TheRealTVGuy
Mar 18, 01:44 AM
Do napster and limewire even exist anymore?
Probably not, I just felt the need to rant...
Sorry.
Probably not, I just felt the need to rant...
Sorry.
bruinsrme
Oct 7, 02:30 PM
Looking at this from my perspective I can see why.
I do not prefer to have the "Steve Jobs phone" staring at me in the face every time I turn the phne on. I prefer to have the appearance of the icons, background, ringtones and whatever else I feel like changing without having to jump through all the hoops of jailbreaking.
If the Android platforms offer a decent distribution channel for their work, a hassle free user interface, a major carrier (ATT or verizon) and music manager well that is what I am currently looking for.
I think such a platfe available prior to June 2010 when I will be ready to change.
So the Android platform already has at least 3 potential customers
I do not prefer to have the "Steve Jobs phone" staring at me in the face every time I turn the phne on. I prefer to have the appearance of the icons, background, ringtones and whatever else I feel like changing without having to jump through all the hoops of jailbreaking.
If the Android platforms offer a decent distribution channel for their work, a hassle free user interface, a major carrier (ATT or verizon) and music manager well that is what I am currently looking for.
I think such a platfe available prior to June 2010 when I will be ready to change.
So the Android platform already has at least 3 potential customers
Edge100
Apr 15, 10:20 AM
Everything is hate to people like you. It makes it impossible to have any kind of conversation.
Difference of opinion != Hate
Putting homosexuality down to the choice of a "hip counterculture" is hateful, because it completely trivializes the issue.
Real people's lives are being snuffed out because of who they are; these are kids that will never get a chance to do all of the things that make this life so great.
Your words are hateful because they further marginalize. I am a heterosexual man, and I did not choose to be one. My best friend is a homosexual man, and he did not choose to be one. Yet he had to endure an unending fear of violence for who he was, and I did not.
I don't even care if you don't like homosexual people; you're free to do that. But don't trivialize the situation; these people are dying for who they are, and that should shock and disturb every last one of us.
Difference of opinion != Hate
Putting homosexuality down to the choice of a "hip counterculture" is hateful, because it completely trivializes the issue.
Real people's lives are being snuffed out because of who they are; these are kids that will never get a chance to do all of the things that make this life so great.
Your words are hateful because they further marginalize. I am a heterosexual man, and I did not choose to be one. My best friend is a homosexual man, and he did not choose to be one. Yet he had to endure an unending fear of violence for who he was, and I did not.
I don't even care if you don't like homosexual people; you're free to do that. But don't trivialize the situation; these people are dying for who they are, and that should shock and disturb every last one of us.
wnurse
Mar 18, 03:18 PM
Actually the reason why it isn't encoded with DRM on the server is that if they did that they would need a copy of every song for every customer they have on the server.
aah yes of course.. (slap on forehead). hmm.. then adding DRM on fly before delivering might be the workaround apple does... although as noted in my previous post, that can be defeated too.
aah yes of course.. (slap on forehead). hmm.. then adding DRM on fly before delivering might be the workaround apple does... although as noted in my previous post, that can be defeated too.
MacBoobsPro
Oct 26, 10:36 AM
16 cores in 2007
32 cores in 2008
64 cores in 2009
128 cores in 2010
You want to wait 'til 2010 at the soonest? :rolleyes:
4 years. Cant wait. My emailing exploits will just zip along.
How many chips would it span though?
32 cores in 2008
64 cores in 2009
128 cores in 2010
You want to wait 'til 2010 at the soonest? :rolleyes:
4 years. Cant wait. My emailing exploits will just zip along.
How many chips would it span though?
Dippo
Mar 18, 03:15 PM
Personally I think this is great! Any sort of DRM sucks, even if it is rather "liberal". That's like giving all your customers in your shop a pair of handcuffs to prevent theft, and saying "but these cuffs are really comfortable".
I can't see anything really wrong with this program.
You still have to buy the music!
The labels need to get over trying to shove this DRM crap down our throats.
It will never work! This has been demostrated time and time again.
Of course Apple will shut it down soon.
I can't see anything really wrong with this program.
You still have to buy the music!
The labels need to get over trying to shove this DRM crap down our throats.
It will never work! This has been demostrated time and time again.
Of course Apple will shut it down soon.
dukebound85
Apr 24, 01:50 PM
If I told you I were a homosexual would that discredit or vindicate my views? Would it make them more... acceptable?
