ninewhereman
Mar 18, 09:55 PM
Supposedly Wii was supposed to go online in March. This would definitely match what I had heard earlier. Can't find the article that references a March being the month it goes online, but will link if I do.
vniow
Nov 1, 10:06 PM
Wow you took all that time to reply to a dead topic that everybody else ignored for over a day?
FYI, it's not just a different manufacturer, the newer drive burns CDs faster and does DVD-RAM also.
FYI, it's not just a different manufacturer, the newer drive burns CDs faster and does DVD-RAM also.
ilikeiBook
Aug 31, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by Over Achiever
The pic is worth a thousand words...:D
Interesting setup!...just one little problem...where are the wires? Doesn't the pb need to be connected to the tv somehow? :eek:
Maybe it's some sort of wireless Airport Streaming technology that works with the TV! That would be cool.
The pic is worth a thousand words...:D
Interesting setup!...just one little problem...where are the wires? Doesn't the pb need to be connected to the tv somehow? :eek:
Maybe it's some sort of wireless Airport Streaming technology that works with the TV! That would be cool.
pdpfilms
Jun 12, 11:24 AM
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=14915&Page=1&pagePos=2
What do you think?
Unfortunately, this is where most companies are taking their business these days. Though I wish Apple weren't a part of it, I also realize they would probably wither if they weren't.
What do you think?
Unfortunately, this is where most companies are taking their business these days. Though I wish Apple weren't a part of it, I also realize they would probably wither if they weren't.
big
Sep 13, 06:25 PM
can we jump ship already? would this effectively turn apple into a microsoft like corp?
in any instance, they certainly are doing well, apple just can not seem to beat this speed thing.
anyone remember an article about the difference between risk & sisk processors? It talked about windows boxes the windows processors doing just what they are no...getting enough speed to keep going, but will be limited in pushing ghz further than they really are now (ie, they could never get to 8-10 ghz with them)
in any instance, they certainly are doing well, apple just can not seem to beat this speed thing.
anyone remember an article about the difference between risk & sisk processors? It talked about windows boxes the windows processors doing just what they are no...getting enough speed to keep going, but will be limited in pushing ghz further than they really are now (ie, they could never get to 8-10 ghz with them)
criana
Feb 25, 02:28 PM
I think when he says Menu Bug he's referring to a problem when trying to use certain sites that have drop down menus in their navigation.
You roll over the navigation on a site, the menu pops down, you move your mouse to the drop down and it disappears. And back to Safari I go.
I'd really like to switch over to Firefox. The other thing I"m looking for is inline-spell checking like Safari.
You roll over the navigation on a site, the menu pops down, you move your mouse to the drop down and it disappears. And back to Safari I go.
I'd really like to switch over to Firefox. The other thing I"m looking for is inline-spell checking like Safari.
Sean7512
Jun 2, 09:23 AM
http://reviews.cnet.com/4531-10921_7-6536370.html?tag=cnetfd.sd
Does anyone know what intel has up its sleeve, are they also going to have a comparable product by "Mid 2007"?
EDIT:
Also, is Tiger capable of using multiple cores?? I'm sure it is, but never really cared, since my eMac only has 1 cpu, haha.
Does anyone know what intel has up its sleeve, are they also going to have a comparable product by "Mid 2007"?
EDIT:
Also, is Tiger capable of using multiple cores?? I'm sure it is, but never really cared, since my eMac only has 1 cpu, haha.
Multimedia
Oct 10, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by bretm
my new dual came with 256. MacMall adds 512 to that for a total of 768, with a $39 install charge. Let's not forget that apple charges you sales tax too.
Why on earth would anyone purchase something from the online apple store? Or the apple store in the mall? Use these as resources or for last minute emergency situations.
I see you fell for the old "FREE for $39" routine when you could have gotten an extra 512 MB stick for "Really FREE" from General Cybernetics in Alabama with no sales tax and half price shipping. Next time pay closer attention to who is not charging bogus "install" fees for so-called "FREE" RAM and discounting shipping charges with no sales tax.
I suppose you also didn't remember to downgrade your MDD $200 to avoid the obsolete Pioneer DVR-A04 SuperDrive so you could put in a new Quad Speed A05 next month either. Oh that's right, MacMall won't let you BTO. I sure hope you bought a dual 867 without that old A04 inside. But wait! If you got a "FREE" $39 � 512 MB stick, that means you bought a dual GHz. Right? Bummer. :(
my new dual came with 256. MacMall adds 512 to that for a total of 768, with a $39 install charge. Let's not forget that apple charges you sales tax too.
