scott523
Nov 24, 12:44 AM
Hm maybe they loaded in the prices and everything then they'll 'flick the switch' on the prices once Black Friday officially begins?
0815
Apr 25, 12:20 PM
Uh, no... the iPhone 4 was called the iPhone 4 because it was the 4th version of the iPhone (not because it came after 3 in 3G). If the next iPhone is called the 4S, that'd be the 5th iPhone model. So the next one after that would be called the iPhone 6.
It would go:
iPhone
iPhone 3G
iPhone 3GS
iPhone 4
iPhone 4S (or iPhone 5)
iPhone 6
Agree. It is just stupid that they in the early years named the phones after features ( iPhone2="now we have 3G network" and iPhone3="now we have a faster phone with 3G network") and than suddenly switched to the generation number .... This is really confusing to many people (my favorite ones are the one that still claim that the iPhone 3G is the "iPhone third generation" ....)
I just hope they stick now with generation numbers and no more 'added feature suffix' .... so would the '4S' be for the bigger screen or for more speed ? - if they have both, would it be the iPhone 4SS ???) -> just bad naming schema.
It would go:
iPhone
iPhone 3G
iPhone 3GS
iPhone 4
iPhone 4S (or iPhone 5)
iPhone 6
Agree. It is just stupid that they in the early years named the phones after features ( iPhone2="now we have 3G network" and iPhone3="now we have a faster phone with 3G network") and than suddenly switched to the generation number .... This is really confusing to many people (my favorite ones are the one that still claim that the iPhone 3G is the "iPhone third generation" ....)
I just hope they stick now with generation numbers and no more 'added feature suffix' .... so would the '4S' be for the bigger screen or for more speed ? - if they have both, would it be the iPhone 4SS ???) -> just bad naming schema.
Josias
Aug 1, 10:49 AM
Gjennom EØS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area)-avtalen... :(
Øv pis! Dumme Nordmand! I skal altid ødelægge det, når vi andre har det sjovt! :p
Nah, I just hope Apple passes, like in France...:rolleyes:
Øv pis! Dumme Nordmand! I skal altid ødelægge det, når vi andre har det sjovt! :p
Nah, I just hope Apple passes, like in France...:rolleyes:
thedude110
Aug 7, 03:06 PM
Sweet. $500 for the 20" with the edu discount??
I wish.
edu discount has the 20" at $649.
I wish.
edu discount has the 20" at $649.
yoda13
Sep 12, 12:39 AM
I can't wait to see what they got up their sleeve, hope I am stoked...:D
aristobrat
Oct 6, 06:32 PM
I think the biggest problem is when Apple had the chance to change the game by not doing subizided cost they instead give in and just make it worse by forcing a much larger than average subsudize on there phone ($400 vs $250).
Unlock phones puts the network and the phone separete.
I'm not sure why you think Apple's original iPhone sales model was changing the game.
The customer paid the full price of the iPhone, the iPhone was still locked to a specific carrier, and the carrier agreed to pay Apple monthly for every iPhone customer they had.
On top of that, AT&T created a special, cheaper data plan to lure customers in, as the full-priced phone was very off-putting to some.
Sounds like the original iPhone ended up costing AT&T more than the subsidy on the iPhone 3G/3GS did.
And why did Apple change its original sales model? Because they weren't selling nearly as fast as Apple had hoped.
I agree with you that being able to buy any phone and have it work on any network would be awesome. Logistically, I just don't ever see it happening.
Unlock phones puts the network and the phone separete.
I'm not sure why you think Apple's original iPhone sales model was changing the game.
The customer paid the full price of the iPhone, the iPhone was still locked to a specific carrier, and the carrier agreed to pay Apple monthly for every iPhone customer they had.
On top of that, AT&T created a special, cheaper data plan to lure customers in, as the full-priced phone was very off-putting to some.
Sounds like the original iPhone ended up costing AT&T more than the subsidy on the iPhone 3G/3GS did.
And why did Apple change its original sales model? Because they weren't selling nearly as fast as Apple had hoped.
I agree with you that being able to buy any phone and have it work on any network would be awesome. Logistically, I just don't ever see it happening.
Branskins
Apr 29, 03:45 PM
I wish they would keep the slider buttons. I really really liked them :/
smugDrew
Apr 12, 03:48 AM
Windows 8?!! :rolleyes: it's not even at Beta stage. More useless transparencies and now with extra fat Ribbon UI boobery. How exciting.
OS X Lion - if you're a Dev you shouldn't be talking about it...
