bdj21ya
Oct 10, 05:20 PM
They can't be bummed since they aren't advertising it. The average consumer probably couldn't even tell it's been upgraded (except for the screen brightness)
Hey now, don't forget games, search feature, and alpha transparency letter scrolling :rolleyes:.
No, I think that this was just a stop gap to keep demand up at least a little more while they get the real update ready for market. However, I don't think that real update is coming until at least January, unless this last update was really just to get rid of excess components. But then, I'm with those who say the new update will be released above the current model's price point, not as a replacement (though that would be a few too many models for Steve to think we could comprehend).
Hey now, don't forget games, search feature, and alpha transparency letter scrolling :rolleyes:.
No, I think that this was just a stop gap to keep demand up at least a little more while they get the real update ready for market. However, I don't think that real update is coming until at least January, unless this last update was really just to get rid of excess components. But then, I'm with those who say the new update will be released above the current model's price point, not as a replacement (though that would be a few too many models for Steve to think we could comprehend).
juannacho
Apr 26, 11:07 AM
Am I missing something totally obvious here? But what's that slot above the earpiece speaker meant to be exactly?
Like I say maybe I missed something as looking at their comparison images they seem to imply the current iPhone 4 has one already?!!?
What gives?
Like I say maybe I missed something as looking at their comparison images they seem to imply the current iPhone 4 has one already?!!?
What gives?
neutrino23
May 4, 12:01 AM
I love this commercial. It is beautiful on so many levels. The photography is beautiful. The pacing is calm. The ideas are high minded.
Metatron
Jan 5, 04:19 PM
If I recall correctly (prob. not) Apple use to have the keynote live on TV that people could pick up with old c-band sat. recievers. What ever happend to that?
wyatt23
Jan 11, 07:25 PM
I think the "hilarious" part must have slipped me by. :confused:
not me. the video was sooo hilarious. CES = the most prominent electronics show in the world with the MOST HIGH TECH tech you can find. and they allow for a 14.99 POS hack to ruin almost every booth.
HILARIOUS. i actually laughed out loud almost the whole video. childish yes. hilarious yes.
eye opening? yes. next year you can imagine there will be a few more companies that disable IR ports in public displays.
should gizmodo be allowed at macworld? YES. you think apple is stupid enough to allow something like that to happen? no.
as for gizmodo coming clean. i think that's fine. it was so funny. plus i'm sure not everyone endorsed the prank. it was probably a few people and then they made a blog post.
quit complaining. people are twisting their panties over nothing.
retorts: blah blah blah... presentation. blah blah blah.
not me. the video was sooo hilarious. CES = the most prominent electronics show in the world with the MOST HIGH TECH tech you can find. and they allow for a 14.99 POS hack to ruin almost every booth.
HILARIOUS. i actually laughed out loud almost the whole video. childish yes. hilarious yes.
eye opening? yes. next year you can imagine there will be a few more companies that disable IR ports in public displays.
should gizmodo be allowed at macworld? YES. you think apple is stupid enough to allow something like that to happen? no.
as for gizmodo coming clean. i think that's fine. it was so funny. plus i'm sure not everyone endorsed the prank. it was probably a few people and then they made a blog post.
quit complaining. people are twisting their panties over nothing.
retorts: blah blah blah... presentation. blah blah blah.
apfhex
Jan 8, 02:17 PM
So I just watched a bit of the Bill Gates keynote at CES. It was streaming live at 500k with no problems. Is this because there isn't as many people watching it?
Probably. :D BTW, you have a link to that? Edit: nvm I found it on MS's site. (http://www.microsoft.com/events/executives/billgates.mspx)
Probably. :D BTW, you have a link to that? Edit: nvm I found it on MS's site. (http://www.microsoft.com/events/executives/billgates.mspx)
Lord Blackadder
Jul 28, 12:54 PM
Series-Hybrids have no need for transmissions at all, the wheels are driven by electric motors only.
This is a new type, therefore high price until economies of scale kick in.
True on the economies of scale bit - although the batteries are always going to be pricey.
I keep hammering the same point here, but the Volt would see a quite significant fuel economy boost by switching to a diesel engine to charge the batteries and run the motors. Sort it out, US car companies...it's not like we don't sell diesel here.
This is a new type, therefore high price until economies of scale kick in.
True on the economies of scale bit - although the batteries are always going to be pricey.
I keep hammering the same point here, but the Volt would see a quite significant fuel economy boost by switching to a diesel engine to charge the batteries and run the motors. Sort it out, US car companies...it's not like we don't sell diesel here.
