an "exception" in scripture to justify my own position then my heart is not in the right place.
I have had more than a third of a century (from teenage years) to develop my philosophy and unbeliefs, and you are obviously quite steadfast in yours, so yes, there can be little doubt of the mexican stand-off. Does it trouble you? As hoary and mulish as I may be, I still find merit in these discussions, because they draw things out into the light that I had not bothered to look at. You do teach me things, though they are almost certainly not the things you intend. I hope you in some way also benefit, it would be a shame to think this only leads you to despair.
Fret not my friend. I think there is extreme merit in these discussions and I appreciate the respectful way in which many of us here are able to engage each other on such topics.
As far as me being troubled or in "despair" the answer to your question is both yes and no. I do seek to consistently and genuinely live out my faith and thus I do wish to see other's come into relationship with Christ (you know that whole "go ye therefore" thing in the Bible). However, do I judge others and base my entire relationship with them on evangelistic purposes? No. One of the greatest gifts God has given us is free will, in fact, without free will everything we are talking about falls apart. I respect, just as God has designed it to be, that people have the freedom and the ability to reject him and live their life as they see fit. I love, value, relate to, and learn from others regardless of their spiritual beliefs. It would be foolish of me to limit my relationships with people solely on their spirituality or lack thereof. My goal is to accept people as they are, treat them with dignity and respect, and seek out how I might serve or support them in the context of our relationship.
Besides, if I do happen to get down about it, I know a pretty good therapist. ;)
Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to address the questions/comments that had been made. :)
No, sorry, you cannot have that one. "Altruistic" does not coincide with "vanity and self glorification". In my filthy heathen state of unsaved gracelessness, I still do things for which my only reward is a smile. And even when I do have an ulterior motive ("you can return the favor at your leisure, to me or to someone else"), how does that detract from my having done well and good by someone else?
I find this statement utterly appalling. Do those who sacrifice themselves for others do so from selfish motives?
I agree. There is so much wrong with the original statement in addition to your point. I consider "goodness" to get your spot in heaven the ultimate in selfishness. Also, what about gods other than Jesus, are the good things performed in their name just as "selfless"?
Ok, good questions and thoughts. Let me explain/expound upon my statement. The bolded part below seems to be what is drawing the most reaction.
An accurate understanding of original sin does not mean that man is completely "evil" in the sense that we are incapable of doing works that would be considered "good" or altruistic. The human spirit is capable of many good things, but without an accurate understanding of who God is and our relationship to him these good works become nothing but acts of vanity and self glorification that serve only to advance pride and promote self-reliance.
I am not speaking about conscious motivation within an individuals actions/behavior, although that could be true as we all know people do at times act out of selfish and prideful intentions.
I'm talking about a theological understanding of man's state before God. For those that do not believe in a higher power or absolute truth, man, in and of himself, is the highest order of existence/being/evolution, etc. etc.. Thus, any and all accomplishments of man ("good works") are then viewed as self evident truths to this proposition. Man's capacity for altruism, self sacrifice, and compassion are seen as proof of his independence from God. "See what we can accomplish on our own... we don't need God." In this manner all of man's action is an act of self glorification and self reliance.
I'm in a "helping profession" and work daily with people who seek to support and serve others. Many do this out of the "goodness of their own heart" and genuinely do not seek any form of return for their efforts. On a human level these actions are noble and sacrificial and I applaud them. However, on a spiritual level, I must recognize that scripture teaches us that our "good deeds" are worthless if our heart is not right with God.
Please understand, this doesn't mean that the positive results of these actions are meaningless. For example, giving food to the homeless is a sacrificial act that does help people in need, but it will in no way earn you "points" with God. The Bible does not teach a theology of works. It's not about what you do, it's about your relationship with Christ.
Again, as I always say, this is ultimately an issue of faith and I completely understand that it can be hard to comprehend for some. And it is a subtle nuance to understand the difference between doing something because you adhere to a set of principles (right vs. wrong) and doing it because it is an outflow of your relationship with God.
It's like I told someone recently in a conversation we were having. I don't stay true to my wife because being unfaithful to her would be the morally wrong thing to do. I could care less about the moral principle of marital faithfulness. My motivation for staying true to my wife is that I have an intimate loving relationship with her and I would never want to hurt her or damage that relationship in any way.
Which takes us into rougher territory. If works are relatively insignificant in the scheme of salvation, your absolute moral code starts to crumble and fall in on itself. For, why should a believer bother to follow it if the saviour is always near at hand to forgive and redeem?
