Windows was shipped with IBM(?), and that caused a markedshare to form.
Now.... we also have anticompetive practice from Microsofts DOS against drdos, and etc...
Before all that there was tremendous interest in Windows 3 prior to its launch and a lot of people eager to use it once it became available. At the time people were really interested in using a graphical environment rather than DOS. Also at this time Microsoft was telling developers that Windows was temporary, just something for DOS users to use for now, and that the future would really be OS/2 1.x with the Presentation Manager GUI.
In a few more words: we're not going to see what we saw with Wintel because people actually have to go out and select Android. Wintel was what you got when you walked into a store and walked out with a computer; most people didn't even know what an operating system was until it was far too late.
You are skipping the early history of Windows. Many people were very much aware of Windows, just as many are aware of Android. It was Intel that they didn't really know about, much like they don't know about Qualcomm. Windows 3 caught on because of huge marketing efforts and a high public demand to turn people's DOS boxes into something graphical and easier to use. People initially had choices, stick with DOS, move to OS/2 1.x (+ Presentation Manager GUI if interested), or buy a Mac. Well I guess SCO Unix and Microsoft Xenix were options too.:-)
As for your thesis that people just wanted a computer and got Windows without really knowing about, well the same is true for Android. Some people want a smartphone and buy some Motorola, Samsung, LG, etc phone without being aware of Android or Google.
The whole point of patenting things (aside from trolling, which is actually contrary to the point, but anyway) is to get to market first because the PTO gives you a temporary monopoly (you're expected to exploit said monopoly, as a subsidy for the effort of invention). Ergo, Apple filing a patent and then not getting to market promptly is kind of silly.
Not necessarily. They may have feared that a competitor would file a similar patent first. Even if it takes 5 years to get the invention to market they would still get 15 years of patent protection, as opposed to zero if they were not the first to file.
There is also the likelihood of needing the full 20 years of protection, odds are someone will invent a competing technology that is clear of Apple's patent.
It's not risky at all. Read the Alaska Department of Revenue's forecast report.
You are correct. Unlike other states Alaska does increase the tax as oil prices rise. But guess who is responsible for that, Palin:
"Under Palin's plan, called ``Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share,'' oil company profits are taxed at a 25 percent base rate, up from the previous 22.5 percent. When the price rises to $30 over cost, or about $52 a barrel, the tax rate rises 0.2 percent for each dollar." http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aYdZoyTvFrTc&refer=home
Folks should flame her when she does something silly, but folks should also give her credit for things she got right.
Try selling "just raise taxes" as a way to solve the debt crisis of the federal government (or most of the states)... See how many Palin supporters you find agreeing with you.
I understand your urge to change the topic and create straw men, but I don't really care if current Palin supporters agree with the approaches she actually applied as governor. I merely believe in giving people credit for things they did accomplish. If she decreased taxes on individuals and increased taxes on oil companies she deserves credit. If she cut federal pork to Alaska she deserves credit. Wikipedia suggests that she did both. Likewise she deserves criticism for bailing out of he term as governor.
She probably didn't. Oil prices went from ~$60/barrel to ~150/barrel, then down ~$60/barrel over the course of a year and a half. The prices climbed back up fairly quickly to the $80-$90/barrel range in late 2007. She might have trimmed a few programs here and there, but she likely didn't have to change much. The state probably didn't have enough time to really go crazy during the $150/barrel days, and the price recovered to a point higher than it was before the spike.
I think it is risky to assume that Alaska somehow benefits from higher oil prices. My understanding is that states generally charge a fixed per barrel fee/tax. Increased production may increase state revenue, but I don't think increased oil prices would. Another poster pointed out that she did increase the tax on oil companies.
The post I responded to claimed that she had nothing to do with Alaska's windfall. That seems factually incorrect, she may have negotiated new fees/taxes/payments and thereby increased that windfall.
Actually if you want to be perversely pedantic, the initial claim was that her work *as governor* had nothing to do with the state's budget being "balanced" by taxing the oil companies faster than they can actually spend the money, and in fact need to give it away just to not have too much cash on hand. In light of that you are indeed incorrect.