OS X Lion - if you're a Dev you shouldn't be talking about it...
wovel
May 3, 06:45 PM
Contract terms require "consideration" from both parties to be legally binding. Consideration is something you provide to the other party (i.e., money from you, data services from your carrier).
What consideration are the carriers offering you for tethering? You're already paying $X for Y GB of data used on your phone. It doesn't matter to the carrier if your Netflix app is using it, or your tethering app is sending the data to your laptop. Nothing changes on their end, they just send the data that you've already paid for to your phone, and your phone handles the rest.
You're right, it is black and white. It's a scam aimed at exploiting consumers like yourself who don't know any better, with an illegal contract term. I hope this goes to court soon, before the carriers in Canada (where I am) try to pull the same BS.
Obviously you have learned about contracts, but have no practical experience with what the terms you are using actually mean...
thank god you are not a brain surgeon. This is no different then paying for internet @ home and getting a modem (cell phone) that only allows connection to one PC (cell phone). Then being forced to pay an extra fee just to split the signal to another PC (use a router in this example).
It is quite a bit different actually. Your home Internet service does not likely limit you to a single device. It is however likely limiting you to your house. If you start hooking up the whole neighborhood through your home Internet connection, they would be well within their rights to charge you more money.
Good try though..
What consideration are the carriers offering you for tethering? You're already paying $X for Y GB of data used on your phone. It doesn't matter to the carrier if your Netflix app is using it, or your tethering app is sending the data to your laptop. Nothing changes on their end, they just send the data that you've already paid for to your phone, and your phone handles the rest.
You're right, it is black and white. It's a scam aimed at exploiting consumers like yourself who don't know any better, with an illegal contract term. I hope this goes to court soon, before the carriers in Canada (where I am) try to pull the same BS.
Obviously you have learned about contracts, but have no practical experience with what the terms you are using actually mean...
thank god you are not a brain surgeon. This is no different then paying for internet @ home and getting a modem (cell phone) that only allows connection to one PC (cell phone). Then being forced to pay an extra fee just to split the signal to another PC (use a router in this example).
It is quite a bit different actually. Your home Internet service does not likely limit you to a single device. It is however likely limiting you to your house. If you start hooking up the whole neighborhood through your home Internet connection, they would be well within their rights to charge you more money.
Good try though..
French iPod
Apr 13, 01:11 PM
just ordered Just Cause 2 since i couldn't find it in store hopefully to get it by friday if not then next monday...
Eidorian
Sep 25, 11:37 AM
Isn't the next MBP just going to be a Gen 1 C2D?Rev. B Intel but Rev. A Core 2 Duo
Confusing isn't it?
Confusing isn't it?
MacSA
Sep 12, 08:05 AM
You can't even check on orders already placed at Apple.com. The store is down.
thats what happened last wednesday before the iMacs/Minis were released. New hardware must be coming out today.
thats what happened last wednesday before the iMacs/Minis were released. New hardware must be coming out today.
bousozoku
Oct 29, 12:06 AM
It's truly sad that Apple have to keep fighting pirates.
This week, I was reading how they've developed some lightweight encryption that has to be done on the GUI to make certain that Aqua is running on an Apple-branded machine. Obviously, there is a performance penalty, even though with the new machines, you might not notice it.
So much for Palladium being the end-all of security and that Apple would never do such a thing.
It seems pretty useless not to tie Mac OS X to a certain motherboard. Apple can tie it fairly loosely but still keep it working only with certain hardware. Of course, this opens up the market for ersatz Apple ROMs.
This week, I was reading how they've developed some lightweight encryption that has to be done on the GUI to make certain that Aqua is running on an Apple-branded machine. Obviously, there is a performance penalty, even though with the new machines, you might not notice it.
So much for Palladium being the end-all of security and that Apple would never do such a thing.
It seems pretty useless not to tie Mac OS X to a certain motherboard. Apple can tie it fairly loosely but still keep it working only with certain hardware. Of course, this opens up the market for ersatz Apple ROMs.
Jaymes
Mar 28, 02:13 PM
Welcome to 1984.
Much Ado
Oct 29, 07:45 AM
Just as same, just as ridiculous, as saying that running Apple software on other hardware makes it "more difficult to use."
Perhaps, (but I still maintain that it's 'easier' to run 'non-Apple' software on a Mac than it is to run OS X on 'non Apple' hardware. But it's true to say that calling Apple exclusively a 'hardware' or 'software' company is a little short sighted, so we're in agreement there.)
It is the hardware sales that keep them afloat, and it's the software that makes the hardware more attractive.