You may not realize it Sydde, but what you are saying is still along the lines of a works based relationship with God and that is not what the Bible teaches. It's not about a revolving door of "messing up" and and then asking for forgiveness. Christ death paid the price in full for all sin (past, present, and future). What matters is the condition of your heart before him and the intimacy of your relationship with him. Within that context are you seeking your own way including your own selfish desires or are you seeking to be the servant leader he wants you to be. The examples you gave in your post were all of people being selfishly motivated for their own gain.
In light of the examples of history (perhaps including those in the bible itself), how can you say that religion has made anyone a better person than they would have been? To me, it looks like religion has made the world a worse place than it might have been without it.
I'd think you would agree that people like Mother Theresa were able to successfully live out their faith with the goal of bringing glory to God while serving others. She's just the first example that pops into my head, but there are countless others. Again, it's not about "religion" making us "better people", that's a selfish manner of thinking. My relationship with God is not about me, it's about him.
"Many people mistake our work for our vocation. Our vocation is the love of Jesus."
"There is always the danger that we may just do the work for the sake of the work. This is where the respect and the love and the devotion come in - that we do it to God, to Christ, and that's why we try to do it as beautifully as possible."
~ Mother Theresa
Every time I hear about how we are naturally selfish and corrupt, I hear the utterer trying to apologize for their own faults by expanding them upon all others. As a counselor, you should be familiar with the mechanism called "projection".
I'm very familiar with projection. I can assure you that is not what's happening here. I'm merely presenting what God has communicated to us through the Bible. Could it be that your skepticism and cynicism is a projection of something within you? Why don't you come over he and lie on this couch and tell me about your mother... ;)
Yet, again, the absolutes get bent. When believers run up against a moral wall that divides them from their goals, they seek the counsel of a cleric. The cleric typically sympathizes with the believer's plight and very often finds a way to interpret the scripture to turn the question to the believer's favor. So you have your absolutes, but they are also flexible. What good then are they, that they can be molded to suit your needs? How is this better than situational ethics (logic, reason and compromise), other than to employ scholars in the service of the almighty?
Well, first of all, "clerics" are not required for us to interpret scripture or have a relationship with God. When Christ was crucified he tore the temple veil representing that his sacrifice has made the way for man to have a direct relationship with God, no human intermediary is required. As far as prooftexting or manipulating scripture for your own personal motives due to a presenting dilemma, well, I'm sure you already know my answer to this based on my previous comments. Scripture stands alone as authoritative regardless of how I "feel" about it or what I "want" it to say. If I'm seeking to find an "exception" in scripture to justify my own position then my heart is not in the right place.
I have had more than a third of a century (from teenage years) to develop my philosophy and unbeliefs, and you are obviously quite steadfast in yours, so yes, there can be little doubt of the mexican stand-off. Does it trouble you? As hoary and mulish as I may be, I still find merit in these discussions, because they draw things out into the light that I had not bothered to look at. You do teach me things, though they are almost certainly not the things you intend. I hope you in some way also benefit, it would be a shame to think this only leads you to despair.
Fret not my friend. I think there is extreme merit in these discussions and I appreciate the respectful way in which many of us here are able to engage each other on such topics.
As far as me being troubled or in "despair" the answer to your question is both yes and no. I do seek to consistently and genuinely live out my faith and thus I do wish to see other's come into relationship with Christ (you know that whole "go ye therefore" thing in the Bible). However, do I judge others and base my entire relationship with them on evangelistic purposes? No. One of the greatest gifts God has given us is free will, in fact, without free will everything we are talking about falls apart. I respect, just as God has designed it to be, that people have the freedom and the ability to reject him and live their life as they see fit. I love, value, relate to, and learn from others regardless of their spiritual beliefs. It would be foolish of me to limit my relationships with people solely on their spirituality or lack thereof. My goal is to accept people as they are, treat them with dignity and respect, and seek out how I might serve or support them in the context of our relationship.
Besides, if I do happen to get down about it, I know a pretty good therapist. ;)
Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to address the questions/comments that had been made. :)
new york knicks wallpaper
ArizonaKid
Aug 9, 10:35 AM
Time Machine seems more like the Shadow Copies on Server only on a local level rather than a network drive. (example attached)
I'm assuming they will use a form of Single Instance Storage with TM, so you have one copy of the file and only the deltas from any changes to reduce space requirements.