As in he hopes since you have the view of people should not infringe on your rights, that you should hopefully not infringe on others....such by opposing gay marriage
As in he hopes since you have the view of people should not infringe on your rights, that you should hopefully not infringe on others....such by opposing gay marriage
ShavenYak
Sep 20, 12:27 PM
Scenario B: Apple morphs its season pass feature for TV shows into a subscription service that is priced competitive to cable. Movies are available in HD for $3.99 for 24 hours.
... Scenario B gives me a way to drop my cable package altogether; it's similar to the way mobile phones allowed people to drop local phone service.
Perhaps what Apple should do is have two types of TV "season passes" - one at the current price point (or perhaps slightly cheaper) that gives you the episodes permanently, and one that's substantially cheaper ($4.99 per season or thereabouts?) where the shows expire after a period of time, or a certain number of viewings.
They'd also need to have the shows available to start streaming as soon as they are broadcast - a lot of people aren't interested in buying them after the fact because they want to be able to talk about the show areound the water cooler at work the next day.
A setup like that, and I'd think about dropping cable like a bad habit. The only catch is live sporting events. Unless Apple could capture those broadcasts and begin streaming them to subscribers in real time.... imagine a season pass for your favorite team. The pro leagues would be tough negotiators, but colleges would probably jump at the prospect of having all their football games available on iTunes and getting a cut of the action.
... Scenario B gives me a way to drop my cable package altogether; it's similar to the way mobile phones allowed people to drop local phone service.
Perhaps what Apple should do is have two types of TV "season passes" - one at the current price point (or perhaps slightly cheaper) that gives you the episodes permanently, and one that's substantially cheaper ($4.99 per season or thereabouts?) where the shows expire after a period of time, or a certain number of viewings.
They'd also need to have the shows available to start streaming as soon as they are broadcast - a lot of people aren't interested in buying them after the fact because they want to be able to talk about the show areound the water cooler at work the next day.
A setup like that, and I'd think about dropping cable like a bad habit. The only catch is live sporting events. Unless Apple could capture those broadcasts and begin streaming them to subscribers in real time.... imagine a season pass for your favorite team. The pro leagues would be tough negotiators, but colleges would probably jump at the prospect of having all their football games available on iTunes and getting a cut of the action.
darkwing
Aug 29, 11:51 AM
These groups don't care at all about the environment. They only want to hinder businesses. These are the same groups that protest plans and lobby politicians to stop building power plants and refineries so the existing ones can be over worked (lower efficiency) and not allow for downtime for maintenance, further lowering efficiency. These groups have an agenda that has nothing to do with the environment. I believe that Apple does just fine, as do many other companies. I'll gladly buy my Merom MBP and sell my Rev E 17" pbg4 as soon as Apple makes it available to me. :)
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 08:23 AM
Gaming on idevices is for nubes. Live on PS3, Xbox and the future NGP.
Totally agree. The other day I was in the queue at the grocery store and some dude was playing some noob game on his iOS phone... I was like "dude, you should be playing that on a PS3" and he was all "yeah but where would I plug it in and set-up the TV?" and I was like "just use the NGP" and he said "Great, where can I buy that?"
What a d**k he was.
Totally agree. The other day I was in the queue at the grocery store and some dude was playing some noob game on his iOS phone... I was like "dude, you should be playing that on a PS3" and he was all "yeah but where would I plug it in and set-up the TV?" and I was like "just use the NGP" and he said "Great, where can I buy that?"
What a d**k he was.
bobsentell
Mar 18, 08:45 AM
I see nothing wrong with AT&T cracking down. You signed a contract that specifically said you had no interest in tethering. But if you use it, then you lied when you signed your contract which means AT&T has the right to modify it.
Hey, it's better then them blackballing you and making you pay the remainder of your phone's cost.
Hey, it's better then them blackballing you and making you pay the remainder of your phone's cost.
jettredmont
May 3, 03:44 PM
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
balamw
Apr 16, 09:39 AM
I received my refurb iPad 1 yesterday and was very impressed with how Apple packages their refurbs. Nice!
You would be more impressed with the regular retail packaging. It's like what they use or refurbs, but even more Apple-like.
B
You would be more impressed with the regular retail packaging. It's like what they use or refurbs, but even more Apple-like.
B
wolfshades
Apr 15, 09:37 AM
This is an excellent initiative. Bullying goes on beyond high school and college too. You see it everywhere. There are parts of our cities where it's just unsafe for any of them to go walking alone, just because of how their sexuality is perceived by the ignorant and thuggish class. I think that's sad - clearly there's still a long road ahead.
