boncellis
Jul 11, 06:29 PM
...D) Who the hell is COWON?!? - It's sounds like one of those "Simpsons brands" like Sorny.
Lol. Good times...
This doesn't spell doom for anyone or anything. Companies that are afraid of competition usually never stood much of a chance in the first place--Mr. Jobs has thrived under these conditions over the past 5+ years, I would expect nothing less now.
Lol. Good times...
This doesn't spell doom for anyone or anything. Companies that are afraid of competition usually never stood much of a chance in the first place--Mr. Jobs has thrived under these conditions over the past 5+ years, I would expect nothing less now.
more...
Andy-V
Mar 31, 11:08 AM
My goodness, beveled and embossed buttons. That is not pretty. I hope they U-turn that crap.
more...
SpyderFCS
May 3, 07:37 AM
The iMac page is updated on the US site.
http://www.apple.com/imac/
http://www.apple.com/imac/
more...
0815
Apr 26, 12:36 PM
I don't know if I should laugh or cry ...
People are freaking out because of a service that is 5.4 cents a day
People are calling their days ruined because of a service is $1.6 a month
People are crying foul because of a service for $20 a year
Get real people - no company owes you anything for free. If you are cheap and won't pay, just don't sign up - but don't run around crying claiming that you deserver everything for free.
People are freaking out because of a service that is 5.4 cents a day
People are calling their days ruined because of a service is $1.6 a month
People are crying foul because of a service for $20 a year
Get real people - no company owes you anything for free. If you are cheap and won't pay, just don't sign up - but don't run around crying claiming that you deserver everything for free.
more...
tmphoto
Oct 24, 08:04 AM
Apple's headline: "...Seatbelts Sold Separately."
Bad marketing, seatbelts suggests crashing.
Bad marketing, seatbelts suggests crashing.
more...
Belly-laughs
Nov 5, 04:47 AM
alright! nice! let us know how they are doing, and run the bigadv units if you can
Welcome!
Please run the bigadv units, you will get much better PPD. It looks like you are running the regular SMP client for now.
Use -smp 8 if the are 2008 or earlier, -smp 16 if they are 2009 otco...
Both computers now up-and-running. No complaints from the designers regarding poor performance :)
I'm running the standard client, I'll look into the other options when I got some spare time.
It's quite remarkable to see the performance boost compared to my G5 dual 1.8 that's been folding for years.
Welcome!
Please run the bigadv units, you will get much better PPD. It looks like you are running the regular SMP client for now.
Use -smp 8 if the are 2008 or earlier, -smp 16 if they are 2009 otco...
Both computers now up-and-running. No complaints from the designers regarding poor performance :)
I'm running the standard client, I'll look into the other options when I got some spare time.
It's quite remarkable to see the performance boost compared to my G5 dual 1.8 that's been folding for years.
more...
Bevz
Dec 30, 06:21 AM
And i felt guilty about the pizza i had on xmas eve! LOL
Seriously though; "Daily Mail" and "Sunday Mirror"... Says everything you need to know!
Seriously though; "Daily Mail" and "Sunday Mirror"... Says everything you need to know!
more...
stockscalper
Apr 18, 07:37 AM
While these Sandy Bridge processors are considerably faster in lab benchmarks, they offer no discernible real-world improvement for most users. Having used a MacBook Pro with a C2D and then one of the new Sandy Bridge, I couldn't tell the difference.
As MacBook Air owners know, it's all about the SSD speed for improving the experience for everyday users.
Very true. Plus, turbo mode is mostly marketing hype. It should be called turbo fraud. It doesn't work the way it's advertised, ie, most of the time when you need it to. So, what you're really getting is a 1.4 GHZ computer that's advertised as a 2.3 GHZ one. That's taking marketing hype to the extreme. The only way I would buy a computer with one of Intel's turbo hyped CPU's is if the bottom score met my needs. I would never rely on the hyped theoretical upper score in making my decision and in this case 1.4 GHZ doesn't cut it for me.
As MacBook Air owners know, it's all about the SSD speed for improving the experience for everyday users.
Very true. Plus, turbo mode is mostly marketing hype. It should be called turbo fraud. It doesn't work the way it's advertised, ie, most of the time when you need it to. So, what you're really getting is a 1.4 GHZ computer that's advertised as a 2.3 GHZ one. That's taking marketing hype to the extreme. The only way I would buy a computer with one of Intel's turbo hyped CPU's is if the bottom score met my needs. I would never rely on the hyped theoretical upper score in making my decision and in this case 1.4 GHZ doesn't cut it for me.
more...
rmwebs
Apr 28, 05:00 PM
Here's another way to slice it (literally). Flipped half the image. Left the guidelines on this one as well.
