drsmithy
Sep 26, 11:56 PM
Plus the most important app of all is quite good at utilizing multiple processors, OS X.
Well, no, unfortunately, it's not. OS X still needs a lot of improvement to make it work *well* with multiple CPUs. Right now it's about on par with Windows NT 4.0, Linux 2.2 and FreeBSD 4.x, but the next release should see some big improvements, especially now that multi-CPU machines (and pseudo-multi-CPU machines, ie: Hyperthreading) are so much more common than they were back in the mid-late '90s.
Well, no, unfortunately, it's not. OS X still needs a lot of improvement to make it work *well* with multiple CPUs. Right now it's about on par with Windows NT 4.0, Linux 2.2 and FreeBSD 4.x, but the next release should see some big improvements, especially now that multi-CPU machines (and pseudo-multi-CPU machines, ie: Hyperthreading) are so much more common than they were back in the mid-late '90s.
jaduffy108
Aug 29, 02:08 PM
Apple has released a statement regarding the findings and it is just as realiable as Greenpeace's.
Besides, I said that Apple is doing what they can.
### "what they can"? ..and that's enough for you? That's what every company says. If we don't shift our values...we won't be here to debate them anymore! Geez. God I glad I'm in europe now. US values are sooo f'd up. Apple should be a leader in socially responsible business practices. *I* would pay more for their products as I do for Patagonia, etc.
Besides, I said that Apple is doing what they can.
### "what they can"? ..and that's enough for you? That's what every company says. If we don't shift our values...we won't be here to debate them anymore! Geez. God I glad I'm in europe now. US values are sooo f'd up. Apple should be a leader in socially responsible business practices. *I* would pay more for their products as I do for Patagonia, etc.
840quadra
Apr 28, 08:31 AM
By that definition, the internal combustion engine is nothing but a fad. I think maybe you're just not familiar with what the word "fad" actually means Check it out: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fad
I am quite familiar, perhaps you should read it again.
–noun
a temporary fashion, notion, manner of conduct, etc., especially one followed enthusiastically by a group.
The iPod was introduced in hit popularity in 2003 / when it was later replaced (in the eyes of masses of people buying them) by the iPhone, and later iPod Touch as the next "new thing".
Do you still see masses of people with White or Black iPods? Or do you see them carrying iPhones or iPod Touches now?
What has been on the news recently the most, sought after by most Apple fans? I don't think it is the iPod.
I am quite familiar, perhaps you should read it again.
–noun
a temporary fashion, notion, manner of conduct, etc., especially one followed enthusiastically by a group.
The iPod was introduced in hit popularity in 2003 / when it was later replaced (in the eyes of masses of people buying them) by the iPhone, and later iPod Touch as the next "new thing".
Do you still see masses of people with White or Black iPods? Or do you see them carrying iPhones or iPod Touches now?
What has been on the news recently the most, sought after by most Apple fans? I don't think it is the iPod.
Bonte
Sep 20, 10:47 AM
Because that ties the computer to your TV (see my post about teetering keyboards above). This way you can have the computer and still display stuff conveniently on the TV, wirelessly.
With FrontRow on the Mini it can act as a hub for the other computers in the network and play the movies via iTunes streaming.
With FrontRow on the Mini it can act as a hub for the other computers in the network and play the movies via iTunes streaming.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 26, 02:04 PM
You agree with a mangled, meaningless phrase of dog Latin? Mirabile dictu.
Ciaociao's Latin expression wasn't a phrase. It was a complete sentence that meant, "This is a sign of contradiction, brother." In the Bible "a sign of contradiction" means "someone to oppose" or "something to oppose." Our Lord was a sign of contradiction because his enemies opposed him.
Ciaociao's Latin expression wasn't a phrase. It was a complete sentence that meant, "This is a sign of contradiction, brother." In the Bible "a sign of contradiction" means "someone to oppose" or "something to oppose." Our Lord was a sign of contradiction because his enemies opposed him.
munkery
May 2, 04:42 PM
google...
'windows more secure than OSX'
check the results, you have people who are professional coders telling it how it is... and has been since 2007.
ignorance of facts doesn't equal knowledge, if no one is trying to break the door down you don't need a big lock.
