Benjy91
Apr 18, 03:28 PM
Wow, an article about Apple suing someone, that has more negatives than positives?
Thats probably a first.
Thats probably a first.
Josias
Aug 5, 01:42 PM
I'd kill for this!!! I hate osx msn messenger :(!
True, and if you wanna use your iSight for other than PhotoBooth, and have videochat over MSN, you will need something even worse called aMSN, found it in a MR guide...:p
Can Adium do videchat to MSN? (with audio! There's no audio on the videochat's in aMSN:mad: :p )
True, and if you wanna use your iSight for other than PhotoBooth, and have videochat over MSN, you will need something even worse called aMSN, found it in a MR guide...:p
Can Adium do videchat to MSN? (with audio! There's no audio on the videochat's in aMSN:mad: :p )
P-Worm
Apr 7, 10:02 AM
I see the short sighted Apple pom-pom shakers are once again giddy with excitement. The juvenile remarks are embarrassing.
For some strange reason you think monopolies are good for consumers.
How is Apple a monopoly in this case? There is nothing stopping other companies from entering the LCD business and making more displays. Just because Apple has a lot of money to buy things does not make them a monopoly.
P-Worm
For some strange reason you think monopolies are good for consumers.
How is Apple a monopoly in this case? There is nothing stopping other companies from entering the LCD business and making more displays. Just because Apple has a lot of money to buy things does not make them a monopoly.
P-Worm
marksman
Apr 20, 01:11 AM
If you can have a bigger screen without a physically larger device size and weight, then yes, it is necessarily better.
iPhone 4 with 3.5" screen: 115.2mm x 58.6mm x 9.3mm
weight: 137 grams
HTC Thunderbolt with 4" screen: 122mm x 66mm x 13mm
weight: 164 grams
I am not sure about you, but on composite that HTC with a 4" screen is noticeably larger in every possible way over the iPhone 4.
Sure it is only 5% taller, but 12% wider and almost 50% thicker as well as 15% heavier.
Perhaps you don't know anything about Apple, but they take the size of their devices very seriously.
I also don't understand how some of you think it is possible to have a significantly larger screen without making the phone bigger. It is not like the current iPhone has a lot of space. Again it seems people just read a bigger number and think it must be better. If we left it up to other companies smartphones would all be twice as thick and weigh twice as much as they do now, while being massively unwieldy. Apple actually has an aesthetic set of benchmarks that are important to them as anything else. It is not only aesthetic either, but actually using the device and carrying it around, the size makes a big difference.
My 3.5" iPhone 4 screen is pretty amazing, especially considering the size and weight of the device. Much more impressive than any 4" screened device I have seen.
Edit: In case anyone is wondering the 4" Samsung Galaxy S specs: 122.4mm x 64.2mm x 9.9mm weight 118 grams. It weighs less, but the physical dimensions are larger in ever way.
iPhone 4 with 3.5" screen: 115.2mm x 58.6mm x 9.3mm
weight: 137 grams
HTC Thunderbolt with 4" screen: 122mm x 66mm x 13mm
weight: 164 grams
I am not sure about you, but on composite that HTC with a 4" screen is noticeably larger in every possible way over the iPhone 4.
Sure it is only 5% taller, but 12% wider and almost 50% thicker as well as 15% heavier.
Perhaps you don't know anything about Apple, but they take the size of their devices very seriously.
I also don't understand how some of you think it is possible to have a significantly larger screen without making the phone bigger. It is not like the current iPhone has a lot of space. Again it seems people just read a bigger number and think it must be better. If we left it up to other companies smartphones would all be twice as thick and weigh twice as much as they do now, while being massively unwieldy. Apple actually has an aesthetic set of benchmarks that are important to them as anything else. It is not only aesthetic either, but actually using the device and carrying it around, the size makes a big difference.
My 3.5" iPhone 4 screen is pretty amazing, especially considering the size and weight of the device. Much more impressive than any 4" screened device I have seen.
Edit: In case anyone is wondering the 4" Samsung Galaxy S specs: 122.4mm x 64.2mm x 9.9mm weight 118 grams. It weighs less, but the physical dimensions are larger in ever way.
-aggie-
May 4, 12:35 PM
What happens when mscriv and a hooker spend the night together? In the morning each of them says: "120 dollars, please."
cgc
Aug 4, 09:12 PM
although the Merom is average faster than Yohan 10%~20%:cool:
Even accounting for the 8% increase in clock speed that's an nice performance boost.
