Steve121178
Apr 28, 08:03 AM
Horrible headline.
You do not "slip" upwards.
The headline is as false as the story. The iPad is not a PC.
You do not "slip" upwards.
The headline is as false as the story. The iPad is not a PC.
TheFink
Oct 10, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by alex_ant
My arse is capable of making 8-pound turds, but whether or not I eat enough baked beans to take advantage of that is another issue entirely. In other words,
18 gigaflops = about as likely as an 8-pound turd in my toilet. Possible, yes (under the most severely ridiculous condtions). Real-world, no.
Do you have any pics of your closest attempt at an 8 lb turd?
My arse is capable of making 8-pound turds, but whether or not I eat enough baked beans to take advantage of that is another issue entirely. In other words,
18 gigaflops = about as likely as an 8-pound turd in my toilet. Possible, yes (under the most severely ridiculous condtions). Real-world, no.
Do you have any pics of your closest attempt at an 8 lb turd?
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 02:13 PM
Many people say this, but they fail at the point where actions are of culture and not representative of the religion itself.
I invite you to demonstrate how Islam is a threat to freedom and democracy.
The Qur'an is considered the perfect and literal word of allah.
muhammad is considered allah's perfect man and messenger on earth to be emulated by all men.
Sharia law is derived from the qur'an and the sayings of muhammad (hadith, sunna).
Secular Democracy and democratic laws are made by human beings.
Human beings are necessarily not as perfect as God.
Therefore, under Islam adhering to man-made laws over divinely mandated laws is considered blasphemy.
I invite you to demonstrate how Islam is a threat to freedom and democracy.
The Qur'an is considered the perfect and literal word of allah.
muhammad is considered allah's perfect man and messenger on earth to be emulated by all men.
Sharia law is derived from the qur'an and the sayings of muhammad (hadith, sunna).
Secular Democracy and democratic laws are made by human beings.
Human beings are necessarily not as perfect as God.
Therefore, under Islam adhering to man-made laws over divinely mandated laws is considered blasphemy.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 26, 10:11 PM
And this lady just likely has glossitis or could even be a squamous cell carcinoma of her tongue. These people are mental.
I would have liked to have seen her tongue before the priest put the host on it.
I would have liked to have seen her tongue before the priest put the host on it.
matticus008
Mar 19, 05:43 PM
I could really care less about breaking some DRM law or "international copyright law". I would love to see them try to enforce it.
Just because a man can do a thing does not mean that he should do that thing. Whether or not you will get caught breaking the law is irrelevant to whether what you are doing is or is not legal. I can go to the supermarket or gas station and steal a bag of ice from outside without getting caught, but it doesn't mean what I'm doing is okay. You might say it's not a big deal--it only costs a dollar, and anyway the supermarket makes tons of money off the other things that they sell, and they probably don't deserve all that money because they underpay their employees.
Moral relativism and justification might make you feel fine about doing it, but it's still wrong and it's still illegal. If you don't care, that's your thing.
Just because a man can do a thing does not mean that he should do that thing. Whether or not you will get caught breaking the law is irrelevant to whether what you are doing is or is not legal. I can go to the supermarket or gas station and steal a bag of ice from outside without getting caught, but it doesn't mean what I'm doing is okay. You might say it's not a big deal--it only costs a dollar, and anyway the supermarket makes tons of money off the other things that they sell, and they probably don't deserve all that money because they underpay their employees.
Moral relativism and justification might make you feel fine about doing it, but it's still wrong and it's still illegal. If you don't care, that's your thing.
SDAVE
Apr 13, 12:31 AM
Wrong forum to talk about users who use FCP professionally (ie. Angus Wall, etc. etc.)
matticus008
Mar 20, 05:22 AM
As the argument for abortion rights goes; "Against abortion? Don't have one." If you are a Linux sysadmin and do not agree that using this app is "good", then do not use it.
