I'mAMac
Aug 29, 02:57 PM
if anyone was wondering, Stem cells have the remarkable potential to develop into many different cell types in the body. Serving as a sort of repair system for the body, they can theoretically divide without limit to replenish other cells as long as the person or animal is still alive. When a stem cell divides, each new cell has the potential to either remain a stem cell or become another type of cell with a more specialized function, such as a muscle cell, a red blood cell, or a brain cell. wow stem cells are a life saver :)
macenforcer
Jul 12, 12:17 AM
I hate to say it but since I got my macbook black I have been using winxp and not osx. XP runs faster, is compatible with all apps like photoshop and office natively and runs perfectly. I have been very impressed. So impressed that I decided to build a core 2 duo desktop from newegg and I did it for Under $900. Now lets see apple top that pricing. (core 2 duo chip on order from buy.com)
Sorry but I think I have lost hope for OS X. I got the media center edition OS with the new computer I am building with dual tuner TV card. Watching tv via my xbox 360 is a dream. Mac will never be able to accomplish this task. Front row sucks.
If I bought a new mac pro (which I won't because its going to be a rippoff) I would just run XP on it.
For instance, I got two Radeon 16xPCIe X1600xt supporting crossfire with 512mb ram each from newegg for $120 each. Everything is just cheaper.
After a while you get to a point in your work where you realize seeing the neat apple OS is just not that important. Not when you can run crappy XP (which sorry to disappoint never crashes) for 1/3rd the price and 4x the speed.
Comon apple, make a media center mac and figure out a way to use PC graphics cards. After spending $500 on my Radeon 800xt with 256mb ram I wil l NEVER do it again. Not when I can get dual crossfire cards for half the price and 4x the performance.
I guess I am a half reverse switcher. Using macbook pro but XP only. LOL!
Sorry but I think I have lost hope for OS X. I got the media center edition OS with the new computer I am building with dual tuner TV card. Watching tv via my xbox 360 is a dream. Mac will never be able to accomplish this task. Front row sucks.
If I bought a new mac pro (which I won't because its going to be a rippoff) I would just run XP on it.
For instance, I got two Radeon 16xPCIe X1600xt supporting crossfire with 512mb ram each from newegg for $120 each. Everything is just cheaper.
After a while you get to a point in your work where you realize seeing the neat apple OS is just not that important. Not when you can run crappy XP (which sorry to disappoint never crashes) for 1/3rd the price and 4x the speed.
Comon apple, make a media center mac and figure out a way to use PC graphics cards. After spending $500 on my Radeon 800xt with 256mb ram I wil l NEVER do it again. Not when I can get dual crossfire cards for half the price and 4x the performance.
I guess I am a half reverse switcher. Using macbook pro but XP only. LOL!
*LTD*
Apr 28, 08:30 AM
That's pretty much the definition of a fad.
No, that's nothing more than a shared characteristic of a "fad" and an established product.
Of course, if you consider the iPod a fad, then there's not a lot more to discuss. The iPod led to the iPod Touch, which is the foundation of the iPhone, which others then set about trying to copy.
So, we're looking at a decade-long fad that turned the industry on its head, completely changed the way we consume and acquire music - changing the face of the music industry itself, and which led to the next generation of mobile devices. This fad also continues to sell, though in lower numbers, because the other identical fad includes phone functionality and accordingly sells in record numbers each quarter.
Some fad. Most companies would trade their established products in order to get in on some of these mysterious "long-term" fads that change the face of consumer tech. Would you like it better if we call them "ultra fads" or "super fads"? :confused:
No, that's nothing more than a shared characteristic of a "fad" and an established product.
Of course, if you consider the iPod a fad, then there's not a lot more to discuss. The iPod led to the iPod Touch, which is the foundation of the iPhone, which others then set about trying to copy.
So, we're looking at a decade-long fad that turned the industry on its head, completely changed the way we consume and acquire music - changing the face of the music industry itself, and which led to the next generation of mobile devices. This fad also continues to sell, though in lower numbers, because the other identical fad includes phone functionality and accordingly sells in record numbers each quarter.
Some fad. Most companies would trade their established products in order to get in on some of these mysterious "long-term" fads that change the face of consumer tech. Would you like it better if we call them "ultra fads" or "super fads"? :confused:
IanC
Mar 18, 11:40 AM
I appreciate what DVD Jon did to help Linux owners watch dvds, but this is going to far. I hope Apple come up with a fix for this, and soon.