I use Shadow Copies on our network all the time, it is very handy. The concept and implementation of Time Machine is not original. Apple simply slapped Eye Candy on it and raved about how it is a revolution.
Outside of my company's network, which has tons of server space, I don't know if I would want Time Machine to automatically make backups. Guess I am just old school and prefer to manually make backups. That way I am maximizing my personal hardrive space.
I'm assuming they will use a form of Single Instance Storage with TM, so you have one copy of the file and only the deltas from any changes to reduce space requirements.
I use Shadow Copies on our network all the time, it is very handy. The concept and implementation of Time Machine is not original. Apple simply slapped Eye Candy on it and raved about how it is a revolution.
Outside of my company's network, which has tons of server space, I don't know if I would want Time Machine to automatically make backups. Guess I am just old school and prefer to manually make backups. That way I am maximizing my personal hardrive space.
anthony knicks wallpaper
ortuno2k
Sep 14, 09:51 PM
As an ex-employee of a computer retail store, I always used to get the questions.."What's the different between XP home & Pro?" "Does XP Pro come with Word, that's why it costs more?" Etc..
Microsoft continues to ship buggy software and confuse the hell out of people.
And for those complaining that OS X was more expensive than Windows Vista over time, think again...The updates aren't as needed from one version to the next, so you may choose to skip one or two, for example from 10.3 to 10.4, and skip to 10.5. It will cost you $129.99 (or whatever the price for 10.5 is), while Windows Vista costs a lot more, and it's just another bugged version of Windows XP.
I went Mac a year ago and will NEVER buy/build another PC.
Microsoft continues to ship buggy software and confuse the hell out of people.
And for those complaining that OS X was more expensive than Windows Vista over time, think again...The updates aren't as needed from one version to the next, so you may choose to skip one or two, for example from 10.3 to 10.4, and skip to 10.5. It will cost you $129.99 (or whatever the price for 10.5 is), while Windows Vista costs a lot more, and it's just another bugged version of Windows XP.
I went Mac a year ago and will NEVER buy/build another PC.
new york knicks wallpaper.
Doylem
Mar 6, 03:26 PM
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5257/5486802478_bee1438a99_b.jpg[/URL]
Great shot. I feel I'm there, in that scrum (and I know how painful that is)...
http://www.robertgravel.ca/Animals/Oiseaux/MG7056-upload/1207750652_2ZMuC-XL.jpg
Yup... really beautiful...
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5172/5503824362_80b1ebbd6a_b.jpg
That's got to be very old: Britain is still attached to the rest of Europe...
Great shot. I feel I'm there, in that scrum (and I know how painful that is)...
http://www.robertgravel.ca/Animals/Oiseaux/MG7056-upload/1207750652_2ZMuC-XL.jpg
Yup... really beautiful...
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5172/5503824362_80b1ebbd6a_b.jpg
That's got to be very old: Britain is still attached to the rest of Europe...
drummerdude1390
May 4, 10:49 PM
great plan
Mark-Mac-Attack
Oct 15, 03:12 AM
Mark - what desk is that?
Mikael for the majority of shots (first one with optional glass), then another Ikea desk that I don't know (I didn't buy that one).
Mark.
Mikael for the majority of shots (first one with optional glass), then another Ikea desk that I don't know (I didn't buy that one).
Mark.
Goldinboy17
May 4, 10:09 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Glad to hear I'm not the only one that loathed 3D. It's just too much in my personal opinion.
Glad to hear I'm not the only one that loathed 3D. It's just too much in my personal opinion.
emotion
Nov 8, 08:57 AM
No, I can't actually. I'm typing this on a dual 533MHz G4 with 1MB L2 cache per processor - so 2MB total. Same as the Core Duo!
Not really. The CD has some level of cache coherency, this makes it more efficient than separate caches on separate processors.
Not really. The CD has some level of cache coherency, this makes it more efficient than separate caches on separate processors.
Chundles
Sep 6, 08:26 AM
Anyone else notice that the low end iMac (1.83 Ghz) now has the 950 chipset for a graphics card?
That's just a Core 2 Duo updated version of the iMac that replaced the eMac earlier this year. It was initially only for sale to educational institutions.
That's just a Core 2 Duo updated version of the iMac that replaced the eMac earlier this year. It was initially only for sale to educational institutions.
Source URL: https://ngejogg.blogspot.com/2011/10/knicks-wallpaper.html
Visit ngejog tambak for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection
.jpg)
