eji
Sep 27, 02:34 AM
they deleted a lot of my messages with an overly aggressive server-side spam filter.
Overly aggressive? I'm currently forwarding all my .Mac mail through Gmail because I got sick of so much junk mail -- 20 messages per day, usually more -- getting through from .Mac to my inbox. I actually thought they didn't have any spam filters at all.
Overly aggressive? I'm currently forwarding all my .Mac mail through Gmail because I got sick of so much junk mail -- 20 messages per day, usually more -- getting through from .Mac to my inbox. I actually thought they didn't have any spam filters at all.
manu chao
Apr 4, 05:49 PM
um, you do realize theres a diff between emailing YOU, and marketing your personal data, right?
this isnt about email from the pub. its about them marketing your data to others, whether you get spam from it or not.
Yes, I have seen there are two checkboxes, I even mentioned it in my post. Check or uncheck either one as you like. Maybe you don't like e-mails about new features in their app, then just uncheck both. Or you are fine with receiving e-mail from FT then uncheck only the bottom one.
With Apple's simplified system, you only decide whether to hand over your data to the publisher, you cannot decide what they then do with this data.
this isnt about email from the pub. its about them marketing your data to others, whether you get spam from it or not.
Yes, I have seen there are two checkboxes, I even mentioned it in my post. Check or uncheck either one as you like. Maybe you don't like e-mails about new features in their app, then just uncheck both. Or you are fine with receiving e-mail from FT then uncheck only the bottom one.
With Apple's simplified system, you only decide whether to hand over your data to the publisher, you cannot decide what they then do with this data.
polyshappyadam
May 5, 06:09 PM
Can anyone tell me why the Apple TV is not shown in the buyers guide section? It should be in there!
mrgreen4242
Nov 29, 03:10 PM
Your argument is kind of self-annihilating:
You say competition is tough... implying that there are a multitude of capable actors. i.e. Supply is high. This, in turn, would imply that capable actors are (or should be) a dime a dozen. However, Hollywood acts as though the A-List is all there is... which, if doing so, constricts supply to a significantly smaller population, therefore creating an artificially high demand for which they, subsequently, have to pay through the nose for... which WE now have to pay through the nose for. And for what? For a non-sensical, elitist, Movie Star ecosystem (an industry which alone brings in millions, if not billions).
If there are as many struggling good actors as you say there are (and I hope there are), I for one would LOVE to see them. I'm sick of the same 8 actors... Ben Stiller, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Julia Roberts, Owen Wilson, Vince Vaughn, Steve Carell, Johnny Depp... At least one of these seem to be in 90% of films these days. Some fresh blood would be nice... and easier on the checkbook.
-Clive
Juat to play devils advocate, nearly all the names on your list are relative newcomers to the "A-List". Excepting Pitt, Roberts, and MAYBE Depp, none of those people were big in the '90's. They did mostly smaller budget, less successful films. Up till the mid-90's Pitt was in only handful of OK movies, and really didn't get HUGE 'till after Fight Club or Interview with a Vampire.
What has Julie Roberts been in lately? Not seen her around in a year or two, in anything big at least. Depp was doing TV through the middle of the last decade, and only got MEGA famous in the late 90's.
Sure, those people are big ATM, but they weren't 10 years ago and they won't be in 10 years either. Yes, Hollywood relies to heavily on a big name to sell a crappy product, but they DO rotate those big names somewhat frequently.
Also, while paying someone, say, $20million for a movie is pretty nuts, there's a few things to consider. One, some movies NEED to give you a reason to go see it; doesn't mean they're BAD movies but more that they are a hard sell. Two, that's a fairly small portion of the budget. Let's say we can make a movie for $100m and we pay Tom Cruise $25m to be in it. We could pay some smaller, but equally talented unkown actor a mere $1m to do the same job.
So $100m cost vs. $81m cost. $81m is still a LOT of money to invest in something (and lets face it, movies are simply an investment). Spending a "little" more on Cruise isn't a bad insurance policy for your investment, especially if you (a studio) are doing 10 major movies this year, representing a billion dollars all together.
So, while I'm not trying to defend the studios business methods or choices, I can certainly see why they make them.
You say competition is tough... implying that there are a multitude of capable actors. i.e. Supply is high. This, in turn, would imply that capable actors are (or should be) a dime a dozen. However, Hollywood acts as though the A-List is all there is... which, if doing so, constricts supply to a significantly smaller population, therefore creating an artificially high demand for which they, subsequently, have to pay through the nose for... which WE now have to pay through the nose for. And for what? For a non-sensical, elitist, Movie Star ecosystem (an industry which alone brings in millions, if not billions).
If there are as many struggling good actors as you say there are (and I hope there are), I for one would LOVE to see them. I'm sick of the same 8 actors... Ben Stiller, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Julia Roberts, Owen Wilson, Vince Vaughn, Steve Carell, Johnny Depp... At least one of these seem to be in 90% of films these days. Some fresh blood would be nice... and easier on the checkbook.
