Nicolasdec
Jan 9, 05:08 PM
mine just says connecting
Osarkon
Nov 28, 03:11 PM
It does take too little killstreaks to gain really. But at least the killstreaks top out at 11 on this one, which I think makes it better.
The attack dogs really do my head in though!
The attack dogs really do my head in though!
suwandy
Oct 4, 12:14 AM
I'll shoot you for mentioning PowerBook G5! :D
I'm hoping for MBP update before MacWorld!
I'm hoping for MBP update before MacWorld!
daneoni
Aug 8, 01:57 AM
I think they should have dropped the Cinema Display updates now. We need adjustability. The drop in prices still won't make me consider one....Dells are still a better deal to be honest.
ssdeg7
May 2, 02:24 PM
I preferred the slide tabs than the old ones. I hope we get back to them soon.
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.
Chef Medeski
Nov 25, 05:57 PM
$100 off MacBook. I wish I had bought.
Since '84
Jul 21, 04:21 PM
You know, I've been reading all this stuff, and was a bit worried while I waited for my iPhone4 to arrive. Since then, I have traveled to 4 countries on business, and have been a long distance train through rural areas. I have tried everywhere to use the death grip to drop the signal to 0, but I can't. I can't get it to drop a call, and I can't get it to lose signal - I can get it to 1 bar but I can still surf on 3G with that, and the call quality has been fine. I've used overseas carriers' SIM's too...And I'm left handed, and have no case.
At the end of all this, I've simply decided that for me, this phone is the best I've had, and I have no problem with it in any way. I'm just glad I won't have to read all this stuff and worry any more. Sorry if you have problems, but as everyone says, take it back. Being a long time Mac user I have no problem using equipment that is not the most common anyway.
At the end of all this, I've simply decided that for me, this phone is the best I've had, and I have no problem with it in any way. I'm just glad I won't have to read all this stuff and worry any more. Sorry if you have problems, but as everyone says, take it back. Being a long time Mac user I have no problem using equipment that is not the most common anyway.
raymondkerr
Apr 9, 11:52 AM
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll4/raymondkerr/Apple%20Setup/IMG_1236.jpg
ThaDoggg
Apr 13, 01:33 PM
There's a use for Apple (they can sell you both the adapter and the DVI cable, at 40$ each) ;)
:D Exactly. I think not alot of people know that you can bypass the adapter altogether. Not only would it be cheaper but it would take away from the bulk.
:D Exactly. I think not alot of people know that you can bypass the adapter altogether. Not only would it be cheaper but it would take away from the bulk.
Ommid
Apr 25, 12:55 PM
Why are you so adamant that they will use 4S instead of 5?
-The 3GS had an identical appearance to the 3G, but with upgraded internals, hence the S.
-A 3.7" iPhone would not have an identical appearance to the iPhone 4 by virtue of the screen size alone, so there would be no reason to simply add an S.
-3G is a feature description, adding an S might make some sense there as it could also be considered a "feature description". 4 is a revision number, why would they add an S to that? 4.5 or 5 would make more sense.
-The iPhone 4 and iOS 4 were launched in the same time frame, it makes sense for the numbers on each to match up. What's next? iPhone 5 and iOS 5 of course. I don't know why they'd stray from matching revision numbers so quickly after finally achieving them.
-If they plan on calling the phone after this 6, why would they skip 5, which sounds like a bigger upgrade than 4S?
As far as I'm concerned, 4S is the least likely name possible for the next iPhone. iPhone 5, 4G (LTE), 4.5 (very unlikely), and plain "iPhone" all have a much greater chance than 4S (with 5 being the most likely). I just spent way to much time on this minor issue though.
Yes, you definitely did. Lol
-The 3GS had an identical appearance to the 3G, but with upgraded internals, hence the S.
-A 3.7" iPhone would not have an identical appearance to the iPhone 4 by virtue of the screen size alone, so there would be no reason to simply add an S.
-3G is a feature description, adding an S might make some sense there as it could also be considered a "feature description". 4 is a revision number, why would they add an S to that? 4.5 or 5 would make more sense.