Why on earth would anyone purchase something from the online apple store? Or the apple store in the mall? Use these as resources or for last minute emergency situations.
I see you fell for the old "FREE for $39" routine when you could have gotten an extra 512 MB stick for "Really FREE" from General Cybernetics in Alabama with no sales tax and half price shipping. Next time pay closer attention to who is not charging bogus "install" fees for so-called "FREE" RAM and discounting shipping charges with no sales tax.
I suppose you also didn't remember to downgrade your MDD $200 to avoid the obsolete Pioneer DVR-A04 SuperDrive so you could put in a new Quad Speed A05 next month either. Oh that's right, MacMall won't let you BTO. I sure hope you bought a dual 867 without that old A04 inside. But wait! If you got a "FREE" $39 � 512 MB stick, that means you bought a dual GHz. Right? Bummer. :(
abrooks
Apr 2, 08:12 AM
Not necessarily.
Just as a refresher to those who don't know. April 1, 1996 was Apple's 20th birthday/anniversary. That year they released the Twentieth Anniversary Mac. That machine wasn't introduced until May of 1996, a full month after apple celebrated their birthday/anniversary. So, something will probably happen within the next 2 months.
By May of 1996 I hope you mean 1997, the TAM was launched in May of 1997 over 1 year after the official birthday date. It was discontinued a year later.
So lets hold out some hope, for the next couple of years :D
Edit: After reading closer you did mean 1996.
Just as a refresher to those who don't know. April 1, 1996 was Apple's 20th birthday/anniversary. That year they released the Twentieth Anniversary Mac. That machine wasn't introduced until May of 1996, a full month after apple celebrated their birthday/anniversary. So, something will probably happen within the next 2 months.
By May of 1996 I hope you mean 1997, the TAM was launched in May of 1997 over 1 year after the official birthday date. It was discontinued a year later.
So lets hold out some hope, for the next couple of years :D
Edit: After reading closer you did mean 1996.
mcarvin
Dec 21, 08:33 AM
Sounds simple enough - backup and replace 2 files in the .app package. However, this update hosed my AI install. Rolling back to the original files does not resolve the issue.
http://www.bigorangesign.com/Illustrator11error.jpg
Don't update if you don't have to, FWIW.
http://www.bigorangesign.com/Illustrator11error.jpg
Don't update if you don't have to, FWIW.
Akira
Sep 24, 12:48 AM
I don't think they're going to introduce bigger displays, 23-Inch is big enough. If you want something bigger, buy a plasma screen...
I think a 19 Inch is more likely, with a bit more friendly price tag :)
I think a 19 Inch is more likely, with a bit more friendly price tag :)
iJawn108
Jun 4, 12:01 PM
http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/4512/107/
possible RIM apple team up
possible RIM apple team up
Sean7512
Jun 2, 09:23 AM
http://reviews.cnet.com/4531-10921_7-6536370.html?tag=cnetfd.sd
Does anyone know what intel has up its sleeve, are they also going to have a comparable product by "Mid 2007"?
EDIT:
Also, is Tiger capable of using multiple cores?? I'm sure it is, but never really cared, since my eMac only has 1 cpu, haha.
Does anyone know what intel has up its sleeve, are they also going to have a comparable product by "Mid 2007"?
EDIT:
Also, is Tiger capable of using multiple cores?? I'm sure it is, but never really cared, since my eMac only has 1 cpu, haha.
capvideo
Mar 20, 01:32 PM
It's not just iTunes, but all copyright law. A CD is a license to use the track, not ownership of the song's music or lyrics. An AAC from iTunes is the same. Same with movies and software, etc. In any situation, you are buying a license to use the song, not to take ownership of the song (unless you're buying the *rights* to a song, then you really do own it).
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
I rant much more about this at my blog:
http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9
Jerry
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
I rant much more about this at my blog:
http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9
Jerry
shamino
Sep 14, 03:57 PM
The big question for me:
Does it support middle-click yet?
If so I'll happily switch from Camino.
The real add-insult-to-injury here is that middle-click has always opened up new tabs on the Windows and Linux ports of Mozilla and Firefox. But for some reason, it doesn't on the Mac port.
Does it support middle-click yet?
If so I'll happily switch from Camino.
The real add-insult-to-injury here is that middle-click has always opened up new tabs on the Windows and Linux ports of Mozilla and Firefox. But for some reason, it doesn't on the Mac port.
DeSnousa
May 23, 04:54 AM
I'm guilty. I have not added the two PC's at work that I said I would... but I will, I promise!
Great to hear.
The average Output/month of CustomPC is about 1,000,000 points higher then ours. Don't think we can stop them from overtaking.
We will have to get back at them in a month or so
With that kind of attitude we wont ever get into the top 20. At least let set a goal of 54000 points a day so that the Knight don't pass as in the 78 days expected.
Great to hear.
The average Output/month of CustomPC is about 1,000,000 points higher then ours. Don't think we can stop them from overtaking.
We will have to get back at them in a month or so
With that kind of attitude we wont ever get into the top 20. At least let set a goal of 54000 points a day so that the Knight don't pass as in the 78 days expected.
MacBandit
Sep 20, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by D*I*S_Frontman
I disagree that the segment of the market that drives CPU speed lust is growing smaller. When it comes to computer speed, "perceived value" rules the marketplace, not real computing power being continuously employed by the end user. Here are two automotive analogies:
SUVs: I live in suburban Chicago where 4WD Lexus, BMW, and Mercedes driven by the affluent can be seen on nearly every street. I bet the average usage of 4WD systems to get these people out of a jam occurs maybe once or twice a year. Yes we have harsh winters, but the roads are plowed and sanded/salted as necessary. There is absolutely NO NEED for that kind of performance.
SPORTS CARS: I also see Posche 911s all over the place. Beautiful car that can go from 0-60 in less than five seconds. Top speed of 150 mph. NO ONE can even BEGIN to employ this kind of brute force in the city. You would have to drive to Montana to open the thing up.
In both cases, the bragged upon features are essentially useless to the owner 95+% of the time. But people still buy SUVs and sporty cars in DROVES.
If you are running FCP3, doing audio engineeering, or doing tons of high-end Photoshop rendering work, a powerful computer might lead to productivity increases. Then yearly upgrades are probably a must, as the money you spend on the latest system is actually recouped in increased productivity.
Most of us, however, tap the full strength of our CPUs rarely, and having durable hardware with a stable OS is far more important than a slightly faster system. Heck, I am typing this on my G3/400 Pismo which is my sole computer, and while I will someday do the NewerTech G4/500 upgrade, I am not "suffering" the way it is. I don't know what a "snappy" OS is, but I do know that OS X 10.1.5 seems to be every bit as fast as OS9 was/is, just as stable, and now utterly crash-proof.
I am in a band and my bass player (who engineers our material) wants to get a Mac. I have told him that he should get two: a 12.1 iBook now (best computing value on the planet right now, $ per feature, IMHO) and wait a year for a new tower once the new chips come out. 90% of everything he'll ever do will be easily done by the iBook (WP, web, email, finance, database/spreadsheet, etc., plus it's portable) and the heavy lifting of recording, mixing and mastering up to 48 tracks of 24bit/96khz audio (complete with lots of plug-ins) can be done by the next generation of Macs. The only reason I would ever suggest he wait is that current Macs don't have the raw power to run MOTU's DP @24/96 for 48 tracks w/plug-ins.
But that is a case of actually using close to 100% of system resources to accomplish the task for which you bought the thing. Once he acquires the system, he won't need a new one for years--if EVER. Once your system can do everything you ask it to, reliably, you don't NEED a new computer--EVER.
This discussion is rarely about "need," however. It's about gear lust.
EDIT: Oh, and if your primary system draw is from some GAME (insert your favorite title here), why not just get a dedicated gaming system instead of making your computer a toy?
You're correct and correct again but your confirmed what I said in that the market is shrinking. How many $60,000 Suvs or $100,000 Porche's are sold a year compared to say a Toyota Corolla. I don't don't know the figures but I'm sure the high end vehicles mentioned fit into at the most %5 of the market. How large do you think the market needs to be to poor billions into developing a 5 or 6 Ghz chip when %95 of the people out there are happy with what they have and if they buy a new computer they're going to get something cheap because the cheapes computer out there is faster then what they have.