Abortion isn't even on the same plane of existence as this issue, and as for the legal sphere, abortions are not illegal. I'm not advocating a stance against something that is legal to do, and I'm not arguing for reducing your personal rights to take something that you can do legally and make it illegal. I am stating that what this software does is illegal and that it's not DRM use/the law interfere with legitimate exercise of rights. It is not the law that made iTunes music incompatible with other MP3 players, it's the file format and DRM design. Further, Apple has done nothing illegal in its choices and implementation. There is therefore no legitimate reason to break the law--your rights are what you agreed to when purchasing the music and nothing more. If you need a different sort of DRM or no DRM for your uses, then you need to buy that product instead.
DRM does not, in theory, infringe on your license rights. In practice, you might come across incompatibilities due to the individual designs of the DRM models and a competitive, segmented market. The law has provisions for your rights to use the content and that DRM is used to protect against infringement on those rights. There is not just one DRM that works for everything, so when you buy music with DRM, you the consumer are responsible for making sure it works with what you intend to use it for. Your freedom of choice comes with certain sacrifices and restrictions, none of which have been imposed on you illegally or prohibit you from legal use of the product. The only reason to break the law here is for the purpose of breaking the law, not for any delusions of your rights to do as you wish with music.
Abortion isn't even on the same plane of existence as this issue, and as for the legal sphere, abortions are not illegal. I'm not advocating a stance against something that is legal to do, and I'm not arguing for reducing your personal rights to take something that you can do legally and make it illegal. I am stating that what this software does is illegal and that it's not DRM use/the law interfere with legitimate exercise of rights. It is not the law that made iTunes music incompatible with other MP3 players, it's the file format and DRM design. Further, Apple has done nothing illegal in its choices and implementation. There is therefore no legitimate reason to break the law--your rights are what you agreed to when purchasing the music and nothing more. If you need a different sort of DRM or no DRM for your uses, then you need to buy that product instead.
DRM does not, in theory, infringe on your license rights. In practice, you might come across incompatibilities due to the individual designs of the DRM models and a competitive, segmented market. The law has provisions for your rights to use the content and that DRM is used to protect against infringement on those rights. There is not just one DRM that works for everything, so when you buy music with DRM, you the consumer are responsible for making sure it works with what you intend to use it for. Your freedom of choice comes with certain sacrifices and restrictions, none of which have been imposed on you illegally or prohibit you from legal use of the product. The only reason to break the law here is for the purpose of breaking the law, not for any delusions of your rights to do as you wish with music.
Rt&Dzine
Mar 26, 11:18 AM
Some priests fail, not all. We as people experience moments of weakness, priests are people too. Also you laughing at "lay people" is puerile
Aw, come on, don't be pontifical. You know you liked the pun. ;)
Aw, come on, don't be pontifical. You know you liked the pun. ;)
megadon
Oct 19, 12:59 PM
So why are people betting on the opposite to what experience tells us is true?[/B]
Economics.
Different products are marketed different ways. Different price points, and different marginal utility for each person.
The joy/benefit that you get out of the iphone (lets say touch screen for example) could be a downside to another customer, and that's just one example.
Economics.
Different products are marketed different ways. Different price points, and different marginal utility for each person.
The joy/benefit that you get out of the iphone (lets say touch screen for example) could be a downside to another customer, and that's just one example.
jlasoon
Apr 9, 10:37 AM
Your overall point being because Apple poses and threat to Nintendo, which Nintendo recognises, Nintendo are doomed to go out of business?
That's not what he's saying. The premise being presented is adapt/evolve or face the consequences of a rapid moving technological world. Doesn't mean the company goes out of business.
That's not what he's saying. The premise being presented is adapt/evolve or face the consequences of a rapid moving technological world. Doesn't mean the company goes out of business.
tyr2
Sep 20, 08:45 AM
This must be a US-centric view. Here (UK) PVRs with twin Freeview (DTT) tuners and 80GB HDs are everywhere. And they are very cheap now (120 quid upwards).
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
I have one of these devices, it's excellent. Especially with the user community at http://toppy.org.uk/.