Really? Find a source that makes the statements you suggest above that is unbiased. By unbiased, I mean a source that doesn't sell vulnerabilities to ZDI which then produces and markets specific hardware security appliances to generate revenue.
Man in the browser is now the biggest issue for all OS's, malware wise.
All the info. happens via the browser, there is no point attacking anything else.
Hooking the APIs to log protected passwords in Mac OS X requires privilege escalation.
'windows more secure than OSX'
check the results, you have people who are professional coders telling it how it is... and has been since 2007.
ignorance of facts doesn't equal knowledge, if no one is trying to break the door down you don't need a big lock.
Really? Find a source that makes the statements you suggest above that is unbiased. By unbiased, I mean a source that doesn't sell vulnerabilities to ZDI which then produces and markets specific hardware security appliances to generate revenue.
Man in the browser is now the biggest issue for all OS's, malware wise.
All the info. happens via the browser, there is no point attacking anything else.
Hooking the APIs to log protected passwords in Mac OS X requires privilege escalation.
iJohnHenry
Apr 24, 12:22 PM
Here's Toby (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAGNuZTXONU), he knows all the chords (to be plucked).
joueboy
Apr 9, 12:14 AM
Just like everybody else!
dejo
Oct 7, 11:55 AM
- SDK that can execute on other platforms like Windows or Linux and that uses a more user-friendly and intuitive language than Objective-C
Curious. Why do you think Objective-C is not user-friendly and intuitive?
Curious. Why do you think Objective-C is not user-friendly and intuitive?
puma1552
Mar 14, 08:07 AM
I understand your point abut Japan.
You're facts about solar and wind are both wrong, and I think you dismiss "bogus green technology" too quickly. That said, I still get what you are saying about Japan.
However, I think this thread applies more to Europe, and EVEN more so to the US. In the US we have 5% of the worlds population and use well over 30% of the worlds energy. We also have an abundance of space, and countless amounts of aging infrastructure that needs investment anyway. The US is actually in a very good position to switch towards much more renewable energy while at the same time, upgrading our aging infrastructure. That said, what we lack is the political will and political capital to actually push such initiatives.
Nuclear is not a necessity in the US like it MAY (I say may because I am skeptical but will take your word for it) be in Japan, and I think the current crisis going on there should make us seriously stop and think for a minute. The combination of wind, solar, tidal and geo-thermal could be quite effective here. Especially when you start consider the option of offshore wind farms which they have already approved in some parts of the NE.
<---Degree in chemical engineering with an emphasis in renewable energy.
If you want to contest efficiency percentages, it won't matter; the point is that even if you drastically increase those percentages, it still isn't/won't be enough for Japan, especially when you look at the areas needed for those power sources, which Japan simply doesn't have.
So far, we are several days past multiple earthquakes and aftershocks, and so far there has been no nuclear disaster. That's where we are at right now. Thus, I have more confidence than ever in nuclear power as the way to go.
I don't dismiss green energy per se, didn't mean for it to sound that way. However, what I am saying, is that even if they work for the US or Europe, they aren't going to be viable for every country, every landmass, every population because they aren't all the same. Thus, this means more should be invested into sources like nuclear because even if they don't prove to be the way of the future for America, they very well may be elsewhere in the world, perhaps out of necessity if nothing else.
Sorry if I sounded irate in my last post, I just get tired of seeing the fear-mongering about nuclear power when you can count the number of true disasters on one hand in the history of man, especially when you realize it's been in use for decades in places like Japan with no issues at all prior to now. The issue now isn't even about the reactor or nuclear power itself, it was a natural disaster double-whammy, that knocked out the backup power supply. Had there been a dual backup (which you bet there will be, far up the mountain from where a tsunami can reach, and running underground when this is all done), there wouldn't even be an issue here.
I guess what gets to me is I know people affected by this, living in shelters right now who lost everything, including a guy who lived a mere 3 km from the Fukushima plant, so I guess I'm just thinking of all the people with much more primary needs right now that worrying about a nuclear power plant they've lived in the shadow of problem-free for 40 years.
You're facts about solar and wind are both wrong, and I think you dismiss "bogus green technology" too quickly. That said, I still get what you are saying about Japan.