MacRumors
Mar 18, 02:22 PM
According to Corante.com (http://www.corante.com/copyfight/archives/2005/03/17/johansen_creates_drmfree_interface_to_itunes.php), from the same authors of QTFairUse (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/11/20031122001549.shtml), comes what is described as "the fair interface to the iTunes Music Store". The application called PyMusique (http://fuware.nanocrew.net/pymusique/) acts as a front end for the iTunes Music Store and allows users to preview iTunes songs, signup for an account, buy songs and redownload songs that were bought with PyMusique.
The most notable twist is this quote from Jon Johansen ("DVD Jon"), one of the authors of the application:
It is somewhat interesting from a DMCA/EUCD perspective. The iTunes Music Store actually sells songs without DRM. While iTunes adds DRM to your purchases, PyMusique does not.
Note: This application has been untested by this site, and Apple will likely take steps to prevent future usage.
The most notable twist is this quote from Jon Johansen ("DVD Jon"), one of the authors of the application:
It is somewhat interesting from a DMCA/EUCD perspective. The iTunes Music Store actually sells songs without DRM. While iTunes adds DRM to your purchases, PyMusique does not.
Note: This application has been untested by this site, and Apple will likely take steps to prevent future usage.
vincenz
Apr 15, 11:05 AM
Personally, I think it's great. However, they should be careful. Moves like this have the potential to alienate customers. That said, props to the employees.
Alienate? How so?
I like the name of the project. It's very optimistic.
Alienate? How so?
I like the name of the project. It's very optimistic.
Speedy2
Oct 7, 04:12 PM
Flash in the independant operator here, not the full SDK.
And how is this relevant? If Adobe makes it possible to use the entire range of the iPhone's hardware it makes no difference.
-> New development platform, available for other OSs
Exactly what you wanted, right?
Oh the whining will go on I suppose...
And how is this relevant? If Adobe makes it possible to use the entire range of the iPhone's hardware it makes no difference.
-> New development platform, available for other OSs
Exactly what you wanted, right?
Oh the whining will go on I suppose...
Mattie Num Nums
May 2, 09:26 AM
So make it unsafe, it's not a rocket science, cowboy.
You're awfully sensitive about this issue, chief.
You're awfully sensitive about this issue, chief.
Sabenth
Sep 20, 08:35 AM
This must be a US-centric view. Here (UK) PVRs with twin Freeview (DTT) tuners and 80GB HDs are everywhere. And they are very cheap now (120 quid upwards).
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
Batman Redesign Poison Ivy by
This movie, based on the T.V.
atman poison ivy movie.
Poison Ivy
poison ivy movie poster.
atman poison ivy movie.
Poison Ivy
poison ivy movie 1992. poison
POISON IVY in BATMAN AND ROBIN
Poison Ivy
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
dejo
Oct 8, 10:45 AM
Android: Oh, and I can surf ALL of the web, including Flash sites and Hulu.
iPhone: And by ALL you mean everything except sites that use Silverlight, or Active-X, or ...
Fixed that for ya! ;)
iPhone: And by ALL you mean everything except sites that use Silverlight, or Active-X, or ...
Fixed that for ya! ;)
matticus008
Mar 21, 02:45 AM
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
~Shard~
Oct 29, 09:59 AM
I wish we could get more details then "it could be released after mid-November.." OF COURSE it will be released after mid-November, but what does that mean? End of November? December? January? I just want to know when it will be out!!
I think what that statement is getting at is that they will definitely not be released any sooner than mid-November. (I'm assuming that's when they will be officially "released".) But how soon afterwards, you're right, is anyone's guess. Just look at what Apple has done with the C2D chips. It took them a little longer than some of its competitors to include them in the MBPs, and we still don't have them in the MacBooks. (Of course, we may never see them in the MacBooks, until Santa Rosa, who knows... :o)
I think what that statement is getting at is that they will definitely not be released any sooner than mid-November. (I'm assuming that's when they will be officially "released".) But how soon afterwards, you're right, is anyone's guess. Just look at what Apple has done with the C2D chips. It took them a little longer than some of its competitors to include them in the MBPs, and we still don't have them in the MacBooks. (Of course, we may never see them in the MacBooks, until Santa Rosa, who knows... :o)
Bill McEnaney
Mar 26, 11:46 PM
Nearly forty years ago psychologists declared homosexuality was not a mental illness
I don't know whether homosexuality is a mental illness. But I do know that doctors and other professionals sometimes make mistakes.
