I've heard just the opposite...I've seen maybe 2 or 3 commercials advertising Blu-Ray (PS3 commercials), but I've heard dozens of HDDVD commercials. Maybe they just do more radio advertising, maybe it's the radio station I listen to in the car, but the website thelookandsoundofperfect.com is definitely stuck in my head.
Or were you just trolling? I'll give you three guesses! Here I go again!
Isn't it more accurate to compare the time line of Windows XP to Mac OS X? Both were released around the same time, both are their respective publishers most popular desktop OS, both are currently supported, etc. Yet one has received free updates since release, where as the other has had four $129 software updates since release. Since both companies stopped supporting the older versions of their OS, which would you go with? The OS with free updates, or the OS that has cost you over $500 to stay updated?
The interface (within Outlook, at least) presents itself as a demand on your calendar. "I've set this meeting. If you don't like it, you should actively decline, but otherwise I'll assume we're meeting." I agree that it would be nice to change the default behavior of adding it to your calendar, but at the same time it's saved me a few times on meeting invites I glanced over on a Monday morning. But if someone expects you to be there when you haven't responded, that's just silly. That's the whole concept of RSVP. If someone didn't respond to my snail mail party invite, I won't be expecting them to show up at my party. If someone that is required at my meeting hasn't responded within a few hours of my meeting, I give them a call.
Unless you just send a normal e-mail asking this, Outlook won't send a non-time-specific calendar event saying, "I'd like to meet with you. Can you set a time that's convenient for you?" Again, use the Propose New Time feature. I usually send out invites saying "What time/day works for you? Thanks." They respond with a proposed time, and everything works great.
Also, Outlook doesn't present you with an automatically generated list of who hasn't responded to your invitations. Opening the meeting in your calendar and selecting the Tracking tab is too much? If something was so important that I needed to spend a dozen+ man hours discussing it, I can take the 15 seconds to check that tab.
Do you and your friends really use Outlook invites to schedule your personal lives? No. If I may quote myself:
Yeesh, I take it you don't get too many party invitations in the mail? The rest of your response...I was mainly joking. When I set up meetings with people outside my own company, I usually call them to see when they're available. Usually that's because the meeting revolves around their participation though.
Still, if you can't accept meeting invites from peers within your company, that's just terrible work ethic. I'm trying to get my product done in time and sent out the door. I don't have time to place calls back and forth between 6 people to get a consensus on a time for a peer review. I'm going to look at everyone's availability in Outlook, pick a time that's free for as many people as possible, and send that invite out.
This time I'm serious...do you get offended when people email you as well? It's inherently unfriendly too, since so much communication is done via tone of voice, facial expression, hand movement, etc. They obviously couldn't be bothered to call you, they just want to pass all the information and questions they have when it's convenient to them. After all, a calendar invite is basically just an email with a time and date field added on to it.
You're not in my company; don't make assumptions about my scheduling. Yeesh, I take it you don't get too many party invitations in the mail? Your Friday nights are booked up all the way through 2009? How dare someone try to include you in a gathering that might be relevant to your interests!
That's why, at least in Outlook, there are "Propose New Time" and "Decline" buttons. We should get together next Tuesday at 1330 so I can show you these features.
Comedy Central presumably paid more money because it has a larger audience, so they can charge more for advertisements. You'd rather the show go to a network with fewer viewers? Futurama was already killed off once due to a supposedly low fan base...do you want a repeat? I'd prefer they air on whichever network can better guarantee them success. Seems like Comedy Central is better positioned to do that, at least they think so.
Mozilla could get as much or more money by selling off search or other services to the highest bidder but that's not how we operate. Google is the default because it's the best. I think that pretty much puts this entire discussion to rest. Thanks for the response!
Could that money come from another source though? Would Yahoo payout like Google does if they switched the default search engines, homepage, etc to yahoo's servers? Sure the cash is really flowing in, but it seems like other there would be other companies that would pay for that right. Maybe not as much as Google, but they'd pay something at least.
My lap desk mentioned above actually did replace my PHB:)
PHB under the laptop, back cover of the DMG on the arm rest, and a character sheet for a mouse pad.