There's some good info on using one with a Mac here http://www.mtop.co.uk/intro.html
The stock EPG on the unit is a bit crufty but it's deffinetly improving. I'd recommend one to anyone looking for a decent PVR.
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
I have one of these devices, it's excellent. Especially with the user community at http://toppy.org.uk/.
There's some good info on using one with a Mac here http://www.mtop.co.uk/intro.html
The stock EPG on the unit is a bit crufty but it's deffinetly improving. I'd recommend one to anyone looking for a decent PVR.
Don't panic
Mar 14, 10:29 PM
authorities just expanded evacuation steps, reflecting worsening situations/new leaks
ezekielrage_99
Aug 29, 11:17 PM
I think people are missing the point....
Anyway who really gives a crap what a bunch of pot smoking tree hugging hippies think.
I know I don't :cool:
Anyway who really gives a crap what a bunch of pot smoking tree hugging hippies think.
I know I don't :cool:
UnixMac
Oct 9, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
that alone is enough reason for me to buy mac ;)
it's not way more expensive for what you get, but i would like to see ibooks be $999 us and tibooks $1999 for starters
towers can come down a couple hundred and emac could stand to be $999 and imac at $1099
crt imac can go for $599 and os x can go for $99 dollars
but i still prefer the mac os and mac hardware over windows and pc boxes/laptops
Amen Brother!
that alone is enough reason for me to buy mac ;)
it's not way more expensive for what you get, but i would like to see ibooks be $999 us and tibooks $1999 for starters
towers can come down a couple hundred and emac could stand to be $999 and imac at $1099
crt imac can go for $599 and os x can go for $99 dollars
but i still prefer the mac os and mac hardware over windows and pc boxes/laptops
Amen Brother!
Piggie
Apr 28, 01:52 PM
This whole argument is asinine.
If you don't have a PC, there's nothing that you need to "sync" or "move files" from. And the iPad works perfectly fine on its own.
You're saying that "if I have files on my PC, I need a PC to get them to my iPad". No kidding!
When you use your iPad2 to take photo's with or video files, how do you arrange all your photo's and video's into nicely structured collections?
You make folders, like "Kids Party", and "Summer Holiday 2011" or "Mike and Julie's Wedding" and keep all the relevant photo's neatly organised.
Or do you just dump everything mixed up in one folder?
If you don't have a PC, there's nothing that you need to "sync" or "move files" from. And the iPad works perfectly fine on its own.
You're saying that "if I have files on my PC, I need a PC to get them to my iPad". No kidding!
When you use your iPad2 to take photo's with or video files, how do you arrange all your photo's and video's into nicely structured collections?
You make folders, like "Kids Party", and "Summer Holiday 2011" or "Mike and Julie's Wedding" and keep all the relevant photo's neatly organised.
Or do you just dump everything mixed up in one folder?
Don't panic
Mar 14, 08:37 PM
seem like things are degenerating at the reactor site. very worrying.
LagunaSol
Apr 28, 02:13 PM
Software might not need that powerful of a processor, but what about OS? Heck Itunes shutters on my bros 2008 Macbook Pro, which is basic software.
Huh? A 2008 MBP should have no problem running iTunes.
Flash can barely run on his computer also.
Flash for Mac sucks even on the most high-end Macs. Why do you think Mac users tend to dislike Flash? It's not the Mac - it's Adobe.
Huh? A 2008 MBP should have no problem running iTunes.
Flash can barely run on his computer also.
Flash for Mac sucks even on the most high-end Macs. Why do you think Mac users tend to dislike Flash? It's not the Mac - it's Adobe.
einmusiker
Mar 18, 01:16 PM
I'd like to see some kind of evidence that they can prove people are doing unauthorized tethering. You won't be seeing it so they really have nothing to charge you for. All we've heard so far is speculation and nothing more
4look4rd
Apr 9, 01:11 PM
I still cannot believe that there aren't decent turn base strategy games on the iphone. Games like tactics ogre, final fantasy tactics, front mission, and the like would be excellent in a mobile device. I remember square announced FFT for the iphone a while back but it still was not released.