Image (http://www.marulla.com/files/thickness2.png)
I agree that this is no substitute for measuring the actual phone, but, at least in that photo, they are identical. Certainly not off by 1mm as the original post states.
Take a closer look at those edges there...they aren't lined up correctly, still meaning the results are out. I agree that its certainly not 1mm, but its still not getting an accurate result. I might even go as far as to say the plastic is thicker, and the band is thinner.
If you look at the middle gridline, you can see very light masking from the black overlapping the white...not a major amount but enough to be a few microns out of shape.
Maybe we should just grab a couple of iphones for...ahem....testing purposes! :)
Image (http://www.marulla.com/files/thickness2.png)
I agree that this is no substitute for measuring the actual phone, but, at least in that photo, they are identical. Certainly not off by 1mm as the original post states.
Take a closer look at those edges there...they aren't lined up correctly, still meaning the results are out. I agree that its certainly not 1mm, but its still not getting an accurate result. I might even go as far as to say the plastic is thicker, and the band is thinner.
If you look at the middle gridline, you can see very light masking from the black overlapping the white...not a major amount but enough to be a few microns out of shape.
Maybe we should just grab a couple of iphones for...ahem....testing purposes! :)
more...
toddybody
Apr 25, 12:40 PM
I am mentally jumping for joy!
My newest computer is a 17" 2006 iMac. I play (some of) the latest PC games, I develop games and I edit trailers/other mid-high endery stuff. My iMac is a beast for getting through this far but it's starting to really show its age.
As soon as the new models are out you can consider a 27" bought. Words can't express how much I'm looking forward to this.
Looking forward to owning my first glossy display too. I imagine it's beautiful for photo editing+gaming.
Glad to see another PC Gamer + Mac User on the forums. One day my friend, we could perhaps game on our Macs...one day:( *soft weeping
My newest computer is a 17" 2006 iMac. I play (some of) the latest PC games, I develop games and I edit trailers/other mid-high endery stuff. My iMac is a beast for getting through this far but it's starting to really show its age.
As soon as the new models are out you can consider a 27" bought. Words can't express how much I'm looking forward to this.
Looking forward to owning my first glossy display too. I imagine it's beautiful for photo editing+gaming.
Glad to see another PC Gamer + Mac User on the forums. One day my friend, we could perhaps game on our Macs...one day:( *soft weeping
more...
SiliconAddict
Nov 4, 12:50 PM
If it's taking you two minutes to resume a session and two minutes plus to suspend it, on that machine you mentioned the specs of, something is frickin' wrong with that machine.
2.16 Core 2 Duo 20" iMac here, 2GB, stock 250GB drive, Parallels does the following:
- it cold starts in 4 seconds
- it boots my XP VM (512MB of RAM/8GB virtual hard disk) to the Desktop in 9
- it suspended that same XP VM in 14
- it restored that same XP VM in 11
And that's with Crossover for Mac running several Windows apps in the background too, so some of my resources are already drained when I fired up Parallels and the VM. Memory usage at the moment for the entire machine is sitting at 1154MB of 2048MB, 69 tasks, 330 threads as measured by MenuMeters.
So, give that box a tuneup or whatever, because you're certainly not getting the performance from Parallels that you should be getting. Also, check your VT-x flags under Parallels to make sure it's functioning properly.
btw, this is Parallels build 1970, the latest and greatest, and I've had nothing but positive usage of Parallels since I bought it off the shelf in an Apple Store along with this iMac a month ago. 3 upgrades so far, no issues at all.
bb
I've reinstalled OS X twice in the last 9 months. The latest being about 3 weeks ago when I upgraded to a 160GB hard drive. There is nothing wrong with my computer. (OK there is something wrong with its sleeping mech but that has nothing to do with performance.)
Parallels just sucks. Also I�m willing to bet the more you use the disk image and Windows the more parallels slows down. I�ve got a 14GB disk image, a ton of apps loaded, along with being in it every day for 8+ hours, USB peripherals all over the place, network settings for home and work, firewall enabled along with antivirus software. (I can�t use Office 2003 with SAP in OS X.) I probably use it more extensively then most Mac users. The simple fact is the reason why I keep reinstalling the demo instead of outright buying it is because I�m waiting on VMWare�s solution. VMWare is THE industry�s Microsoft when it comes to virtualizing. Just without the whole evilness thing. I�ve used Parallels extensively. I�m not impressed.
2.16 Core 2 Duo 20" iMac here, 2GB, stock 250GB drive, Parallels does the following:
- it cold starts in 4 seconds
- it boots my XP VM (512MB of RAM/8GB virtual hard disk) to the Desktop in 9
- it suspended that same XP VM in 14
- it restored that same XP VM in 11
And that's with Crossover for Mac running several Windows apps in the background too, so some of my resources are already drained when I fired up Parallels and the VM. Memory usage at the moment for the entire machine is sitting at 1154MB of 2048MB, 69 tasks, 330 threads as measured by MenuMeters.