You sure about that, another poster offers: "What she was responsible for as governor was raising taxes on the oil companies in 2007. This permitted the state to increase the amount of money given to residents from $1200/yr to $2000/yr."
You get that Alaska's budget is balanced thanks to huge oil revenues and a small population and given that the state needs to GIVE the money away just to not appear too self-interested that her "work" as governor has NOTHING to do with it, right?
You are literally correct but essentially mistaken? Prior to being governor wasn't she some kind of oil commissioner and negotiated fees/taxes/payments made by the oil companies? If so she did have something to do with Alaska's windfall.
I don't think you're understanding the issue. Most states have a lot of citizens and have to build infrastructure to support them. They have relatively fewer industries and resources. Alaska is the exact opposite. You have small populace sitting on trillions in natural resources with corporations operating there to exploit the resources. Even if those corporations pay very low tax rates and people don't have to pay the level of taxes other citizens do, the amount of money per citizen is huge.
I actually understand the points you offer quite well and have been aware of them for quite a long time, however they are an immaterial tangent with respect to my point. The post I responded to claimed that she had nothing to do with Alaska's windfall. That seems factually incorrect, she may have negotiated new fees/taxes/payments and thereby increased that windfall.
Sarah Palin's commentary on anything deeper than an Alaskan salmon stream is wasted air.
Actually prior to being picked as the VP nominee she was one of the people interviewed for a CNBC (a business/financial cable TV channel in the US) investigative report on oil policy. In her interview she offered useful commentary on that topic. I only recall this because I saw the show a couple of weeks before McCain picked her; I actually recognized her and at the time thought this could be an interesting choice given the debate over oil drilling. Well things certainly turned out to be interesting.
You get that Alaska's budget is balanced thanks to huge oil revenues and a small population and given that the state needs to GIVE the money away just to not appear too self-interested that her "work" as governor has NOTHING to do with it, right?
You are literally correct but essentially mistaken? Prior to being governor wasn't she some kind of oil commissioner and negotiated fees/taxes/payments made by the oil companies? If so she did have something to do with Alaska's windfall.
She is unelectable, why the hell does the media pay so much attention to her?
Because like her or not, people are attracted to news stories about her. Therefore she generates readers/viewers and in turn revenue. You yourself were attracted to a story about her.
To answer your question: even if unelectable she will be able to steer the debate, force certain topics to be discussed. Many an unelectable candidate thought such influence justified their campaign. Also, with enough followers she may be able to influence viable candidates, basically act as a "king maker".
I don't think a greater size is sufficient. A greater size just means it will take longer to bleed off that primordial heat. I believe the earth has a radioactive core that is generating heat, we are not just "coasting" on the primordial.
... but could part of the reason mars no longer has a liquid ocean be that since the planet has cooled now, all it's water is locked up back in the rocks again?...
Locked up in ice but probably not back into rocks. Also it may have dissipated into space with the portion of the atmosphere that has been lost.
Just because its been cooked out of one mineral doesn't mean it won't react at high temp with another. 3500 miles of magma is a lot of rock to cross and not react. Sounds unlikely to me TBH.
Volcanoes are known to vent steam. All this theory would require is that such venting occurs much more frequently than cometary impacts, and/or with greater volumes of water.
When the first 'modern' (ish) armies were coming into play, France was the premier ground-based ass-kicker of the world. (Primarily due to the work of a Corsican, but there you have it.)
I'd wager the English would disagree with your thesis.:-) More importantly French words are found throughout English speaking militaries because the English language in general has French words throughout it. This is because the French, Normans specifically, conquered England. It has nothing to do with Napoleon, it predates him by centuries.
They pretty much set the standard in terms of tactics, unit organization, et cetera - and thus, other militaries followed suit.
Actually that would be the Romans. Napoleon adapted Roman methods for modern weaponry. Although he did relax things with respect to discipline. Disciplinary action in the Roman military generally involved killing the offender or drawing lots and killing 1 out of 10 of the offender's unit, the later being the original of word "decimation".
