I used a machine called the Omnichrome which would overlay colour on top of a photocopied item. You could cut out the colours and place them over the parts you wanted and... wolla, a licence to buy beer! Well after a while it wears off and you can guess what happened next.
So am I lead to believe that this is a one way trip? If so how can a company be aloud to let this be so. If my Grandma is very sick with an age related disease and everyone can tell that she is living like a zombie, I go to jail if I assist in her death. Why aren't these loonies shut down for effectively knowing their crew will die.
I always though that there was serious interest in this on both sides, but the US went...WTF and just kept up the show so the Soviets would go bust spending big bucks in a race to keep up. Looks like it worked.
I remember when cable TV started and there were no ads. You paid a small about every month and you had the blissful ad free environment. We all knew it wouldn't last and that ads would be back at full strength again. That's just the way it works. Get you in on promises of a better experience, then later on change the terms. Do these internet titans have anything better to do with their colossal revenue other than sink it into more ways to see what we do, simply to sell it to advertisers. Twitter was a darling, and now they want to grow up they are eating their parents (us)... for money! Nothing more, nothing less, just a straight up money. Imagine if Twitter was not-for-profit.
Can we put this in the "don't give a rats ass" category please.
There are no surprises here.
Mark Zuckerberg's and the like don't give a shit personally about the other people who don't have internet connection and the reasons they are not online. They just want them online for revenue. Get them online, make advertising dollars from them, let them figure out how to survive life.
So in other words, the rich and powerful live and the rest can take a long walk on a short pier.
If you ask me Apple has quietly let slip that is was developing a watch only to make everyone else go OH CRAP, and divert shed loads of resources to it. It's a shit idea with 21st century battery life. I have a £3K watch I hardly ever use because of my phone, and that lasts forever, why would I want to buy a watch that lasts ten hours when I have a phone that lasts longer. Apple 1, competitors 0
That my friend is the right answer!
True. The award panel is looking at the emotional aspect of the shot. The visual colour/light aspect is what is terrible. There was no need to put a glossy magazine touch to a terrible situation other people are finding themselves dealing with.
As a retoucher for 20 years, as soon as the image popped open on my screen it was yelling at me... "I've been retouched" The light and it's intensity is all over the place. It maybe the shot the photographer took, but he ruined it with terrible retouching.
Well with all this out in the open we all know that bugger all will get done, as all the rich people employ us average folk, who in turn pay the taxes, et cetera, et cetera.
gyrogeerloose writes "According to MacRumors, NIN's iPhone application has been approved. Trent Reznor has reported via his Twitter account that the now-approved app was resubmitted without modification, which suggests that Apple reconsidered their initial rejection. This should really come as no surprise to anyone who follows Apple news since it follows the company's typical pattern of handing potentially controversial iPhone apps, especially when it concerns high-profile rejections."
Looks like something right out of Golden Eye... Love it.