I would love if they ported PS1 and N64 classics to the iphone/ipad. Can you imagine playing FF7-9, Smash Brothers, Parasite Eve, platformers like Megaman, and even Resident Evil 1-3 (the RE4 port was dreadful, but I can see it being done properly).
I would love if they ported PS1 and N64 classics to the iphone/ipad. Can you imagine playing FF7-9, Smash Brothers, Parasite Eve, platformers like Megaman, and even Resident Evil 1-3 (the RE4 port was dreadful, but I can see it being done properly).
samcraig
Mar 18, 08:38 AM
OMG you still done get it:
No no, as long as you abide by the amount of data in the plan it should not matter how you use it.
You can't steal what you paid for, you buy 100 cable channels that is what you get and use
You buy 2gb and use 1gb you have used 1gb no matter if its on the phone or laptop. 1gb= 1gb
Ok? the tethering give you 2gb for the money I see that and I have read the tethering and Data pro are added to total 4gb for the charge. So you and At&t prove my point thank you! Data=Data, they add it together and it is the same.
LOL no its the same use of Data as on the phone.
Tethering does not do something different to AT&t, its just using Data
you may not understand how Data is used from the source but I assure you there is no difference to AT&t when you tether and when you surf YOUTUBE on the phone.
To At&t Data=Data and its been their words not mine every time its printed by them.
So far I have not seen an argument that proves otherwise.:rolleyes:
Data is Data. And a contract is a contract. If you don't like the terms of a contract - don't sign. Or break it and deal with the consequences. ATT starting to bill for a service outside the contract is a consequence of breaking your original deal.
Again - for those with capped data plans - this makes no sense and I agree it's stupid. For those on unlimited plans - it makes 100 percent perfect sense.
No no, as long as you abide by the amount of data in the plan it should not matter how you use it.
You can't steal what you paid for, you buy 100 cable channels that is what you get and use
You buy 2gb and use 1gb you have used 1gb no matter if its on the phone or laptop. 1gb= 1gb
Ok? the tethering give you 2gb for the money I see that and I have read the tethering and Data pro are added to total 4gb for the charge. So you and At&t prove my point thank you! Data=Data, they add it together and it is the same.
LOL no its the same use of Data as on the phone.
Tethering does not do something different to AT&t, its just using Data
you may not understand how Data is used from the source but I assure you there is no difference to AT&t when you tether and when you surf YOUTUBE on the phone.
To At&t Data=Data and its been their words not mine every time its printed by them.
So far I have not seen an argument that proves otherwise.:rolleyes:
Data is Data. And a contract is a contract. If you don't like the terms of a contract - don't sign. Or break it and deal with the consequences. ATT starting to bill for a service outside the contract is a consequence of breaking your original deal.
Again - for those with capped data plans - this makes no sense and I agree it's stupid. For those on unlimited plans - it makes 100 percent perfect sense.
jav6454
Mar 13, 05:01 PM
Nuclear Power? I already have one such plant and reactor in my backyard....
alexf
Aug 29, 11:36 AM
My family, two parents and two kids, have purchased 6 ipods over the years.
Replaced batteries on two of them.
Never thrown any of them away.
Still use all of them. Why would anyone throw an out dated ipod away?
Try to think in the long term: where do you think these iPods will end up in 20 years? I highly doubt anyone will still be using an iPod they bought a quarter century ago.
I am afraid that, in that sense, iPods are very disposable.
Although the situation is becoming much more urgent with the rapic climate changes that are happening in the world faster than predicted, much of environmentalism is about thinking in the long term, and the environmental impact that company products and policy can have.
And in this regard, Apple indeed scores very low, which only goes to show that they are really no different than a typical corporation that cares far more about its immediate profit than the earth and its future generations.
Replaced batteries on two of them.
Never thrown any of them away.
Still use all of them. Why would anyone throw an out dated ipod away?