-Clive
Juat to play devils advocate, nearly all the names on your list are relative newcomers to the "A-List". Excepting Pitt, Roberts, and MAYBE Depp, none of those people were big in the '90's. They did mostly smaller budget, less successful films. Up till the mid-90's Pitt was in only handful of OK movies, and really didn't get HUGE 'till after Fight Club or Interview with a Vampire.
What has Julie Roberts been in lately? Not seen her around in a year or two, in anything big at least. Depp was doing TV through the middle of the last decade, and only got MEGA famous in the late 90's.
Sure, those people are big ATM, but they weren't 10 years ago and they won't be in 10 years either. Yes, Hollywood relies to heavily on a big name to sell a crappy product, but they DO rotate those big names somewhat frequently.
Also, while paying someone, say, $20million for a movie is pretty nuts, there's a few things to consider. One, some movies NEED to give you a reason to go see it; doesn't mean they're BAD movies but more that they are a hard sell. Two, that's a fairly small portion of the budget. Let's say we can make a movie for $100m and we pay Tom Cruise $25m to be in it. We could pay some smaller, but equally talented unkown actor a mere $1m to do the same job.
So $100m cost vs. $81m cost. $81m is still a LOT of money to invest in something (and lets face it, movies are simply an investment). Spending a "little" more on Cruise isn't a bad insurance policy for your investment, especially if you (a studio) are doing 10 major movies this year, representing a billion dollars all together.
So, while I'm not trying to defend the studios business methods or choices, I can certainly see why they make them.
more...
MrSmith
Apr 26, 09:52 PM
As a lesbian, I take this passage to mean that having sex with a man is detestable. So, what you're saying is that you find it detestable for a woman to have sex with a man? Lesbians everywhere thank you for your support.
No straight man in their right mind would find lesbian sex detestable...
No straight man in their right mind would find lesbian sex detestable...
jrko
Mar 30, 12:46 PM
just wanted to post from my new Dually! (867mhz not axle ;) )
Getting there. Fans in and much quieter - was a doddle to do. Screens here and just waiting on the thermal paste and Sata card's
Getting there. Fans in and much quieter - was a doddle to do. Screens here and just waiting on the thermal paste and Sata card's
more...
outz
Apr 25, 08:31 PM
sorry wrong post
No way. I totally disagree with everything you've said!
No way. I totally disagree with everything you've said!
bigjohn
Jul 26, 07:14 PM
great, now Toast can concentrate on compatibility issues on the DVD-R side... i've had nothing but problems with my Plextor 716A (DL) and I can't burn higher than 2x without underrun errors on either my new MBP or the Plextor. Different media hasn't helped.
more...
savoirfaire
Dec 3, 02:36 PM
Happened to see this book and thought the photo looked vaguely familiar... :p
http://www.beautyundercover.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Water-Secret-FINAL.jpg
Would be fun to see someone do this with the colors in the proper order...
http://www.beautyundercover.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Water-Secret-FINAL.jpg
Would be fun to see someone do this with the colors in the proper order...
pmz
Apr 4, 09:51 AM
I hate AT&T with a passion. Yet, I'd never switch to Verizon because I'm hooked on 3Mbps + speeds. They're the crack of carriers.
more...
GrannySmith_G5
Sep 16, 01:49 PM
My ibook power adaptor broke. Anyone know of any 3rd party ones that are maybe a little cheaper then the official Apple one? Thanks in advance.
Thunderhawks
Apr 13, 11:23 AM
so as android phones accelerate the pace of innovation with lte, nfc, larger screens, etc. etc., apple decides to slow down the pace of innovation? what the hell is your problem apple?!
A well put 60 billion Dollar question. NOT!
They do things their way, looks like it's working for them:-)
What proof do you have that Apple is slowing down it's innovation?
Not on your time schedule? Not your specs?
Screen size,? May they don't want to make a bigger one?
Some of what you mention isn't even ready for prime time yet!
A well put 60 billion Dollar question. NOT!
They do things their way, looks like it's working for them:-)
What proof do you have that Apple is slowing down it's innovation?
Not on your time schedule? Not your specs?
Screen size,? May they don't want to make a bigger one?
Some of what you mention isn't even ready for prime time yet!
more...
scoobydiesel
Sep 4, 01:31 AM
I really like the hardwood floor wallpaper or whatever you want to call it. So cool honestly.
arkitect
Apr 28, 06:15 AM
Waiting from 9am to 5pm for a burly guy with his butt crack showing up is a joke indeed.
I see you've met our local plumbers before. :p
Now the plumber's mate OTOH.
I see you've met our local plumbers before. :p
Now the plumber's mate OTOH.
more...
Sydde
May 5, 07:10 PM
Japan was the one who attacked first, without any real reason behind.
Fine way to shoot a big hole in your credibility. Learn a little about the lead up to the war before making uninformed assertions like this.