Which is what a lot of people have been saying already :)
To clarify:
Apple is not a normal company. It's a one-off, niche company that do things differently from the rest of the industry. If OS X is licenced to other PC makers then part of the Mac eco-system is lost, and that will kill Apple.
Perhaps, (but I still maintain that it's 'easier' to run 'non-Apple' software on a Mac than it is to run OS X on 'non Apple' hardware. But it's true to say that calling Apple exclusively a 'hardware' or 'software' company is a little short sighted, so we're in agreement there.)
It is the hardware sales that keep them afloat, and it's the software that makes the hardware more attractive.
Which is what a lot of people have been saying already :)
To clarify:
Apple is not a normal company. It's a one-off, niche company that do things differently from the rest of the industry. If OS X is licenced to other PC makers then part of the Mac eco-system is lost, and that will kill Apple.
fanboy05
Mar 17, 08:54 AM
:eek:
I feel bad when i forget to return a pen to the bank when I borrow one to write a check ect...
I guess this is a reminder that there are people of all kinds in this world. :(
I feel bad when i forget to return a pen to the bank when I borrow one to write a check ect...
I guess this is a reminder that there are people of all kinds in this world. :(
lmalave
Oct 3, 02:31 PM
This is a little disappointing that Steve is confirming to keynote MWSF 2007 when it's just October, which means he probably wants us to wait (I hope not). :(
Besides, hasn't Steve keynoted MWSF every year?
Apple has already gone on record as saying that they are moving away from tying product releases to MWSF. I think updates to products before MWSF could happen only if Apple thinks that it'll help them sell more product overall. For example, Apple is *not* going to release the iPhone before because they want consumers to buy the new iPod nanos for this Christmas *and* buy a new iPhone next year. That way they dip into your wallet twice within a year.
I think that for Macs, though, they could upgrade to Core 2 Duo for all macs (except maybe the MacBook and Mac mini initially). As part of that upgrade, I predict they will also update to 802.11n across the whole line, in preparation for the iTV launch. If they wanted to be really jerky, they could launch Core 2 Duo sometime soon (November the latest), and then early next year upgrade to 802.11n (providing a dongle for older laptops). I think iTV is too important, though, to play games like that, so I think that Apple will integrate 802.11n into its Macs as quickly as is practical...
Besides, hasn't Steve keynoted MWSF every year?
Apple has already gone on record as saying that they are moving away from tying product releases to MWSF. I think updates to products before MWSF could happen only if Apple thinks that it'll help them sell more product overall. For example, Apple is *not* going to release the iPhone before because they want consumers to buy the new iPod nanos for this Christmas *and* buy a new iPhone next year. That way they dip into your wallet twice within a year.
I think that for Macs, though, they could upgrade to Core 2 Duo for all macs (except maybe the MacBook and Mac mini initially). As part of that upgrade, I predict they will also update to 802.11n across the whole line, in preparation for the iTV launch. If they wanted to be really jerky, they could launch Core 2 Duo sometime soon (November the latest), and then early next year upgrade to 802.11n (providing a dongle for older laptops). I think iTV is too important, though, to play games like that, so I think that Apple will integrate 802.11n into its Macs as quickly as is practical...
DoFoT9
May 12, 09:08 PM
true, but if it crashes then there's nothing i can do. and usually if it crashes or restarts, to fix the problem i have to get into the BIOS. but remote login would be good if the power flickers (like today)
argh that makes it hard then. change BIOS settings? what on earth is wrong with your computers lol! they should just restart after a blackout (with correct settings of course) - then away it goes.
thanks. all of those have 4 real cores, 8 logical. same as your iMac. the difference is mine are all overclocked.
you should disable HT - you would get more performance, which = more units! :D
(edit: as stated in the other folding thread - my rate has gone down to 13.9x folding speed with 4 core (whatever that means), before with 8threads it was ~16x. )
hey it wouldn't hurt to download the gpu client and see if it works with that card. it might
thats on my OSX 10.5.7 hackintosh - is that possible do you think?
argh that makes it hard then. change BIOS settings? what on earth is wrong with your computers lol! they should just restart after a blackout (with correct settings of course) - then away it goes.
thanks. all of those have 4 real cores, 8 logical. same as your iMac. the difference is mine are all overclocked.
you should disable HT - you would get more performance, which = more units! :D
(edit: as stated in the other folding thread - my rate has gone down to 13.9x folding speed with 4 core (whatever that means), before with 8threads it was ~16x. )
hey it wouldn't hurt to download the gpu client and see if it works with that card. it might
thats on my OSX 10.5.7 hackintosh - is that possible do you think?