Good on Apple employees - and all others who partnered in this initiative - for speaking up.
Maybe the next generation will be the one that shrugs its shoulders when discussion of sexual orientation comes up, like it's no big deal, because no one really sees it as a major social issue anymore. Maybe then the bullying will stop, having lost a target.
Good on Apple employees - and all others who partnered in this initiative - for speaking up.
Maybe the next generation will be the one that shrugs its shoulders when discussion of sexual orientation comes up, like it's no big deal, because no one really sees it as a major social issue anymore. Maybe then the bullying will stop, having lost a target.
fpnc
Mar 18, 06:36 PM
All this is just a more convenient way to get the same result as running your purchased music through Hymn or JHymn. It's not quite the same as burning and ripping a CD though, since that is lossy.
It's not really the same, because Apple will know (most likely) who has use this software to violate the TOS. It's pretty much like I said earlier:
It's almost like you were planning of going online to one of the illegal music sharing sites, documenting your activities, and then sending that information directly to the RIAA with your name and address with a note asking them to prosecute.
It's not really the same, because Apple will know (most likely) who has use this software to violate the TOS. It's pretty much like I said earlier:
It's almost like you were planning of going online to one of the illegal music sharing sites, documenting your activities, and then sending that information directly to the RIAA with your name and address with a note asking them to prosecute.
jeremyb66
Apr 13, 02:02 AM
So this is basically a jazzed up Final Cut Express and the pros have been shown the door. Why am I not shocked about this. :mad:
Someday I'll tell my kids that Apple was the company for pros to which they will laugh in disbelief; kind of how I do now when old people tell me that American cars were once high quality.
I think u r right about apple but I have I have a F150 XLT 2011 and it's great!
Someday I'll tell my kids that Apple was the company for pros to which they will laugh in disbelief; kind of how I do now when old people tell me that American cars were once high quality.
I think u r right about apple but I have I have a F150 XLT 2011 and it's great!
TheT
Oct 7, 10:39 AM
I think Mac users just live in their happy little world and think their computers are still the best... well, wake up!
As of now, PCs kick every Mac's ass, they are just simply faster! Mhz may not matter that much, but a 2Ghz DP compared to a 1.25Ghz DP has to be faster, if you configure it right.
The reason I use a mac is the software, no Windows can beat OSX! And, as a matter of fact, my mac looks better than any of the pcs my friends have...
As of now, PCs kick every Mac's ass, they are just simply faster! Mhz may not matter that much, but a 2Ghz DP compared to a 1.25Ghz DP has to be faster, if you configure it right.
The reason I use a mac is the software, no Windows can beat OSX! And, as a matter of fact, my mac looks better than any of the pcs my friends have...
pink-pony115
Aug 30, 01:01 AM
ooooooooooh no is the world coming to a end?
R-E-L-A-X fello MR peeps :cool:
R-E-L-A-X fello MR peeps :cool:
Mikael
Jul 12, 05:35 PM
I find this whole discussion slightly amusing, mostly because of the apparent need to draw a distinction between "professional" and "consumer" based on slight clock frequency differences. To me, a professional platform is defined by its configurability and flexibility. A professional platform is simply one that can be configured to fit the customers every need. Although CPU performance is important, it's hardly what I'd call the defining factor of wether a system is to be regarded as "pro" or not.
I don't see any reason why a cheaper Mac Pro with a single 2.4GHz Conroe couldn't remain a machine aimed at professionals. Or does it have to have an outrageous price tag to qualify?
The whole concept of drawing a line between pro machines and machines for mere mortals seems a little "old". There's nothing really special about a PowerMac or Mac Pro anyway. Put a mid range CPU in the machine and it fits the regular consumer just as well as a professional not demanding the absolute top end CPU performance.
Maybe I've been damaged by the PC worlds lack of "pro-obsession", but I think it's a healthier approach.
Merom will underperform a Conroe under equal high loads because of thermal constraints (in unmodified systems).
It will? Do you have any source for this info? An Intel rep has said that Merom and Conroe are identical, except for a few differences having to do with p-states. This is unlikely to hinder performance at full load, so where did you get this contradicting info?
Also, the largest part of the power savings between Merom and Conroe are likely to come from reduced core voltage. You will probably be able to come very close to Merom power levels by simply reducing the core voltage of a similarly clocked Conroe.
I don't see any reason why a cheaper Mac Pro with a single 2.4GHz Conroe couldn't remain a machine aimed at professionals. Or does it have to have an outrageous price tag to qualify?
