Because you know his revenue and expenses for the various versions so much better than him.
He says nothing about relative crash rates beteen Andoid and the iPhone, just that his app crashes on new phones and hence requires tweaking. That might be because his code sucks, it might be because the graphics libs are crap, it doesn't matter it's an extra support cost.
And it wasn't Android's 4GB limit, it was Android's 50MB limit. Sure Google just made a new way to get more data downloaded, but using that would require yet more development effort.
And no he's not saying development is hard. He's saying he make more revenue for each dollar he spends developing/supporting our product for the iPhone than he does for Andoid. In fact he's saying he spends more than he makes, and hence one particular platform is not worth the effort.
It doesn't actually cost the post office 45c to deliver one letter more than they otherwise would be, yet they charge that much for something which is essentially free. The nerve!
Once you have a cellular phone network built, and you've paid for the spectrum and towers and so on then a text message is essentially free. The nerve of charging for such a thing!
That would depend on whether you are "on the clock" at work and what you and your employer agreed to.
If you filled out a timesheet saying you spend that time doing something else then almost certainly yes. Which is the main difference in this actual case - the people involved documented that they did the work even though they didn't. That's where the fraud is.
Magnified by the fact that their fraud could send innocent people to jail. Or if you are a MADD supporter that their fraud could let drunk divers off the hook (calibration errors work both ways after all).
But they're cops, if lying on paperwork got them in trouble there wouldn't be any left.
Of course there's always someone buying it right on the margin of considering it worth it and not worth it. Since they've already chosen to buy it giving them a reason to reconsider means they might change their mind.
it also adds to the effort involved in buying it, which might tip the balance to not worth it.
How does that indicate they don't know their market.
They get your money if you buy the physical book too - so losing an ebook sale to a physical book sale isn't a complete loss.
Sure there's likely more profit margin in an ebook sale, but if lowering the ebook sale results in lots of people skipping the more expensive (higher dollar profit even at the same margin) physcial book and buying the ebook they might make less money than with a higher ebook price.
Of course I know nothing about the inside details of the industry and I know nothing about your involvement in it.
Still, I'd pick that the major book publishers have done more research into the effects of various price levels on sales and know more about their contractual agreements to buy X units of paper over the next Y years at Z price (well that I guess isn't so likely, but there'll be a bunch of similar things) than you do.
Why should a publisher/author/whatever not be able to charge whatever they want for an eBook? If they want to charge more than the printed copy that's their choice surely? If they want to charge less that's also their choice.
Why does cost of production of some other thing matter to the price of an ebook? Heck what does cost of production of the ebook matter to the price of an ebook? Value pricing isn't exactly a new idea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value-based_pricing).
Now collusion amongst the publishers is a different story - that's illegal without even considering the existance of physical books.
I would suspect they don't know or care who he was and just followed the process.
1. Get a DMCA takedown notice, so remove access to the content and notify the account holder. 2. If the account holder responds with a counter notice then forward that to the party who sent the takedown notice. 3. If after 14 days they have not responded then allow then restore the content.
it's a pretty simple process (though there are branches for if they do respond and so on).
What they've done is implemented "removing access to the content" with "delete the content" and "restore the content" with "allow the user to reupload it". Which is retarded but certainly not specific to this one user.
Make sure those screwdrivers are only 6" long too. Otherwise they'll both get lost at the same time when the TSA guy bothers watching the X-X-ray screen. In fact shorter ones might anyway - it's not like they actually bother following their own rules.
You regulate things because they have or at least have a clear danger of doing things wrong. So how does saying things should be regulated possibly mean the same thing as saying they've never done anything wrong?
So which part of that my short sentence said nothing wrong had ever happened? Be specific please since you seem just to be making it up.
Slashdot Mirror
No, because it doesn't take hours to charge up.
The spirit bomb on the other hand, that takes at least two episodes to charge up.
And what does that have to do with security concerns related to online voting?
"using current technology".
The title can't contain everything, that's why there's also a summary/intro.
That already applies to postal voting, and so as a replacement for postal voting isn't an issue.
Not quite. The FBI also invetigate such cases - sometimes with the SEC sometimes without.
The funny thing is they've kicked it up in the last couple of years (with about 60 convictions), but the OP is too slow to notice:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/46623058/FBI_Expands_Crackdown_on_Insider_Trading
Because you know his revenue and expenses for the various versions so much better than him.
He says nothing about relative crash rates beteen Andoid and the iPhone, just that his app crashes on new phones and hence requires tweaking. That might be because his code sucks, it might be because the graphics libs are crap, it doesn't matter it's an extra support cost.
And it wasn't Android's 4GB limit, it was Android's 50MB limit. Sure Google just made a new way to get more data downloaded, but using that would require yet more development effort.
And no he's not saying development is hard. He's saying he make more revenue for each dollar he spends developing/supporting our product for the iPhone than he does for Andoid. In fact he's saying he spends more than he makes, and hence one particular platform is not worth the effort.
It doesn't actually cost the post office 45c to deliver one letter more than they otherwise would be, yet they charge that much for something which is essentially free. The nerve!
Once you have a cellular phone network built, and you've paid for the spectrum and towers and so on then a text message is essentially free. The nerve of charging for such a thing!
That would depend on whether you are "on the clock" at work and what you and your employer agreed to.
If you filled out a timesheet saying you spend that time doing something else then almost certainly yes. Which is the main difference in this actual case - the people involved documented that they did the work even though they didn't. That's where the fraud is.
Magnified by the fact that their fraud could send innocent people to jail. Or if you are a MADD supporter that their fraud could let drunk divers off the hook (calibration errors work both ways after all).
But they're cops, if lying on paperwork got them in trouble there wouldn't be any left.
Of course there's always someone buying it right on the margin of considering it worth it and not worth it. Since they've already chosen to buy it giving them a reason to reconsider means they might change their mind.
it also adds to the effort involved in buying it, which might tip the balance to not worth it.
And the author couldn't pay them, because?
Either upfront or via a revenue sharing agreement.
Which has exactly nothing to do with what I replied to and hence what I was talking about.
Or you could read the damn links and find out. But I guess easier to make guesses.
How does that indicate they don't know their market.
They get your money if you buy the physical book too - so losing an ebook sale to a physical book sale isn't a complete loss.
Sure there's likely more profit margin in an ebook sale, but if lowering the ebook sale results in lots of people skipping the more expensive (higher dollar profit even at the same margin) physcial book and buying the ebook they might make less money than with a higher ebook price.
Of course I know nothing about the inside details of the industry and I know nothing about your involvement in it.
Still, I'd pick that the major book publishers have done more research into the effects of various price levels on sales and know more about their contractual agreements to buy X units of paper over the next Y years at Z price (well that I guess isn't so likely, but there'll be a bunch of similar things) than you do.
Why?
Why should a publisher/author/whatever not be able to charge whatever they want for an eBook? If they want to charge more than the printed copy that's their choice surely? If they want to charge less that's also their choice.
Why does cost of production of some other thing matter to the price of an ebook? Heck what does cost of production of the ebook matter to the price of an ebook? Value pricing isn't exactly a new idea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value-based_pricing).
Now collusion amongst the publishers is a different story - that's illegal without even considering the existance of physical books.
Just ignore the economic/political message (whether you agree or not), but take the sacrifice part of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkEtArDFNYA#t=0m26s
Asking Americans to make sacrifices is ludicrious...
No, you can't create a user defined operator== with both arguments being primitive types.
Way to mix up two completely different meanings of the word "conspiracy",
Do you have any evidence for that at all?
I would suspect they don't know or care who he was and just followed the process.
1. Get a DMCA takedown notice, so remove access to the content and notify the account holder.
2. If the account holder responds with a counter notice then forward that to the party who sent the takedown notice.
3. If after 14 days they have not responded then allow then restore the content.
it's a pretty simple process (though there are branches for if they do respond and so on).
What they've done is implemented "removing access to the content" with "delete the content" and "restore the content" with "allow the user to reupload it". Which is retarded but certainly not specific to this one user.
And he can sue flickr for the damages - likely limited by his agreement with them to at most what he paid them in the first place.
Make sure those screwdrivers are only 6" long too. Otherwise they'll both get lost at the same time when the TSA guy bothers watching the X-X-ray screen. In fact shorter ones might anyway - it's not like they actually bother following their own rules.
Sure but lots of people in additional to that type of coverage get insurance against theft as well, when they could choose not to.
Kenya 2011.
Surely the "without using polarization" part means it isn't that?
You regulate things because they have or at least have a clear danger of doing things wrong. So how does saying things should be regulated possibly mean the same thing as saying they've never done anything wrong?
So which part of that my short sentence said nothing wrong had ever happened? Be specific please since you seem just to be making it up.
How does one destroy a bitcoin?
Storing it at linode seems a good start.