About 25 years ago, an acquaintance of mine told my mother that for about 15 years, a doctor treated her, my acquaintance, with the wrong medicine because her illness had been misdiagnosed. Unfortunately, after another doctor discovered the misdiagnosis, he also discovered that the medicine was worsening her symptoms.
When I was about 17, my optometrist realized that, if I kept wearing the glasses an opthamologist prescribed for me, they would blind me. The optometrist prescribed the lenses I needed and corrected the vision problem for which I visited him. Thanks to the optometrist, I can drive.
It is no longer understood to be the case that homosexuality entails a necessary harm to the participants or anyone else.
Dr. Joseph Nicolosi disagrees. So does another psychologist who gave a lecture series called "Homosexuality 101." If the lecture series interests anyone here, I'll post links to its Youtube videos, or I'll try to explain the lecturer's theory. But I prefer to let the lecturer speak for herself because I'm not an expert in psychology.
Quite the contrary, same-sex couples are known to form loving, supportive, monogamous relationships every bit as profound as those enjoyed between men and women.
Although that's true, it doesn't show that homosexuality is a healthy quality to have.
I don't know whether homosexuality is a mental illness. But I do know that doctors and other professionals sometimes make mistakes.
About 25 years ago, an acquaintance of mine told my mother that for about 15 years, a doctor treated her, my acquaintance, with the wrong medicine because her illness had been misdiagnosed. Unfortunately, after another doctor discovered the misdiagnosis, he also discovered that the medicine was worsening her symptoms.
When I was about 17, my optometrist realized that, if I kept wearing the glasses an opthamologist prescribed for me, they would blind me. The optometrist prescribed the lenses I needed and corrected the vision problem for which I visited him. Thanks to the optometrist, I can drive.
It is no longer understood to be the case that homosexuality entails a necessary harm to the participants or anyone else.
Dr. Joseph Nicolosi disagrees. So does another psychologist who gave a lecture series called "Homosexuality 101." If the lecture series interests anyone here, I'll post links to its Youtube videos, or I'll try to explain the lecturer's theory. But I prefer to let the lecturer speak for herself because I'm not an expert in psychology.
Quite the contrary, same-sex couples are known to form loving, supportive, monogamous relationships every bit as profound as those enjoyed between men and women.
Although that's true, it doesn't show that homosexuality is a healthy quality to have.
Rodimus Prime
Apr 15, 10:02 AM
I don't agree. If those groups got organized, their message would eventually get picked up my the media. It's not like LGBT groups were started last weekend and, bam, the media picked up on it. It took decades for them to get to this point of media attention.
And I agree with Heilage: the message from the video doesn't only apply to LGBT folk.
Problem you run into is those other groups are not targeted for endless bully as a group. Take a fat kid. A fat kid being bullied is going be hit or miss. I can not promise you that the fact kid will be bullies but I can promise you a LGBT is going to be bullied. On top of that the public at large does not target fat people for being harrassed but they do target the LGBT. Hence no real way for a small group to orginzed or the groups originations to get the message out.
My fear and hell already seeing it happening is bulling in it self is not being targeted to try to shut down and protect kids from it but instead you are finding them focusing really hard on protecting LGBT from harrassement in both legal terms and school rules. Never minding the others who get targeted. If you are not being pick on for LGBT reasons the school policies do not offer you much protection. That is the reality.
I have a problem with bulling in general as I was pushed to my limits growing up. I fear that it will get viewed as a LGBT issue only and as such only try to be stop from that angle and that can not be allowed to happen.
Now I will agree LGBT kids have some other larger mental problems they will be suffering with as they will be struggling comes to terms with them being LGBT and chances are a lot higher they will not have support at home on top of being pick on at school so it is a lot of extra crap to be pilled on top of the bulling itself.
And I agree with Heilage: the message from the video doesn't only apply to LGBT folk.
Problem you run into is those other groups are not targeted for endless bully as a group. Take a fat kid. A fat kid being bullied is going be hit or miss. I can not promise you that the fact kid will be bullies but I can promise you a LGBT is going to be bullied. On top of that the public at large does not target fat people for being harrassed but they do target the LGBT. Hence no real way for a small group to orginzed or the groups originations to get the message out.