I disagree that the segment of the market that drives CPU speed lust is growing smaller. When it comes to computer speed, "perceived value" rules the marketplace, not real computing power being continuously employed by the end user. Here are two automotive analogies:
SUVs: I live in suburban Chicago where 4WD Lexus, BMW, and Mercedes driven by the affluent can be seen on nearly every street. I bet the average usage of 4WD systems to get these people out of a jam occurs maybe once or twice a year. Yes we have harsh winters, but the roads are plowed and sanded/salted as necessary. There is absolutely NO NEED for that kind of performance.
SPORTS CARS: I also see Posche 911s all over the place. Beautiful car that can go from 0-60 in less than five seconds. Top speed of 150 mph. NO ONE can even BEGIN to employ this kind of brute force in the city. You would have to drive to Montana to open the thing up.
In both cases, the bragged upon features are essentially useless to the owner 95+% of the time. But people still buy SUVs and sporty cars in DROVES.
If you are running FCP3, doing audio engineeering, or doing tons of high-end Photoshop rendering work, a powerful computer might lead to productivity increases. Then yearly upgrades are probably a must, as the money you spend on the latest system is actually recouped in increased productivity.
Most of us, however, tap the full strength of our CPUs rarely, and having durable hardware with a stable OS is far more important than a slightly faster system. Heck, I am typing this on my G3/400 Pismo which is my sole computer, and while I will someday do the NewerTech G4/500 upgrade, I am not "suffering" the way it is. I don't know what a "snappy" OS is, but I do know that OS X 10.1.5 seems to be every bit as fast as OS9 was/is, just as stable, and now utterly crash-proof.
I am in a band and my bass player (who engineers our material) wants to get a Mac. I have told him that he should get two: a 12.1 iBook now (best computing value on the planet right now, $ per feature, IMHO) and wait a year for a new tower once the new chips come out. 90% of everything he'll ever do will be easily done by the iBook (WP, web, email, finance, database/spreadsheet, etc., plus it's portable) and the heavy lifting of recording, mixing and mastering up to 48 tracks of 24bit/96khz audio (complete with lots of plug-ins) can be done by the next generation of Macs. The only reason I would ever suggest he wait is that current Macs don't have the raw power to run MOTU's DP @24/96 for 48 tracks w/plug-ins.
But that is a case of actually using close to 100% of system resources to accomplish the task for which you bought the thing. Once he acquires the system, he won't need a new one for years--if EVER. Once your system can do everything you ask it to, reliably, you don't NEED a new computer--EVER.
This discussion is rarely about "need," however. It's about gear lust.
EDIT: Oh, and if your primary system draw is from some GAME (insert your favorite title here), why not just get a dedicated gaming system instead of making your computer a toy?
You're correct and correct again but your confirmed what I said in that the market is shrinking. How many $60,000 Suvs or $100,000 Porche's are sold a year compared to say a Toyota Corolla. I don't don't know the figures but I'm sure the high end vehicles mentioned fit into at the most %5 of the market. How large do you think the market needs to be to poor billions into developing a 5 or 6 Ghz chip when %95 of the people out there are happy with what they have and if they buy a new computer they're going to get something cheap because the cheapes computer out there is faster then what they have.
eric_n_dfw
Oct 30, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by scem0
IBM or Intel, I care not, as long as it isn't moto :o ...........
While I mostly agree - Motorolla and Apple have been together for a looonnnggg time. (1984?) On the other hand, it sometimes feels like Motorolla has been the one that has dumped Apple like a rock.
Personally, as long as OS X runs on it and Final Cut Pro renders my video fast, I could care less what CPU is in the box.
IBM or Intel, I care not, as long as it isn't moto :o ...........
While I mostly agree - Motorolla and Apple have been together for a looonnnggg time. (1984?) On the other hand, it sometimes feels like Motorolla has been the one that has dumped Apple like a rock.
Personally, as long as OS X runs on it and Final Cut Pro renders my video fast, I could care less what CPU is in the box.
Zygote
Sep 3, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by bousozoku
Maybe they're going to supply graphics chips for the Nintendo GameCube, shown in the entertainment stand.
As the owner of a GameCube I can say that much is accurate. ATI is the provider of the graphics chip that drives the Cube. In fact, if you look on one it has a big ATi sticker on the front.
I for one am hoping for a revision to the Ti line with the new graphics card and a processor bump within the next month. I've got the OK from the General Accounting Office that is my wife to purchase if they do.
