wasabeeguy
Apr 15, 11:43 PM
look, i could make the exact thing in blender and render it in luxrender. and make it 10x more real looking cmon.
rdowns
Apr 26, 10:07 AM
I did have something to add, my opinion, which I am more than entitled to state just as much as you do.
That's nice. IMO, your opinions are worthless. You're just looking to stir **** up. As I said, your act is wearing thin.
That's nice. IMO, your opinions are worthless. You're just looking to stir **** up. As I said, your act is wearing thin.
ct2k7
Apr 23, 06:29 PM
In which case nearly *all* your personal data is vulnerable. Cell tower tracking is not a special case, and relatively not especially more dangerous or compromising than anything else you've got stored on your computer.
Again, there's no egregious violation taking place here, and it's not especially worse than any other way to keep tabs on someone.
I'd rather have a stalker than a paedophile on me.
Let's reserve the lynching for when we actually find out what this tracking data is for specifically and how widespread the issue is with other companies (i.e., Google, MS, etc.)
Ok
If there is no actual cause for concern to the average person (which there really isn't), I fail to see that need to take a flip over it.
You really didn't say that... did you?
Anyway, that's all Il'll post about this for now. I really don't have a lot more to say. This topic is already way off-course, mostly my fault.
ok
Again, there's no egregious violation taking place here, and it's not especially worse than any other way to keep tabs on someone.
I'd rather have a stalker than a paedophile on me.
Let's reserve the lynching for when we actually find out what this tracking data is for specifically and how widespread the issue is with other companies (i.e., Google, MS, etc.)
Ok
If there is no actual cause for concern to the average person (which there really isn't), I fail to see that need to take a flip over it.
You really didn't say that... did you?
Anyway, that's all Il'll post about this for now. I really don't have a lot more to say. This topic is already way off-course, mostly my fault.
ok
goober1223
Apr 6, 11:21 AM
With respect, you clearly don't work in advertising. You pay to put ads in front of the right people, not just anyone. Especially not competing advertisers and agencies. Why do you think Google (a) makes so much advertising revenue and (b) collects so much data about its users? Coincidence?
Secondly individuals are just as greedy as corporations, and generally get to operate outside of the spotlight. Apple has a lot to lose if its iAd platform is seen to be poorly targeting users, but an App developer has a lot to gain from indiscriminate iAd spamming. So in this case, yes, for the sake of self interest I'd expect Apple to reimburse advertisers for clicks inside their iAd app, and I'd expect an independent developer of a similar app to laugh all the way to the bank.
I never said btw I'd expect Apple to reimburse developers for their time on rejected apps. Or if I did I didn't mean it.
I know you didn't say that. I was just explaining my original statement that said that they should.
And no, I don't work in advertising (electrical engineer), so you certainly bring a different view, which I appreciate.
As far as a comparison between corporations and individuals, and in this case Apple, I still see no proof that they aren't charging advertisers for displaying these ads. Certainly, they are more capable than a 3rd party in reimbursing such money, but I also see no proof that there is an exorbitant amount of money to be made here. It's a cool gimmick that will not spend much time in actual use, especially if the ads don't change very often, and if there is no additional content to the application.
Besides, pertaining to your best point, how well are iAds targeted at this point? Considering how few big advertising partners there are, I have a hard time understanding how well they are able to advertise when these ads also aren't included in general browsing, but specifically-purposed apps.
Certainly, Apple wants to get there with iAds, but the first step seems to be to take the premium off of the price. The infrastructure may cost a lot, but they have tons of cash to drain on this project if they want to make it a true competition with google and operate similarly. For instance, if I'm playing "Doodle Bowling", the odds that I will get an iAd for anything relevant to bowling is zero. I also associate bowling with greasy bowling alley food, too, but the odds of having any food advertised (on purpose) appears to be zero, as well. The odds of getting an advertisement for a local bowling alley? Again, zero. If I go online and search "doodle bowling" they have tons of options to select from in targeting my search: past search history (and whatever else they know about me), they know that my search is related to bowling, mobile applications, cartoonish games, etc.
The point is, the differences are innumerous. iAds is absolutely primitive in its targeting capability simply by virtue of how many advertising partners it has, and it should not be any different (at this point) how those ad impressions are received.