So, give that box a tuneup or whatever, because you're certainly not getting the performance from Parallels that you should be getting. Also, check your VT-x flags under Parallels to make sure it's functioning properly.
btw, this is Parallels build 1970, the latest and greatest, and I've had nothing but positive usage of Parallels since I bought it off the shelf in an Apple Store along with this iMac a month ago. 3 upgrades so far, no issues at all.
bb
I've reinstalled OS X twice in the last 9 months. The latest being about 3 weeks ago when I upgraded to a 160GB hard drive. There is nothing wrong with my computer. (OK there is something wrong with its sleeping mech but that has nothing to do with performance.)
Parallels just sucks. Also I�m willing to bet the more you use the disk image and Windows the more parallels slows down. I�ve got a 14GB disk image, a ton of apps loaded, along with being in it every day for 8+ hours, USB peripherals all over the place, network settings for home and work, firewall enabled along with antivirus software. (I can�t use Office 2003 with SAP in OS X.) I probably use it more extensively then most Mac users. The simple fact is the reason why I keep reinstalling the demo instead of outright buying it is because I�m waiting on VMWare�s solution. VMWare is THE industry�s Microsoft when it comes to virtualizing. Just without the whole evilness thing. I�ve used Parallels extensively. I�m not impressed.
more...
Hastings101
Apr 12, 09:53 AM
Also, Apple is Evil and you are living in Steve Job's RTF.
and... and... 4G.
and... widgets.
Well, the fake 4G carriers are using is faster than the 3G Apple supports, so that's an ok argument.
Apple is pretty evil, but all multibillion dollar corporations are. You don't get rich by being nice. Steve jobs also seems like a jerk in all of those little e-mails he sends out to various people.
Widgets are cool, the iPhone needs an option for them!
You forgot the "Android is open and iOS is closed!!" fanboy argument :(, that's the only one that doesn't really make much sense.
and... and... 4G.
and... widgets.
Well, the fake 4G carriers are using is faster than the 3G Apple supports, so that's an ok argument.
Apple is pretty evil, but all multibillion dollar corporations are. You don't get rich by being nice. Steve jobs also seems like a jerk in all of those little e-mails he sends out to various people.
Widgets are cool, the iPhone needs an option for them!
You forgot the "Android is open and iOS is closed!!" fanboy argument :(, that's the only one that doesn't really make much sense.
more...
einmusiker
Dec 31, 12:25 AM
No, I'm 100% right. Weight control is about calories. End of story. Calories in < Calories out and you lose weight. Opposite and you gain weight. There's no more or less here, that is the very basic premise. You want to discuss specifics that affect calories in/calories out, but that's flawed. Teach people the base first, and let them balance themselves out. You can very easily test your metabolic rate.
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
ok, I'm sorry but how the hell do you know what I do or don't understand about nutrition?? your presumptions are offensive
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
ok, I'm sorry but how the hell do you know what I do or don't understand about nutrition?? your presumptions are offensive
more...
jhu
Oct 24, 06:08 PM
No, incorrect Dave. Its pretty evident. Business edition or better to run in a virtual environment regardless of the platform the VM is hosted on. End of discussion.
the wording is rather ambiguous. we know a priori that microsoft's intention is not to allow running home edition on a virtual machine. however, this is not evident in how the eula is worded. as i've mentioned before, it can be interpreted a few ways. on the other hand there's the provision for not allowing the software to run on "virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware." where exactly does this stop? can it be run on an fpga? in some sense, all current x86 processors are emulating the instruction set. so would that leave the original pentium processor the only processor allowed by the eula? does running the software on a transmeta processor constitute "otherwise emulated hardware"? i'm wondering how and why legal departments like to come up with such ambiguous and unclear wording.
the wording is rather ambiguous. we know a priori that microsoft's intention is not to allow running home edition on a virtual machine. however, this is not evident in how the eula is worded. as i've mentioned before, it can be interpreted a few ways. on the other hand there's the provision for not allowing the software to run on "virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware." where exactly does this stop? can it be run on an fpga? in some sense, all current x86 processors are emulating the instruction set. so would that leave the original pentium processor the only processor allowed by the eula? does running the software on a transmeta processor constitute "otherwise emulated hardware"? i'm wondering how and why legal departments like to come up with such ambiguous and unclear wording.
more...
arogge
Jun 8, 08:18 AM
You really believe that failing to log out should be a $1000 mistake? For an app they'll never use? What if the app cost $10,000? $100,000? $1 million?
You'd still need a credit card linked to the account. If I tried to charge a $1,000 app over iTunes, the purchase would be declined. The person must first make a decision to authorize a purchase that is considered to be large, then link that credit card to iTunes, and then to secure that information or not.
If I leave $1,000 in cash on the street in front of my house, should I blame the government for not helping me when that money gets taken? Of course not, because it's my fault for leaving something valuable and recognizable where I knew that it could be taken.
Likewise, if you cracked my iTunes account password and tried to run up some big charges, you wouldn't get very far. I take the responsibility of reducing my risk by not leaving a large line of credit available where a simple mishandling of my electronic account information could result in a detrimental financial liability.
You'd still need a credit card linked to the account. If I tried to charge a $1,000 app over iTunes, the purchase would be declined. The person must first make a decision to authorize a purchase that is considered to be large, then link that credit card to iTunes, and then to secure that information or not.
If I leave $1,000 in cash on the street in front of my house, should I blame the government for not helping me when that money gets taken? Of course not, because it's my fault for leaving something valuable and recognizable where I knew that it could be taken.
Likewise, if you cracked my iTunes account password and tried to run up some big charges, you wouldn't get very far. I take the responsibility of reducing my risk by not leaving a large line of credit available where a simple mishandling of my electronic account information could result in a detrimental financial liability.
more...
kasei
Apr 22, 05:42 PM
Wow! That is thin, almost too thin. I would be afraid to drop this thing or even press it to my face too hard. Moving the screen out to edge may result in a lot of broken units.
more...
levitynyc
Apr 13, 01:55 PM
Not a chance in hell.
more...
Tommyg117
Jul 28, 07:29 AM
I think Itunes and mac are great! The iPod is number one because it is amazingly easy and equally impressive looking. Zune will have a lot of competition.
more...
crackpip
Jul 24, 08:41 PM
Very Cool.
One way to elimate scratches :)
Maybe not just scratches, but fingerprints, too. If a new iPod has a screen that ends up taking up the whole front, this may be a good way to keep the front cleaner. Iirc it was one of the major complaints of a video device released by Olympus sometime back. The device had a touch screen.
crackpip
One way to elimate scratches :)
Maybe not just scratches, but fingerprints, too. If a new iPod has a screen that ends up taking up the whole front, this may be a good way to keep the front cleaner. Iirc it was one of the major complaints of a video device released by Olympus sometime back. The device had a touch screen.
crackpip
stevegmu
Jan 30, 02:07 PM
Now here's some interesting theories. The dollar started its decline long before the Fed began lowering interest rates. In fact it has stabilized and gained back some since. Actually, the president submits budgets to Congress. Finally, when the market swings wildly as it has recently, look to the behavior of large institutional investors. They are the controllers of large blocks of shares. What they decide moves markets, not small-time investors. They're just along for the ride, for the most part.
The Dollar's largest losses have come as a result of the previous 3 rate cuts.
The budget the President submits, and what Congress approves, are not the same, after pork-barrel spending is added in.
I'm not quite sure you have a grasp of the markets...
The Dollar's largest losses have come as a result of the previous 3 rate cuts.
The budget the President submits, and what Congress approves, are not the same, after pork-barrel spending is added in.
I'm not quite sure you have a grasp of the markets...
Patriks7
Apr 2, 03:42 PM
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5110/5579935080_db002ab73f_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/patriksvitek/5579935080/)
MacinDoc
Apr 13, 06:25 PM
No, nay, never... nay, never, no more! (sung with an Irish lilt). TV = mass-produced low-margin market that is focused primarily on price and specs. Exactly the kind of market that Apple avoids like the plague.
kiiso
May 3, 08:35 AM
WTF!
The top 3.1 Ghz 27" iMac has a cheaper i5-2400 CPU, than the low-end 27" and high-end 21.5", with both have i5-2500S processors!
(The i5-2400 is 184$ (http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=52207) and the i5-2500S is 216$ (http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=52211))
:confused:
+ the 2500S can do 3.7 Ghz in turbo, and the 2400 can only 3.4 Ghz in Turbo Mode!!!??? :eek::confused:
The top 3.1 Ghz 27" iMac has a cheaper i5-2400 CPU, than the low-end 27" and high-end 21.5", with both have i5-2500S processors!
(The i5-2400 is 184$ (http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=52207) and the i5-2500S is 216$ (http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=52211))
:confused:
+ the 2500S can do 3.7 Ghz in turbo, and the 2400 can only 3.4 Ghz in Turbo Mode!!!??? :eek::confused:
Mister Snitch
Apr 22, 08:43 AM
Next time, I'd suggest you check the accuracy of the "source" you are trying to use to prove your point. The F700 wasn't shown in it was announced just after the iPhone and wasn't available until later in 2007...
Quite right, though I doubt 'rolfbert' WILL check his sources next time. Some people never learn.
Quite right, though I doubt 'rolfbert' WILL check his sources next time. Some people never learn.
No comments:
Post a Comment