Gloor
Jan 15, 05:02 PM
It's not just the displays. The MacPro was still left a little short. Don't get me wrong, they are brilliant machines, my 2.8x8 is brilliant, but only 2GB RAM is a kick in the teeth for a Pro workstation.
Especially when this MacBookFart comes with 2GB as standard. Having said that Steve priority is purely creating products for the Disney store now.
Shame really.
Actually, you buy ram from OWC or Crucial and you are set. The price of MP is really good when compared to HP or Dell so I think the MP now is fantastic. What bothers me is the fact that they upgrade one thing but not the other that goes with it. (ACD) Do they really want us to get HP, Dell or other brilliant LCDs? I'll wait 2 more weeks and then will get MP with A display. Probably 30" HP
Especially when this MacBookFart comes with 2GB as standard. Having said that Steve priority is purely creating products for the Disney store now.
Shame really.
Actually, you buy ram from OWC or Crucial and you are set. The price of MP is really good when compared to HP or Dell so I think the MP now is fantastic. What bothers me is the fact that they upgrade one thing but not the other that goes with it. (ACD) Do they really want us to get HP, Dell or other brilliant LCDs? I'll wait 2 more weeks and then will get MP with A display. Probably 30" HP
Ommid
Apr 25, 11:55 AM
Looks good, I've been holding out since my first-gen iPhone.
...hopefully we'll see a Summer or Fall release? :)
Wow! You're patient!
...hopefully we'll see a Summer or Fall release? :)
Wow! You're patient!
leekohler
Mar 3, 08:30 PM
Wow. This is the boldest the GOP has been in a while. Not even trying to hide the fact that they're just trying to do away with union rights and the right to organize.:mad:
Fines for strikes? Is there a link to the actual text of this bill anywhere?
Screw the fines. The jail time is what offends me. Not only that, but they tacked on yet another antigay measure in the bill. The Republicans are committing political suicide.
These are your candidates, Tea party. Look what you've done.
While it's nominally leaving the unions intact, it's telling them that they have no more power over their health care benefits or pensions. Those can be deeply cut or taken away at any time. Other things, like hours worked and days off, will be non-negotiable as well. And while the union is still free to negotiate wages, the single real bargaining tool they have -- striking -- would now be a jailable offense. So they really have no power to negotiate wages either. Everything will essentially be "take it or leave it."
I agree, this is going to swing the state back to the Democrats in 2012. And yes, unless this is defeated in the courts or by a ballot initiative, anybody who wants to be a teacher or a cop or whatever will look elsewhere, outside of Ohio.
This is going to be terrible for our economy.
I have a few friends who are teachers in Ohio. They're ready to pack their bags if this goes through. They will lose their best and brightest, not their worst. Tea Party, this is what you've done. You will be leaving office in droves next election cycle, mark my words.
Fines for strikes? Is there a link to the actual text of this bill anywhere?
Screw the fines. The jail time is what offends me. Not only that, but they tacked on yet another antigay measure in the bill. The Republicans are committing political suicide.
These are your candidates, Tea party. Look what you've done.
While it's nominally leaving the unions intact, it's telling them that they have no more power over their health care benefits or pensions. Those can be deeply cut or taken away at any time. Other things, like hours worked and days off, will be non-negotiable as well. And while the union is still free to negotiate wages, the single real bargaining tool they have -- striking -- would now be a jailable offense. So they really have no power to negotiate wages either. Everything will essentially be "take it or leave it."
I agree, this is going to swing the state back to the Democrats in 2012. And yes, unless this is defeated in the courts or by a ballot initiative, anybody who wants to be a teacher or a cop or whatever will look elsewhere, outside of Ohio.
This is going to be terrible for our economy.
I have a few friends who are teachers in Ohio. They're ready to pack their bags if this goes through. They will lose their best and brightest, not their worst. Tea Party, this is what you've done. You will be leaving office in droves next election cycle, mark my words.
840quadra
Oct 10, 09:24 PM
I'm starting to doubt page 1 rumors just as much as I doubt Page 2 rumors. Unless you (MacRumors, not the 'source' website of the rumor,) have credible, reliable, direct sources, it belongs on Page 2. If you don't have direct sources, (as rumors on other websites would be,) it does not belong on page 1. By your own standards.