Secondly individuals are just as greedy as corporations, and generally get to operate outside of the spotlight. Apple has a lot to lose if its iAd platform is seen to be poorly targeting users, but an App developer has a lot to gain from indiscriminate iAd spamming. So in this case, yes, for the sake of self interest I'd expect Apple to reimburse advertisers for clicks inside their iAd app, and I'd expect an independent developer of a similar app to laugh all the way to the bank.
I never said btw I'd expect Apple to reimburse developers for their time on rejected apps. Or if I did I didn't mean it.
I know you didn't say that. I was just explaining my original statement that said that they should.
And no, I don't work in advertising (electrical engineer), so you certainly bring a different view, which I appreciate.
As far as a comparison between corporations and individuals, and in this case Apple, I still see no proof that they aren't charging advertisers for displaying these ads. Certainly, they are more capable than a 3rd party in reimbursing such money, but I also see no proof that there is an exorbitant amount of money to be made here. It's a cool gimmick that will not spend much time in actual use, especially if the ads don't change very often, and if there is no additional content to the application.
Besides, pertaining to your best point, how well are iAds targeted at this point? Considering how few big advertising partners there are, I have a hard time understanding how well they are able to advertise when these ads also aren't included in general browsing, but specifically-purposed apps.
Certainly, Apple wants to get there with iAds, but the first step seems to be to take the premium off of the price. The infrastructure may cost a lot, but they have tons of cash to drain on this project if they want to make it a true competition with google and operate similarly. For instance, if I'm playing "Doodle Bowling", the odds that I will get an iAd for anything relevant to bowling is zero. I also associate bowling with greasy bowling alley food, too, but the odds of having any food advertised (on purpose) appears to be zero, as well. The odds of getting an advertisement for a local bowling alley? Again, zero. If I go online and search "doodle bowling" they have tons of options to select from in targeting my search: past search history (and whatever else they know about me), they know that my search is related to bowling, mobile applications, cartoonish games, etc.
The point is, the differences are innumerous. iAds is absolutely primitive in its targeting capability simply by virtue of how many advertising partners it has, and it should not be any different (at this point) how those ad impressions are received.
more...
SandynJosh
Mar 28, 05:05 PM
I voted this negative because Apple won't accept certain apps for doing reasonable things. "dangerous" if done incorrectly, but reasonable.
Until devs can do all of the low level things they need to, this is a bad move.
Think about it. If Apple sells an app (via the Mac App Store) that modifies the system, then they need to take that into account when troubleshooting hardware issues, and can't tell you to eliminate the app they sold you.
Until devs can do all of the low level things they need to, this is a bad move.
Think about it. If Apple sells an app (via the Mac App Store) that modifies the system, then they need to take that into account when troubleshooting hardware issues, and can't tell you to eliminate the app they sold you.
leekohler
May 4, 02:47 PM
Ok, I'm sorry- I'm all for gun ownership rights, but this is just damn stupid. You've lost me, NRA. There is no reason to run from the truth or discuss guns.
more...
goober1223
Apr 6, 11:21 AM
With respect, you clearly don't work in advertising. You pay to put ads in front of the right people, not just anyone. Especially not competing advertisers and agencies. Why do you think Google (a) makes so much advertising revenue and (b) collects so much data about its users? Coincidence?
Secondly individuals are just as greedy as corporations, and generally get to operate outside of the spotlight. Apple has a lot to lose if its iAd platform is seen to be poorly targeting users, but an App developer has a lot to gain from indiscriminate iAd spamming. So in this case, yes, for the sake of self interest I'd expect Apple to reimburse advertisers for clicks inside their iAd app, and I'd expect an independent developer of a similar app to laugh all the way to the bank.
I never said btw I'd expect Apple to reimburse developers for their time on rejected apps. Or if I did I didn't mean it.
I know you didn't say that. I was just explaining my original statement that said that they should.
And no, I don't work in advertising (electrical engineer), so you certainly bring a different view, which I appreciate.
As far as a comparison between corporations and individuals, and in this case Apple, I still see no proof that they aren't charging advertisers for displaying these ads. Certainly, they are more capable than a 3rd party in reimbursing such money, but I also see no proof that there is an exorbitant amount of money to be made here. It's a cool gimmick that will not spend much time in actual use, especially if the ads don't change very often, and if there is no additional content to the application.
Besides, pertaining to your best point, how well are iAds targeted at this point? Considering how few big advertising partners there are, I have a hard time understanding how well they are able to advertise when these ads also aren't included in general browsing, but specifically-purposed apps.