-The iPhone 4 and iOS 4 were launched in the same time frame, it makes sense for the numbers on each to match up. What's next? iPhone 5 and iOS 5 of course. I don't know why they'd stray from matching revision numbers so quickly after finally achieving them.
-If they plan on calling the phone after this 6, why would they skip 5, which sounds like a bigger upgrade than 4S?
As far as I'm concerned, 4S is the least likely name possible for the next iPhone. iPhone 5, 4G (LTE), 4.5 (very unlikely), and plain "iPhone" all have a much greater chance than 4S (with 5 being the most likely). I just spent way to much time on this minor issue though.
Yes, you definitely did. Lol
Nicky G
Sep 28, 01:25 PM
Very tasteful it seems. Not a surprise.
Reach9
Apr 26, 12:26 AM
My 3G is on its last legs, literally. I may succumb to the white iPhone 4 if this is what is in store for the next calendar year.
I have an iPhone 3G as well. It was on it's last leg until i downgraded to iOS 3.1.3, and it's a nice substitute until the iPhone 5. I don't know about you, but i think there will be significant enough features in the iPhone 5 to wait.
I have an iPhone 3G as well. It was on it's last leg until i downgraded to iOS 3.1.3, and it's a nice substitute until the iPhone 5. I don't know about you, but i think there will be significant enough features in the iPhone 5 to wait.
theman5725
Nov 16, 02:59 PM
Apple just switched to Intel. Why would they go to AMD already?
Mac'nCheese
Apr 25, 03:50 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 think the OP's point- and I agree- is that they went a lot further then just NOT doing something right. They did something wrong. Its past the point of should have had an armed guard....its now into looking at what they did and maybe holding them accountable for their actions, too.
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 think the OP's point- and I agree- is that they went a lot further then just NOT doing something right. They did something wrong. Its past the point of should have had an armed guard....its now into looking at what they did and maybe holding them accountable for their actions, too.
leekohler
Mar 3, 08:02 PM
WTF is wrong with Ohio? WTF is wrong with Republicans? Hey Republicans, guess what? You're signing your political death warrants, and you're going to contnue to drive jobs and people from Ohio.
Folks in Ohio, get off your butts and fight this! :mad:
BOWLING GREEN, OHIO -- The battle over a bill that some claim ties the hands of unionized public workers in Ohio has spread to the campus of Bowling Green State University.
Members of the BGSU community held a walkout Thursday afternoon in opposition to Senate Bill 5.
On Wednesday, the Republican-controlled Ohio Senate has passed the measure that would restrict the collective bargaining rights of roughly 350,000 teachers, university professors, firefighters, police officers and other public employees.
The measure now goes to the state House, where the GOP holds a 59-40 majority.
Republican Gov. John Kasich has said he supports the effort.
Protestors at BGSU on Thursday said it's not fair to restrict the rights of union workers. The group said it supports their right to free speech as they gathered on campus in opposition.
The bill establishes fines and jail time for those who participate in strikes. Unionized workers could negotiate wages, hours and certain work conditions - but not health care, sick time or pension benefits.
Republicans have argued that the bill reigns in unions, which they believe make it difficult to balance the state's budget.
Ohio currently faces an $8 billion two-year budget shortfall.
http://www.toledoonthemove.com/neighborhood/story.aspx?id=588466
Folks in Ohio, get off your butts and fight this! :mad:
BOWLING GREEN, OHIO -- The battle over a bill that some claim ties the hands of unionized public workers in Ohio has spread to the campus of Bowling Green State University.
Members of the BGSU community held a walkout Thursday afternoon in opposition to Senate Bill 5.
On Wednesday, the Republican-controlled Ohio Senate has passed the measure that would restrict the collective bargaining rights of roughly 350,000 teachers, university professors, firefighters, police officers and other public employees.
The measure now goes to the state House, where the GOP holds a 59-40 majority.
Republican Gov. John Kasich has said he supports the effort.
Protestors at BGSU on Thursday said it's not fair to restrict the rights of union workers. The group said it supports their right to free speech as they gathered on campus in opposition.