However, I think this thread applies more to Europe, and EVEN more so to the US. In the US we have 5% of the worlds population and use well over 30% of the worlds energy. We also have an abundance of space, and countless amounts of aging infrastructure that needs investment anyway. The US is actually in a very good position to switch towards much more renewable energy while at the same time, upgrading our aging infrastructure. That said, what we lack is the political will and political capital to actually push such initiatives.
Nuclear is not a necessity in the US like it MAY (I say may because I am skeptical but will take your word for it) be in Japan, and I think the current crisis going on there should make us seriously stop and think for a minute. The combination of wind, solar, tidal and geo-thermal could be quite effective here. Especially when you start consider the option of offshore wind farms which they have already approved in some parts of the NE.
<---Degree in chemical engineering with an emphasis in renewable energy.
If you want to contest efficiency percentages, it won't matter; the point is that even if you drastically increase those percentages, it still isn't/won't be enough for Japan, especially when you look at the areas needed for those power sources, which Japan simply doesn't have.
So far, we are several days past multiple earthquakes and aftershocks, and so far there has been no nuclear disaster. That's where we are at right now. Thus, I have more confidence than ever in nuclear power as the way to go.
I don't dismiss green energy per se, didn't mean for it to sound that way. However, what I am saying, is that even if they work for the US or Europe, they aren't going to be viable for every country, every landmass, every population because they aren't all the same. Thus, this means more should be invested into sources like nuclear because even if they don't prove to be the way of the future for America, they very well may be elsewhere in the world, perhaps out of necessity if nothing else.
Sorry if I sounded irate in my last post, I just get tired of seeing the fear-mongering about nuclear power when you can count the number of true disasters on one hand in the history of man, especially when you realize it's been in use for decades in places like Japan with no issues at all prior to now. The issue now isn't even about the reactor or nuclear power itself, it was a natural disaster double-whammy, that knocked out the backup power supply. Had there been a dual backup (which you bet there will be, far up the mountain from where a tsunami can reach, and running underground when this is all done), there wouldn't even be an issue here.
I guess what gets to me is I know people affected by this, living in shelters right now who lost everything, including a guy who lived a mere 3 km from the Fukushima plant, so I guess I'm just thinking of all the people with much more primary needs right now that worrying about a nuclear power plant they've lived in the shadow of problem-free for 40 years.
mcarnes
Sep 20, 02:02 AM
But it sure looks better than it sounds...;)
:p Good one.
:p Good one.
AhmedFaisal
Mar 15, 10:41 PM
Chernobyl was 25 years ago and Russia was not very open to outside help ... no matter how bad this escalades ... somehow this will be contained.
Irrespective of that, given that the reactor design is not the same as Chernobyl an accident of that sort is simply not possible with these reactor types. Chernobyl was a supercriticality event, a runaway nuclear reaction which is a high risk in a high positive void coefficient design like the RBMK which uses graphite as a moderator and water simply for cooling. Loss of cooling in this design leads to a nuclear explosion due to gas bubbles being less off a neutron absorber than liquid and burning graphite along with it. BWR designs such as the ones in Fukushima can't go supercritical if coolant is lost. Thus an explosion and moderator burn such as the one in Chernobyl can't happen. As such, the worst case is a local loss of containment and core melt that can lead to moderate amounts of radioactivity escaping into the immediate local environment. A widespread contamination over hundreds of square miles is simply not possible. As such, the current news reporting is irresponsible spreading of half baked information and knowledge and nothing but fearmongering.
The same goes for some of the BS that is being posted about Germany's reactors or other reactors in western Europe for that matter. Western EU countries do not use RBMK type technology or other high positive void coefficient designs, the only ones that still do is the Czech Republic and a few other former Soviet countries and these reactors are being phased out and being replaced by modern LWR and other designs with western aid.
Irrespective of that, given that the reactor design is not the same as Chernobyl an accident of that sort is simply not possible with these reactor types. Chernobyl was a supercriticality event, a runaway nuclear reaction which is a high risk in a high positive void coefficient design like the RBMK which uses graphite as a moderator and water simply for cooling. Loss of cooling in this design leads to a nuclear explosion due to gas bubbles being less off a neutron absorber than liquid and burning graphite along with it. BWR designs such as the ones in Fukushima can't go supercritical if coolant is lost. Thus an explosion and moderator burn such as the one in Chernobyl can't happen. As such, the worst case is a local loss of containment and core melt that can lead to moderate amounts of radioactivity escaping into the immediate local environment. A widespread contamination over hundreds of square miles is simply not possible. As such, the current news reporting is irresponsible spreading of half baked information and knowledge and nothing but fearmongering.
The same goes for some of the BS that is being posted about Germany's reactors or other reactors in western Europe for that matter. Western EU countries do not use RBMK type technology or other high positive void coefficient designs, the only ones that still do is the Czech Republic and a few other former Soviet countries and these reactors are being phased out and being replaced by modern LWR and other designs with western aid.
Warbrain
Sep 26, 07:43 AM
I'll be holding my Mac Pro purchase off for a while...
Why? You'll be waiting for a bit of a long time...
Why? You'll be waiting for a bit of a long time...
fxtech
Apr 28, 08:16 AM
Next year you will see iPhones and iPods counted too. I mean you need to do all you can to make it look good to shareholders.
Why not? After all, isn't an iPod Touch just a small iPad?
Why not? After all, isn't an iPod Touch just a small iPad?
munkery
May 2, 06:16 PM
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Here is a list of privilege escalation (UAC bypass) vulnerabilities just related to Stuxnet (win32k.sys) in Windows in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=win32k.sys+2011
Here is a list of all of the privilege escalation vulnerabilities in Mac OS X in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+privileges+2011
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
Provide an example of malware that only includes user level access being used in the wild as per your description that can not be prevented with user knowledge?
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Here is a list of privilege escalation (UAC bypass) vulnerabilities just related to Stuxnet (win32k.sys) in Windows in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=win32k.sys+2011
Here is a list of all of the privilege escalation vulnerabilities in Mac OS X in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+privileges+2011
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
Provide an example of malware that only includes user level access being used in the wild as per your description that can not be prevented with user knowledge?
Interstella5555
Mar 18, 10:53 AM
1) Why would I need an extra 2GB when I'm already Unlimited?
2) Why would I need to pay an extra $20 for 1s and 0s going from my laptop thru my phone. If I'm using the laptop, I'm not using my phone and vice versa. It's still single use.
3) Do you pay "Extra" for home internet because you have a wireless router that allows you to connect multiple PCs to the same connection?? How is tethering on a mobile phone any different??? This sets a precedence that could allow for home internet providers to charge on a per PC connect basis.
You used to. Back in the day most ISPs would charge per IP address for high speed Internet.
2) Why would I need to pay an extra $20 for 1s and 0s going from my laptop thru my phone. If I'm using the laptop, I'm not using my phone and vice versa. It's still single use.
3) Do you pay "Extra" for home internet because you have a wireless router that allows you to connect multiple PCs to the same connection?? How is tethering on a mobile phone any different??? This sets a precedence that could allow for home internet providers to charge on a per PC connect basis.
You used to. Back in the day most ISPs would charge per IP address for high speed Internet.
samcraig
Mar 18, 08:32 AM
I'm not a thief, I use my data responsible.
Its appalling that your so righteous to post such.
I have an unlimited plan, $30 a month, I use tether for a few things but do not go over 5gb a month, I have unlimited so it shouldn't matter, but I use much less then the one poster who claims 90gb a month to download movies.
Yes I think thats abuse.
I think anything over 10 to 20gb would be pure abuse.
but occasional tethering and under that 10gb abuse? No way.
I need to calm down because it bothers me that people are so brainwashed these days to accept what ever a company does.
It's just crap. No matter what a Contract says it can be challenged in court and we could be right and At&t wrong.
So you're saying that if you steal $10 vs $1 million - it's not stealing? No doubt different levels of crime - but both are illegal.
But see my post above. The long/short of it is - unlimited data is specific to the device as per the TOS. If you're breaking the TOS, you're breaking the TOS - no matter how you or anyone tries to justify it - and ATT can "retaliate" as it's within their right as per that TOS.
I do not support ATT doing anything to those who already have a metered (limited) data plan. THAT makes no sense.
Its appalling that your so righteous to post such.
I have an unlimited plan, $30 a month, I use tether for a few things but do not go over 5gb a month, I have unlimited so it shouldn't matter, but I use much less then the one poster who claims 90gb a month to download movies.
Yes I think thats abuse.
I think anything over 10 to 20gb would be pure abuse.
but occasional tethering and under that 10gb abuse? No way.
I need to calm down because it bothers me that people are so brainwashed these days to accept what ever a company does.
It's just crap. No matter what a Contract says it can be challenged in court and we could be right and At&t wrong.
So you're saying that if you steal $10 vs $1 million - it's not stealing? No doubt different levels of crime - but both are illegal.
But see my post above. The long/short of it is - unlimited data is specific to the device as per the TOS. If you're breaking the TOS, you're breaking the TOS - no matter how you or anyone tries to justify it - and ATT can "retaliate" as it's within their right as per that TOS.
I do not support ATT doing anything to those who already have a metered (limited) data plan. THAT makes no sense.
greenstork
Sep 12, 06:16 PM
>>> Those who think this isn't a Tivo killer don't understand Tivo's plans.
Those that think this is a Tivo Killer don't understand economics, or why people buy Tivos.
Fort this to even be in the BALLPARK, it needs a Hard Dive. Needs to be Hi Def. That ain't happening at a 299.99 price tag. Still, people love the Tivo interface, so to get them, it's gonna have to offer MORE than Tivo- like an optical drive, a couple tuners. No WAY that is in this box and "not discolsed yet" at 299.
Tivo Killer. That's a killer joke, or Appleboy dreaming. Not close to reality.
Bingo, and the only people claiming that it's a Tivo killer have probably never owned a Tivo.
Those that think this is a Tivo Killer don't understand economics, or why people buy Tivos.
Fort this to even be in the BALLPARK, it needs a Hard Dive. Needs to be Hi Def. That ain't happening at a 299.99 price tag. Still, people love the Tivo interface, so to get them, it's gonna have to offer MORE than Tivo- like an optical drive, a couple tuners. No WAY that is in this box and "not discolsed yet" at 299.
Tivo Killer. That's a killer joke, or Appleboy dreaming. Not close to reality.
Bingo, and the only people claiming that it's a Tivo killer have probably never owned a Tivo.
Hellhammer
Mar 13, 08:08 AM
What is the alternative to nuclear power? These green ways of producing electricity cost a lot more and what I've heard, they can't provide enough power. Plus they don't work everywhere (not enough sun or wind in here for example).
Whether it's a good move to build nuclear plants near tectonic plate joints, that's another question. We don't have seismic activity in here so such natural catastrophes aren't a concern.
Whether it's a good move to build nuclear plants near tectonic plate joints, that's another question. We don't have seismic activity in here so such natural catastrophes aren't a concern.
awmazz
Mar 13, 11:24 AM
I'm all for nuclear power. It's the cleanest
I guess it depends on your perspective of 'clean'. Yellowcake mining is one of the filthiest ugliest long-term polluting human endeavours ever invented. We have three uranium mines:
The Olympic Dam mine owned by BHP Billiton in Roxby Downs here has so far produced over 60 MILLION TONNES of polluting radioactive tailings waste in just 23 years of operation. BHP plans a $5 billion expansion of this single mine. Not more mines, just this one, a whopping $5 billion to expand just one mine. It's very profitable and will become more so as reserves deplete. People in the northern hemisphere are prepared to pay handsomely to shat their energy pollution in other peoples' yards instead of their own.
And then you have the other arseholes owners at the Beverly Mine going by the name of General Atomics who insist on using the ever so lovely even filthier acid-method known as 'in-situ leaching' mining technique, basically because they don't give a flying feck. Their radioactive particles, heavy metals and the acid used to separate the uranium is simply dumped into an aquifier and leaches into our groundwater. No commercial acid leach mine in the USA has ever been given environmental approval, yet here is an American company insisting on using it here as if our environment is their shareholders' own private toilet and spittoon.
The third mine owned by Rio Tinto has just been one environmental or health and safety breach after another. Even to their own workers, exposed to process water 400x maximum Aust safety standards in 2004. Then there was the 2 MILLION LITRES of tailings containing high levels of manganese, uranium and radium which leaked from a pipe. Then there was the contaminated water containing high uranium cocentrations released into the Coonjimba and Magela Creeks.
Depite having over one fifth of the world's reserves and the growing profitibility of yellowcake to the economy, the Australian govt has limited yellowcake mining to the three existing mines. Because it's just too damn filthy and polluting to open new ones.
Cleanest? Coal mining is much cleaner. Why should you consider there's a whole production line of pollution to get that 'clean' energy into your home, not just the painted white-for-purity nuclear power plant at the end.
I guess it depends on your perspective of 'clean'. Yellowcake mining is one of the filthiest ugliest long-term polluting human endeavours ever invented. We have three uranium mines:
The Olympic Dam mine owned by BHP Billiton in Roxby Downs here has so far produced over 60 MILLION TONNES of polluting radioactive tailings waste in just 23 years of operation. BHP plans a $5 billion expansion of this single mine. Not more mines, just this one, a whopping $5 billion to expand just one mine. It's very profitable and will become more so as reserves deplete. People in the northern hemisphere are prepared to pay handsomely to shat their energy pollution in other peoples' yards instead of their own.
And then you have the other arseholes owners at the Beverly Mine going by the name of General Atomics who insist on using the ever so lovely even filthier acid-method known as 'in-situ leaching' mining technique, basically because they don't give a flying feck. Their radioactive particles, heavy metals and the acid used to separate the uranium is simply dumped into an aquifier and leaches into our groundwater. No commercial acid leach mine in the USA has ever been given environmental approval, yet here is an American company insisting on using it here as if our environment is their shareholders' own private toilet and spittoon.
The third mine owned by Rio Tinto has just been one environmental or health and safety breach after another. Even to their own workers, exposed to process water 400x maximum Aust safety standards in 2004. Then there was the 2 MILLION LITRES of tailings containing high levels of manganese, uranium and radium which leaked from a pipe. Then there was the contaminated water containing high uranium cocentrations released into the Coonjimba and Magela Creeks.
Depite having over one fifth of the world's reserves and the growing profitibility of yellowcake to the economy, the Australian govt has limited yellowcake mining to the three existing mines. Because it's just too damn filthy and polluting to open new ones.
Cleanest? Coal mining is much cleaner. Why should you consider there's a whole production line of pollution to get that 'clean' energy into your home, not just the painted white-for-purity nuclear power plant at the end.
Cougarcat
May 2, 09:47 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Users are of course reminded that day-to-day system usage with standard accounts rather than administrator ones, as well as unchecking the Safari option for automatically opening "safe" files, are two of the simplest ways users can enhance their online security, adding extra layers of confirmation and passwords in the way of anything being installed on their systems.
um, NO THANKS. why in the world would i add "extra layers of confirmation" to my OS X experience?!?! If I wanted nag windows, I'd use Windows!
I despise the "X is a file downloaded from the Internet" dialog introduced in SL. Really wish you could disable it.
Users are of course reminded that day-to-day system usage with standard accounts rather than administrator ones, as well as unchecking the Safari option for automatically opening "safe" files, are two of the simplest ways users can enhance their online security, adding extra layers of confirmation and passwords in the way of anything being installed on their systems.
um, NO THANKS. why in the world would i add "extra layers of confirmation" to my OS X experience?!?! If I wanted nag windows, I'd use Windows!
I despise the "X is a file downloaded from the Internet" dialog introduced in SL. Really wish you could disable it.
todstiles
Aug 29, 04:57 PM
You people that are quoting and referencing information on wikipedia are really funny. Since when is anything that is written there taken as fact?
And you have to take statements from Greenpeace for what they are worth. You are talking about an organization that thrives on attention. Of course they are going to make outlandish statements. It's the only way anyone would ever know they exist.
Let's not put too much stock in this. There are absolutely no facts to back this up. As usual Greenpeace has nothing to show me. Nothing.
And you have to take statements from Greenpeace for what they are worth. You are talking about an organization that thrives on attention. Of course they are going to make outlandish statements. It's the only way anyone would ever know they exist.
Let's not put too much stock in this. There are absolutely no facts to back this up. As usual Greenpeace has nothing to show me. Nothing.
Apple OC
Mar 11, 01:03 AM
Watching these Tsunami pictures on CNN ... I hope people will be OK.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/11/japan.quake/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1
Edit ... 2:15am watching it Live on CNN ... unbelievable footage
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/11/japan.quake/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1
Edit ... 2:15am watching it Live on CNN ... unbelievable footage
CuttyShark
Apr 12, 11:23 PM
A bad workman always blames his tools. ;)
Cheers!!
Cheers!!
No comments:
Post a Comment