Try to think in the long term: where do you think these iPods will end up in 20 years? I highly doubt anyone will still be using an iPod they bought a quarter century ago.
I am afraid that, in that sense, iPods are very disposable.
Although the situation is becoming much more urgent with the rapic climate changes that are happening in the world faster than predicted, much of environmentalism is about thinking in the long term, and the environmental impact that company products and policy can have.
And in this regard, Apple indeed scores very low, which only goes to show that they are really no different than a typical corporation that cares far more about its immediate profit than the earth and its future generations.
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 02:26 PM
I didn't know we had a climate scientist in this forum, let alone one of the tiny percentage of scientists who dispute that human activity is a large factor in current climate change? Please enlighten us... that is, unless you're just some guy with an uneducated opinion. By all means, tell us why you know so much more about this well-studied topic than the hundreds of thousands of climate researchers around the world who've reached an almost unprecedented consensus regarding the roll of human activity, and CO2 production, in climate change.
30 years ago climate scientists warned us to expect an imminent ice age....it even made the cover of Time, if I'm not mistaken.
I noticed that you didn't dispute the fact that the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor. This is not a disputable fact; no climate scientist will argue with you there. Global warming is also not a disputable fact; it is well-documented and has been occuring since records were first kept. However, saying that scientists have reached an "unprecedented consensus" is absolutely false; and would that even matter? How often do you read a story on CNN or MSNBC that begins with the phrase "Scientists NOW think...." Science is in its very nature an evolutionary process, and findings change over time. Who remembers when nine of out ten doctors smoked Camels more than any other cigarette?
I'm ranting now, sorry. The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. But according to the Department of Energy and the EPA, C02 is the dominant greenhouse gas, accounting for over 99% of the greenhouse effect....aside from water vapor. This certainly makes C02 the most significant non-water contributor to global warming...but even then, climate scientists will not argue with you if you point out that nature produces three times the CO2 that humans do.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
No climate scientist will argue the fact that global climate change has, in the past, universally been the result of cyclical variances in Earth's orbit/rotation, and to a lesser degree variances in our Sun's output. Why then, since pollution has been reduced dramatically, and since climate change is known to be caused by factors outside of our control, is it so crazy to believe that we're not at fault anymore?
And since when does being in a "tiny percentage" denote right/wrong? Aren't you a Mac zealot? :)
30 years ago climate scientists warned us to expect an imminent ice age....it even made the cover of Time, if I'm not mistaken.
I noticed that you didn't dispute the fact that the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor. This is not a disputable fact; no climate scientist will argue with you there. Global warming is also not a disputable fact; it is well-documented and has been occuring since records were first kept. However, saying that scientists have reached an "unprecedented consensus" is absolutely false; and would that even matter? How often do you read a story on CNN or MSNBC that begins with the phrase "Scientists NOW think...." Science is in its very nature an evolutionary process, and findings change over time. Who remembers when nine of out ten doctors smoked Camels more than any other cigarette?
I'm ranting now, sorry. The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. But according to the Department of Energy and the EPA, C02 is the dominant greenhouse gas, accounting for over 99% of the greenhouse effect....aside from water vapor. This certainly makes C02 the most significant non-water contributor to global warming...but even then, climate scientists will not argue with you if you point out that nature produces three times the CO2 that humans do.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
No climate scientist will argue the fact that global climate change has, in the past, universally been the result of cyclical variances in Earth's orbit/rotation, and to a lesser degree variances in our Sun's output. Why then, since pollution has been reduced dramatically, and since climate change is known to be caused by factors outside of our control, is it so crazy to believe that we're not at fault anymore?
And since when does being in a "tiny percentage" denote right/wrong? Aren't you a Mac zealot? :)
puma1552
Mar 14, 01:04 AM
Yea, this is one of the few controversial posts I've made here, I expected some criticism, and likely deserve it as I definitely don't get the whole picture, then again who does.
I'm not saying oil isn't a HUGE problem, or rebutting some of the good points here.
