Corey Grandy
Sep 13, 10:39 AM
I have a problem. :)
Shangane
Mar 30, 07:48 PM
hi guys where should i post to fins someone interested in trading an ipd 2 aTt 64 with my white verizon?
ucfgrad93
Aug 4, 12:27 PM
On my iMac.
jsf8x
Aug 11, 05:20 PM
I like it. The only thing I don't love is the Weather widget. However I do like the weather there. Try this widget I just modified.
Download it here: https://public.me.com/upaymeifixit
That's fantastic, thanks so much..
I had a slight issue but I like the weather there. Now it all looks great. :)
Download it here: https://public.me.com/upaymeifixit
That's fantastic, thanks so much..
I had a slight issue but I like the weather there. Now it all looks great. :)
more...
djrobsd
May 2, 07:00 PM
Every time I see a blood drive my blood just boils... As an HIV negative gay man who is in a monogamous committed long term relationship with my partner, I doubt I am any more of a risk then any other heterosexual couple in a relationship, yet they don't see it that way....
Their loss..
Their loss..
bpaluzzi
Apr 21, 03:14 AM
This is an illogical comparison and does not give us any real information to go on.
Why?
They are comparing iOS Devices.
I don't think RIM and all the rest should be compared to iPad and iPod touch devices.
This is playing with the numbers.
Why the heck _wouldn't_ you count those? You can use apps across all the devices, which is where the power of the Apple ecosystem comes into play. Once the Apple TV can support apps, that will be counted too. Whether or not you can make a phone call on the device is absolutely 100% irrelevant. The ONLY thing that matters in these kind of numbers is whether or not you can run an application on it. That's where the benefit of market reach comes into play. More devices sold = more developers = more benefit to customers = more devices sold = more developers ... etc. It's a great little self-sustaining model.
Why?
They are comparing iOS Devices.
I don't think RIM and all the rest should be compared to iPad and iPod touch devices.
This is playing with the numbers.
Why the heck _wouldn't_ you count those? You can use apps across all the devices, which is where the power of the Apple ecosystem comes into play. Once the Apple TV can support apps, that will be counted too. Whether or not you can make a phone call on the device is absolutely 100% irrelevant. The ONLY thing that matters in these kind of numbers is whether or not you can run an application on it. That's where the benefit of market reach comes into play. More devices sold = more developers = more benefit to customers = more devices sold = more developers ... etc. It's a great little self-sustaining model.
more...
forkspoon
Aug 2, 05:15 PM
http://i25.tinypic.com/2j2vwhu.png
Elrond39
Nov 20, 03:01 PM
I guess this gives me another reason to repost my own 'shop of it... 1:1 ratio. And now, for your enjoyment, imagine iChat instead of the terrible texting in the pic.
http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/4070/productshotlx0.png
http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/4070/productshotlx0.png
more...
zen.state
Mar 31, 07:39 AM
MX-2 Thermal Compound done!
Just watching the temps on iStat. How sad am I?
Most paste can take up to a week or two to take it's full effect.
Just watching the temps on iStat. How sad am I?
Most paste can take up to a week or two to take it's full effect.
DavidWildJnr
Mar 23, 10:38 AM
I was still deciding between the Arndale and The Trafford Centre but I think that the Arndale will be a better option. 10:00 sounds like a good start time. First time I have queued on a launch day. :)
more...
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.
FFTT
Oct 21, 04:37 PM
It might be interesting if Lotus Notes messenging client could be used along with
iSight for professional video conferencing rather than just IM's
Even more so if those IM's could be encrypted to PGP standards.
iSight for professional video conferencing rather than just IM's
Even more so if those IM's could be encrypted to PGP standards.
more...
lukenorris
Jan 12, 01:23 AM
What video projector(s) do they use for the keynote at Macworld this year? Is it front or rear projection?
Luke
Luke
jaymesd
Jul 9, 12:48 AM
A:apple: few of my friends and I are going to see how things look around 11 p.m. Thursday night. If there's a line we will be prepared to hang out with the rest! I'm bringing a comfortable chair. :apple:
more...
snebes
Apr 27, 04:26 PM
and watch, Apple will ban that app.
Only because it would be redundant. Did you hear? It will be in a future iOS update.
Only because it would be redundant. Did you hear? It will be in a future iOS update.
Eraserhead
May 4, 06:29 AM
Rumsfeld has said it wasn't used.
more...
kiljoy616
Apr 27, 05:44 PM
if they are not tracking people then why have the feature? maybe the information is for someone else??... who knows but one thing is for sure its an invasion of privacy..... even if I do stay home all day and night.
Not only that but if it only tracked you for a time and then deleted it self automatically then I could see it but my understanding this is not just one day or week so in theory they can track you for a long time.
For those who do not care fine I don't care what they think, this should be something that can be turned off without loosing other functionality.
Not only that but if it only tracked you for a time and then deleted it self automatically then I could see it but my understanding this is not just one day or week so in theory they can track you for a long time.
For those who do not care fine I don't care what they think, this should be something that can be turned off without loosing other functionality.
likemyorbs
Mar 15, 05:12 PM
too bad, i support the death penalty.
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.
Wayfarer
Dec 7, 08:18 PM
I just discovered greenpois0n, thanks!
bluap84
Feb 12, 01:47 PM
heres mine
Mord
Feb 22, 06:33 PM
i think my record for a day would be about 20-30.
that summer sucked, twon months of mediocre weather and xbox live :(.
i just remembered for a long time when i was a n00bie here i thought that all demi god's were moderators :o strange when i look back :), i'll be contributing as soon as the system is fixed, i want my mug god damn it.
that summer sucked, twon months of mediocre weather and xbox live :(.
i just remembered for a long time when i was a n00bie here i thought that all demi god's were moderators :o strange when i look back :), i'll be contributing as soon as the system is fixed, i want my mug god damn it.
toolbox
Mar 26, 08:51 PM
*Calls Judge Judy *
MrSmith
Oct 18, 07:09 PM
http://att.macrumors.com/contest/F13E81.jpg
