roadbloc
Mar 10, 12:07 PM
In case you haven't noticed, they've redefined computing almost overnight.
I think you're the only one who's noticed that. I haven't yet. I've yet to even see an iPad outside the Apple Store.
I think you're the only one who's noticed that. I haven't yet. I've yet to even see an iPad outside the Apple Store.
AP_piano295
Apr 25, 04:17 PM
I didn't watch the whole video, but from what I watched, they were standing around and laughing.
Again, they should call the cops and NOT get involved.
They are hired to flip burgers, not stop violence. If you want your employees to stop a fight, hire an armed guard.
I hope that if I'm ever being attacked by two people your not the person who I need to rely on, it takes very little time for a person to be seriously injured waiting for the cops is hardly the best option.
Again, they should call the cops and NOT get involved.
They are hired to flip burgers, not stop violence. If you want your employees to stop a fight, hire an armed guard.
I hope that if I'm ever being attacked by two people your not the person who I need to rely on, it takes very little time for a person to be seriously injured waiting for the cops is hardly the best option.
roadbloc
Mar 6, 03:14 PM
No they don't. They just attempt to copy (often badly), then license universally and flood the market with a lot junk that includes a ton of different models at very low price points.
The scary thing is is that you actually believe this nonsense.
The scary thing is is that you actually believe this nonsense.
Yakuza
Apr 16, 07:34 AM
This shell may be fake, in terms of design I also think it looks a bit archaic, "squared", but looking back at this last iMac and the iPad (with the aluminum back cover) i guess that's the way Apple will go with the next iphone.
It'll look DAMN sexy :D
Way to go Malim :). Can it be a first prototype?
It'll look DAMN sexy :D
Way to go Malim :). Can it be a first prototype?
cherrypop
Oct 11, 09:00 AM
Makes total sense to me: Microsoft's Zune introduction naturally raised the bar for MP3 players. Some of the press Zune is getting for its larger display, clean design and usability is adding to the pressure for Apple to ship an answer to the Zune.
Apple is ready to announce their rumored video/wireless iPod
Apple is ready to announce their rumored video/wireless iPod
Winni
Mar 29, 07:20 AM
Good. I'm all in favor of Apple adding more incentives for devs to embrace the Mac App store. As a consumer I really like the idea of an App Store that makes buying and installing as easy as one click as well as fostering competition between comparable apps.
Yes, the AppStore makes it (too) easy to comfortably spend money.
But as a consumer, I HATE the fact that I cannot sell the software that I purchased in the AppStore once I don't need or want it anymore. You know, this is my LEGAL RIGHT here in Germany, and with stuff bought from the AppStore, I don't have the possibility to execute this right because the AppStore does not have an option to transfer licenses to a new owner.
Valve's Steam platform has the same limitation, so sadly this is not unique to Apple's store.
This is why DRMed content should always be boycotted. DRM is not about granting the customer certain rights, it is exclusively about restricting his rights. In this case even to the extent to deny a customer his legal rights.
I don't have a problem with traditional license keys. That's a copy protection mechanism that I can tolerate. Activation procedures are already problematic (they are unreliable at best), but to dongle software to a specific user account in an online store without enabling the user to transfer that software to a different account should be prohibited by law.
It'll be their loss, especially since competitors like MS will follow suit and introduce a similar distribution model. Eventually everyone will be in the game, for the the simple reason that they'd like to duplicate Apple's success.
1. You intentionally ignored the point that referred to Apple's Terms of Service. For example, applications like VMWare Fusion, Parallels Desktop or even SuperDuper! could never be distributed through the Mac AppStore because they belong in a category that Apple does not ALLOW in their AppStore. As a matter of fact, even their own Xcode violates their TOS. But they wouldn't be Apple if the same rules also applied to themselves...
2. There won't be a Microsoft AppStore for Windows INTEGRATED INTO WINDOWS. EVER. Why? Because they can't for LEGAL reasons. Anti-trust lawsuits, anyone? Microsoft would only get away with that if they implemented a "choose your AppStore" program that would let the people choose which online store they want to use - just like they had to do it for the web browsers. I think that Apple should also be forced to do the same. After all, there is at least one other "AppStore" for the Mac out there that is even OLDER than Apple's own AppStore, and Apple misuses their power to drive those guys out of business. People stopped using Netscape when Internet Explorer came pre-installed on the operating system. Now people will not even try to look for another online store when the AppStore and iTunes are pre-installed on their computers. The same thing. The same rules should apply to Apple as they obviously apply to Microsoft.