My fear and hell already seeing it happening is bulling in it self is not being targeted to try to shut down and protect kids from it but instead you are finding them focusing really hard on protecting LGBT from harrassement in both legal terms and school rules. Never minding the others who get targeted. If you are not being pick on for LGBT reasons the school policies do not offer you much protection. That is the reality.
I have a problem with bulling in general as I was pushed to my limits growing up. I fear that it will get viewed as a LGBT issue only and as such only try to be stop from that angle and that can not be allowed to happen.
Now I will agree LGBT kids have some other larger mental problems they will be suffering with as they will be struggling comes to terms with them being LGBT and chances are a lot higher they will not have support at home on top of being pick on at school so it is a lot of extra crap to be pilled on top of the bulling itself.
flopticalcube
Mar 25, 10:21 AM
You forgot the fact that many "Christians" in the US are fundamentalist nuts
On what authority do claim to decide the mental instability of another? You both believe in unprovable fantasies so you are both delusional.
On what authority do claim to decide the mental instability of another? You both believe in unprovable fantasies so you are both delusional.
PghLondon
Apr 28, 01:40 PM
Really?
So I can take an iPad out of the box and use it without ever involving a "pc?"
If so, I must have a defective iPad since mine was completely useless until I connected it to iTunes ON A PC... :eek:
As has been stated (literally) hundreds of times:
Any Apple retailer will do your initial sync, free of charge.
So I can take an iPad out of the box and use it without ever involving a "pc?"
If so, I must have a defective iPad since mine was completely useless until I connected it to iTunes ON A PC... :eek:
As has been stated (literally) hundreds of times:
Any Apple retailer will do your initial sync, free of charge.
ReanimationLP
Aug 29, 11:41 AM
Who the hell listens to GreenPeace anymore.
Seriously.
Seriously.
desdomg
Mar 18, 04:57 PM
The music industry owns the music - and they're free to price it however they want. If you think the price is too high, your only legal and moral response is to not buy it. Not liking the price is not justification for theft.
Ah, but isn't that the heart of the matter - shouldn't you have the choice to be to go to another cheaper provider? At the moment we have expensive and free - no wonder P2P is such a success.
Ah, but isn't that the heart of the matter - shouldn't you have the choice to be to go to another cheaper provider? At the moment we have expensive and free - no wonder P2P is such a success.
TheRealTVGuy
Mar 18, 01:47 AM
Poor thing... he doesn't realize napster and limewire are history. Also, once the data hits my device, it's mine to do with as I please. Thank you very much.
>laughing_girls.jpg.tiff.
Yeah, because ever since the iTunes store opened, I haven't had the need...
Unless it's Metallica, then I'm all for ripping those guys off, just to mess with them!
>laughing_girls.jpg.tiff.
Yeah, because ever since the iTunes store opened, I haven't had the need...
Unless it's Metallica, then I'm all for ripping those guys off, just to mess with them!
handsome pete
Apr 12, 11:05 PM
Obviously I know a lot more about it than you. Of course, there are multiple industries that use editing software... but that doesn't matter. You're just puffing out your chest and being snotty.
No, your ignorance of Adobe's stance in the professional broadcast industry comes off as snotty.
No, your ignorance of Adobe's stance in the professional broadcast industry comes off as snotty.
nsjoker
Sep 20, 03:45 PM
it won't have any dvr functionality... it'll just be frontrow on your tv, and nothing else. woopdee freaking doo
eXan
Sep 26, 01:32 AM
Play WoW and CoD...... :confused:
And UT2007 and Q4 and render video. All at the same time :confused:
Do we need that?
And UT2007 and Q4 and render video. All at the same time :confused:
Do we need that?
KnightWRX
May 2, 11:14 AM
The fight can't be won, it's useless... there will always be those people who go, "Oh my god... random email, you need my credit card, social security number, and my youngest child? Sure thing! Here you go!"
And then freak out because their bank accounts are all empty and their kid's running off with some 40 year old. It'll never end.
That's never been a reason to give up. I was raised on Shonen Anime. I don't know the meaning of the words "giving up". ;)
And then freak out because their bank accounts are all empty and their kid's running off with some 40 year old. It'll never end.
That's never been a reason to give up. I was raised on Shonen Anime. I don't know the meaning of the words "giving up". ;)
usasalazar
Sep 26, 09:28 PM
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20060926corp.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment