dustinsc
Mar 22, 12:52 PM
Blackberry playbook = The IPad 2 killer - you heard it here first.
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
Well, minus the screen size too. Equal to isn't going to cut it against an Apple product. Just look at how the Zune fared.
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
Well, minus the screen size too. Equal to isn't going to cut it against an Apple product. Just look at how the Zune fared.
*LTD*
Mar 31, 07:34 PM
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) Mobile/8G4)
So stop whoring out your lame beta OS, Google, and finally have some respect for your product.
Steve Jobs was right all along. All this open baloney falls apart pretty quick when you spread your crap around to anyone and everyone who can slam together a box.
Next on the list: tighter Android Marketplace controls and a fresh round of app rejections.
Then we'll here everyone say "of course, it had to happen, no big deal." Yeah, we ****ing told you like two years ago when it was announced Android would be licensed out to everyone. But for some reason the perennially clueless thought that it would work forever.
In the post-PC era, User Experience reigns supreme. But Apple already taught us that years ago.
So stop whoring out your lame beta OS, Google, and finally have some respect for your product.
Steve Jobs was right all along. All this open baloney falls apart pretty quick when you spread your crap around to anyone and everyone who can slam together a box.
Next on the list: tighter Android Marketplace controls and a fresh round of app rejections.
Then we'll here everyone say "of course, it had to happen, no big deal." Yeah, we ****ing told you like two years ago when it was announced Android would be licensed out to everyone. But for some reason the perennially clueless thought that it would work forever.
In the post-PC era, User Experience reigns supreme. But Apple already taught us that years ago.
err404
Apr 25, 02:09 PM
It is also used for forensic evidence against and for you in legal court.
They could, but law enforcement doesn't need this log. They can get the data straight from the cell provider.
They could, but law enforcement doesn't need this log. They can get the data straight from the cell provider.
KnightWRX
Apr 7, 04:43 AM
See, that is exactly not the purpose of OpenCL. OpenCL can also use specialized DSPs, if someone writes a compiler for them. OpenCL is GPU-independent, which is a problem, if you want to optimize your OpenCL-code for a specific GPU.
See, that's exactly the same thing I said. And see, that's exactly what the SB + Intel 3000 HD solution does not do. :rolleyes:
Look, you're saying the same thing I am, you just don't want to agree that the Intel 3000 HD solution is sub-par for OpenCL, a big feature Apple pushed with Snow Leopard. Stop being obtuse. Right now, SB does not run OpenCL code on a DSP or anything else, it runs on it the CPU, defeating the whole purpose.
nVidia 320M si about 20W, so they can use 17W processors on 11,6" and 25W processors on 13", with an increased battery life on both models.
You're forgetting that the 320m is more than just a graphics processor. SB still requires a south bridge which will also have a power rating.
See, that's exactly the same thing I said. And see, that's exactly what the SB + Intel 3000 HD solution does not do. :rolleyes:
Look, you're saying the same thing I am, you just don't want to agree that the Intel 3000 HD solution is sub-par for OpenCL, a big feature Apple pushed with Snow Leopard. Stop being obtuse. Right now, SB does not run OpenCL code on a DSP or anything else, it runs on it the CPU, defeating the whole purpose.
nVidia 320M si about 20W, so they can use 17W processors on 11,6" and 25W processors on 13", with an increased battery life on both models.
You're forgetting that the 320m is more than just a graphics processor. SB still requires a south bridge which will also have a power rating.
milo
Jul 14, 03:04 PM
Power Supply at the top is REALLY stupid.
Why?
Why?
ifjake
Nov 29, 12:25 AM
here's my 2� without reading the rest of the thread:
maybe if they set aside the funds for cultivating new, compellingly good music from upandcoming artists. kinda like how the big movie studios own independent-esque branches. something nice. something a little more risky than your usual cookie-cutter pop-hit. i dunno maybe that's already there sort of. maybe.
maybe if they set aside the funds for cultivating new, compellingly good music from upandcoming artists. kinda like how the big movie studios own independent-esque branches. something nice. something a little more risky than your usual cookie-cutter pop-hit. i dunno maybe that's already there sort of. maybe.
AtHomeBoy_2000
Aug 5, 05:38 PM
BitTorrent is great if you're using a cable modem or DSL with almost equal upload/download ratios.But I'm using a Satellite..Downloads are great but the uploads are only 256k
Nothing wrong with leaching if you have to ;)
Nothing wrong with leaching if you have to ;)
Cachiro
Apr 6, 04:42 PM
Don't understand that there needs to be a pissing contest about Xoom OR ipad.
Why are the Xoom guys even here on a Mac site, to tell us THEIR device is better?
I'm with you 100%
Why are the Xoom guys even here on a Mac site, to tell us THEIR device is better?
I'm with you 100%
NoNothing
Apr 7, 10:24 PM
Obviously you know little about retail and accounting.
Well fill me in. Our family used to run a small local (and successful) computer store in the 80's and if we had it, we sold it.
With cost of inventory being fairly high, why would you stop if you met a "quota"?
Well fill me in. Our family used to run a small local (and successful) computer store in the 80's and if we had it, we sold it.
With cost of inventory being fairly high, why would you stop if you met a "quota"?
amin
Aug 18, 10:28 PM
Obviously, inherently the iMac design is inferior to the Mac Pro/Powermac.
It may be obvious, but based on your earlier statement that a Conroe iMac would be "able to crunch through" apps faster than a Mac Pro, the obvious seemed worth identifying.
But I think there's a bigger reason why Apple chose to go all quad with the Mac Pro: Apple chose all quad because a duo option would have had the same performance in professional apps (again, excluding handbrake and toast which are the only two examples touted about). A single processor Woodcrest or Conroe option will have the same obtainable CPU power for 90-95% of the professional market for another 6-12 months at the very least.
So you think they put an extra processor in across the line just to be able to say they had a quad? Even the AnandTech article you used as a source showed here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=18) that PS took advantage of quad cores in Rosetta
Here's some data regarding the Mac Pro's FSB:
*snip*
What can we take from this? Because of the use of FB-DIMMs, the Mac Pro's effective FSB is that of ~640MHz DDR2 system.
And how does it fare in memory latency?
*snip*
Your points about latency and FSB are not separate negatives as you have made them. They are redundant theoretical concerns with implications of unclear practical significance.
As for bandwidth, although the Mac Pro has a load of theoretical bandwidth, the efficiency is an abysmal 20%. In real use a DDR2 system has 72% more usable bandwidth. (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=11))
I don't know bout you, but if I were a heavy user of memory intensive apps such as Photoshop, I'd be worried. Worried in the sense that a Conroe would be noticeably faster.
I am not worried. Everything anyone has come up with on this issue are taken from that same AnandTech article. Until I see more real-world testing, I will not be convinced. Also, I expect that more pro apps such as PS will be able to utilize quad cores in the near future, if they aren't already doing so. Finally, even if Conroe is faster, Woodcrest is fast enough for me ;).
Memory issues aside, Woodcrests are faster than Conroes, 2.4% on average (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6))
I think you misread that. They were comparing Core 2 Extreme (not Woodcrest) and Conroe to see whether the increased FSB of the former would make much difference.
It may be obvious, but based on your earlier statement that a Conroe iMac would be "able to crunch through" apps faster than a Mac Pro, the obvious seemed worth identifying.
But I think there's a bigger reason why Apple chose to go all quad with the Mac Pro: Apple chose all quad because a duo option would have had the same performance in professional apps (again, excluding handbrake and toast which are the only two examples touted about). A single processor Woodcrest or Conroe option will have the same obtainable CPU power for 90-95% of the professional market for another 6-12 months at the very least.
So you think they put an extra processor in across the line just to be able to say they had a quad? Even the AnandTech article you used as a source showed here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=18) that PS took advantage of quad cores in Rosetta
Here's some data regarding the Mac Pro's FSB:
*snip*
What can we take from this? Because of the use of FB-DIMMs, the Mac Pro's effective FSB is that of ~640MHz DDR2 system.
And how does it fare in memory latency?
*snip*
Your points about latency and FSB are not separate negatives as you have made them. They are redundant theoretical concerns with implications of unclear practical significance.
As for bandwidth, although the Mac Pro has a load of theoretical bandwidth, the efficiency is an abysmal 20%. In real use a DDR2 system has 72% more usable bandwidth. (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=11))
I don't know bout you, but if I were a heavy user of memory intensive apps such as Photoshop, I'd be worried. Worried in the sense that a Conroe would be noticeably faster.
I am not worried. Everything anyone has come up with on this issue are taken from that same AnandTech article. Until I see more real-world testing, I will not be convinced. Also, I expect that more pro apps such as PS will be able to utilize quad cores in the near future, if they aren't already doing so. Finally, even if Conroe is faster, Woodcrest is fast enough for me ;).
Memory issues aside, Woodcrests are faster than Conroes, 2.4% on average (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6))
I think you misread that. They were comparing Core 2 Extreme (not Woodcrest) and Conroe to see whether the increased FSB of the former would make much difference.
Scottsdale
Apr 6, 11:38 AM
clock speed is not everything... a 1.4ghz sb processor will kill anything you are doing with a 2.4ghz c2d. There are many other factors in a processor than just clock speed so i wouldn't be worried. There is no doubt that the sb will be a much faster processor than the ancient c2d.
Also, I would say 50% less graphics is a bit of a stretch. Haven't personally ran any benchmarks but was reading a thread the other day and in the benchmarks and graphics they were showing that the 320m averages about 5-10 extra fps over the 3000.
here is a thread you can look at and compare for yourself.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1103257
Sure the integrated graphics are going to be slightly worse, but at least you will have a nice new processor. Can't always have your cake and eat it too, especially in an ultraportable.
When the mba was refreshed everyone was complaining about the outdated processor, now rumors of a processor upgrade and people bitch about the integrated graphics. Guess you can't please everyone but jesus, sometimes it just seems like people find anything they can to complain about.
Here's a simple solution for all of you, if you want the "slightly" better graphics go buy a macbook air right now, it's not like apple has stopped selling them. If you'd rather have a sandy bridge processor, wait it out. Seems simple but i guess that's just me?!?!?!:eek:
Sure clock speed isn't everything. But you better go read up some more on Tue Intel HD3000 IGP. You're using facts from the STD voltage SB IGP and applying them to the ULV SB IGP. Go read about the graphics on the Samsung Series 9 laptops. The 13" model uses this very chip cited. It shows greater than a 50% drop in graphics performance from the 320m to ULV IGP used in SB.
This has been the problem all along with everyone. They're attributing facts that are actually fallacies to this Intel IGP.
Also, I would say 50% less graphics is a bit of a stretch. Haven't personally ran any benchmarks but was reading a thread the other day and in the benchmarks and graphics they were showing that the 320m averages about 5-10 extra fps over the 3000.
here is a thread you can look at and compare for yourself.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1103257
Sure the integrated graphics are going to be slightly worse, but at least you will have a nice new processor. Can't always have your cake and eat it too, especially in an ultraportable.
When the mba was refreshed everyone was complaining about the outdated processor, now rumors of a processor upgrade and people bitch about the integrated graphics. Guess you can't please everyone but jesus, sometimes it just seems like people find anything they can to complain about.
Here's a simple solution for all of you, if you want the "slightly" better graphics go buy a macbook air right now, it's not like apple has stopped selling them. If you'd rather have a sandy bridge processor, wait it out. Seems simple but i guess that's just me?!?!?!:eek:
Sure clock speed isn't everything. But you better go read up some more on Tue Intel HD3000 IGP. You're using facts from the STD voltage SB IGP and applying them to the ULV SB IGP. Go read about the graphics on the Samsung Series 9 laptops. The 13" model uses this very chip cited. It shows greater than a 50% drop in graphics performance from the 320m to ULV IGP used in SB.
This has been the problem all along with everyone. They're attributing facts that are actually fallacies to this Intel IGP.
nagromme
Aug 25, 03:22 PM
It would be a shame to Apple toss aside its consistent record of having the industry's best support.
But it takes more than a few weeks of anonymous "uptick" to indicate such a dire turn of events.
Now, if such a thing did come to pass, I welcome every complaint and flame Apple can get: feedback is what gets them back on track.
And it's a shame about the discussion staff--seems like an odd move from where I'm standing.
But it takes more than a few weeks of anonymous "uptick" to indicate such a dire turn of events.
Now, if such a thing did come to pass, I welcome every complaint and flame Apple can get: feedback is what gets them back on track.
