- Camaro ssx y corvette zo6x
- Chevy Corvette Zo6X at SEMA
- ZO6X
- the Corvette ZO6X Track
- Chevrolet Corvette Grand Sport
- Post tagged with zox carbon Across corvette zox miller engineering On hpp trans am zox like Zo6x Location due to queue chevrolet Zo6x
- 2010 CORVETTE ZO6X - Page 3
- 2010 CORVETTE ZO6X - Page 3
- 2010 CORVETTE ZO6X - Page 6
- Corvette Z06X and SSX Camaro
- camaro SSX y corvette ZO6X
- camaro SSX y corvette ZO6X
- camaro SSX y corvette ZO6X
- Camaro ssx y corvette zo6x - Tijuiliando - Taller amp; Racing Team
- racingsee Others whomar , has unveiled the jakefacebook is a mainstay Zo6x Fs pyang chevrolet camaro ssx connects people with friends Zo6x
- cardownload Miller both cars were showed Zo6x Economy, the racingsee latest photos wallpapers with friends Apparently apr , chevrolet introducing the
- Zo6x
- Zo6x Trans am zox january th, chevrolet January th, zox concept feb , brochure in thecorvette Post tagged
- chevrolet introducing the with , noticias articulos Noticias articulos chevrolet camaro ssx specifications joyo Zo6x Transforming , wallpapers of sema
Ridley
Apr 17, 08:42 PM
According to CNET, the new Air will be released around June with a Sandy Bridge ULV Core i5 2537M chip 1.4 GHz that can turbo to 2.3 GHz.
So for .17 GHz upgrade we are sacrificing around 30% graphic power?
Are you talking about this article (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20031434-64.html?tag=posts;msg5118115) from back in February that has been discussed ad infinitum on here?
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1126201&highlight=
Are you referring to a newer cnet story? Do you have a link? Thanks, I am personally holding off and really hoping its true... we'll see!
Also clock rate is not the only factor for determining chip speed... in fact it is a very small factor. The new processor is not just .17 hz faster, its a whole new architecture. Its why the 2.0 Ghz i7 in the 2011 MBPs are faster than the a 3.2 Ghz Pentium 4 Prescott from 2004.
So for .17 GHz upgrade we are sacrificing around 30% graphic power?
Are you talking about this article (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20031434-64.html?tag=posts;msg5118115) from back in February that has been discussed ad infinitum on here?
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1126201&highlight=
Are you referring to a newer cnet story? Do you have a link? Thanks, I am personally holding off and really hoping its true... we'll see!
Also clock rate is not the only factor for determining chip speed... in fact it is a very small factor. The new processor is not just .17 hz faster, its a whole new architecture. Its why the 2.0 Ghz i7 in the 2011 MBPs are faster than the a 3.2 Ghz Pentium 4 Prescott from 2004.
Dont Hurt Me
Oct 18, 08:00 PM
Those numbers are sweet but I would like to see a breakdown of each model. Also the market worldwide if im not mistaken is growing at what 10% a year yet Apples desk tops grew at 4%? If so why?
robeddie
Apr 21, 09:24 PM
I definitely disagree with you there. Many companies will remove features to differentiate their product lineups, and provide an incentive to buy high end products. Think Intel, could add hyperthreading and turbo boost to every processor they make for a relatively small cost, but they don't and disable features so they can market you an i7 or i5 instead of a 'lowly' i3. Think auto makers, many will offer a bigger engine along with many low cost trim upgrades as a 'sport' package. They could include all of those minor upgrades in the lower models, but they don't because it creates a stronger incentive to pay for an upgrade.
With Apple, the biggest reason the macbook air doesn't have a backlit keyboard or 4GB of ram is to save costs to keep their margins up. Also it creates an incentive for people to buy a more expensive macbook pro, or pay $100 extra for the 4GB of ram. Plus, it gives them another selling feature if they decide to bring it back later. Remember when apple removed the buttons from the iPod shuffle, only to promote how great they are when they brought them back?
If apple thinks that the savings they get by removing the backlit keyboard are greater than the lost customers/profits from removing it, then they are better off.
All I'm saying is that if, in the event Apple, or ANY other company REMOVES once-standard features ... to later then call them 'luxary' features ... those companies deserve a big round of boos from us - the consumers. That's a pathetic and cynical way to try to goose sales for your higher end products.
With Apple, the biggest reason the macbook air doesn't have a backlit keyboard or 4GB of ram is to save costs to keep their margins up. Also it creates an incentive for people to buy a more expensive macbook pro, or pay $100 extra for the 4GB of ram. Plus, it gives them another selling feature if they decide to bring it back later. Remember when apple removed the buttons from the iPod shuffle, only to promote how great they are when they brought them back?
If apple thinks that the savings they get by removing the backlit keyboard are greater than the lost customers/profits from removing it, then they are better off.
All I'm saying is that if, in the event Apple, or ANY other company REMOVES once-standard features ... to later then call them 'luxary' features ... those companies deserve a big round of boos from us - the consumers. That's a pathetic and cynical way to try to goose sales for your higher end products.
colonels1020
Apr 23, 09:22 PM
oh god please i hope so
KPOM
Apr 17, 08:03 PM
Is it huge, or is it only 30%?
These are all just rumours anyway.
Well the Samsung Series 9 already uses the chip that CNET is speculating will be in the MacBook Air, so we can compare its graphics performance.
These are all just rumours anyway.
Well the Samsung Series 9 already uses the chip that CNET is speculating will be in the MacBook Air, so we can compare its graphics performance.
PghLondon
Apr 28, 11:26 AM
This is fun.
Yes, the iPhone does compete against Android. The last time I went into a AT&T or Verizon store, this was obvious. To say that the iPhone does not compete against Android is silly.
WRONG. iPhone = hardware. Android = software.
iOS competes against Android.
Because there is only two hardware choices, the iPhone 4 or iPhone 3GS. Making this argument is so empty, in that it does not take into account the reasons behind it.
WRONG. The choice is iPhone OR any Android phone OR any Win7 Phone OR any RIM phone, etc.
Hello Mr. Straw man. The article was about iPhone; if you read it it states "covering U.S. mobile phone sales". Now, if by mobile OS, you are also adding in the iPad, that is debatable. I've been a iPad 3G owner since April 30th and I can tell you that I do not consider the iPad a mobile device. Sure, its easy to carry, but to lump in its sales with phone handset sales is a stretch. If you are making that stretch, how about adding netbooks into the mix as well?
If those netbooks ran Android, I'd count them. But they don't. And YOU'RE bringing up straw men? Phone versus non-phone makes no difference if they're running the same OS and same apps.
When your sales numbers for phones are ~50% of that of your competitor; whereas a few years ago they were barely a blip, then yes that means they are getting kicked in the teeth in handset OS sales.
In your mind maybe. But only in your mind.
PS: Handset OS sales? What the hell does that mean?
Yes, the iPhone does compete against Android. The last time I went into a AT&T or Verizon store, this was obvious. To say that the iPhone does not compete against Android is silly.
WRONG. iPhone = hardware. Android = software.
iOS competes against Android.
Because there is only two hardware choices, the iPhone 4 or iPhone 3GS. Making this argument is so empty, in that it does not take into account the reasons behind it.
WRONG. The choice is iPhone OR any Android phone OR any Win7 Phone OR any RIM phone, etc.
Hello Mr. Straw man. The article was about iPhone; if you read it it states "covering U.S. mobile phone sales". Now, if by mobile OS, you are also adding in the iPad, that is debatable. I've been a iPad 3G owner since April 30th and I can tell you that I do not consider the iPad a mobile device. Sure, its easy to carry, but to lump in its sales with phone handset sales is a stretch. If you are making that stretch, how about adding netbooks into the mix as well?
If those netbooks ran Android, I'd count them. But they don't. And YOU'RE bringing up straw men? Phone versus non-phone makes no difference if they're running the same OS and same apps.
When your sales numbers for phones are ~50% of that of your competitor; whereas a few years ago they were barely a blip, then yes that means they are getting kicked in the teeth in handset OS sales.
In your mind maybe. But only in your mind.
PS: Handset OS sales? What the hell does that mean?
doctor-don
Apr 24, 11:10 PM
Not if they're grandfathered in! AT&T has stated in their proposal papers to the FCC that they're going to honor the T-Mobile plans in contract even if they upgrade phones.
A T-Mobile rep told me the same thing. But he also said this process might take a year - IF it goes through.
A T-Mobile rep told me the same thing. But he also said this process might take a year - IF it goes through.
kirk26
Apr 16, 01:58 PM
I love my AT&T iPhone 4 and 3GS. On the iPhone 4, upgrading to 4.3.1 was flawless with no problems. The 3GS started having battery drain. Within 6 hours, it would be at 60% with just a bit of usage. I would usually be at 60% after 24 hours. I downgraded to 4.1 where I was before. Nothing on 4.3.1 was worth upgrading to. I don't have a supported printer for air printing and for airshare, the only thing I can share back and forth to is my MBP.
Any battery problems on this latest update?
I have had a flawless experience with AT&T over the past few years and will remain with the next iPhone.
No issues with any of those updates on AT&T.
Any battery problems on this latest update?
I have had a flawless experience with AT&T over the past few years and will remain with the next iPhone.
No issues with any of those updates on AT&T.
RawBert
Dec 29, 05:40 PM
When one starts approaching the weight of worlds fattest person they can no longer get to the toilet. So I feel sorry for the person with bed pan duty:eek::eek::eek:.