WestonHarvey1
Jul 21, 01:07 PM
So if another car company was hiding the same problem Toyota had, and Toyota pointed it out, that would be wrong? Why are the other companies denying it?
The funny part is none of the other companies are even denying it. Their response has been to complain about Apple bringing it up. The laws of physics should apply only to Apple.
The funny part is none of the other companies are even denying it. Their response has been to complain about Apple bringing it up. The laws of physics should apply only to Apple.
puuukeey
Jan 9, 01:42 PM
so is arn gonna post in this thread or do I have to watch the actual story for the link?
*LTD*
Apr 15, 05:55 PM
Dear Google:
Apple *already* revolutionized the music industry.
Try copying something of theirs that's a little less established.
(and then just leave it in beta like you do with everything else.)
Cheers.
Apple *already* revolutionized the music industry.
Try copying something of theirs that's a little less established.
(and then just leave it in beta like you do with everything else.)
Cheers.
skottichan
Apr 29, 03:52 PM
Yeah, I preferred the iOS scrollbars, and the slider buttons. I know, developers hate change.
iBug2
Apr 29, 02:13 PM
Seems to be a strong update, unlike SL. SL was more a plumbing change for many things (IMO) and Lion will be making strong use of those changes. For that reason, that's why I believe it'll cost around 100 bucks.
I actually think Apple is going to surprise us with the price. Like they did with Final Cut Pro X.
Who knows? Maybe it'll be 29$ upgrade from SL.
I actually think Apple is going to surprise us with the price. Like they did with Final Cut Pro X.
Who knows? Maybe it'll be 29$ upgrade from SL.
-aggie-
Jul 21, 01:55 PM
Maybe Apple could make that an Easter Egg. Those were the days, when Easter Eggs were common. Fun times.
Rocketman
And bunnies. Easter eggs and bunnies...sigh.
It's funny how people give Apple a hard time for spinning this information, when we all know the media was doing their own spin. If the media truly wanted the truth, they'd have conducted some research and have been able to really give us a good percent on how many people experience problems when using the iPhone 4 (I know, every phone has the "defect"...blah, blah, blah, blah). However, the real percent wouldn't make a good story. So, how can you blame Apple for at least trying to defend itself?
Rocketman
And bunnies. Easter eggs and bunnies...sigh.
It's funny how people give Apple a hard time for spinning this information, when we all know the media was doing their own spin. If the media truly wanted the truth, they'd have conducted some research and have been able to really give us a good percent on how many people experience problems when using the iPhone 4 (I know, every phone has the "defect"...blah, blah, blah, blah). However, the real percent wouldn't make a good story. So, how can you blame Apple for at least trying to defend itself?
evilbert420
Oct 20, 09:32 AM
When will we see these numbers broken out into business/enterprise vs. consumer?
Seriously, Apple is pretty much a non-factor in the enterprise. There simply is no integration, no large-scale server application use other than web, and few enterprise-ready applications. There's no Biztalk/Websphere/SQL/Oracle running on Apple outside of a few educational institutions. Microsoft and IBM own the enterprise and considering Apple in an enterprise outside of some limited marketing/advertising/media/audio verticals is absurd. I personally deal with 130 companies that have 500-250k computers and Apple is simply not a factor at all.
However, in the consumer world it's a very different story. Apple has the potential to continue making huge inroads into the consumer/home user/SOHO segments where the lack of enterprise applications means little if anything.
I'd like to see the numbers of how Apple compares in the home segment rather than just the overall. Why can't we see this broken out?
Seriously, Apple is pretty much a non-factor in the enterprise. There simply is no integration, no large-scale server application use other than web, and few enterprise-ready applications. There's no Biztalk/Websphere/SQL/Oracle running on Apple outside of a few educational institutions. Microsoft and IBM own the enterprise and considering Apple in an enterprise outside of some limited marketing/advertising/media/audio verticals is absurd. I personally deal with 130 companies that have 500-250k computers and Apple is simply not a factor at all.
However, in the consumer world it's a very different story. Apple has the potential to continue making huge inroads into the consumer/home user/SOHO segments where the lack of enterprise applications means little if anything.
I'd like to see the numbers of how Apple compares in the home segment rather than just the overall. Why can't we see this broken out?