Certainly, Apple wants to get there with iAds, but the first step seems to be to take the premium off of the price. The infrastructure may cost a lot, but they have tons of cash to drain on this project if they want to make it a true competition with google and operate similarly. For instance, if I'm playing "Doodle Bowling", the odds that I will get an iAd for anything relevant to bowling is zero. I also associate bowling with greasy bowling alley food, too, but the odds of having any food advertised (on purpose) appears to be zero, as well. The odds of getting an advertisement for a local bowling alley? Again, zero. If I go online and search "doodle bowling" they have tons of options to select from in targeting my search: past search history (and whatever else they know about me), they know that my search is related to bowling, mobile applications, cartoonish games, etc.
The point is, the differences are innumerous. iAds is absolutely primitive in its targeting capability simply by virtue of how many advertising partners it has, and it should not be any different (at this point) how those ad impressions are received.
Secondly individuals are just as greedy as corporations, and generally get to operate outside of the spotlight. Apple has a lot to lose if its iAd platform is seen to be poorly targeting users, but an App developer has a lot to gain from indiscriminate iAd spamming. So in this case, yes, for the sake of self interest I'd expect Apple to reimburse advertisers for clicks inside their iAd app, and I'd expect an independent developer of a similar app to laugh all the way to the bank.
I never said btw I'd expect Apple to reimburse developers for their time on rejected apps. Or if I did I didn't mean it.
I know you didn't say that. I was just explaining my original statement that said that they should.
And no, I don't work in advertising (electrical engineer), so you certainly bring a different view, which I appreciate.
As far as a comparison between corporations and individuals, and in this case Apple, I still see no proof that they aren't charging advertisers for displaying these ads. Certainly, they are more capable than a 3rd party in reimbursing such money, but I also see no proof that there is an exorbitant amount of money to be made here. It's a cool gimmick that will not spend much time in actual use, especially if the ads don't change very often, and if there is no additional content to the application.
Besides, pertaining to your best point, how well are iAds targeted at this point? Considering how few big advertising partners there are, I have a hard time understanding how well they are able to advertise when these ads also aren't included in general browsing, but specifically-purposed apps.
Certainly, Apple wants to get there with iAds, but the first step seems to be to take the premium off of the price. The infrastructure may cost a lot, but they have tons of cash to drain on this project if they want to make it a true competition with google and operate similarly. For instance, if I'm playing "Doodle Bowling", the odds that I will get an iAd for anything relevant to bowling is zero. I also associate bowling with greasy bowling alley food, too, but the odds of having any food advertised (on purpose) appears to be zero, as well. The odds of getting an advertisement for a local bowling alley? Again, zero. If I go online and search "doodle bowling" they have tons of options to select from in targeting my search: past search history (and whatever else they know about me), they know that my search is related to bowling, mobile applications, cartoonish games, etc.
The point is, the differences are innumerous. iAds is absolutely primitive in its targeting capability simply by virtue of how many advertising partners it has, and it should not be any different (at this point) how those ad impressions are received.
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 1, 02:37 PM
See he gets it!!!!
He is one of the few people who (if he lives in Scandinavia, needs to be granted amnesty, and sent to a happier place!) actually understands how it is there...
He is telling the truth, but I didn't want to bring up the suicidal rates in those countries and how the youth is just rotting away... But hey, now that he did...
I am sure they don't spend their money on iPods or iTunes, but rather crack and weed... After all their lives suck... so...
OOOOkkkeeyyyy...
First of all, I do live in Sweden. (born and bred). Secondly, my comment shouldn't be taken too seriously.
I don't know where are from, but my guess is that you never been close to scandinavia. If you had done some traveling you would know that all countries have to live with their own moronic politicians for better or worse.
He is one of the few people who (if he lives in Scandinavia, needs to be granted amnesty, and sent to a happier place!) actually understands how it is there...
He is telling the truth, but I didn't want to bring up the suicidal rates in those countries and how the youth is just rotting away... But hey, now that he did...
I am sure they don't spend their money on iPods or iTunes, but rather crack and weed... After all their lives suck... so...
OOOOkkkeeyyyy...
First of all, I do live in Sweden. (born and bred). Secondly, my comment shouldn't be taken too seriously.
I don't know where are from, but my guess is that you never been close to scandinavia. If you had done some traveling you would know that all countries have to live with their own moronic politicians for better or worse.
more...
mags631
Sep 28, 12:14 PM
Oh i'm sure there will be LOTS of technology in the house.
I bet he'll be able to control everything via an app on his iPhone.
The house itself doesn't need to be HUGE. He can still apply a lot of technology into the house making it worth millions!
I don't think so -- yes it will have updated technologies, probably for energy efficiency. Jobs is not Bill Gates. He went for simple and clean and sometimes technology can muddle that goal.
I bet he'll be able to control everything via an app on his iPhone.
The house itself doesn't need to be HUGE. He can still apply a lot of technology into the house making it worth millions!
I don't think so -- yes it will have updated technologies, probably for energy efficiency. Jobs is not Bill Gates. He went for simple and clean and sometimes technology can muddle that goal.
!� V �!
Apr 29, 06:09 PM
Why do we assume that the person using it is an idiot? What was so confusing about it? It takes two seconds to get use to it.
I think inverted scrolling has the potential to confuse people more and is probably harder to get use to.
I am guessing that you have never worked as tech support or with family members or relatives that are not tech savvy. ;):D
Remember :apple: produces products for the young and young at heart. ;)
Have you not noticed that Steve Jobs weak eyesight and the text in Mac OS growing ever so large. If it was my choice I would have tiny text on screen.
I think inverted scrolling has the potential to confuse people more and is probably harder to get use to.
I am guessing that you have never worked as tech support or with family members or relatives that are not tech savvy. ;):D
Remember :apple: produces products for the young and young at heart. ;)
Have you not noticed that Steve Jobs weak eyesight and the text in Mac OS growing ever so large. If it was my choice I would have tiny text on screen.
more...
skunk
Apr 21, 11:49 AM
Apathy would be not clicking anything.If I want to revert to apathy from a previously engaged stance, I can't. I have to actively disapprove or actively approve.
toddybody
Apr 8, 01:57 PM
Promotion: Best Buy would like you to pay for an iPad 2 in full...to get on a list, that may get one by Aug. Oh, and uh...a free keychain too.
more...
fivepoint
May 4, 04:04 PM
Which brings me back to my initial reply. A "Firearm" has ZERO possibility of injuring your child, until someone behaves irresponsibly. I am fine with a doctor providing a pamphlet of common household hazards and steps to prevent them, but I get the feeling this is not the case. I can too easily imagine the doctor going off on a tangent about firearms deaths statistics, etc...
But again, the most important part: If you dont want your doctor "politicing" you, GO TO A NEW DOCTOR. There should NEVER be laws against what you can or can not say.
Exactly. Doctors getting into such issues is just plain stupid. Stupidity best solved by someone making a conscious choice to choose another doctor, not by more government bureaucracy and control over our lives.
But again, the most important part: If you dont want your doctor "politicing" you, GO TO A NEW DOCTOR. There should NEVER be laws against what you can or can not say.
Exactly. Doctors getting into such issues is just plain stupid. Stupidity best solved by someone making a conscious choice to choose another doctor, not by more government bureaucracy and control over our lives.
greenmeanie
Apr 29, 01:21 PM
If you click on the "IPAD" button you see it otherwise you wont even notice it.
more...
pkson
May 3, 09:39 PM
Nice ad!
rwilliams
Mar 28, 02:36 PM
If you don't want the free publicity, then don't submit your app to the Mac App Store.
Of course, all the haters will cry foul.
What exactly is a 'hater'? Someone that disagrees with the company line? Someone with a dissenting opinion?
Of course, all the haters will cry foul.
What exactly is a 'hater'? Someone that disagrees with the company line? Someone with a dissenting opinion?
more...
Nekbeth
Apr 26, 09:02 PM
Thanks for the explanation Knight, I got confuse with pointers and objects.
I'll give a try now. See how it goes.
Man, we could go forever here. hahaa.
wlh99 , you just described exactly what I want to do.
I'll give a try now. See how it goes.
Man, we could go forever here. hahaa.
wlh99 , you just described exactly what I want to do.
fivepoint
Mar 4, 12:04 PM
No one, no one would take a poll that's seven-months out-of-date and try and pass it off as an accurate representation of current public opinion.
If you can find more recent generic ballot data, I'd love to see it.