They're not going to introduce confusion on the field of battle by moving away from terms that have been established for centuries
A lot of terminology has been changed between WWII and today, even a Vietnam vet would have trouble understanding at times. We can't even seem to keep the phonetic alphabet the same without tweaking it for political or morale reasons, ex. Baker/Bravo/Battle Company.
I've found it amusing how much French there is in the military shibboleth/jargon. No one bothered renaming defilade as "freedom cover".
The English language is full of French words, its not really something related to the military. The Normans (as in Normandy France) conquered and ruled England for quite a while.
I wonder how they think about that statement in Palestina and Gaza.
Given that they live 40 miles from the most likely target, and who knows how much closer to secondary targets, many might not be thinking the way you would assume.
Given such capabilities taking over a satellite would be a concern too.
An odd thought. I wonder if on-board ROM-based code would reject commands to land outside of North America. Its hard to image some safeguards not being hard wired in.
Could you tell us what the functionality is literally impossible in current Android APIs but possible on iOS?
It may be an interpreted (ex. java) versus native binary (ex. code for ARM CPU) problem. Are native binary apps an option for all Android devices? Some? How portable(*) is such code amongst the more popular Android devices? I've heard about including a binary file with native code and having a java app change its permission and execute it but I'm not sure how ubiquitous a solution this is.
If executing a native binary is a problem on a particular device then performance needs could be a barrier (ex. action oriented games).
(*) Portability does not have to be limited by API versions or vendor specific features. A user interface could use the device's built-in java API and only use native binary for platform independent calculations (ex. manipulating a binary image). So by portable I'm referring to these platform independent calculations. Or perhaps calls to a highly standardized and common API such as OpenGL (ex. a game where settings and other menus are in java and the "play" button launches a native binary that only calls OpenGL and POSIX?).
... Also worth mentioning that while there's a cute paraphrase on the summary (supplied by the Wronged Party), that's no-where near "fact". Just to throw an opposite opinion out there, if I wanted some free publicity for being "BANNED BY APPLE!", it'd be a no-brainer to submit an app that has obvious problems - because no-one's going to read past the headline to see that the app actually bricks the device or something...
What you offer makes me suspect a marketing stunt even more. That is marvelously crafted "spin". While ordinary readers may not look past the headline the editors and publishers would. How many articles do you see on the web about apps that were rejected because they were buggy? You need the political angle of the content to get the story on the web in the first place so that ordinary readers can see that headline.
The quote you offer also fails logically. If a reader only sees the headline then they never learn about the app, magazine or publisher. A buggy app offers no PR value.
A final nail in the "buggy app" theory's coffin is that a fully functional magazine app can be done in a single day, a "buggy app" would take more work. Apple provides a user interface widget, UIWebView IIRC, that lets you display full HTML on the screen. A trivial app can display a UIWebView displaying a URL served by the publisher's website. It's hard to imagine a simpler functional app, it can probably be coded in less than an hour. The rest of the day being needed for the administrative overhead of creating and submitting the app to the app store.
IIRC apps promoting certain competing products or services have been banned from day 1 of the app store.
But there is a distinct difference between being "Banned" from the app Store and being "Rejected" from the App store. Being "Banned" from the store means you were in there at one point,
ergo - its not being banned since day 1 - or it managed to sneak its way past that approval system.
You are reading too much into the word "ban". If you read the article it seems the situation is what you would call "rejection". It does not seem as though it was ever approved.
... it seems like someone with a business degree or someone in marketting simply made this decision...
Probably, but the decision made by the marketing person was probably to create the app and use the expected ban for free publicity and guerilla marketing. IIRC apps promoting certain competing products or services have been banned from day 1 of the app store. The ban seems to be long standing policy not a recent decision. Developing and submitting such an app seems like a public relations stunt. The marketing folks at the Android magazine seem to have done a great job at leveraging Apple policy for publicity, which of course is a perfectly fair thing for them to do.
Or is it merely long standing policy? Haven't apps promoting/offering certain competing products and services been banned from day 1 of app store development? Whether this policy is right or wrong is a different question, but this app rejection does not seem to be any sort of reaction to Android's recent successes.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows was shipped with IBM(?), and that caused a markedshare to form. Now.... we also have anticompetive practice from Microsofts DOS against drdos, and etc...