Patrick J
Apr 15, 03:59 PM
This would be popular with suicides (cut throat sharp edges) and PC users (device has numerous huge holes which may or not have a function).
snberk103
Apr 15, 12:29 PM
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
IJ Reilly
Oct 20, 01:51 PM
Oh, I dunno, perhaps acquire some more companies? You know, like TiVo - with its valuable IP - for an easy $400 million. Or pump it into R&D. Or a stake in Nintendo or Sony. Or acquire the EMI Music Group (for $1 billion) as a buffer against the other RIAA members pressuring for an increase in the iTunes Store pricing. Or finally pay off Apple Records once and for all. Those are several things Apple could do* with that $10 billion that could be more useful than artificially boosting the stock by paying out an expensive dividend to grumpy shareholders.
Heck, maybe they could go all-solar on the Apple campus like what Google is doing.
Of course the point is, they aren't doing these or any or things with the money. It's been accumulating steadily for nearly ten years, and is really building up quickly now. I don't think any of us "grumpy" stockholders would be complaining if Apple was doing something worthwhile with it. Dividends, BTW, are a message from a company to stockholders that they don't have to sell to realize a benefit from owning shares. They are good for improving the long term stability of the stock.
Heck, maybe they could go all-solar on the Apple campus like what Google is doing.
Of course the point is, they aren't doing these or any or things with the money. It's been accumulating steadily for nearly ten years, and is really building up quickly now. I don't think any of us "grumpy" stockholders would be complaining if Apple was doing something worthwhile with it. Dividends, BTW, are a message from a company to stockholders that they don't have to sell to realize a benefit from owning shares. They are good for improving the long term stability of the stock.
TeppefallGuy
Aug 2, 09:00 AM
Why all this hostility against Scandinavia ? In Norway we pay 25 percent VAT on music and iPods and expect them to work well with other products.
The Powerbook I am typing this on had a faulty harddrive and crashed after 16 months of use. Apple Norway fixed it for free. Did I have AppleCare ? No, Norwegian law dictates that a consumer electronic product should have no technical problems in the first two years with a maximum of five.
A maxed out 17" MacBook Pro will set you back US $4,304 in Norway. Now you understand why we are kinda picky ?
A nice flat in Oslo/Trondheim costs about the same as in the better parts of San Francisco (Pine Street/Pacific Heights). It is not New York prices.. but we are getting there :(
The Powerbook I am typing this on had a faulty harddrive and crashed after 16 months of use. Apple Norway fixed it for free. Did I have AppleCare ? No, Norwegian law dictates that a consumer electronic product should have no technical problems in the first two years with a maximum of five.
A maxed out 17" MacBook Pro will set you back US $4,304 in Norway. Now you understand why we are kinda picky ?
A nice flat in Oslo/Trondheim costs about the same as in the better parts of San Francisco (Pine Street/Pacific Heights). It is not New York prices.. but we are getting there :(
ImNoSuperMan
Sep 12, 07:26 AM
God. I m finding it harder and harder to concentrate on work. I wish I didnt have this MB sitting in my office:eek: :eek: :o
LightSpeed1
Apr 10, 05:41 PM
Working on my new setup. Just ordered a Dell Ultrasharp 24" and a set of Swan M10's.
Sweetfeld28
Oct 18, 10:24 AM
Personally, i don't think this format war is very worth while to begin with. I mean Blu-Ray does seem to be the leading format, but i think i will rather wait for this Hybrid Disc to come out that uses the same Red laser that our burners already have:
Versatile Multilayer Disc [VMD] (http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/26/hd-dvd-blu-ray-and-dvd-all-in-one-disc-draws-closer/)
ryan
Versatile Multilayer Disc [VMD] (http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/26/hd-dvd-blu-ray-and-dvd-all-in-one-disc-draws-closer/)
ryan
COSWORTH
Mar 17, 09:01 AM
what exactly is this Karma everyone speaks of? Who brings down the karma, good or bad? Is there a Karma Fairy? Karma Bunny? Karma Leprechaun?
IJ Reilly
Oct 19, 11:37 AM
Damn! Can only wonder what it cost back then..those were dark days back then...
I've bought and sold quite a bit of AAPL over the years since, but always held onto my original stake. My cost basis is around $4 a share. Now I can't afford to sell it!
I've bought and sold quite a bit of AAPL over the years since, but always held onto my original stake. My cost basis is around $4 a share. Now I can't afford to sell it!
iJohnHenry
Apr 16, 04:59 PM
Yikes, another one that doesn't understand the meaning of the word.
Is your dictionary still in print, and how would I order one?
Is your dictionary still in print, and how would I order one?
No comments:
Post a Comment