And it's a shame about the discussion staff--seems like an odd move from where I'm standing.
jdminpdx
Apr 8, 01:31 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)
I was at BB yesterday and inquired about buying one. They has them but the manager wouldn't sell me one. He refuses to tell me why and I was told that he was instructed to hault sales temporarily. Hmmm
I was at BB yesterday and inquired about buying one. They has them but the manager wouldn't sell me one. He refuses to tell me why and I was told that he was instructed to hault sales temporarily. Hmmm
63dot
Aug 18, 09:04 AM
Untill the cooling-solution starts to leak fluids, that is ;)?
i will also chime in on this one and say it's not likely to happen
many years before the G5 was liquid cooled, amd tried liquid cooling with some of their mobile processors and found the idea was not practical for reasons not disclosed and, at that time, dropped the project
later on, amd, like others, simply resorted to better designed, cooler chips and that solved overheating
i will also chime in on this one and say it's not likely to happen
many years before the G5 was liquid cooled, amd tried liquid cooling with some of their mobile processors and found the idea was not practical for reasons not disclosed and, at that time, dropped the project
later on, amd, like others, simply resorted to better designed, cooler chips and that solved overheating
Eidorian
Jul 14, 11:20 PM
Uhhhh Nero Burning ROM does , oops i forgot there is no Nero for Mac just plain TOAST..lol
I just love my Dual 16x NEC ND-3550A's :D ...burn baby burn.
Also if this is the Best Apple can do at these prices then they should have just went Conroe, These MacPros are going to get killed by $999 Mom and Pop's PC's from Gateway/HP/Dell.
512MB DDR2 on a $1799 PC in mid 2006 , you gotta be f**kin' kidding me. Jobs must really think you people are stupid.
man I guess I won't even have to OC my E6600 to cream that $2499 machine. This was a stupid move Apple. Pay more for Less.Yeah, I know that Nero Burning ROM can handle multiple drives. If you have enough CPU power I bet Finder can burn two data DVD's at once. I'm stuck on a lowly G4 800 MHz so I don't want to tax the poor girl.
I just love my Dual 16x NEC ND-3550A's :D ...burn baby burn.
Also if this is the Best Apple can do at these prices then they should have just went Conroe, These MacPros are going to get killed by $999 Mom and Pop's PC's from Gateway/HP/Dell.
512MB DDR2 on a $1799 PC in mid 2006 , you gotta be f**kin' kidding me. Jobs must really think you people are stupid.
man I guess I won't even have to OC my E6600 to cream that $2499 machine. This was a stupid move Apple. Pay more for Less.Yeah, I know that Nero Burning ROM can handle multiple drives. If you have enough CPU power I bet Finder can burn two data DVD's at once. I'm stuck on a lowly G4 800 MHz so I don't want to tax the poor girl.
conradzoo
Aug 11, 05:49 PM
Confused.
Can somebody explain me the differences between the cellphone market between the US and Europe.
Will a 'iPhone' just be marketed to the US or worldwide (as the iPod does)?
C.:confused:
Can somebody explain me the differences between the cellphone market between the US and Europe.
Will a 'iPhone' just be marketed to the US or worldwide (as the iPod does)?
C.:confused:
xxBURT0Nxx
Apr 6, 11:16 AM
I am shocked that anyone finds this as a positive.
So you all want a drop from 1.86/2.13 to 1.4GHz CPUs in your 13" MBA? That is a 30% drop.
Then you want another drop of approaching 50% in graphics performance? Remember these IGPs clock in much lower than the STD voltage SB used in 13" MBP.
I find this completely backwards from Apple's current position on both CPU and graphics, and I don't think anyone would end up with a faster or better 13" MBA than the current generation. Apple would certainly have to bring back the backlit keyboard and introduce Thunderbolt to sucker anyone into buying such inferior junk! I would recommend people buy the current generation on clearance rather than lose performance everywhere like this. If this is the chip Apple uses in the 13" MBA, prepare for a big drop in capabilities!
I am still in shock anyone finds this a positive? Have you all read the clock speed? The facts about the chip and IGP in ultra low voltage variants?
clock speed is not everything... a 1.4ghz sb processor will kill anything you are doing with a 2.4ghz c2d. There are many other factors in a processor than just clock speed so i wouldn't be worried. There is no doubt that the sb will be a much faster processor than the ancient c2d.
Also, I would say 50% less graphics is a bit of a stretch. Haven't personally ran any benchmarks but was reading a thread the other day and in the benchmarks and graphics they were showing that the 320m averages about 5-10 extra fps over the 3000.
here is a thread you can look at and compare for yourself.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1103257
Sure the integrated graphics are going to be slightly worse, but at least you will have a nice new processor. Can't always have your cake and eat it too, especially in an ultraportable.