I'm not sure where you got those criteria... but those aren't the criteria for which story make the first page.
arn
I'm not sure where you got those criteria... but those aren't the criteria for which story make the first page.
arn
snberk103
Apr 15, 08:03 PM
Well actually we know the TSA methods don't work because both of the incidents were from European airports that mirror what the TSA does. Added to the number of weapons that make it through TSA checkpoints, it's easy to see that the TSA does in fact not work to the extent that it is expected to.
All we know is that increased security screening is not perfect. Perhaps you can extrapolate the European experience (in this case) to the TSA... but that's as far as you can go.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
Do you always start with the insulting tone (see bolding) when the debate isn't going your way? I would argue that both sides are rational actors, though both sides may also employ non-rational players. The higher echelons of terrorist organizations have shown themselves to very worried about being captured by the fact that they are so hard to catch. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be going to a great deal of trouble to avoid it. Therefore, to my mind, they are rational actors. That 50/50 number is one that I threw into the argument as an "for argument's sake". Please don't rely on it for anything factual. The TSA in fact catches more than 50% of their training/testing planted weapons. And yes, I think even if the the number was as low as 50/50 a rational actor would do everything... oh heck... I've already written all that - you've not presented anything else of substance in it's place, so I'll just save my typing finger....
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
That's the funny thing. I've never actually said that the TSA is the best thing around. All I've said is that the TSA is doing something. That's all - that the TSA is doing something right. Not everything. Just something. Go back and look it up. Even the head of the Israeli security never said they were useless (as in doing nothing right). Just that it wasn't the best use of resources. Oh, and if you know Israelis (and I do), then you'll also know that there is another Israeli who knows just as much as that first fellow, and she thinks the TSA is doing things just fine.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
That's the problem with 90% of the decisions Governments make. All they have is correlational connections. Or incomplete causal relationships. Or... basically the best they can do is make an educated guess, and hope for the best.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
No, on two counts. 1) You asserted "Our attempts at security are at best as good as Lisa's rock...". I countered your assertion by saying that the TSA must be doing something right, and used the stats on hijackings. I (to paraphrase you) "poked hole in your reasoning". You've presented nothing that counters my evidence, except to try mocking it as simplistic. If it is, then show how it is.... If my argument doesn't convince you. Then say so, and then leave it at that. I have my opinion, you have yours. But if you want me to change my opinion you had better do better. 2) I've forgotten - cr*p.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
You are right correlations don't show causation. But they are evidence for it. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, present it.
All we know is that increased security screening is not perfect. Perhaps you can extrapolate the European experience (in this case) to the TSA... but that's as far as you can go.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
Do you always start with the insulting tone (see bolding) when the debate isn't going your way? I would argue that both sides are rational actors, though both sides may also employ non-rational players. The higher echelons of terrorist organizations have shown themselves to very worried about being captured by the fact that they are so hard to catch. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be going to a great deal of trouble to avoid it. Therefore, to my mind, they are rational actors. That 50/50 number is one that I threw into the argument as an "for argument's sake". Please don't rely on it for anything factual. The TSA in fact catches more than 50% of their training/testing planted weapons. And yes, I think even if the the number was as low as 50/50 a rational actor would do everything... oh heck... I've already written all that - you've not presented anything else of substance in it's place, so I'll just save my typing finger....
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
That's the funny thing. I've never actually said that the TSA is the best thing around. All I've said is that the TSA is doing something. That's all - that the TSA is doing something right. Not everything. Just something. Go back and look it up. Even the head of the Israeli security never said they were useless (as in doing nothing right). Just that it wasn't the best use of resources. Oh, and if you know Israelis (and I do), then you'll also know that there is another Israeli who knows just as much as that first fellow, and she thinks the TSA is doing things just fine.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
That's the problem with 90% of the decisions Governments make. All they have is correlational connections. Or incomplete causal relationships. Or... basically the best they can do is make an educated guess, and hope for the best.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
No, on two counts. 1) You asserted "Our attempts at security are at best as good as Lisa's rock...". I countered your assertion by saying that the TSA must be doing something right, and used the stats on hijackings. I (to paraphrase you) "poked hole in your reasoning". You've presented nothing that counters my evidence, except to try mocking it as simplistic. If it is, then show how it is.... If my argument doesn't convince you. Then say so, and then leave it at that. I have my opinion, you have yours. But if you want me to change my opinion you had better do better. 2) I've forgotten - cr*p.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
You are right correlations don't show causation. But they are evidence for it. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, present it.
Surf Monkey
Mar 17, 01:23 PM
Hopefully. He's obviously a moron
... and we all know that there's nothing ethically questionable about stealing from morons, right?
... and we all know that there's nothing ethically questionable about stealing from morons, right?
No comments:
Post a Comment