Simple = best
on
Lap Desks
·
· Score: 5, Informative
The "lap desk" I use is basically just a chunk of smooth wood with sort of a bean-bag pillow attached to the bottom. $10 from my local college marketing class. Works perfectly, doesn't get too hot, etc.
Well, according to the data from the study, the parent has a valid argument. What other reason do the iPhone users (in the study) have for not fixing mistakes?
iPhone owners also left an average of 2.6 errors/completed message created on the iPhone compared to an average of 0.8 errors/completed message left by hard-key QWERTY phone owners on their own phone.
From the study
If the iPhone corrective text feature made an improper correction, this was still counted as a single error even if multiple letters were changed. Sounds like they were using it.
I don't doubt that having a hard copy is better, but don't some of the early editions of the comics they put up sell for hundreds or thousands of dollars?
This tells us one of two possible things: either that the iPhone is astoundingly good value or that the RAZR was disgracefully overpriced. For the love of god, I don't care about the Razr. Not at all. Nope, not one bit. For all my examples above, replace it with whatever model that ugly analog tdma nokia phone everyone had 7-8 years ago, some LG phone, or something else. The razr specifically has nothing to do with my point. Jesus, let it go. You remind me of Patton Oswalt's Tivo.
The point is that the iPhone is so astoundingly great that it makes AT&T want to talk about things like exclusivity, as they know people will do anything (well, switch networks) to get one. Yes, I'm well aware that AT&T is pushing it to be the next sliced bread. That's not the point I was making, nor was it the point of the OP.
And once again, for the third time, the sole objective of a company is to make a profit. Oh really? And here I thought it was to make me (and only me) completely happy! Did public schools get out early today? I never said they didn't make the smart business move. I am fully aware and educated on the finer points of economics in the US and internationally.
Third time's a charm in explaining this to you, then you can get back to your Social Studies homework. The original post I responded to, as located here, blamed AT&T for making the iPhone a closed system. I responded here that it was Apple's fault for having a closed system. One could argue that it's their duty to maximize profits, which is why they went exclusive, which is what your point seems to be. Guess what? Then it's still Apple's fault, which was my original point. Thank you for agreeing with it.
So to compare iPhones to RAZRs is a bit disingenuous I'm not comparing the features of these phones. I'm comparing how they were brought to market. They are both mobile phones, supplied to a carrier(s) by a separate manufacturing company.
The RAZR has been out a lot longer than the iPhone, and it's the kind of phone you get free with a contract And when it debuted, it cost consumers five hundred dollars. The same as the iPhone.
it is quite normal for mobile phone network operators to...restricting what one can do with the phone Yes, it is very common for an carrier to request that the manufacturer strip certain functionality from their subsidized phones. In this situation, yes, it is perfectly fine to complain to the carrier that functionality has been stripped from their phone. If you don't want the carrier's broken phone, you can buy one directly from the manufacturer, or from numerous resellers of unlocked phones, with all the functionality built in. I've purchased several phones this way (including Nokia, Motorola, and HTC phones), and there have always been freely available firmware updates direct from the manufacturer that do not revert my phone back to a locked state.
Apple chose not to go this route. They chose to release a locked phone to a single carrier. If the rumors are true then they are obligated to patch third party hacks to keep the phone locked in. There is no other option, and Apple made that choice for everyone, not AT&T. Therefore, complain to Apple for giving AT&T an exclusive contract, which requires that Apple keep their phone locked down as much as possible.
Release it untethered...? Yes. Look at phones like the Razr, which you can get through multiple carriers, or directly through Motorola. I don't have the numbers, but I'd bet money that more Razrs have been sold than iPhones.
I don't understand your troll though. The OP stated it's closed off, but blamed AT&T for closing it off. Apple chooses to close it off presumably to stay compliant with their exclusivity contract with AT&T. Therefore it's Apple to blame. They had the opportunity to release it with less restrictions, but they didn't. Get it yet?
Slashdot Mirror
Your mother. The real question is: who's the developer?
I've heard just the opposite...I've seen maybe 2 or 3 commercials advertising Blu-Ray (PS3 commercials), but I've heard dozens of HDDVD commercials. Maybe they just do more radio advertising, maybe it's the radio station I listen to in the car, but the website thelookandsoundofperfect.com is definitely stuck in my head.
Isn't it more accurate to compare the time line of Windows XP to Mac OS X? Both were released around the same time, both are their respective publishers most popular desktop OS, both are currently supported, etc. Yet one has received free updates since release, where as the other has had four $129 software updates since release. Since both companies stopped supporting the older versions of their OS, which would you go with? The OS with free updates, or the OS that has cost you over $500 to stay updated?
Well it's Apple, so they'll fix it in 10.6, and charge you $129 for it. Isn't that how they release all their other service packs?
Still, if you can't accept meeting invites from peers within your company, that's just terrible work ethic. I'm trying to get my product done in time and sent out the door. I don't have time to place calls back and forth between 6 people to get a consensus on a time for a peer review. I'm going to look at everyone's availability in Outlook, pick a time that's free for as many people as possible, and send that invite out.
This time I'm serious...do you get offended when people email you as well? It's inherently unfriendly too, since so much communication is done via tone of voice, facial expression, hand movement, etc. They obviously couldn't be bothered to call you, they just want to pass all the information and questions they have when it's convenient to them. After all, a calendar invite is basically just an email with a time and date field added on to it.
That's why, at least in Outlook, there are "Propose New Time" and "Decline" buttons. We should get together next Tuesday at 1330 so I can show you these features.
Well, google does provide the blacklisted phishing sites for Firefox, but no one seems to be complaining...
Wide awake.
Comedy Central presumably paid more money because it has a larger audience, so they can charge more for advertisements. You'd rather the show go to a network with fewer viewers? Futurama was already killed off once due to a supposedly low fan base...do you want a repeat? I'd prefer they air on whichever network can better guarantee them success. Seems like Comedy Central is better positioned to do that, at least they think so.
Could that money come from another source though? Would Yahoo payout like Google does if they switched the default search engines, homepage, etc to yahoo's servers? Sure the cash is really flowing in, but it seems like other there would be other companies that would pay for that right. Maybe not as much as Google, but they'd pay something at least.
My lap desk mentioned above actually did replace my PHB :)
PHB under the laptop, back cover of the DMG on the arm rest, and a character sheet for a mouse pad.
The "lap desk" I use is basically just a chunk of smooth wood with sort of a bean-bag pillow attached to the bottom. $10 from my local college marketing class. Works perfectly, doesn't get too hot, etc.
The voting machine prints out Presidential runner X, but internally notes you voted for Presidential runner Y. That's been the general problem.
I don't doubt that having a hard copy is better, but don't some of the early editions of the comics they put up sell for hundreds or thousands of dollars?
Sure. You, me, swing set at 3pm on March 6th. You bring the data.
Third time's a charm in explaining this to you, then you can get back to your Social Studies homework. The original post I responded to, as located here, blamed AT&T for making the iPhone a closed system. I responded here that it was Apple's fault for having a closed system. One could argue that it's their duty to maximize profits, which is why they went exclusive, which is what your point seems to be. Guess what? Then it's still Apple's fault, which was my original point. Thank you for agreeing with it.
Apple chose not to go this route. They chose to release a locked phone to a single carrier. If the rumors are true then they are obligated to patch third party hacks to keep the phone locked in. There is no other option, and Apple made that choice for everyone, not AT&T. Therefore, complain to Apple for giving AT&T an exclusive contract, which requires that Apple keep their phone locked down as much as possible.
Article Title: What Are The Best Free Games Online?
/..
Question at end of summary: Can you suggest any more good free games online?
I'm not seeing where the restriction to flash only games comes into this Ask
I don't understand your troll though. The OP stated it's closed off, but blamed AT&T for closing it off. Apple chooses to close it off presumably to stay compliant with their exclusivity contract with AT&T. Therefore it's Apple to blame. They had the opportunity to release it with less restrictions, but they didn't. Get it yet?