Even accounting for the 8% increase in clock speed that's an nice performance boost.
fraggot
Apr 25, 09:32 AM
Almost EVERY cell phone that's ever existed has tracked your phone in some form of fashion and stored it on the device. This is nothing new but just because it's an iPhone it's a big deal.
People need to find other things to worry about cause this shouldn't be it.
People need to find other things to worry about cause this shouldn't be it.
Multimedia
Aug 7, 06:24 PM
The G5 is almost as fast per clock cycle.
Apple COULD have released quad G5 3ghz instead, but they want us to use Intel.
The whole Intel project is beacuse of no G5 laptop.
Stupid IBM. I do not like X86, the play plattform.
But, I have changed all my PPC macs to Intel now.
Macbook pro, Macbook, macmini and today a Macpro.Congrats on making the shift. I will probably wait for 8 cores. But I am tempted because of the 6 Bays and the additional front ports. Maybe I'll get a refurb in the Fall. Still want a Core 2 MBP more I guess. Really want 8 cores. Might just hold out until Spring so Leopard is inside 8 cores. Love Leopard features. :)
Stupid IBM...
Apple COULD have released quad G5 3ghz instead, but they want us to use Intel.
The whole Intel project is beacuse of no G5 laptop.
Stupid IBM. I do not like X86, the play plattform.
But, I have changed all my PPC macs to Intel now.
Macbook pro, Macbook, macmini and today a Macpro.Congrats on making the shift. I will probably wait for 8 cores. But I am tempted because of the 6 Bays and the additional front ports. Maybe I'll get a refurb in the Fall. Still want a Core 2 MBP more I guess. Really want 8 cores. Might just hold out until Spring so Leopard is inside 8 cores. Love Leopard features. :)
Stupid IBM...
JackSYi
Jul 21, 02:17 PM
I really should of waited. *sigh
redkamel
Apr 7, 01:35 PM
And I see people are still taking the word monopoly used here too literally.
Yeah, we know what a real monopoly is. Thanks.
And here in the U.S. It generally starts with a company getting too much of the market and stifling out the competition. That's why there's the FTC.
Ok, so if you know what a monopoly is, why are you ok with the word being used incorrectly? And the FTC still can't prosecute or investigate unless there is evidence of wrongdoing...based on the actual, legal definition of monopoly.
I don't get what you are trying to say. Is it that you know the legal definition of monopoly and anti-competetive, but you don't care because it looks like Apple has a monopoly, and think the FTC will investigate them based on how it feels?
Aelated to the subject line, if it were any other company, like Microsoft, Dell or whomever pre-ordering and buying whole supply lines knowing their competitors would be strangled, there would be an antitrust/monopoly case launched immediately. The simple fact that Apple is a media and government darling precludes them from any serious thought by officials that would choose to stop this monopoly from continuing. Just as above, I know 9/10 fans here will blast me for stating the honest truth, but.. true story bro. Apple can do no wrong and their fan base is living proof of that.
Apple is a media darling, but how is it a government darling? Apple has been investigated in the past.
Apple can certainly do wrong in its customers eyes. It is currently screwing over is true Pro customers. They are being slow in adopting a few new technologies that would leapfrog them (VFS, resolution independence). Many customers complain about the price (although Apple rarely lowers them, a hike is even more rare). Apple is currently straddling a position where they must cater to their growing casual users and their pro customers. And they are generally picking the casual, but also transitioning the Pros. For example, the new MacPros are a huge ripoff unless you go big...but you can get an iMac for a fraction of the price thats faster/equal to the low end MP.
There are many people here who like to say Apple only acts in its own best interest, and not for customers interests, etc etc. Please name ONE example where they acted solely in their own self interest to the detriment of customers. This does not count simple business decisions (like discontinuing Xserve since it wasn't selling well). Many of their decisions have explanations or alternative solutions...but then, that would make me a fanboy if I explained it I suppose. Apple is no angel but it is certainly no devil, and it is far more competent than most tech companies.