Fine way to shoot a big hole in your credibility. Learn a little about the lead up to the war before making uninformed assertions like this.
magicjames92
Aug 20, 03:13 PM
Must be $400 or less.
i was hoping for 8gb.
i was hoping for 8gb.
more...
slb
Oct 5, 05:53 PM
This is my first post. It takes a lot for me to stop being a lurker, but the idea that any user can resize a textarea on a site I design, dynamically redrawing the page, is among the dumbest ideas I've ever heard. This will break valid page layouts in new and unheard of ways. Designers make form elements a size and shape for a reason.
I look forward to finding a way using JavaScript to disable that feature the day that browser is released.
On the contrary, resizeable textareas are part of the CSS3 standard; Safari 3.0 will simply be the first mainstream browser to implement it. Once you try it, I promise you will not want to go back. It's really a non-issue, and I'm surprised anybody's complaining about it to the point they would disable this end-user feature using JavaScript. I'll just disable JavaScript on your site, then, buddy.
I look forward to finding a way using JavaScript to disable that feature the day that browser is released.
On the contrary, resizeable textareas are part of the CSS3 standard; Safari 3.0 will simply be the first mainstream browser to implement it. Once you try it, I promise you will not want to go back. It's really a non-issue, and I'm surprised anybody's complaining about it to the point they would disable this end-user feature using JavaScript. I'll just disable JavaScript on your site, then, buddy.
z4n3
Apr 20, 05:34 PM
victory? Apple is at war?
:d
:d
trekkie604
Mar 14, 08:08 PM
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1098165
labman
May 3, 10:00 PM
youtube just search best, top themes! there are a ton! there are also several threads showing themes apps etc.. if you want to convince them let them play with yours. I love mine but I also feel it's not for everybody. Also if you take jailbreaking away I'm out!
notjustjay
Apr 8, 09:55 AM
Overpriced. These games are ancient and most of them don't offer much gameplay at all. Plus it cost atari essentially nothing to put this app out. If they made it $0.99 for the hundred pack then it'd be no-brainer, we'd buy it just for the nostalgia alone. I could conceivably see paying up to $4.99 for the hundred pack for the very small handful of games that are actually worth playing. But $14.99 for these junky games? No way.
p.s., I'm not saying all old games are bad, quite the contrary, there are a lot of fantastic old games that still hold up well, but the atari era of games were especially crappy.
So buy the packs you want for 99 cents each. I bought 3 or 4 packs total, and that's all the games that I really played/remember, so I'm quite happy with that. I'm not planning on spending the full $15.
p.s., I'm not saying all old games are bad, quite the contrary, there are a lot of fantastic old games that still hold up well, but the atari era of games were especially crappy.
So buy the packs you want for 99 cents each. I bought 3 or 4 packs total, and that's all the games that I really played/remember, so I'm quite happy with that. I'm not planning on spending the full $15.
mattwallace24
Apr 28, 10:42 AM
Eh, people are reading the data completely wrong. The iPhone 4 dropped on Verizon in mid to late February and had 2.2mil activations by the end of the quarter (roughly 6-7 weeks later), at & t had it for roughly six weeks (almost double the time of Verizon) and only managed 3.6 mil activations. Verizon is activating MORE iPhones than AT&T at a faster rate, including the 3GS deal.
Im trying to figure out why media sites keep getting this so hopelessly wrong. This device sold 2 million+ units being a ten month old product in SIX WEEKS. Do you realize that that is nearly 15% of the lifetime sales of the most successful line of android phones (the galaxy s) in six weeks? If that's bad then **** according to this logic android is really ****ed.
I think you've got it wrong. Verizon's miss per this and the other reports I've seen is versus Apple & Verizon's expectations and plans. Nothing in this story mentions head to head sales, etc.
This isn't about Verizon iPhone versus AT&T iPhone. Its 100% about Apple's expectations. Maybe Apple blew their expectations, but its doubtful they didn't build in a future iPhone 5 launch keeping people on the sidelines, Android releases, etc.
Im trying to figure out why media sites keep getting this so hopelessly wrong. This device sold 2 million+ units being a ten month old product in SIX WEEKS. Do you realize that that is nearly 15% of the lifetime sales of the most successful line of android phones (the galaxy s) in six weeks? If that's bad then **** according to this logic android is really ****ed.
I think you've got it wrong. Verizon's miss per this and the other reports I've seen is versus Apple & Verizon's expectations and plans. Nothing in this story mentions head to head sales, etc.
This isn't about Verizon iPhone versus AT&T iPhone. Its 100% about Apple's expectations. Maybe Apple blew their expectations, but its doubtful they didn't build in a future iPhone 5 launch keeping people on the sidelines, Android releases, etc.
R94N
Aug 8, 04:39 AM
Very simple and clean, mind sharing your wallpaper? Thank you.
If you like stuff like that, take a look at Simple desktops.com (http://www.simpledesktops.com). Nice.
If you like stuff like that, take a look at Simple desktops.com (http://www.simpledesktops.com). Nice.
mad jew
Dec 23, 11:00 PM
I love it. That's really cool. :cool:
0 comments:
Post a Comment