The whole concept of drawing a line between pro machines and machines for mere mortals seems a little "old". There's nothing really special about a PowerMac or Mac Pro anyway. Put a mid range CPU in the machine and it fits the regular consumer just as well as a professional not demanding the absolute top end CPU performance.
Maybe I've been damaged by the PC worlds lack of "pro-obsession", but I think it's a healthier approach.
Merom will underperform a Conroe under equal high loads because of thermal constraints (in unmodified systems).
It will? Do you have any source for this info? An Intel rep has said that Merom and Conroe are identical, except for a few differences having to do with p-states. This is unlikely to hinder performance at full load, so where did you get this contradicting info?
Also, the largest part of the power savings between Merom and Conroe are likely to come from reduced core voltage. You will probably be able to come very close to Merom power levels by simply reducing the core voltage of a similarly clocked Conroe.
balamw
Sep 12, 07:30 PM
It's got USB.
Where? The pics I saw looked like power, Ethernet, HDMI and 5 RCA jacks for component out?
B
Where? The pics I saw looked like power, Ethernet, HDMI and 5 RCA jacks for component out?
B
the Rebel
Mar 20, 10:12 PM
Personally, I stand for moral relativism every day. It is more important to me that individuals make decisions based on what they feel - individually - are right and wrong. I am glad that some here believe blindly following the "law" keeps them safe both morally and in the eyes of our fine government.
But let me ask you this... in your soul (if you believe in such things), do you really believe it is "wrong" to purchase a song off the iTMS without DRM? I am all for breaking the "law" as long as you know the consequences.
Those arguing for the supremacy of "laws" over moral reason simply hide the fact that they are dividing humans from one another. If you choose to abide by a law, do so. But do not confuse your knowledge of what the law states with a morally superior stance. Your morals are good for you and no one else.
So if my morality tells me that it is right for me to kill you, then you support my choice to do so?
But let me ask you this... in your soul (if you believe in such things), do you really believe it is "wrong" to purchase a song off the iTMS without DRM? I am all for breaking the "law" as long as you know the consequences.
Those arguing for the supremacy of "laws" over moral reason simply hide the fact that they are dividing humans from one another. If you choose to abide by a law, do so. But do not confuse your knowledge of what the law states with a morally superior stance. Your morals are good for you and no one else.
So if my morality tells me that it is right for me to kill you, then you support my choice to do so?
hobo.hopkins
Apr 15, 09:32 AM
I couldn't agree more with this initiative. I'm so glad that a group of employees would be willing to do this on their own time. Bravo!
aaronsullivan
Sep 20, 09:15 AM
No tv inputs on the iTV. No DVR capability. Please stop "wishing", "hoping", "suggesting."
Perhaps, a SECOND device could perform this, but it's not what the $300 no service fee device is for. It's for conveniently streaming content from the computer to a TV that can be watched from the couch. It fills the desire of many people, but not all. (Nor should it try to be everything to everyone. That's part of what makes it an Apple product, like it or not.)
Personally, I'm tired of unhooking and re-hooking our laptop to do this and a $300 device to keep things casual and instant looks great to me.
Perhaps, a SECOND device could perform this, but it's not what the $300 no service fee device is for. It's for conveniently streaming content from the computer to a TV that can be watched from the couch. It fills the desire of many people, but not all. (Nor should it try to be everything to everyone. That's part of what makes it an Apple product, like it or not.)
Personally, I'm tired of unhooking and re-hooking our laptop to do this and a $300 device to keep things casual and instant looks great to me.
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 08:39 AM
I am one of the many people carrying them, but, sales numbers of those versus the iPod Touch, and iPhone are telling us that the fad is over. ;)
I don't want them to stop selling classic iPods, however I am not blind to the fact that I am a member of a dying breed of classic iPod users. :(
Oh yeah, it's definitely trending downward now instead of still climbing, but it took almost a decade before that happened, not 3 or 4 years as claimed earlier. And they still sell millions every year, which you cannot say about pet rocks. That's the difference between a fad and a popular product. In a fad, the sales dry up quickly.
I don't want them to stop selling classic iPods, however I am not blind to the fact that I am a member of a dying breed of classic iPod users. :(
Oh yeah, it's definitely trending downward now instead of still climbing, but it took almost a decade before that happened, not 3 or 4 years as claimed earlier. And they still sell millions every year, which you cannot say about pet rocks. That's the difference between a fad and a popular product. In a fad, the sales dry up quickly.
No comments:
Post a Comment