Even if the graph was up-to-date as of today it would still not indicate one way or another what would happen in 2012, but rather just give us some general perception as to where the trend is headed, just like the graph I posted. A day, a week, a month... and certainly a year is a LIFETIME in politics.
If you can find more recent generic ballot data, I'd love to see it.
Even if the graph was up-to-date as of today it would still not indicate one way or another what would happen in 2012, but rather just give us some general perception as to where the trend is headed, just like the graph I posted. A day, a week, a month... and certainly a year is a LIFETIME in politics.
maclaptop
Apr 16, 12:33 PM
Yi don't even know why people bring up the apple ecosystem.
Its simple really.
The Apple ecosystem is very good and quite convenient. Yet it's dictatorial, heavily censored, and some truly great apps are rejected because Apple is afraid that customers will embrace these apps and wonder why Apple failed to incorporate the functionality into the native iOS.
Quite to the contrary of the view Apple Evangelists hold, Apple's iPhone is not the best smartphone on the planet. Excellent? Yes, The best? Not so much.
Oh sure they currently have massive sales volume, but so does, toxic highly fatty fast food.
The realty is the general public wants what most others have, an iPhone - they're a dime a dozen and everywhere, a fad that will eventually fade.
Stay tuned, this movies not over. :)
Its simple really.
The Apple ecosystem is very good and quite convenient. Yet it's dictatorial, heavily censored, and some truly great apps are rejected because Apple is afraid that customers will embrace these apps and wonder why Apple failed to incorporate the functionality into the native iOS.
Quite to the contrary of the view Apple Evangelists hold, Apple's iPhone is not the best smartphone on the planet. Excellent? Yes, The best? Not so much.
Oh sure they currently have massive sales volume, but so does, toxic highly fatty fast food.
The realty is the general public wants what most others have, an iPhone - they're a dime a dozen and everywhere, a fad that will eventually fade.
Stay tuned, this movies not over. :)
BadMoon
Mar 17, 11:32 AM
you forgot to bash the xoom
Oh yes, that thing sucks. :cool:
Oh yes, that thing sucks. :cool:
tbrinkma
May 3, 07:28 PM
Contract terms require "consideration" from both parties to be legally binding. Consideration is something you provide to the other party (i.e., money from you, data services from your carrier).
What consideration are the carriers offering you for tethering? You're already paying $X for Y GB of data used on your phone.
Ok, here's the thing. The contract, presented to you when you signed up for the service *explicitly* disallows tethering unless you sign up for that extra service. You pay them money for the service you signed up for *as defined in the contract*. There's the consideration from both sides. If you want to *add* something to that, they're going to want *you* to provide more consideration in exchange for giving you more capabilities under the service agreement *contract*.
(Wow, there's a lot of arm-chair lawyers here who think the contract they signed doesn't apply to *them*.)
What consideration are the carriers offering you for tethering? You're already paying $X for Y GB of data used on your phone.
Ok, here's the thing. The contract, presented to you when you signed up for the service *explicitly* disallows tethering unless you sign up for that extra service. You pay them money for the service you signed up for *as defined in the contract*. There's the consideration from both sides. If you want to *add* something to that, they're going to want *you* to provide more consideration in exchange for giving you more capabilities under the service agreement *contract*.
(Wow, there's a lot of arm-chair lawyers here who think the contract they signed doesn't apply to *them*.)
jackeill
Apr 29, 04:03 PM
And now please give me grid-full-screen-view-of-spaces and waste less space in Mission Control
nsayer
Jul 21, 05:27 PM
It creates a constant -24dbm drop.
*TWEEEEEEET* Illegal use of units. 5 yard penalty. Repeat first down.
dB is a ratio unit, usable in the context of "...a 24 dB drop." dBm is an absolute unit - dB up from a milliwatt.
*TWEEEEEEET* Illegal use of units. 5 yard penalty. Repeat first down.
dB is a ratio unit, usable in the context of "...a 24 dB drop." dBm is an absolute unit - dB up from a milliwatt.
Mac Fly (film)
Oct 19, 11:44 AM
I believe that translates roughly into a 1,900% return on investment.
I could tell, my broker thought I was certifiable when I put in the buy orders. BTW, he didn't have a computer at home in those days. Now he's got an iMac. ;)
:D :D :D
I could tell, my broker thought I was certifiable when I put in the buy orders. BTW, he didn't have a computer at home in those days. Now he's got an iMac. ;)
:D :D :D
No comments:
Post a Comment