Yes, the AppStore makes it (too) easy to comfortably spend money.
But as a consumer, I HATE the fact that I cannot sell the software that I purchased in the AppStore once I don't need or want it anymore. You know, this is my LEGAL RIGHT here in Germany, and with stuff bought from the AppStore, I don't have the possibility to execute this right because the AppStore does not have an option to transfer licenses to a new owner.
Valve's Steam platform has the same limitation, so sadly this is not unique to Apple's store.
This is why DRMed content should always be boycotted. DRM is not about granting the customer certain rights, it is exclusively about restricting his rights. In this case even to the extent to deny a customer his legal rights.
I don't have a problem with traditional license keys. That's a copy protection mechanism that I can tolerate. Activation procedures are already problematic (they are unreliable at best), but to dongle software to a specific user account in an online store without enabling the user to transfer that software to a different account should be prohibited by law.
It'll be their loss, especially since competitors like MS will follow suit and introduce a similar distribution model. Eventually everyone will be in the game, for the the simple reason that they'd like to duplicate Apple's success.
1. You intentionally ignored the point that referred to Apple's Terms of Service. For example, applications like VMWare Fusion, Parallels Desktop or even SuperDuper! could never be distributed through the Mac AppStore because they belong in a category that Apple does not ALLOW in their AppStore. As a matter of fact, even their own Xcode violates their TOS. But they wouldn't be Apple if the same rules also applied to themselves...
2. There won't be a Microsoft AppStore for Windows INTEGRATED INTO WINDOWS. EVER. Why? Because they can't for LEGAL reasons. Anti-trust lawsuits, anyone? Microsoft would only get away with that if they implemented a "choose your AppStore" program that would let the people choose which online store they want to use - just like they had to do it for the web browsers. I think that Apple should also be forced to do the same. After all, there is at least one other "AppStore" for the Mac out there that is even OLDER than Apple's own AppStore, and Apple misuses their power to drive those guys out of business. People stopped using Netscape when Internet Explorer came pre-installed on the operating system. Now people will not even try to look for another online store when the AppStore and iTunes are pre-installed on their computers. The same thing. The same rules should apply to Apple as they obviously apply to Microsoft.
dc52nv
Apr 7, 01:50 AM
About damn time too...
Looking forward to shooting with this new gear...
my pants are ruined!
Looking forward to shooting with this new gear...
my pants are ruined!
maflynn
Apr 11, 08:29 AM
Also Aero Peek,
control-tab and windows (command key?)-tab offer some cool ways to swap around active applications.
MS has done a lot of good work with the UI, in terms of polish and making it look very nice. Apple on the other hand still lacks a complete consistent look and feel. Just look at iTunes and the horizontal traffic lights.
Apple has a long history of implementing UI guidlines and then breaking them in their own apps. OSX itself exhibits this, though with SL, its gotten better.
control-tab and windows (command key?)-tab offer some cool ways to swap around active applications.
MS has done a lot of good work with the UI, in terms of polish and making it look very nice. Apple on the other hand still lacks a complete consistent look and feel. Just look at iTunes and the horizontal traffic lights.
Apple has a long history of implementing UI guidlines and then breaking them in their own apps. OSX itself exhibits this, though with SL, its gotten better.
mdlooker
Apr 8, 01:37 PM
Special Promotion?? lol..What are they going to create more of a demand for the iPad 2?? This makes absolutely no sense.
There are people all over that have ordered iPad's as early as 11 MARCH and STILL DON'T HAVE THEM!! Promotion..Are you kidding me??
Lies..all lies.. lol I don't believe any of it.
I would love and welcome to be eduacted on this scheme.
There are people all over that have ordered iPad's as early as 11 MARCH and STILL DON'T HAVE THEM!! Promotion..Are you kidding me??
Lies..all lies.. lol I don't believe any of it.
I would love and welcome to be eduacted on this scheme.
systole
Mar 28, 07:39 PM
Isn't the design awards just a fancy carrot in disguise?
Personally, I think that the biggest detriment to developers is control. If you find an app on their website, the developer controls the shopping environment, and licensee terms. By submitting their app, developers loose control first, profit second.
Personally, I think that the biggest detriment to developers is control. If you find an app on their website, the developer controls the shopping environment, and licensee terms. By submitting their app, developers loose control first, profit second.
clukas
Apr 5, 03:39 PM
hahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.........
Whoever spends their time looking at adverts is a lost cause and has no life. Seriously I think this is the most ridiculous thing apple has come up with.
Whoever spends their time looking at adverts is a lost cause and has no life. Seriously I think this is the most ridiculous thing apple has come up with.
twoodcc
Aug 11, 06:19 PM
well guys i might be getting back up there soon. the last couple of days i've been working on my home built system, and i had it stable folding at 3.8 ghz. of course i got greedy, and am currently trying to manage 4.0 ghz. but right now heat is in the way, and i might have to take it back down a notch. we'll see
MacGeek13
Jan 10, 08:12 PM
It would be great if the price went down. There should also be some updates, but concentrating on a lower price, as PCs that are the same speed are much less.
Monkey194545
Dec 13, 10:31 AM
This is utter ********. The experience is key, and LTE hardware is nowhere near advanced enough to guarantee the experience that Apple would demand for a device the stature of the iPhone.
Remember: we're talking about the company that withheld phone wallpapers on the Original and 3G iPhones because the experience would have been several milliseconds too slow.
Fact: Verizon is not expecting LTE-capable hardware until mid-2011. There's no way Apple magically has an LTE phone ready to go while everyone else won't have one for 6 months.
Fact: Apple declined to integrate 3G into the iPhone when 3G was already available, because the hardware wasn't power-efficent enough. One of the main distinguishing features of the iPhone is its battery life. They're not going to tarnish that image by hacking first-generation, power-hogging LTE hardware into the phone, in ADDITION to CDMA, which is another radio tech they're only now deploying.
These sources are full of ****. QED.
On your first point: It is also the company that came out with the iphone 4 and its antenna problems.
Your second point: Don't you think Verizon would take the oppurtunity to give apple what they really want over the Android phones: The first 4g phone on Verizon network. That would be a huge advantage. Just because the network isnt fully up yet doesn't mean Verizon couldn't have given apple the tech to make a 4g iphone. Verizon see android phone sales dropping and know that an iphone would boost sales by a huge amount.
Your third point: It would only be one chip, read the article for reference. How do you know how much battery it uses? It may be only a small amount more than 3g. Att's 3g sucked when the 3g iphone came out. It still sucks. Don't underestimate apple and verizon. You may be surprised!
Edit: By no means am a I acknowledging the merit or lack there of of this article
Remember: we're talking about the company that withheld phone wallpapers on the Original and 3G iPhones because the experience would have been several milliseconds too slow.
Fact: Verizon is not expecting LTE-capable hardware until mid-2011. There's no way Apple magically has an LTE phone ready to go while everyone else won't have one for 6 months.
Fact: Apple declined to integrate 3G into the iPhone when 3G was already available, because the hardware wasn't power-efficent enough. One of the main distinguishing features of the iPhone is its battery life. They're not going to tarnish that image by hacking first-generation, power-hogging LTE hardware into the phone, in ADDITION to CDMA, which is another radio tech they're only now deploying.
These sources are full of ****. QED.
On your first point: It is also the company that came out with the iphone 4 and its antenna problems.
Your second point: Don't you think Verizon would take the oppurtunity to give apple what they really want over the Android phones: The first 4g phone on Verizon network. That would be a huge advantage. Just because the network isnt fully up yet doesn't mean Verizon couldn't have given apple the tech to make a 4g iphone. Verizon see android phone sales dropping and know that an iphone would boost sales by a huge amount.
Your third point: It would only be one chip, read the article for reference. How do you know how much battery it uses? It may be only a small amount more than 3g. Att's 3g sucked when the 3g iphone came out. It still sucks. Don't underestimate apple and verizon. You may be surprised!
Edit: By no means am a I acknowledging the merit or lack there of of this article
Retrograffica
Jan 11, 01:25 PM
I know it's been said before but a wireless Apple MediaCenter would make sense, put that in your front room with all your media on it then have your imac in your office, MacBook in the den, (and one in each kids room and your bedroom if Apple have their wicked way). iPods get bluetooth so they can sync and everything would be 100% accessible all the time and if the MediaCenter was also the broadband router it would all be available remotely as well.
...the iCenter
...the iCenter
Much Ado
Jan 9, 01:31 PM
someone posted the whole thing on youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDfRvcjBQlM
And don't ever do that again! :eek: :D :mad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDfRvcjBQlM
And don't ever do that again! :eek: :D :mad:
robgreene
Mar 28, 10:37 PM
Are you new to the design awards? They have existed for years without the App Store. It used to to be that you would submit your app to Apple prior to WWDC. Why would an App Store be required?
The people that used to review all those apps for the contest now have tens of thousands of apps to review... on the APP STORE. This is a perfectly reasonable request.
The people that used to review all those apps for the contest now have tens of thousands of apps to review... on the APP STORE. This is a perfectly reasonable request.
AppleScruff1
Apr 8, 02:30 PM
Best Buy knows who D:apple:ddy is... They know who's keeping that company afloat and relevant in todays chaotic economy.
They wouldn't do anything to jeopardize a business relationship they NEED.
Again they know who D:apple:ddy is.
Do you really think that Apple sales are a significant part of BB revenue? BB could tell Apple to shove it and it would have no effect on their bottom line.
They wouldn't do anything to jeopardize a business relationship they NEED.
Again they know who D:apple:ddy is.
Do you really think that Apple sales are a significant part of BB revenue? BB could tell Apple to shove it and it would have no effect on their bottom line.
SciFrog
Jul 12, 05:19 AM
Welcome back. We need the points... Our medium term outlook not looking so great right now...
63dot
Mar 4, 06:31 PM
All anyone has to remember in a liberal vs conservative discussion is one simple fact: There has been no law ever initiated by conservatives to help working class citizens. All of these ideas- min wage, child labor laws, max hours per week, workplace safety, etc, all spring from liberal thinking, because liberals give a damn. Conservatives as a rule are too worried about who might take their hard earned money. You know the "sorry we just can't afford it" argument.
Hey, I believe you and know what you say is true.
When you corner him on such a topic, he will just spout out concurrences or dissents which tend to support his point of view. And if interpreted in a creative way, one can say the GOP has sometimes sided with workers. But that's a very old GOP and not the neo-cons of today.
Hey, I believe you and know what you say is true.
When you corner him on such a topic, he will just spout out concurrences or dissents which tend to support his point of view. And if interpreted in a creative way, one can say the GOP has sometimes sided with workers. But that's a very old GOP and not the neo-cons of today.
MattSepeta
May 4, 03:15 PM
:confused::confused::confused:
Why should this be an issue? I have two qualms:
1. What business is it if a pediatrician asks if there are guns in the home? A child is more likely to get hit by a car, should the doctor be asking if their home is situated on a street? This reeks of a doctor playing politics.
2. Why should it be a crime for the doctor to ask??? That is just as stupid! If you have a problem with your doctor railing politics, get a new doctor.
Why should this be an issue? I have two qualms:
1. What business is it if a pediatrician asks if there are guns in the home? A child is more likely to get hit by a car, should the doctor be asking if their home is situated on a street? This reeks of a doctor playing politics.
2. Why should it be a crime for the doctor to ask??? That is just as stupid! If you have a problem with your doctor railing politics, get a new doctor.
dongmin
Oct 19, 03:08 PM
Do you believe that the perpetual delay of Microsoft's Vista OS is allowing Apple to temporarily grab up some of the markey share? I'm not saying that people who would otherwise purchase a Wintel machine are switching to Mac because Vista is not out, but rather that some percentage are waiting to buy their new Core2Duo machine (or other upgrade to their current box) until they can get an full release version of Vista preinstalled on it.
Just a conjecture, but I thought it was worth considering. I suppose we'll find out in the first two quarters of 2007 when Microsoft decides that they're ready to release that bad boy on the world . . .
[JDOG, your post came in while I was still typing mine . . . sorry for the repeat]We're talking about hardware here, not OS. So Vista should have very little effect on Apple's PC marketshare, unless of course Vista's release encourages people to buy new PCs from Dell, HP, etc.
Just a conjecture, but I thought it was worth considering. I suppose we'll find out in the first two quarters of 2007 when Microsoft decides that they're ready to release that bad boy on the world . . .
[JDOG, your post came in while I was still typing mine . . . sorry for the repeat]We're talking about hardware here, not OS. So Vista should have very little effect on Apple's PC marketshare, unless of course Vista's release encourages people to buy new PCs from Dell, HP, etc.
snberk103
Apr 15, 08:03 PM
Well actually we know the TSA methods don't work because both of the incidents were from European airports that mirror what the TSA does. Added to the number of weapons that make it through TSA checkpoints, it's easy to see that the TSA does in fact not work to the extent that it is expected to.
All we know is that increased security screening is not perfect. Perhaps you can extrapolate the European experience (in this case) to the TSA... but that's as far as you can go.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
Do you always start with the insulting tone (see bolding) when the debate isn't going your way? I would argue that both sides are rational actors, though both sides may also employ non-rational players. The higher echelons of terrorist organizations have shown themselves to very worried about being captured by the fact that they are so hard to catch. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be going to a great deal of trouble to avoid it. Therefore, to my mind, they are rational actors. That 50/50 number is one that I threw into the argument as an "for argument's sake". Please don't rely on it for anything factual. The TSA in fact catches more than 50% of their training/testing planted weapons. And yes, I think even if the the number was as low as 50/50 a rational actor would do everything... oh heck... I've already written all that - you've not presented anything else of substance in it's place, so I'll just save my typing finger....
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
That's the funny thing. I've never actually said that the TSA is the best thing around. All I've said is that the TSA is doing something. That's all - that the TSA is doing something right. Not everything. Just something. Go back and look it up. Even the head of the Israeli security never said they were useless (as in doing nothing right). Just that it wasn't the best use of resources. Oh, and if you know Israelis (and I do), then you'll also know that there is another Israeli who knows just as much as that first fellow, and she thinks the TSA is doing things just fine.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
That's the problem with 90% of the decisions Governments make. All they have is correlational connections. Or incomplete causal relationships. Or... basically the best they can do is make an educated guess, and hope for the best.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
No, on two counts. 1) You asserted "Our attempts at security are at best as good as Lisa's rock...". I countered your assertion by saying that the TSA must be doing something right, and used the stats on hijackings. I (to paraphrase you) "poked hole in your reasoning". You've presented nothing that counters my evidence, except to try mocking it as simplistic. If it is, then show how it is.... If my argument doesn't convince you. Then say so, and then leave it at that. I have my opinion, you have yours. But if you want me to change my opinion you had better do better. 2) I've forgotten - cr*p.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
You are right correlations don't show causation. But they are evidence for it. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, present it.
All we know is that increased security screening is not perfect. Perhaps you can extrapolate the European experience (in this case) to the TSA... but that's as far as you can go.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
Do you always start with the insulting tone (see bolding) when the debate isn't going your way? I would argue that both sides are rational actors, though both sides may also employ non-rational players. The higher echelons of terrorist organizations have shown themselves to very worried about being captured by the fact that they are so hard to catch. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be going to a great deal of trouble to avoid it. Therefore, to my mind, they are rational actors. That 50/50 number is one that I threw into the argument as an "for argument's sake". Please don't rely on it for anything factual. The TSA in fact catches more than 50% of their training/testing planted weapons. And yes, I think even if the the number was as low as 50/50 a rational actor would do everything... oh heck... I've already written all that - you've not presented anything else of substance in it's place, so I'll just save my typing finger....
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
That's the funny thing. I've never actually said that the TSA is the best thing around. All I've said is that the TSA is doing something. That's all - that the TSA is doing something right. Not everything. Just something. Go back and look it up. Even the head of the Israeli security never said they were useless (as in doing nothing right). Just that it wasn't the best use of resources. Oh, and if you know Israelis (and I do), then you'll also know that there is another Israeli who knows just as much as that first fellow, and she thinks the TSA is doing things just fine.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
That's the problem with 90% of the decisions Governments make. All they have is correlational connections. Or incomplete causal relationships. Or... basically the best they can do is make an educated guess, and hope for the best.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
No, on two counts. 1) You asserted "Our attempts at security are at best as good as Lisa's rock...". I countered your assertion by saying that the TSA must be doing something right, and used the stats on hijackings. I (to paraphrase you) "poked hole in your reasoning". You've presented nothing that counters my evidence, except to try mocking it as simplistic. If it is, then show how it is.... If my argument doesn't convince you. Then say so, and then leave it at that. I have my opinion, you have yours. But if you want me to change my opinion you had better do better. 2) I've forgotten - cr*p.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
You are right correlations don't show causation. But they are evidence for it. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, present it.
fivepoint
May 4, 03:19 PM
Any law that tells a physician what they can and can't ask a patient, or who they must treat despite their own personal views - is stupid. Physicians should be able to ask whatever they want, if the person answers that's their own choice, and if the physician no longer wants to treat them, thats his/her choice. Sames for guns, same for gays, same for anything. A private business person should be able to serve whomever they want to serve... period.
The hypocrisy from those of you on the left on this issue is pretty clear. If this was the GLBTA trying to pass a similar law regarding homosexuality, etc. you'd have no problem with it.
The hypocrisy from those of you on the left on this issue is pretty clear. If this was the GLBTA trying to pass a similar law regarding homosexuality, etc. you'd have no problem with it.
0 comments:
Post a Comment