Oh God! *dry heave* You're right.
I'm sure fried chicken drumsticks sometimes get wedged in between her rolls for months at a time. Perhaps even whole chickens.
Oh God! *dry heave* You're right.
I'm sure fried chicken drumsticks sometimes get wedged in between her rolls for months at a time. Perhaps even whole chickens.
Funkatronic
Sep 15, 01:33 AM
Yeah, um, I really, really like Threadless. And Halo. Won't have to do laundry for a month straight now! :)
Had to stock up on t-shirts when they had their $9 sale for 32 hours this past week!
Holy mother of god!! A question though, do they charge shipping seperately for each tee, or if you have a giant-ass order does it get billed per box? (crate)
I'm considering a mega tee order myself, but the international shipping rates are making me think twice.
Had to stock up on t-shirts when they had their $9 sale for 32 hours this past week!
Holy mother of god!! A question though, do they charge shipping seperately for each tee, or if you have a giant-ass order does it get billed per box? (crate)
I'm considering a mega tee order myself, but the international shipping rates are making me think twice.
longofest
Jul 24, 07:12 PM
You'll get no argument from me here. Been using the MX-1000 since my PC days and love it to death. My trackpad sees the use isntead of a MM, but same feelings :)
But I can see Steve Jobs announcing the improved bluetooth MM:
It's WWDC and he's in the middle of his stevenote. he 'accidentally hits something' and messes something or other up. He acts angry and yanks the MM away from its cord.
The cord just pops off and he pulls it out of hte USB port.
Then he keeps on using it as if nothing happened.
"oh, and we have the new bluetooth mighty mouse available now!
that's at least 3 MX-1000 users we have that are well-satisfied :-)
But I can see Steve Jobs announcing the improved bluetooth MM:
It's WWDC and he's in the middle of his stevenote. he 'accidentally hits something' and messes something or other up. He acts angry and yanks the MM away from its cord.
The cord just pops off and he pulls it out of hte USB port.
Then he keeps on using it as if nothing happened.
"oh, and we have the new bluetooth mighty mouse available now!
that's at least 3 MX-1000 users we have that are well-satisfied :-)
toddybody
Apr 13, 08:52 PM
I agree with all the folks here who say it wont sell. I mean, since everyone I know is constantly reading and posting on MR... :p
einmusiker
Dec 31, 12:25 AM
No, I'm 100% right. Weight control is about calories. End of story. Calories in < Calories out and you lose weight. Opposite and you gain weight. There's no more or less here, that is the very basic premise. You want to discuss specifics that affect calories in/calories out, but that's flawed. Teach people the base first, and let them balance themselves out. You can very easily test your metabolic rate.
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
ok, I'm sorry but how the hell do you know what I do or don't understand about nutrition?? your presumptions are offensive
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
ok, I'm sorry but how the hell do you know what I do or don't understand about nutrition?? your presumptions are offensive
irbdavid
Jul 21, 11:24 AM
Afterall Apple does not want you to use Windows, it only wants you to believe you could run Windows if you had to, in order to ease switcher anxiety.
Actually they want to sell you the hardware, right? Apple calls itself a hardware company that makes a bit of software on the side, rather than software company that makes hardware to sell with it, doesn't it?
Actually they want to sell you the hardware, right? Apple calls itself a hardware company that makes a bit of software on the side, rather than software company that makes hardware to sell with it, doesn't it?
Kilamite
Oct 3, 09:43 AM
This is exactly why I turn 3G off on my iPhone. The reception in Edinburgh is appalling - I walk around the city and my phone is constantly skipping between GPRS and 3G. And sometimes it'll just say "No Service" until I turn 3G off and it forces GPRS connection.
I think the iPhone has really outlined the flaws and poor reception that carriers have in some major areas.
I think the iPhone has really outlined the flaws and poor reception that carriers have in some major areas.
Wilz
Oct 24, 09:02 AM
FINALLY!
credit card at the ready, macbook pro will be mine soon
credit card at the ready, macbook pro will be mine soon
KnightWRX
Dec 30, 11:24 PM
We are learning some awfully interesting things about you today, lol.
Whatever floats your boat though lol:D
Things I was trying to encourage him to keep awfully to himself back on page 2... Seriously, we need to stop enabling fat people. I say that as an ex-fat person with a high risk of gaining back my weight.
A huge problem (no pun intended) in America is the gigantic portions masquerading as meals in fast-food and casual restaurants. Some of the dishes available at very popular chains are absolutely ridiculous in size. Yet we buy them because they are a "good value." And let's face it - more often than not, we make a pretty good run at finishing off our plates, don't we? Unfortunately, that's just continuing the validation of the portion sizes...
I was in Reston Virginia for training a year ago. One thing I like about the US, is that all restaurants have their nutritional information posted somewhere. Here you have to almost kill someone to get it.
Anyway, me and the guy I'm with walk into Champps (http://www.champps.com/) at diner time one evening. Here's the nutritional info : http://www.champps.com/Portals/3/Website%20Nutritionals%200710-1.pdf. I had looked it up earlier since I was in full blown weight loss mode and had made my pick (another very important weight control technique, choose what you'll eat ahead of time when going out). I ordered the Salmon BBQ chopped salad (1155 calories) (which was delicious) and ate half of it. Half the salmon, half the actual salad, half the sauce, approximately of course. That was still close to 550 calories.
My co-worker laughs it up, says he'll just get an appetizer instead of a dumb salad and it'll taste better and be less fattening. He ordered the Miles High Nacho, with Chili of course. Luckily, he never managed to eat more than a quarter of it. Yep, a close to a quarter of a 3300 calories. That plate has almost 1 lbs gain for a person!
Whatever floats your boat though lol:D
Things I was trying to encourage him to keep awfully to himself back on page 2... Seriously, we need to stop enabling fat people. I say that as an ex-fat person with a high risk of gaining back my weight.
A huge problem (no pun intended) in America is the gigantic portions masquerading as meals in fast-food and casual restaurants. Some of the dishes available at very popular chains are absolutely ridiculous in size. Yet we buy them because they are a "good value." And let's face it - more often than not, we make a pretty good run at finishing off our plates, don't we? Unfortunately, that's just continuing the validation of the portion sizes...
I was in Reston Virginia for training a year ago. One thing I like about the US, is that all restaurants have their nutritional information posted somewhere. Here you have to almost kill someone to get it.
Anyway, me and the guy I'm with walk into Champps (http://www.champps.com/) at diner time one evening. Here's the nutritional info : http://www.champps.com/Portals/3/Website%20Nutritionals%200710-1.pdf. I had looked it up earlier since I was in full blown weight loss mode and had made my pick (another very important weight control technique, choose what you'll eat ahead of time when going out). I ordered the Salmon BBQ chopped salad (1155 calories) (which was delicious) and ate half of it. Half the salmon, half the actual salad, half the sauce, approximately of course. That was still close to 550 calories.
My co-worker laughs it up, says he'll just get an appetizer instead of a dumb salad and it'll taste better and be less fattening. He ordered the Miles High Nacho, with Chili of course. Luckily, he never managed to eat more than a quarter of it. Yep, a close to a quarter of a 3300 calories. That plate has almost 1 lbs gain for a person!
Abstract
Jan 31, 01:15 AM
This loser is your idol? Damn, your life sucks.
Gasu E.
Apr 26, 02:48 PM
Well they won't be charging me.
I'm sure Apple will be heartbroken that you won't be gobbling resources without paying.
If it's worth anything, it's worth $20/year.
I'm sure Apple will be heartbroken that you won't be gobbling resources without paying.
If it's worth anything, it's worth $20/year.
Markleshark
Jan 28, 02:05 AM
hp mini 1030nr for $95 :D
Researching hackintoshing capabilities now
It's a good choice for Hackintoshing.
Researching hackintoshing capabilities now
It's a good choice for Hackintoshing.
Fotek2001
Aug 15, 04:40 PM
Still... meh.
Care to explain why? From what I've seen (as someone who's used Leopard and not just looked at screenshots), it's a huge leap in many subtle ways...
People seem to want new gadgets and gizmos yet the most requested changes are subtle improvements to current features like grid spacing in the Finder and simplified backup... What do you want...?
Care to explain why? From what I've seen (as someone who's used Leopard and not just looked at screenshots), it's a huge leap in many subtle ways...
People seem to want new gadgets and gizmos yet the most requested changes are subtle improvements to current features like grid spacing in the Finder and simplified backup... What do you want...?
bbarnhart
Oct 19, 01:44 PM
Apple hasn't done that well over the last year.
It has done great over the last 6 - 7 years but it has been fairly static over the last year or so.
In fact last year in January it was higher than it is right now.
I'd say a +40% increase in stock price from Oct 19, 2005 to Oct 19, 2006 is doing pretty well.
It has done great over the last 6 - 7 years but it has been fairly static over the last year or so.
In fact last year in January it was higher than it is right now.
I'd say a +40% increase in stock price from Oct 19, 2005 to Oct 19, 2006 is doing pretty well.
bartelby
Feb 25, 11:35 AM
This loser is your idol? Damn, your life sucks.
That's kinda what I was thinking too...
That's kinda what I was thinking too...
purelithium
Jul 24, 07:52 PM
Damnit! 3 Weeks after I buy my regular mighty mouse...
Source URL: https://lifestyleartsblogs.blogspot.com/2011/05/corvette-zo6x.html
Visit Lifestyle Arts for daily updated images of art collection