Zyg
Maybe they're going to supply graphics chips for the Nintendo GameCube, shown in the entertainment stand.
As the owner of a GameCube I can say that much is accurate. ATI is the provider of the graphics chip that drives the Cube. In fact, if you look on one it has a big ATi sticker on the front.
I for one am hoping for a revision to the Ti line with the new graphics card and a processor bump within the next month. I've got the OK from the General Accounting Office that is my wife to purchase if they do.
Zyg
hob
Jun 11, 08:08 PM
Haha, i seem to have started quite a healthy discussion here, but as usual I've gone off and forgotten about it for a few days.
I've always remembered the phrase "jack of all trades, master of none"... this is apparent in devices like my mobile phone.
It's a Sony Ericsson K600i. It has not one, but two cameras on it, a built in high-speed 3G modem, and the ability to play MP3/AAC (maybe even WMA) files.
The pitfalls of this device are, the camera is awful, there's only about 2MB onboard memory so playing any albums is out of the question... of course when it comes to the telephony side it's fine. I can send texts, place calls and browse the internet (even on my powerbook via bluetooth!)
My point is - I would LOVE this device to be able to do everything, but I can't see any phone camera beating my Canon for the next 10 years....
On the original poster's thought....NO. They shouldn't expand into products that don't integrate well with the Mac.
I never said the "products" wouldn't integrate well with the mac :confused:
If Apple made a phone/camera/printer/gps/car it would presumably integrate very well with the mac!
http://www.nokia.com/A4136001?newsid=1054096
Thanks for that link Blue!
The BBC ran an article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5048966.stm) on that survey and some of the numbers weren't quite so impressively in favour of one-device when you broke them down more by country etc. 87% of Americans wanted their devices to remain separate (tough to see in context whether it was just phone/camera or all functions) whereas those in India had a majority in favour of keeping them separate.
Statistics... huh!
I'd say that's maybe because the average American can afford to buy 10 devices whereas your average Indian might be a little less wealthy?
I certainly would prefer one device that did it all - but only if it did it all well.
I've always remembered the phrase "jack of all trades, master of none"... this is apparent in devices like my mobile phone.
It's a Sony Ericsson K600i. It has not one, but two cameras on it, a built in high-speed 3G modem, and the ability to play MP3/AAC (maybe even WMA) files.
The pitfalls of this device are, the camera is awful, there's only about 2MB onboard memory so playing any albums is out of the question... of course when it comes to the telephony side it's fine. I can send texts, place calls and browse the internet (even on my powerbook via bluetooth!)
My point is - I would LOVE this device to be able to do everything, but I can't see any phone camera beating my Canon for the next 10 years....
On the original poster's thought....NO. They shouldn't expand into products that don't integrate well with the Mac.
I never said the "products" wouldn't integrate well with the mac :confused:
If Apple made a phone/camera/printer/gps/car it would presumably integrate very well with the mac!
http://www.nokia.com/A4136001?newsid=1054096
Thanks for that link Blue!
The BBC ran an article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5048966.stm) on that survey and some of the numbers weren't quite so impressively in favour of one-device when you broke them down more by country etc. 87% of Americans wanted their devices to remain separate (tough to see in context whether it was just phone/camera or all functions) whereas those in India had a majority in favour of keeping them separate.
Statistics... huh!
I'd say that's maybe because the average American can afford to buy 10 devices whereas your average Indian might be a little less wealthy?
I certainly would prefer one device that did it all - but only if it did it all well.
Mord
Jun 22, 06:12 PM
this years looking glass.
dmw007
May 9, 06:29 PM
Outside (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=61+St.+James+Place,+ardmore,+pa&ll=40.008683,-75.288105&spn=0.072447,0.177841&om=1) of Philly...near Haverford College. About ten miles further from you than King of Prussia is.
Darn. :rolleyes: :(
Darn. :rolleyes: :(
dornoforpyros
Mar 3, 12:10 AM
just a note, at my last job we refered to illustrator as irratator around the office for obviose reasons.
cr2sh
Apr 30, 09:35 PM
The Apple Store called my house and my mom told them I was at college and I wasn't interested.
I proceeded to soil myself.
Daniel.
Go punch her. Right now.
I proceeded to soil myself.
Daniel.
Go punch her. Right now.
No comments:
Post a Comment