The bill establishes fines and jail time for those who participate in strikes. Unionized workers could negotiate wages, hours and certain work conditions - but not health care, sick time or pension benefits.
Republicans have argued that the bill reigns in unions, which they believe make it difficult to balance the state's budget.
Ohio currently faces an $8 billion two-year budget shortfall.
http://www.toledoonthemove.com/neighborhood/story.aspx?id=588466
kuwisdelu
Apr 9, 05:21 PM
So what are the ton of features that apple introduced in 10.6?
I guess it depends what you call a "feature." They're not user-facing, and Apple didn't advertise them as features, but frankly I don't see how they're not features, even if they're under-the-hood. Anyway, here (http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/)'s 22 pages worth of new and improved stuff.
I guess it depends what you call a "feature." They're not user-facing, and Apple didn't advertise them as features, but frankly I don't see how they're not features, even if they're under-the-hood. Anyway, here (http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/)'s 22 pages worth of new and improved stuff.
Sedrick
Mar 18, 05:03 AM
Yeah, it's a shame the new phone comes with some baggage:
Shaped like a brick
Drops calls (antenna design)
Shatters when you drop it
Tired old OS
..but it's still desirable over all the other phones.
Apple can fix some of these issues this summer, if they're not too smug to get off their high horse.
Shaped like a brick
Drops calls (antenna design)
Shatters when you drop it
Tired old OS
..but it's still desirable over all the other phones.
Apple can fix some of these issues this summer, if they're not too smug to get off their high horse.
japanime
Mar 25, 10:35 AM
My Nerdar has gone off.
Sad to be you.
Sad to be you.
DoFoT9
Jul 30, 07:00 PM
well i still have 3 main machines for folding, but none are back up to full force.
i don't have any of them running over 3.6 ghz (the fastest now is like 3.55 or so). so right now i'm just running -advmethods instead of -bigadv on 2 of them, and i'm actually using the other one, so no cpu folding right now.
i don't have any of them running over 3.6 ghz (the fastest now is like 3.55 or so). so right now i'm just running -advmethods instead of -bigadv on 2 of them, and i'm actually using the other one, so no cpu folding right now.
davepoint
Aug 15, 02:19 AM
I was looking at buying a 30" anyway - it was march when they updated those right? I don't think they got updated at wwdc did they?
ThaDoggg
Apr 10, 06:28 PM
Working on my new setup. Just ordered a Dell Ultrasharp 24" and a set of Swan M10's.
Similar tastes...I have the 23" and M10's as well. But where did you find black Swans?...unless it's painted after the fact
Similar tastes...I have the 23" and M10's as well. But where did you find black Swans?...unless it's painted after the fact
barnaby
Nov 17, 11:48 PM
I'm sure that somewhere in their headquarters Apple keeps a build of OS X on AMD like they did with Intel. But Idon't think that anyone outside of Apple will see it at least for several years.
Intel and AMD are binary compatible with exception of AMD's SIMD instructions. Ever wonder why there isn't a different copy of Windows for AMD and Intel?
Let's not forget that IA32e (64bit mode on Intel) is better known as AMD64 and is used by Intel on license.
Anyone with an Intel mac is running software that would run on an Intel chip.
Intel and AMD are binary compatible with exception of AMD's SIMD instructions. Ever wonder why there isn't a different copy of Windows for AMD and Intel?
Let's not forget that IA32e (64bit mode on Intel) is better known as AMD64 and is used by Intel on license.
Anyone with an Intel mac is running software that would run on an Intel chip.
nwcs
May 2, 11:07 AM
4. Those getting pissy at people who are calling Apple out on this or are blaming the customer since Apple has it in their EULA that they collect data so it's no big deal should consider that if the switch to turn of Data Roaming FAILED and people were charged up the wazoo - people would be demanding refunds for that data and would demand a fix.
But this has nothing to do with data roaming and it wasn't something that caused money to be spent. Bad comparison.
But this has nothing to do with data roaming and it wasn't something that caused money to be spent. Bad comparison.
0 comments:
Post a Comment