There are Apple fans out there, but also people who choose them simply because they like it better. If someone is an Android/Windows fan thats fine. I don't complain about any of their products, business decisions. or saturation of business as unfair. Mostly, because I frankly don't care; they haven't offered a product I have been interested in since college. I'm sure HTC and Samsung make quality gear, but there is no buzz around them. Its not because Apple pays people. Its because people, especially creative and non-computer saavy people (which means most of the population and opinion leaders) like using Apple products. If you think that automatically means the product sucks, then I can't help you.
In general, if Apple is so bad and its followers so stupid, then how come they are crushing in the tablet and music market, leading the phone market (in design, mindshare, and media coverage), and coveted in the laptop market (running the most profitable customers and setting the standard for design and quality)?
Its called results, or, figuring out what customers want from their computers.
Yeah, we know what a real monopoly is. Thanks.
And here in the U.S. It generally starts with a company getting too much of the market and stifling out the competition. That's why there's the FTC.
Ok, so if you know what a monopoly is, why are you ok with the word being used incorrectly? And the FTC still can't prosecute or investigate unless there is evidence of wrongdoing...based on the actual, legal definition of monopoly.
I don't get what you are trying to say. Is it that you know the legal definition of monopoly and anti-competetive, but you don't care because it looks like Apple has a monopoly, and think the FTC will investigate them based on how it feels?
Aelated to the subject line, if it were any other company, like Microsoft, Dell or whomever pre-ordering and buying whole supply lines knowing their competitors would be strangled, there would be an antitrust/monopoly case launched immediately. The simple fact that Apple is a media and government darling precludes them from any serious thought by officials that would choose to stop this monopoly from continuing. Just as above, I know 9/10 fans here will blast me for stating the honest truth, but.. true story bro. Apple can do no wrong and their fan base is living proof of that.
Apple is a media darling, but how is it a government darling? Apple has been investigated in the past.
Apple can certainly do wrong in its customers eyes. It is currently screwing over is true Pro customers. They are being slow in adopting a few new technologies that would leapfrog them (VFS, resolution independence). Many customers complain about the price (although Apple rarely lowers them, a hike is even more rare). Apple is currently straddling a position where they must cater to their growing casual users and their pro customers. And they are generally picking the casual, but also transitioning the Pros. For example, the new MacPros are a huge ripoff unless you go big...but you can get an iMac for a fraction of the price thats faster/equal to the low end MP.
There are many people here who like to say Apple only acts in its own best interest, and not for customers interests, etc etc. Please name ONE example where they acted solely in their own self interest to the detriment of customers. This does not count simple business decisions (like discontinuing Xserve since it wasn't selling well). Many of their decisions have explanations or alternative solutions...but then, that would make me a fanboy if I explained it I suppose. Apple is no angel but it is certainly no devil, and it is far more competent than most tech companies.
There are Apple fans out there, but also people who choose them simply because they like it better. If someone is an Android/Windows fan thats fine. I don't complain about any of their products, business decisions. or saturation of business as unfair. Mostly, because I frankly don't care; they haven't offered a product I have been interested in since college. I'm sure HTC and Samsung make quality gear, but there is no buzz around them. Its not because Apple pays people. Its because people, especially creative and non-computer saavy people (which means most of the population and opinion leaders) like using Apple products. If you think that automatically means the product sucks, then I can't help you.
In general, if Apple is so bad and its followers so stupid, then how come they are crushing in the tablet and music market, leading the phone market (in design, mindshare, and media coverage), and coveted in the laptop market (running the most profitable customers and setting the standard for design and quality)?
Its called results, or, figuring out what customers want from their computers.
fishmoose
Apr 5, 01:20 PM
I don't see how Apple asking Toyota to take the theme down can be considered controlling or dominant by Apple? It's a question they could have said no. Unsurprisingly their relationship with Apple is more important than an ugly theme made with 30 minutes of Photoshop...
dgree03
Apr 25, 09:34 AM
Android is given freely, so how does Google make money? The same way they make just about (95%+) ALL their money: from selling information to advertisers. So Android exists to get more people to use Google software, which then allows them to sell more ads and make money.
http://www.google.com
:)
http://paidcontent.org/article/419-androids-secret-sauce-googles-little-known-advertising-rev-share-deals-/
They only make money when you SEARCH on your android handset.
http://www.google.com
:)
http://paidcontent.org/article/419-androids-secret-sauce-googles-little-known-advertising-rev-share-deals-/
They only make money when you SEARCH on your android handset.
pkson
Mar 26, 10:45 PM
My thoughts exactly. Our school district (ISD 482) just bought 1,465 iPads for its students, and I can see us getting really mad if Apple were to release a new iPad 6 mos. later.
WOAH.
that's a lot of iPads!
That'll take forever to deliver!
WOAH.
that's a lot of iPads!
That'll take forever to deliver!
Erasmus
Aug 4, 06:48 PM
New iMacs next Tuesday. I'll take one if it comes with a Conroe, Apple, thank you. But of course, if that's too hot, a Merom would do fine, too. Unless it will still use that dull 667MHz FSB, of course. At least put in an X1800 in it. Oh, and 1GB of RAM. And, while you're at it, throw in a 24" display too. And get rid of the lower bevel of the 'display design'. All that, and I'm buying straight away. If it will come pre-loaded with Leopard and will have a universal BlueRay/HD DVD-burner built-in, that is.
:rolleyes:
But seriously, I'm soooo ready for a new iMac. This 800MHz G4 iMac is getting old. It works like a charm, still, and is plenty fast for most stuff, but it just doesn't feel right anymore. Also, I never had quite the relationship with it as with my old 233MHz G3 iMac. I WANT A NEW iMAC! AND I WANT IT NOW!
Sounds like someone wants an iMac Ultra! (Really final Propaganda)
We Apple customers want an iMac with at LEAST (preferrably >>) 2.4 Conroe, at least an X1800 with 512 MB (Which should be quite likely if the PMs (sorry MPs) get SLI), a 23" screen, which Apple should have plenty of from their Cinema D's, and more RAM slots than you can polk a 2Gb RAM stick at (Meaning >=4), with most of them filled.
All for under AU$4 Grand.
That should take care of all gamers, any professionals who require a reasonably portable Desktop with awesome power, and in fact, anyone else.
--------------------
MBPs do use Lithium Polymer batteries. It says so on the Apple MBP website. I'm sure the MBs do too.
--------------------
As an aside, is anyone else here as happy as I am that we will never see one of those evil "Pentium" chips in our precious Macs? Hooray, there will be no Pentium 5! (Unless they call the Conroe line Pentium, like they keep calling Core Duo "Centrino Duo", to my utmost annoyance. Isn't Centrino the "Budget" brand name?)
Death (Or severe overheating and frying) to all Pentiums!
--------------------
Anyone else here interested in an iMac Ultra?
Anyone else have an extreme and probably unwarranted hatred of the Pentium moniker?
:rolleyes:
But seriously, I'm soooo ready for a new iMac. This 800MHz G4 iMac is getting old. It works like a charm, still, and is plenty fast for most stuff, but it just doesn't feel right anymore. Also, I never had quite the relationship with it as with my old 233MHz G3 iMac. I WANT A NEW iMAC! AND I WANT IT NOW!
Sounds like someone wants an iMac Ultra! (Really final Propaganda)
We Apple customers want an iMac with at LEAST (preferrably >>) 2.4 Conroe, at least an X1800 with 512 MB (Which should be quite likely if the PMs (sorry MPs) get SLI), a 23" screen, which Apple should have plenty of from their Cinema D's, and more RAM slots than you can polk a 2Gb RAM stick at (Meaning >=4), with most of them filled.
All for under AU$4 Grand.
That should take care of all gamers, any professionals who require a reasonably portable Desktop with awesome power, and in fact, anyone else.
--------------------
MBPs do use Lithium Polymer batteries. It says so on the Apple MBP website. I'm sure the MBs do too.
--------------------
As an aside, is anyone else here as happy as I am that we will never see one of those evil "Pentium" chips in our precious Macs? Hooray, there will be no Pentium 5! (Unless they call the Conroe line Pentium, like they keep calling Core Duo "Centrino Duo", to my utmost annoyance. Isn't Centrino the "Budget" brand name?)
Death (Or severe overheating and frying) to all Pentiums!
--------------------
Anyone else here interested in an iMac Ultra?
Anyone else have an extreme and probably unwarranted hatred of the Pentium moniker?
alvindarkness
Apr 10, 12:02 PM
I'm not saying that 2 is an incorrect answer, the equation is ambiguous. However, I assume the equation is written that way because it is done on a forum without formula writing ability and writing-
48(9+3) = 288
lack ops map pack 2 zombies.