When a nuclear disaster happens hundreds of thousands of people can die, if unleashed in war it could be the end of the world, plus accidents, human error, countries letting power plants age and neglect updates not because they can't afford it but instead because they want the incredible profits from it.
It's not good, I'll never be convinced otherwise. Look at countries like Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia how well they manage their power, the research, alternative (green) energy sources in play and working NOW ... it's incredible and goes unnoticed.
There is better ways.
NO nuclear.
You know, I really don't think a lot of the people in this thread "get it" so-to-speak.
Japan has 130 million people, in a space 10,000 square miles SMALLER than California, and is an archipelago. 85% of that are sparsely populated mountainous regions, so do the math to realize what a premium we have on space here and try to understand that we need the absolute maximum power for the space and resources we have, which is why we get a third of our power from nuclear sources.
What do you think, we have unlimited resources and space to use bogus green energy methods? Everyone talks about green energy this, green energy that, but nobody seems to grasp that green energy methods are horrendously inefficient, unrealistically and unsustainably so; if they were so good, don't you think we'd have our fossil fuel crisis solved?
As an example, solar power's MAXIMUM efficiency is a pathetic 12%, and that's before you even think about it's asinine cost, or the asinine amount of square footage you need to even get a tiny amount of power.
Wind isn't much better, at a maximum of 30% efficiency, and that's when the wind is blowing over 30 mph.
Neither of these are feasible, nor realistic for Japan.
Guys, we have nuclear power here out of necessity. Maybe that's difficult for you guys to grasp, but with 130 million people in a place smaller than California, most of which is mountains, we need power that's efficient. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.
Nuclear is a result of circumstance here, and up until now has had a flawless record.
By the way, lowly natural gas has a 10x higher fatality rate than nuclear, but I don't see anyone fearing natural gas.
edit: I don't mean to harp on you specifically, entlarg, I'm just tired of seeing post after post in this thread from people that don't seem to understand that at least here, we don't have a choice but to use nuclear power.
I'm not saying oil isn't a HUGE problem, or rebutting some of the good points here.
When a nuclear disaster happens hundreds of thousands of people can die, if unleashed in war it could be the end of the world, plus accidents, human error, countries letting power plants age and neglect updates not because they can't afford it but instead because they want the incredible profits from it.
It's not good, I'll never be convinced otherwise. Look at countries like Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia how well they manage their power, the research, alternative (green) energy sources in play and working NOW ... it's incredible and goes unnoticed.
There is better ways.
NO nuclear.
You know, I really don't think a lot of the people in this thread "get it" so-to-speak.
Japan has 130 million people, in a space 10,000 square miles SMALLER than California, and is an archipelago. 85% of that are sparsely populated mountainous regions, so do the math to realize what a premium we have on space here and try to understand that we need the absolute maximum power for the space and resources we have, which is why we get a third of our power from nuclear sources.
What do you think, we have unlimited resources and space to use bogus green energy methods? Everyone talks about green energy this, green energy that, but nobody seems to grasp that green energy methods are horrendously inefficient, unrealistically and unsustainably so; if they were so good, don't you think we'd have our fossil fuel crisis solved?
As an example, solar power's MAXIMUM efficiency is a pathetic 12%, and that's before you even think about it's asinine cost, or the asinine amount of square footage you need to even get a tiny amount of power.
Wind isn't much better, at a maximum of 30% efficiency, and that's when the wind is blowing over 30 mph.
Neither of these are feasible, nor realistic for Japan.
Guys, we have nuclear power here out of necessity. Maybe that's difficult for you guys to grasp, but with 130 million people in a place smaller than California, most of which is mountains, we need power that's efficient. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.
Nuclear is a result of circumstance here, and up until now has had a flawless record.
By the way, lowly natural gas has a 10x higher fatality rate than nuclear, but I don't see anyone fearing natural gas.
edit: I don't mean to harp on you specifically, entlarg, I'm just tired of seeing post after post in this thread from people that don't seem to understand that at least here, we don't have a choice but to use nuclear power.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий