yadmonkey
Mar 31, 01:48 PM
This was posted prematurely by a day, right?
argopelter
Jun 8, 04:57 PM
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?
Well, if you leave it on the street, that's equivalent to discarding it. That's not an analogous situation here. Leaving it on your porch, which is still private property, would be more analogous. Getting your car stolen because you left it in a bad neighborhood would be still more analogous. In the car scenario, where you have a piece of property that's extremely traceable, then of course the police should (and would) help you recover it.
The "misclick to buy an app" scenario is even easier and simpler, and it's much less irresponsible than any of these other hypotheticals. I'd guess that 90% or more of iPhone users have a credit card linked to their iTunes account. You believe that there is an unlimited ceiling on how much money someone should lose as a result of linking a credit card to their account. If there were an app that cost a million dollars, and someone misclicked and bought it, you apparently believe it's right and good that they spend the rest of their life paying it off. I'm glad that Apple disagrees with you.
The notion that people shouldn't link their accounts to iTunes or shouldn't authorize large purchases (incidentally, if they followed your $1000 rule, they'd be out of luck if the app cost $900 rather than $1000, yes?) because Apple should just tell them to f off if they misclick like this...why? What's the benefit? How hard is it to give a refund? If it's really important, have them come to an Apple store and show that they didn't install the app.
Had you or someone else made the case that this was a mistake, just maybe a $20 mistake or even a $50 mistake rather than a $1000 mistake, then I'd say that's reasonable enough. I am not saying that people should take no personal responsibility for these sorts of mistakes. But $1000 is just crazy when these mistakes are as simple as a couple of clicks.
A
A
Well, if you leave it on the street, that's equivalent to discarding it. That's not an analogous situation here. Leaving it on your porch, which is still private property, would be more analogous. Getting your car stolen because you left it in a bad neighborhood would be still more analogous. In the car scenario, where you have a piece of property that's extremely traceable, then of course the police should (and would) help you recover it.
The "misclick to buy an app" scenario is even easier and simpler, and it's much less irresponsible than any of these other hypotheticals. I'd guess that 90% or more of iPhone users have a credit card linked to their iTunes account. You believe that there is an unlimited ceiling on how much money someone should lose as a result of linking a credit card to their account. If there were an app that cost a million dollars, and someone misclicked and bought it, you apparently believe it's right and good that they spend the rest of their life paying it off. I'm glad that Apple disagrees with you.
The notion that people shouldn't link their accounts to iTunes or shouldn't authorize large purchases (incidentally, if they followed your $1000 rule, they'd be out of luck if the app cost $900 rather than $1000, yes?) because Apple should just tell them to f off if they misclick like this...why? What's the benefit? How hard is it to give a refund? If it's really important, have them come to an Apple store and show that they didn't install the app.
Had you or someone else made the case that this was a mistake, just maybe a $20 mistake or even a $50 mistake rather than a $1000 mistake, then I'd say that's reasonable enough. I am not saying that people should take no personal responsibility for these sorts of mistakes. But $1000 is just crazy when these mistakes are as simple as a couple of clicks.
A
A
alexf
Oct 18, 07:20 PM
To wit, the iPod is not Apple's "cash cow". By definition, if there is something that gains more revenue/profit than the iPod, then the iPod cannot be the cash cow. 58% of Apple's revenue still came from sales of Macs. Gross margins for both Macs and iPods has always been similar (hovering a bit below 30%), so the Mac also generates the majority of the profit for Apple.
Why, my friend, do you think that a "cash cow" has to be the thing that gains the most revenue/profit? Not sure what dictionary you're using; please let me know.
Why, my friend, do you think that a "cash cow" has to be the thing that gains the most revenue/profit? Not sure what dictionary you're using; please let me know.
CorvusCamenarum
May 1, 10:27 PM
Are you sure it wasn't UK forces who eliminated him? Either way, you gotta say "he was killed by allied forces".
So who gets the bounty? IIRC there was a $25 million price on his head.
So who gets the bounty? IIRC there was a $25 million price on his head.
more...
twoodcc
Dec 2, 05:00 AM
BTW no more points will be recredited for the stats mishap earlier last months. They lost the data and did some estimations... Nothing else will be given...
why am i not surprised that i didn't get mine?
why am i not surprised that i didn't get mine?
ChrisTX
Apr 22, 08:04 PM
If the next iPhone looks anything like that, I'll be keeping my iPhone 4 a little bit longer. :eek:
Is a 3.7" screen big enough?