The next Call of Duty Black
lack ops map pack 2
Duty: Black Ops DLC pack
48(9+3) = 288
OllyW
Apr 20, 04:14 AM
otherwise...why would I buy an ip5?
You don't have to.
It doesn't sound like there's much there to tempt iPhone 4 owners but it should be a great update for those with the 3GS and 3G.
You don't have to.
It doesn't sound like there's much there to tempt iPhone 4 owners but it should be a great update for those with the 3GS and 3G.
shawnce
Aug 2, 12:46 PM
I think that's kind of his point isn't it. I know I'd like to see more "media center" type features in my Mac. huh? I don't follow... his point was Apple needs to add HDMI for HD playback... 1) they don't and 2) it likely wont be HDMI (at least not for long) since HDMI doesn't cover the needs of near future computer displays.
Medanthro
May 7, 10:35 AM
While I agree, MobileMe is still in my eyes the best of the bunch. That's how they get away with charging $99/year. However, if it became free, they could really talk up how great owning a Mac is because of MobileMe.
Some of you may remember way back in the day, before Mobileme was .mac, it was known as itools and it was free. It was a perk that came with buying a Mac.
Some of you may remember way back in the day, before Mobileme was .mac, it was known as itools and it was free. It was a perk that came with buying a Mac.
wclyffe
Dec 5, 07:29 PM
FYI...you cannot even order it from Tomtom.com. Here's what it says:
TomTom car kit for iPhone
USD 119.95
TomTom car kit for iPhone
USD 119.95
applefan27073
Apr 24, 05:01 PM
WOW!
This would be AWESOME!
I can't imagine my 27" iMac with the same resolution as an iPhone 4!:eek:
This said, it could potentially make macs more expensive in the future.....:(
Well Done Apple! You've done it again!
This would be AWESOME!
I can't imagine my 27" iMac with the same resolution as an iPhone 4!:eek:
This said, it could potentially make macs more expensive in the future.....:(
Well Done Apple! You've done it again!
smulji
Mar 30, 10:53 PM
WOW. In my years of OS X development and beta releases, this is the first time I believe Apple has released a developer preview with little to no beta releases, and pushed right into a half arsed possible GM build without the numerous beta's for 10.X refinements. For developers and companies who have been accustomed to Apple pushing bi-weekly beta's as the GM release approaches. This may not bold well for developers and companies transitioning their products/applications in time and with little "bumps" in the road.
This also makes me believe Apple has certainly, finally, officially drawn a line with regard to their main focus: iOS. It truly is about mobile devices for Cupertino, with iPhones and iPads and numerous iOS beta releases that have pushed OS X off center stage since Leopard. Gone are the excellent days of a dedicated LCD display line with three size variants, gone are the days when desktop PowerPC towers were affordable, and soon the professionals who spent thousands of dollars and hours investing in Mac products for their work will be pushed out the door for the general mass consumer. This is a sad sign for us, for those that supported a struggling yet profitable Apple dedicated to professionals, consumers, quality products and improved operating systems.
That could be what Steve Jobs was alluding to when during the iPad 1 release in 2010 he said that Apple was the world's largest mobile devices company. Then later that same year during one of the financial conference calls Tim Cooke said people should refer to Apple as a mobile company. Just a theory.
This also makes me believe Apple has certainly, finally, officially drawn a line with regard to their main focus: iOS. It truly is about mobile devices for Cupertino, with iPhones and iPads and numerous iOS beta releases that have pushed OS X off center stage since Leopard. Gone are the excellent days of a dedicated LCD display line with three size variants, gone are the days when desktop PowerPC towers were affordable, and soon the professionals who spent thousands of dollars and hours investing in Mac products for their work will be pushed out the door for the general mass consumer. This is a sad sign for us, for those that supported a struggling yet profitable Apple dedicated to professionals, consumers, quality products and improved operating systems.
That could be what Steve Jobs was alluding to when during the iPad 1 release in 2010 he said that Apple was the world's largest mobile devices company. Then later that same year during one of the financial conference calls Tim Cooke said people should refer to Apple as a mobile company. Just a theory.
citizenzen
Apr 16, 01:23 PM
It's spending on investment rather than spending on consumption.
This is a key point to the growing inequity of wealth in America. The rich have surplus funds that they are able to invest, while the poor, and a growing number of people are spending all of the income on consumption.