Before all that there was tremendous interest in Windows 3 prior to its launch and a lot of people eager to use it once it became available. At the time people were really interested in using a graphical environment rather than DOS. Also at this time Microsoft was telling developers that Windows was temporary, just something for DOS users to use for now, and that the future would really be OS/2 1.x with the Presentation Manager GUI.
In a few more words: we're not going to see what we saw with Wintel because people actually have to go out and select Android. Wintel was what you got when you walked into a store and walked out with a computer; most people didn't even know what an operating system was until it was far too late.
You are skipping the early history of Windows. Many people were very much aware of Windows, just as many are aware of Android. It was Intel that they didn't really know about, much like they don't know about Qualcomm. Windows 3 caught on because of huge marketing efforts and a high public demand to turn people's DOS boxes into something graphical and easier to use. People initially had choices, stick with DOS, move to OS/2 1.x (+ Presentation Manager GUI if interested), or buy a Mac. Well I guess SCO Unix and Microsoft Xenix were options too. :-)
As for your thesis that people just wanted a computer and got Windows without really knowing about, well the same is true for Android. Some people want a smartphone and buy some Motorola, Samsung, LG, etc phone without being aware of Android or Google.
The whole point of patenting things (aside from trolling, which is actually contrary to the point, but anyway) is to get to market first because the PTO gives you a temporary monopoly (you're expected to exploit said monopoly, as a subsidy for the effort of invention). Ergo, Apple filing a patent and then not getting to market promptly is kind of silly.
Not necessarily. They may have feared that a competitor would file a similar patent first. Even if it takes 5 years to get the invention to market they would still get 15 years of patent protection, as opposed to zero if they were not the first to file.
There is also the likelihood of needing the full 20 years of protection, odds are someone will invent a competing technology that is clear of Apple's patent.
It's not risky at all. Read the Alaska Department of Revenue's forecast report.
You are correct. Unlike other states Alaska does increase the tax as oil prices rise. But guess who is responsible for that, Palin:
"Under Palin's plan, called ``Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share,'' oil company profits are taxed at a 25 percent base rate, up from the previous 22.5 percent. When the price rises to $30 over cost, or about $52 a barrel, the tax rate rises 0.2 percent for each dollar."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aYdZoyTvFrTc&refer=home
Folks should flame her when she does something silly, but folks should also give her credit for things she got right.
Try selling "just raise taxes" as a way to solve the debt crisis of the federal government (or most of the states)... See how many Palin supporters you find agreeing with you.
I understand your urge to change the topic and create straw men, but I don't really care if current Palin supporters agree with the approaches she actually applied as governor. I merely believe in giving people credit for things they did accomplish. If she decreased taxes on individuals and increased taxes on oil companies she deserves credit. If she cut federal pork to Alaska she deserves credit. Wikipedia suggests that she did both. Likewise she deserves criticism for bailing out of he term as governor.
She probably didn't. Oil prices went from ~$60/barrel to ~150/barrel, then down ~$60/barrel over the course of a year and a half. The prices climbed back up fairly quickly to the $80-$90/barrel range in late 2007. She might have trimmed a few programs here and there, but she likely didn't have to change much. The state probably didn't have enough time to really go crazy during the $150/barrel days, and the price recovered to a point higher than it was before the spike.
I think it is risky to assume that Alaska somehow benefits from higher oil prices. My understanding is that states generally charge a fixed per barrel fee/tax. Increased production may increase state revenue, but I don't think increased oil prices would. Another poster pointed out that she did increase the tax on oil companies.
The post I responded to claimed that she had nothing to do with Alaska's windfall. That seems factually incorrect, she may have negotiated new fees/taxes/payments and thereby increased that windfall.
Actually if you want to be perversely pedantic, the initial claim was that her work *as governor* had nothing to do with the state's budget being "balanced" by taxing the oil companies faster than they can actually spend the money, and in fact need to give it away just to not have too much cash on hand. In light of that you are indeed incorrect.
You sure about that, another poster offers: "What she was responsible for as governor was raising taxes on the oil companies in 2007. This permitted the state to increase the amount of money given to residents from $1200/yr to $2000/yr."
You get that Alaska's budget is balanced thanks to huge oil revenues and a small population and given that the state needs to GIVE the money away just to not appear too self-interested that her "work" as governor has NOTHING to do with it, right?
You are literally correct but essentially mistaken? Prior to being governor wasn't she some kind of oil commissioner and negotiated fees/taxes/payments made by the oil companies? If so she did have something to do with Alaska's windfall.
I don't think you're understanding the issue. Most states have a lot of citizens and have to build infrastructure to support them. They have relatively fewer industries and resources. Alaska is the exact opposite. You have small populace sitting on trillions in natural resources with corporations operating there to exploit the resources. Even if those corporations pay very low tax rates and people don't have to pay the level of taxes other citizens do, the amount of money per citizen is huge.
I actually understand the points you offer quite well and have been aware of them for quite a long time, however they are an immaterial tangent with respect to my point. The post I responded to claimed that she had nothing to do with Alaska's windfall. That seems factually incorrect, she may have negotiated new fees/taxes/payments and thereby increased that windfall.
Sarah Palin's commentary on anything deeper than an Alaskan salmon stream is wasted air.
Actually prior to being picked as the VP nominee she was one of the people interviewed for a CNBC (a business/financial cable TV channel in the US) investigative report on oil policy. In her interview she offered useful commentary on that topic. I only recall this because I saw the show a couple of weeks before McCain picked her; I actually recognized her and at the time thought this could be an interesting choice given the debate over oil drilling. Well things certainly turned out to be interesting.
You get that Alaska's budget is balanced thanks to huge oil revenues and a small population and given that the state needs to GIVE the money away just to not appear too self-interested that her "work" as governor has NOTHING to do with it, right?
You are literally correct but essentially mistaken? Prior to being governor wasn't she some kind of oil commissioner and negotiated fees/taxes/payments made by the oil companies? If so she did have something to do with Alaska's windfall.
She is unelectable, why the hell does the media pay so much attention to her?
Because like her or not, people are attracted to news stories about her. Therefore she generates readers/viewers and in turn revenue. You yourself were attracted to a story about her.
To answer your question: even if unelectable she will be able to steer the debate, force certain topics to be discussed. Many an unelectable candidate thought such influence justified their campaign. Also, with enough followers she may be able to influence viable candidates, basically act as a "king maker".
Will they offer MSNBC?
I don't think a greater size is sufficient. A greater size just means it will take longer to bleed off that primordial heat. I believe the earth has a radioactive core that is generating heat, we are not just "coasting" on the primordial.
... but could part of the reason mars no longer has a liquid ocean be that since the planet has cooled now, all it's water is locked up back in the rocks again? ...
Locked up in ice but probably not back into rocks. Also it may have dissipated into space with the portion of the atmosphere that has been lost.
Just because its been cooked out of one mineral doesn't mean it won't react at high temp with another. 3500 miles of magma is a lot of rock to cross and not react. Sounds unlikely to me TBH.
Volcanoes are known to vent steam. All this theory would require is that such venting occurs much more frequently than cometary impacts, and/or with greater volumes of water.
"ugly bags of mostly water" IIRC
When the first 'modern' (ish) armies were coming into play, France was the premier ground-based ass-kicker of the world. (Primarily due to the work of a Corsican, but there you have it.)
I'd wager the English would disagree with your thesis. :-) More importantly French words are found throughout English speaking militaries because the English language in general has French words throughout it. This is because the French, Normans specifically, conquered England. It has nothing to do with Napoleon, it predates him by centuries.
They pretty much set the standard in terms of tactics, unit organization, et cetera - and thus, other militaries followed suit.
Actually that would be the Romans. Napoleon adapted Roman methods for modern weaponry. Although he did relax things with respect to discipline. Disciplinary action in the Roman military generally involved killing the offender or drawing lots and killing 1 out of 10 of the offender's unit, the later being the original of word "decimation".