What size screen are the new Android phones using?
I hope the new home button has a LED that will blink in standby if messages are pending.
Keep in mind that not everyone want's an oversized phone.
Is a 3.7" screen big enough?
What size screen are the new Android phones using?
I hope the new home button has a LED that will blink in standby if messages are pending.
Keep in mind that not everyone want's an oversized phone.
more...
smugDrew
May 3, 08:01 AM
Yes I'm a confused idiot. Nothing to see here... Sorry folks...
840quadra
Jul 10, 03:15 PM
You and Westside_guy should get together...see post #24 in this thread. Then go see post #27.
#24 HAHAHA !
I was aware of the link in post #27, that's why I thought it was an unveiling of the tricky little macrumors feature.
#24 HAHAHA !
I was aware of the link in post #27, that's why I thought it was an unveiling of the tricky little macrumors feature.
more...
bbplayer5
Apr 28, 12:56 PM
Android doesnt really cater to the female population unless they are tech nerds. Apple caters to anyone that doesnt care about manipulating your phone. Im actually kinda shocked android has more devices using its OS than Apple does. Most people like simplicity. For me though, android is the way to go. iOS got stale a long time ago.
zync
Jul 28, 11:03 AM
When Microsoft claim that their investment might not pay off for five years, they're paving the way for failure. For the next two or three years, when pressed about the lack of profits, they can claim that the payoff will be in a couple of years from then. They won't have to actually admit that they've failed until after 2010. It's not dissimilar to Bill Gates claiming that there's an 80% chance of Vista shipping on time, it sounds positive, but few people believe it actually will ship in January. It's just paving the way for the next excuse.
It's very important that Microsoft try very hard with Zune. They keep claiming that the iPod succeeded simply because of slick marketing, whereas everybody else knows that it succeeded by being an attractive proposition, combining style with ease of use. It was word-of-mouth publicity that really worked for the iPod. You can't buy that, it added massive value to the money that was spent on advertising.
So here's Microsoft's opportunity to look at the last five years of the iPod, together with three years of iTMS, take it all in and apply their 'innovation', show us the ultimate product and then spend a fortune marketing it. There must be no doubt that Microsoft must be seen to throw everything into this project. Then Steve Jobs will be delighted to rise to the challenge and delight in humiliating Bill Gates.
I really like that last paragraph, lol. I seriously doubt they'll even pose competition. There was an image that was supposedly an actual Zune player, and if it is it's already paving the road for failure.
Honestly Microsoft will fail, and it's not because they are going to take forever to show anyone anything. Microsoft will fail because it doesn't understand the demographic it is trying to produce a product for. Microsoft may cater to business and such, but in the eyes of teenagers, many of whom are anti-establishment, Microsoft is simply not cool. Not only is Microsoft uncool, it doesn't understand what IS cool.
Meanwhile, Apple is a huge corporation, and yet even people who hate large corporation love Apple. Apple knows how to market. Apple continuously sets the standard for good design year in, year out.
Steve Jobs is cool. He's funny. Most people just think Bill Gates, though simply a figurehead now, is the devil (despite that recent huge charitable donation). Steve Ballmer is an oaf. Microsoft has neither the image or the talent to fight this battle. Hell, they've even started to slowly lose the grip on the industry that once held them so dear�business computing.
It's very important that Microsoft try very hard with Zune. They keep claiming that the iPod succeeded simply because of slick marketing, whereas everybody else knows that it succeeded by being an attractive proposition, combining style with ease of use. It was word-of-mouth publicity that really worked for the iPod. You can't buy that, it added massive value to the money that was spent on advertising.
So here's Microsoft's opportunity to look at the last five years of the iPod, together with three years of iTMS, take it all in and apply their 'innovation', show us the ultimate product and then spend a fortune marketing it. There must be no doubt that Microsoft must be seen to throw everything into this project. Then Steve Jobs will be delighted to rise to the challenge and delight in humiliating Bill Gates.
I really like that last paragraph, lol. I seriously doubt they'll even pose competition. There was an image that was supposedly an actual Zune player, and if it is it's already paving the road for failure.
Honestly Microsoft will fail, and it's not because they are going to take forever to show anyone anything. Microsoft will fail because it doesn't understand the demographic it is trying to produce a product for. Microsoft may cater to business and such, but in the eyes of teenagers, many of whom are anti-establishment, Microsoft is simply not cool. Not only is Microsoft uncool, it doesn't understand what IS cool.
Meanwhile, Apple is a huge corporation, and yet even people who hate large corporation love Apple. Apple knows how to market. Apple continuously sets the standard for good design year in, year out.
Steve Jobs is cool. He's funny. Most people just think Bill Gates, though simply a figurehead now, is the devil (despite that recent huge charitable donation). Steve Ballmer is an oaf. Microsoft has neither the image or the talent to fight this battle. Hell, they've even started to slowly lose the grip on the industry that once held them so dear�business computing.
more...
Squonk
Oct 24, 09:31 AM
so...
5400/7200?
is the difference a big deal for audio/graphics work?
I do not have a practical answer for you, but I had a similar question when I was upgrading the HD in my powerbook - I wanted the fastest drive I could afford as this would give my PB the biggest performance boost. What I found out is that the 160GB 5400 perpendicular drives have about 90-95% the performance throughput of a non-perpendicular 7200 drive. The reason being that because the bit are perpendicular, the drive needs to rotate a shorter amount to read the same amount of data. I know at the microscopic size of the data on the drives this seems hard to believe, but logically, it makes sense to me. My PB is a screamer by comparison to the 4200 drive that was in there, which has not bearing to your question of course...
I suspect, that the 5400 160GB drive from Apple will have decent performance. Personally, I'm not impressed with the 4200 200GB offering, but for someone who needs more space and ultimate performance is not key, then this would be fine.
That all being said, I look forward to finding out the specs & models of the actual drives Apple is putting in the new MBP's before I'd put money down on one.
Cheers!
5400/7200?
is the difference a big deal for audio/graphics work?
I do not have a practical answer for you, but I had a similar question when I was upgrading the HD in my powerbook - I wanted the fastest drive I could afford as this would give my PB the biggest performance boost. What I found out is that the 160GB 5400 perpendicular drives have about 90-95% the performance throughput of a non-perpendicular 7200 drive. The reason being that because the bit are perpendicular, the drive needs to rotate a shorter amount to read the same amount of data. I know at the microscopic size of the data on the drives this seems hard to believe, but logically, it makes sense to me. My PB is a screamer by comparison to the 4200 drive that was in there, which has not bearing to your question of course...
I suspect, that the 5400 160GB drive from Apple will have decent performance. Personally, I'm not impressed with the 4200 200GB offering, but for someone who needs more space and ultimate performance is not key, then this would be fine.
That all being said, I look forward to finding out the specs & models of the actual drives Apple is putting in the new MBP's before I'd put money down on one.
Cheers!
toddybody
Apr 11, 05:21 PM
Thunderbolt IO is fantastic...no qualms there. Im just not sure how applicable it is in the laptop arena. IMO, if youre a professional with massive external storage...which is needed to be accessed quickly: youre already using a desktop. Also, Im not sure what good ThunderBolt accessed HDD do you...as the drives are the bottleneck. Its gonna be a little while before I hook the ol' TB SSD enclosure(cause I dont have the cheddar to buy on) up to my ThunderBolt MacbookPro. Its kinda like Bugatti Tires on a Nissan Z.
more...
Snowy_River
Jul 25, 11:05 AM
The 3G iPod did not have physical feedback, and they worked.
They most certainly did have physical feedback. You had to touch them to activate the buttons or drag your finger across the scroll wheel to use it. This would constitute a tactile feedback, even if there is no click. What people are questioning is the usability of an interface where you don't have any tactile feedback. I think that the answer is that there would have to be visual feedback to replace it, thus the further issue that you couldn't simply use this iPod in your pocket or use it very safely while driving. However, if we consider that this is meant to be the video / ebook iPod, where you'll be staring at the screen anyway, this is much less of an issue.
But the problem here is everyone is assuming that none-touch means you don't even touch the iPod. Did it occur to anyone that it means you don't have to touch the screen? This allows Apple to put a more durable transparent cover over the entire face of the iPod.
Think about it - a nice smooth seamless iPod face. When you put your finger over the display, the controls appear. Your finger touches the cover, but not the screen underneath. This allows for easy cleaning, and protection of the actual screen.
What you're describing is far less revolutionary, and wouldn't really constitute a none-touch interface. The current displays all have a durable, transparent cover over them, and they still get scratches and finger prints from handling. I think the reason that this interface idea is so exciting is that it offers the possibility of having a full screen for viewing without needing to worry about the act of touching the screen for controls making the screen dirty so you can't watch.
They most certainly did have physical feedback. You had to touch them to activate the buttons or drag your finger across the scroll wheel to use it. This would constitute a tactile feedback, even if there is no click. What people are questioning is the usability of an interface where you don't have any tactile feedback. I think that the answer is that there would have to be visual feedback to replace it, thus the further issue that you couldn't simply use this iPod in your pocket or use it very safely while driving. However, if we consider that this is meant to be the video / ebook iPod, where you'll be staring at the screen anyway, this is much less of an issue.
But the problem here is everyone is assuming that none-touch means you don't even touch the iPod. Did it occur to anyone that it means you don't have to touch the screen? This allows Apple to put a more durable transparent cover over the entire face of the iPod.
Think about it - a nice smooth seamless iPod face. When you put your finger over the display, the controls appear. Your finger touches the cover, but not the screen underneath. This allows for easy cleaning, and protection of the actual screen.
What you're describing is far less revolutionary, and wouldn't really constitute a none-touch interface. The current displays all have a durable, transparent cover over them, and they still get scratches and finger prints from handling. I think the reason that this interface idea is so exciting is that it offers the possibility of having a full screen for viewing without needing to worry about the act of touching the screen for controls making the screen dirty so you can't watch.
andrewbecks
Apr 26, 01:41 PM
I stopped buying iMacs the day they went gloss. I now have a bunch of minis with the older Matte Cinema Displays. As simple as that � I put my money where my mouth is. If I couldn't get these, I would buy other branded displays.
When Steve Jobs made a comment a couple of years ago about Apple's customers saying they preferred gloss (or something like that) I wrote to Apple to say that at least one customer doesn't prefer gloss and why, and there is a pretty vocal group of Apple customers who share my sentiments. At least we were given the option on the MacBook Pros. I hate having to pay extra on an already expensive machine, but that's what I've done with my new just-ordered MBP. It's one small and expensive vote for usability to prevail over eye-candy. Sigh.
While I agree disagree with you as it relates to dsiplay preference (I prefer the glossy display over the matte display), I 100% agree with you in principal. Since Apple has customers who want the matte or anti-gloss option, they ought to make it available--simple as that. This way, everyone can be happy. If you want matte, you should be able to get it just as I'm able to get the glossy screen that I like.
(Plus, if they went to all matte, then the matte displays would weird up against the glossy 27" Cinema Displays, IMO.)
When Steve Jobs made a comment a couple of years ago about Apple's customers saying they preferred gloss (or something like that) I wrote to Apple to say that at least one customer doesn't prefer gloss and why, and there is a pretty vocal group of Apple customers who share my sentiments. At least we were given the option on the MacBook Pros. I hate having to pay extra on an already expensive machine, but that's what I've done with my new just-ordered MBP. It's one small and expensive vote for usability to prevail over eye-candy. Sigh.
While I agree disagree with you as it relates to dsiplay preference (I prefer the glossy display over the matte display), I 100% agree with you in principal. Since Apple has customers who want the matte or anti-gloss option, they ought to make it available--simple as that. This way, everyone can be happy. If you want matte, you should be able to get it just as I'm able to get the glossy screen that I like.
(Plus, if they went to all matte, then the matte displays would weird up against the glossy 27" Cinema Displays, IMO.)
more...
dgree03
Apr 26, 01:32 PM
Have to agree entirely with this one. Google is getting to be more and more of a mess so I'm ditching it entirely.
1) Gmail goes down for me about 1-2 times/week. Just have to wait (and wait).
2) Google contacts are useless - they don't import vcard!!!
3) Google calendar is a joke if you have to work with other clients
4) Google customer service is Non Existent. I have a google voice number which I established a couple of months ago for a non-profit outfit and the username/password is lost. I have the Number and it is still forwarding to the original number set BUT I can't turn it off, I can't get the user name - Why you ask with baited breath, because the only solution from Google is to allow you to send an email to your username given that you know the phone number BUT I don't have the username - catch22 anyone. So now I would normally wait on the phone for two hours to talk to a person who could fix that - the 2 hours being a reasonably punishment for my folly BUT.. once again with baited breath.. there is NO customer service number, NO customer service chat, NO customer service email. I guess if I want to get a person at google I have to drive up to the bay area.
The problem is that I"m NOT google customer, the ad providers are and Google is set up that way. They will continue to go downhill as they continue this ad-supported business model (and free is NOT free).
Your doing it wrong... Google services are much better than mobile me! Caveat? Get Android.
1) Gmail goes down for me about 1-2 times/week. Just have to wait (and wait).
2) Google contacts are useless - they don't import vcard!!!
3) Google calendar is a joke if you have to work with other clients
4) Google customer service is Non Existent. I have a google voice number which I established a couple of months ago for a non-profit outfit and the username/password is lost. I have the Number and it is still forwarding to the original number set BUT I can't turn it off, I can't get the user name - Why you ask with baited breath, because the only solution from Google is to allow you to send an email to your username given that you know the phone number BUT I don't have the username - catch22 anyone. So now I would normally wait on the phone for two hours to talk to a person who could fix that - the 2 hours being a reasonably punishment for my folly BUT.. once again with baited breath.. there is NO customer service number, NO customer service chat, NO customer service email. I guess if I want to get a person at google I have to drive up to the bay area.
The problem is that I"m NOT google customer, the ad providers are and Google is set up that way. They will continue to go downhill as they continue this ad-supported business model (and free is NOT free).
Your doing it wrong... Google services are much better than mobile me! Caveat? Get Android.
FloatingBones
Nov 19, 10:50 AM
Hopefully, the websites that provide their videos through a legacy Flash wrapper will soon be providing their users with a choice.
I am elated that iOS Safari has no Flash support. I do not want the CPU suck, the identity suck, the unpredictable behavior, and the exposure to Adobe bugs. If you want those things, feel free to get an Android device.
It would be better if Apple provided its users with a choice of whether they want to enable a flash plugin or not in their devices instead of screwing us all over by making so many web sites unusable
See above, MagnusVonMagnum. I listed four very good reasons why enabling Flash in iOS Safari would be a terrible choice. If you wish your argument to be convincing, you need to address those four specific reasons.
There are over 120M iOS devices in the world. Those owners have extremely attractive demographics for websites. If website owners haven't begun converting their content off of a proprietary wrapper, they just don't care.
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
(although I'm sure the author of Skyfire is thrilled about that choice since it's making him rich beyond his wildest dreams all because Apple is run by an egomaniac).
I don't know what "him" you are talking about. DVC labs (http://www.skyfire.com/component/weblinks/63-press-releases/26-dvc-labs-raises-48-million-in-financing-announces-board), provider of the Skyfire app we're discussing, was founded in 2006. They have apps on a variety of handheld platforms; they have now expanded to the iOS platform.
The Skyfire app is distinct from most apps: for the App purchase price, they must also provide the video translation service. They must provide servers and purchase substantial incoming and outgoing bandwidth for the videos. Skyfire does have a lot of experience providing this kind of service on other handheld platforms; they should be able to pull it off and have a reasonable return for their investment.
Skyfire has figured out a way for users to run Flash-wapped videos without ever having to expose their handhelds to the risks of running Flash. That's a neat trick; they should be rewarded for those efforts.
Any Flash developer has the ability to cross-compile and release their Flash code as an iOS app. If there are Flash apps that do something that no third-party iOS app does, it should be trivial for those Flash developers to add their app to the App Store. They can either release those apps for free or make money on them.
What exact Flash code are you running that there is not already an iOS App that can do exactly the same job? Please be specific. If there are unique Flash apps, have you asked the developer why they don't release it as a standalone iOS app?
There. That's two more reasons why Apple's choice was a good one. If you wish to continue this discussion, please make sure to address all six. Thanks!
I am elated that iOS Safari has no Flash support. I do not want the CPU suck, the identity suck, the unpredictable behavior, and the exposure to Adobe bugs. If you want those things, feel free to get an Android device.
It would be better if Apple provided its users with a choice of whether they want to enable a flash plugin or not in their devices instead of screwing us all over by making so many web sites unusable
See above, MagnusVonMagnum. I listed four very good reasons why enabling Flash in iOS Safari would be a terrible choice. If you wish your argument to be convincing, you need to address those four specific reasons.
There are over 120M iOS devices in the world. Those owners have extremely attractive demographics for websites. If website owners haven't begun converting their content off of a proprietary wrapper, they just don't care.
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
(although I'm sure the author of Skyfire is thrilled about that choice since it's making him rich beyond his wildest dreams all because Apple is run by an egomaniac).
I don't know what "him" you are talking about. DVC labs (http://www.skyfire.com/component/weblinks/63-press-releases/26-dvc-labs-raises-48-million-in-financing-announces-board), provider of the Skyfire app we're discussing, was founded in 2006. They have apps on a variety of handheld platforms; they have now expanded to the iOS platform.
The Skyfire app is distinct from most apps: for the App purchase price, they must also provide the video translation service. They must provide servers and purchase substantial incoming and outgoing bandwidth for the videos. Skyfire does have a lot of experience providing this kind of service on other handheld platforms; they should be able to pull it off and have a reasonable return for their investment.
Skyfire has figured out a way for users to run Flash-wapped videos without ever having to expose their handhelds to the risks of running Flash. That's a neat trick; they should be rewarded for those efforts.
Any Flash developer has the ability to cross-compile and release their Flash code as an iOS app. If there are Flash apps that do something that no third-party iOS app does, it should be trivial for those Flash developers to add their app to the App Store. They can either release those apps for free or make money on them.
What exact Flash code are you running that there is not already an iOS App that can do exactly the same job? Please be specific. If there are unique Flash apps, have you asked the developer why they don't release it as a standalone iOS app?
There. That's two more reasons why Apple's choice was a good one. If you wish to continue this discussion, please make sure to address all six. Thanks!
more...
cslewis
Jul 24, 09:35 PM
How about a proto-telepathic interface? :cool:
Stella
Apr 13, 01:57 PM
No thanks, I don't want to have to jailbreak my TV to make it useful.
These TV rumours are bogus IMO. I think the rumour will turn out to be related to the AppleTV box we have today, rather than a TV.
These TV rumours are bogus IMO. I think the rumour will turn out to be related to the AppleTV box we have today, rather than a TV.
crainial
Oct 18, 11:37 PM
Its clear Apple is missing something in the midrange desk top line. Its time for the Cube or Macintosh or headless iMac or Max Mini or something. iMac isnt for everyone and the world has billions of big beautiful displays just waiting for a midrange Mac but if Apple prices it again the same as the towers it will be another failure. Its way past time for the next Macintosh. Needs a real GPU, at least 1 expansion slot and should be priced right along with ugly iMac:D or a pinch below.
I couldn't agree more. A Conroe machine would fit this bill nicely. I don't have $2500 to spend on a CPU, but want a more powerful desktop. Not that a Mac is a mere PC, but the VAST majority of Windoze PCs are under $600. Why not put out a $700-1000 Mac? Increase the market share even more. Of course then Wal-Mart would want them, a sure sign of the end...
I couldn't agree more. A Conroe machine would fit this bill nicely. I don't have $2500 to spend on a CPU, but want a more powerful desktop. Not that a Mac is a mere PC, but the VAST majority of Windoze PCs are under $600. Why not put out a $700-1000 Mac? Increase the market share even more. Of course then Wal-Mart would want them, a sure sign of the end...
Oestberg
Mar 31, 11:02 AM
I dont like those random things they are doing. Like changing the "minimize, close window"-buttons on iTunes and App Store. Now this?
dXTC
Feb 16, 07:16 AM
Did anyone catch the Chuck Lorre Productions "vanity card" at the very end of this week's episode? I usually don't pay attention to the show, but I do watch Mike & Molly right afterward. I briefly saw Charlie Sheen's name on it, and had my wife rewind and pause it on the DVR.
In it, Chuck Lorre did a little joke at the whole situation, something along the lines of "I don't drink or smoke, I eat right, I exercise....", and at the very end, "If Charlie Sheen outlives me, I'm going to be really pissed."
Quite possibly the first time I ROFL'd at that show.
In it, Chuck Lorre did a little joke at the whole situation, something along the lines of "I don't drink or smoke, I eat right, I exercise....", and at the very end, "If Charlie Sheen outlives me, I'm going to be really pissed."
Quite possibly the first time I ROFL'd at that show.
rasmasyean
May 1, 10:37 PM
Since he's dead doesn't this technically mean that the "War on Terror" is technically over?
No, now that we are bold about our "success" it's time to take out the terrorist in Iran.
No, now that we are bold about our "success" it's time to take out the terrorist in Iran.
wordoflife
Apr 22, 09:25 AM
So what is Apple waiting for with the iPhone 5?
If there are no chips until 2012, then just give us the iphone 5 now :)
If there are no chips until 2012, then just give us the iphone 5 now :)
b_scott
Apr 15, 10:26 AM
I have a 3GS. saw the update, downloaded and tried to extract/install. I just get "your device is not eligible for this build" and it quits. :confused:
No comments:
Post a Comment