In 2007 Zhu Xiao Di wrote a report for the Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies title, Growing Wealth, Inequity, and Housing in the United States [PDF] (http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/w07-1.pdf)
Abstract
The rapid growth of household wealth in the United States has been accompanied by drastic growing inequality. This paper discusses both wealth and inequality growth, examines demographic factors behind the growth, and analyzes housing�s role in it, using the Survey of Consumer Finances data collected by the Federal Reserve Bank. While aggregate household net wealth grew from $25.9 trillion in 1995 to $50.1 trillion in 2004 (both in 2004 dollars), nearly 90 percent of the net gains occurred only among the top quartile of households in the wealth distribution. Although housing wealth (both home equity and housing value) was still more evenly distributed than other types of wealth, it largely served to widen the wealth gap rather than to narrow it during the last decade.
In this report, he clearly illustrates the difference between household net wealth and household income.
Wealth Inequality and Household Net Wealth Growth
It is well known that the distribution of household net wealth is even more unbalanced than that of household income. Net wealth is defined as all assets net out all debts. In the top quartile of the household net wealth distribution held the lion�s share�87 percent (or $43.6 trillion) while the bottom quartile of households had nothing. The upper and lower middle quartiles combined held $6.5 trillion, or 13 percent of total household net wealth (see Chart 1).
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/members/citizenzen-albums-album-picture1305-screen-shot-2011-04-16.png
As he says in the report, "In other words, the bottom 28 million of American households in 2004 had nothing once their debt is netted out ..."
The difference between inequalities in wealth and income is quite natural, as one is from a stock perspective and the other is from a flow perspective. Low income households have to spend most or all of their incomes on life necessities with little capability of saving and investment so they can hardly accumulate any household net wealth. Thus they often remain in the bottom distribution of household wealth with nothing; the exception is the group of low income senior households who recently fell into the low-income category due to retirement and the loss of income. In short, while the bottom quartile of income distribution still has income, the bottom quartile of wealth distribution does not have any wealth net of debt.
This is a key point to the growing inequity of wealth in America. The rich have surplus funds that they are able to invest, while the poor, and a growing number of people are spending all of the income on consumption.
In 2007 Zhu Xiao Di wrote a report for the Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies title, Growing Wealth, Inequity, and Housing in the United States [PDF] (http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/w07-1.pdf)
Abstract
The rapid growth of household wealth in the United States has been accompanied by drastic growing inequality. This paper discusses both wealth and inequality growth, examines demographic factors behind the growth, and analyzes housing�s role in it, using the Survey of Consumer Finances data collected by the Federal Reserve Bank. While aggregate household net wealth grew from $25.9 trillion in 1995 to $50.1 trillion in 2004 (both in 2004 dollars), nearly 90 percent of the net gains occurred only among the top quartile of households in the wealth distribution. Although housing wealth (both home equity and housing value) was still more evenly distributed than other types of wealth, it largely served to widen the wealth gap rather than to narrow it during the last decade.
In this report, he clearly illustrates the difference between household net wealth and household income.
Wealth Inequality and Household Net Wealth Growth
It is well known that the distribution of household net wealth is even more unbalanced than that of household income. Net wealth is defined as all assets net out all debts. In the top quartile of the household net wealth distribution held the lion�s share�87 percent (or $43.6 trillion) while the bottom quartile of households had nothing. The upper and lower middle quartiles combined held $6.5 trillion, or 13 percent of total household net wealth (see Chart 1).
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/members/citizenzen-albums-album-picture1305-screen-shot-2011-04-16.png
As he says in the report, "In other words, the bottom 28 million of American households in 2004 had nothing once their debt is netted out ..."
The difference between inequalities in wealth and income is quite natural, as one is from a stock perspective and the other is from a flow perspective. Low income households have to spend most or all of their incomes on life necessities with little capability of saving and investment so they can hardly accumulate any household net wealth. Thus they often remain in the bottom distribution of household wealth with nothing; the exception is the group of low income senior households who recently fell into the low-income category due to retirement and the loss of income. In short, while the bottom quartile of income distribution still has income, the bottom quartile of wealth distribution does not have any wealth net of debt.
RawBert
Apr 18, 04:37 PM
The side by side shots look like Nike Air Jordans next to some fake-ass Jordan ProWings. :)
fyre57lp
Nov 3, 09:28 AM
I got mine yesterday and LOVE it. Navigon app + TomTom car kit = win.