When the mba was refreshed everyone was complaining about the outdated processor, now rumors of a processor upgrade and people bitch about the integrated graphics. Guess you can't please everyone but jesus, sometimes it just seems like people find anything they can to complain about.
Here's a simple solution for all of you, if you want the "slightly" better graphics go buy a macbook air right now, it's not like apple has stopped selling them. If you'd rather have a sandy bridge processor, wait it out. Seems simple but i guess that's just me?!?!?!:eek:
So you all want a drop from 1.86/2.13 to 1.4GHz CPUs in your 13" MBA? That is a 30% drop.
Then you want another drop of approaching 50% in graphics performance? Remember these IGPs clock in much lower than the STD voltage SB used in 13" MBP.
I find this completely backwards from Apple's current position on both CPU and graphics, and I don't think anyone would end up with a faster or better 13" MBA than the current generation. Apple would certainly have to bring back the backlit keyboard and introduce Thunderbolt to sucker anyone into buying such inferior junk! I would recommend people buy the current generation on clearance rather than lose performance everywhere like this. If this is the chip Apple uses in the 13" MBA, prepare for a big drop in capabilities!
I am still in shock anyone finds this a positive? Have you all read the clock speed? The facts about the chip and IGP in ultra low voltage variants?
clock speed is not everything... a 1.4ghz sb processor will kill anything you are doing with a 2.4ghz c2d. There are many other factors in a processor than just clock speed so i wouldn't be worried. There is no doubt that the sb will be a much faster processor than the ancient c2d.
Also, I would say 50% less graphics is a bit of a stretch. Haven't personally ran any benchmarks but was reading a thread the other day and in the benchmarks and graphics they were showing that the 320m averages about 5-10 extra fps over the 3000.
here is a thread you can look at and compare for yourself.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1103257
Sure the integrated graphics are going to be slightly worse, but at least you will have a nice new processor. Can't always have your cake and eat it too, especially in an ultraportable.
When the mba was refreshed everyone was complaining about the outdated processor, now rumors of a processor upgrade and people bitch about the integrated graphics. Guess you can't please everyone but jesus, sometimes it just seems like people find anything they can to complain about.
Here's a simple solution for all of you, if you want the "slightly" better graphics go buy a macbook air right now, it's not like apple has stopped selling them. If you'd rather have a sandy bridge processor, wait it out. Seems simple but i guess that's just me?!?!?!:eek:
daneoni
Aug 25, 04:03 PM
Kind of a rude reply to someone who is just posting their experience with Apple.
Without criticism there would never be a reason to improve anything.
Agreed, thats why i asked what that meant. I mean its a distasteful reply and im sure if iMike were in his shoes he'd be writing the same type of post....then again he might suck it up...because its almighty Apple.
Without criticism there would never be a reason to improve anything.
Agreed, thats why i asked what that meant. I mean its a distasteful reply and im sure if iMike were in his shoes he'd be writing the same type of post....then again he might suck it up...because its almighty Apple.
BRLawyer
Jul 15, 01:28 PM
That would be a good lineup: two Minis, two iMacs, two Macs, two MacPros. Perhaps then the spread from $1499 for a base model conroe Mac to a $3299 or even $3599 for a premo dual-woodcrest 3GHz MacPro would seem plausible? I really like having a Mac desktop option before stepping up to the MacPro (with a smaller format). Right now the iMac is your only option in a certain range.
I agree with another poster too, having both models silent would be most excellent!
This sounds to me like a redux of the Performa/Quadra/LC disaster of the late 90s...I am glad Apple has learned from its mistakes, so it does NOT stretch its production line to a plethora of unnecessary models anymore...
A cheapo MacPro model is more than enough to fill any gaps between the iMac and the Pro line...nothing else.
I agree with another poster too, having both models silent would be most excellent!
This sounds to me like a redux of the Performa/Quadra/LC disaster of the late 90s...I am glad Apple has learned from its mistakes, so it does NOT stretch its production line to a plethora of unnecessary models anymore...
A cheapo MacPro model is more than enough to fill any gaps between the iMac and the Pro line...nothing else.
PODshady
Nov 28, 10:24 PM
I think they'll be a long way off getting money from every iPod sold. For a start its such an illogical thing to ask for (Did the music companies ask for money for every CD player or Tape Recorder sold? Nope), plus I suspect the main reason that Microsoft agreed to pay money in the first place is that they needed to get the music labels on board to boost the Zune Music Store, Microsoft was in the weaker position here and I believe the labels exploited that weakness.
If the labels were to go to Apple and demand a royalty on every iPod and threatening to pull their catalogue if they didn't get it, they would actually come off worse than Apple in terms of lost revenue and it's because of this I reckon they haven't a chance...
I agree
If the labels were to go to Apple and demand a royalty on every iPod and threatening to pull their catalogue if they didn't get it, they would actually come off worse than Apple in terms of lost revenue and it's because of this I reckon they haven't a chance...
I agree
NoSmokingBandit
Sep 1, 11:15 AM
Idk, that just doesnt sound right...
They have higher-res models from the GT4/GTPSP artists (everything 3d is made with super high poly counts then downgraded as the game's engine requires) so i dont understand why they would use the low poly models from GT4 when it would take just as much time to export a higher res model from Maya.
Time will tell i suppose, but it just doesnt make sense for them to gimp standard cars for no reason.
They have higher-res models from the GT4/GTPSP artists (everything 3d is made with super high poly counts then downgraded as the game's engine requires) so i dont understand why they would use the low poly models from GT4 when it would take just as much time to export a higher res model from Maya.
Time will tell i suppose, but it just doesnt make sense for them to gimp standard cars for no reason.
Ugg
Mar 22, 11:51 AM
I'm confused. :confused:
What point is 5P trying to make here?
Is the fact that one list contains more countries by count make it superior to the second? Is that the only way to judge a coalition, by count?
That seems a little too simplistic to me.
For instance, I added up these two lists (after removing duplicates) according to how much the countries spend on their military ...
� Coalition Countries - Iraq - 2003 ~ 152 billion
� Coalition - Libya - 2011 ~ 179 billion
I guess it's just how you want to look at it. :cool:
5p's posts rarely have anything to do with reason and everything to do with histrionic political bile.
We could also point out that the Arab League is backing the Allied actions and that Libya now is not Iraq then, but why bother, because he'll just take off on some irrelevant tangent praising Reagan and Paul et fils while denigrating Obama.
What point is 5P trying to make here?
Is the fact that one list contains more countries by count make it superior to the second? Is that the only way to judge a coalition, by count?
That seems a little too simplistic to me.
For instance, I added up these two lists (after removing duplicates) according to how much the countries spend on their military ...
� Coalition Countries - Iraq - 2003 ~ 152 billion
� Coalition - Libya - 2011 ~ 179 billion
I guess it's just how you want to look at it. :cool:
5p's posts rarely have anything to do with reason and everything to do with histrionic political bile.
We could also point out that the Arab League is backing the Allied actions and that Libya now is not Iraq then, but why bother, because he'll just take off on some irrelevant tangent praising Reagan and Paul et fils while denigrating Obama.
Tones2
Apr 19, 03:31 PM
Chord patterns are indeed part of the genre; however, when you also copy the melody and simply change the title AKA(George Harrison..."Here comes the sun"), then, you get the pants sued off of you.
I think pretty much all blues songs have the same melody. Only the lyrics change. :)
I think pretty much all blues songs have the same melody. Only the lyrics change. :)
appleguy123
Feb 28, 07:39 PM
They still can not have valid sacramental marriage
Fornication doesn't matter if the person doesn't care about the religious connotations of marriage
Greek culture also endorsed pederasty!
You do realize that the Church did what doctors said to right? They followed the medical professional advice that after treatment they were harmless and could go back.
Now priests can't even defend themselves, now it is guilty until proven innocent, also you don't get a trial to prove the innocence!
Do you not think that the priests should be jailed for raping children?
Crimes against children are usually seen badly in the public eye. The priests should not be an exception.
Fornication doesn't matter if the person doesn't care about the religious connotations of marriage
Greek culture also endorsed pederasty!
You do realize that the Church did what doctors said to right? They followed the medical professional advice that after treatment they were harmless and could go back.
Now priests can't even defend themselves, now it is guilty until proven innocent, also you don't get a trial to prove the innocence!
Do you not think that the priests should be jailed for raping children?
Crimes against children are usually seen badly in the public eye. The priests should not be an exception.