They're not going to introduce confusion on the field of battle by moving away from terms that have been established for centuries
A lot of terminology has been changed between WWII and today, even a Vietnam vet would have trouble understanding at times. We can't even seem to keep the phonetic alphabet the same without tweaking it for political or morale reasons, ex. Baker/Bravo/Battle Company.
I've found it amusing how much French there is in the military shibboleth/jargon. No one bothered renaming defilade as "freedom cover".
The English language is full of French words, its not really something related to the military. The Normans (as in Normandy France) conquered and ruled England for quite a while.
I wonder how they think about that statement in Palestina and Gaza.
Given that they live 40 miles from the most likely target, and who knows how much closer to secondary targets, many might not be thinking the way you would assume.
Given such capabilities taking over a satellite would be a concern too.
An odd thought. I wonder if on-board ROM-based code would reject commands to land outside of North America. Its hard to image some safeguards not being hard wired in.
Could you tell us what the functionality is literally impossible in current Android APIs but possible on iOS?
It may be an interpreted (ex. java) versus native binary (ex. code for ARM CPU) problem. Are native binary apps an option for all Android devices? Some? How portable(*) is such code amongst the more popular Android devices? I've heard about including a binary file with native code and having a java app change its permission and execute it but I'm not sure how ubiquitous a solution this is.
If executing a native binary is a problem on a particular device then performance needs could be a barrier (ex. action oriented games).
(*) Portability does not have to be limited by API versions or vendor specific features. A user interface could use the device's built-in java API and only use native binary for platform independent calculations (ex. manipulating a binary image). So by portable I'm referring to these platform independent calculations. Or perhaps calls to a highly standardized and common API such as OpenGL (ex. a game where settings and other menus are in java and the "play" button launches a native binary that only calls OpenGL and POSIX?).
... Also worth mentioning that while there's a cute paraphrase on the summary (supplied by the Wronged Party), that's no-where near "fact". Just to throw an opposite opinion out there, if I wanted some free publicity for being "BANNED BY APPLE!", it'd be a no-brainer to submit an app that has obvious problems - because no-one's going to read past the headline to see that the app actually bricks the device or something ...
What you offer makes me suspect a marketing stunt even more. That is marvelously crafted "spin". While ordinary readers may not look past the headline the editors and publishers would. How many articles do you see on the web about apps that were rejected because they were buggy? You need the political angle of the content to get the story on the web in the first place so that ordinary readers can see that headline.
The quote you offer also fails logically. If a reader only sees the headline then they never learn about the app, magazine or publisher. A buggy app offers no PR value.
A final nail in the "buggy app" theory's coffin is that a fully functional magazine app can be done in a single day, a "buggy app" would take more work. Apple provides a user interface widget, UIWebView IIRC, that lets you display full HTML on the screen. A trivial app can display a UIWebView displaying a URL served by the publisher's website. It's hard to imagine a simpler functional app, it can probably be coded in less than an hour. The rest of the day being needed for the administrative overhead of creating and submitting the app to the app store.
IIRC apps promoting certain competing products or services have been banned from day 1 of the app store.
But there is a distinct difference between being "Banned" from the app Store and being "Rejected" from the App store. Being "Banned" from the store means you were in there at one point, ergo - its not being banned since day 1 - or it managed to sneak its way past that approval system.
You are reading too much into the word "ban". If you read the article it seems the situation is what you would call "rejection". It does not seem as though it was ever approved.
... it seems like someone with a business degree or someone in marketting simply made this decision ...
Probably, but the decision made by the marketing person was probably to create the app and use the expected ban for free publicity and guerilla marketing. IIRC apps promoting certain competing products or services have been banned from day 1 of the app store. The ban seems to be long standing policy not a recent decision. Developing and submitting such an app seems like a public relations stunt. The marketing folks at the Android magazine seem to have done a great job at leveraging Apple policy for publicity, which of course is a perfectly fair thing for them to do.
This seems like an act of desperation.
Or is it merely long standing policy? Haven't apps promoting/offering certain competing products and services been banned from day 1 of app store development? Whether this policy is right or wrong is a different question, but this app rejection does not seem to be any sort of reaction to Android's recent successes.