I'd argue the amount of liberals and conservatives tends to always be about the same. The reference point moves, though. Let me try to come up with am example to illustrate what I mean.
Gay rights: gay marriage is being discussed today. Liberals are for it, conservatives think they should just shut up and have their diabolic gay sex extramaritally. A few decades ago, sodomy laws banning gay sex were common. Liberals were for their abolition, conservatives thought they should shut up and stop wanting legalize perversions. Thomas Jefferson wrote a law in 1778 that demanded castration for homossexual men. Liberals were for it, conservatives wanted them to just shut up and let gays take the already existent penalty, death, like the girlish men they were.
See? There was always pressure on both sides, but the reference point changed a lot. It's hard to find conservatives today that'd want gay men to be killed by the state. And that's what will happen to the internet, given time. If you doubt it, think about the Patriot Act. It would never fly in the 90s, even most conservatives of the time would find it baffling. I may be a bit too optimistic here, but I think there would be, at least, lots of marches and vocal oppositors. But once 9/11 happened and, in a nationwide panic, it became institutionalized, then the reference point moved. And now you don't see a lot of people trying to repeal it, because they're used to it. The frog has been slowly boiled.
So, SOPA/PIPA. They will pass it, through either the exploitation of a scary event or sheer insistence, and then the debate will shift from "should we give those companies absolute, instantaneous power over the internet?" to "which companies should wield such absolute, instantaneous power over the internet?".
The problem is you can't keep people enraged, shocked and surprised by any significant amount of time. So they will vote again, again and again, and once we stop making such a ruckus (because, frankly we have other things to do), it will pass. Even if we never yield, a new generation of internet users will come that, if not supportive, is already used to the idea of internet control, so they will not be shocked enough to voice their concerns so loudly. That's how these things almost always go and how society gradually changes its most ingrained values, for better or for worse.
Just let her browse internet porn on an unpatched version of Windows XP so you won't have to say a word. And remember: the best kind of parenting is lazy parenting.
There's a reference in the links, if you choose to follow them:
When a white friend told Chris Rock that he was on a street called Martin Luther King and asked what he should do, Chris Rock answered, "Run!" At another time and on a more serious note, Rock said: "I don't care where you live in America, if you're on Martin Luther King Boulevard, there's some violence going on." He is right.
What bother me in TFA is that the last sentence says
patents issued to Microsoft and Google for avoiding walking or driving down Martin Luther King Boulevard!"
and the links lead us to
Microsoft Patents Bad Neighborhood Detection
IBM Patents Real-Time Auto Insurance Surcharges
And a column about MLK-named roads and avenues being violent. There's no mention of Google in any of the linked articles, so WTF was the submitter on?
Steam DRM is trivial to bypass for anyone but the simplest Billy Joe Bob
Last I heard, they'd ban your account as soon as they detected you using a pirated game with it, taking away any games you had paid for. Hell, they might even ban your account if you used a crack on a game you'd actually paid for. That's a huge deterrent.
Why would you add a pirated game to your legitimate Steam account? That'd be all kinds of dumb when your objective is only to run said game. The idea is to add a "pirate Steam" to your Steam-dependant legitimate game.
(Also, Portal 2 apparently had all kinds of clever DRM checks that rendered the game unplayable if cracked. I looked into this because the DRM is buggy and an obstacle to me playing my legitimately-purchased copy.)
It doesn't. I have played it flawlessly, therefore if what you say is true, it's yet another case of DRM hurting only paying customers.
Definition of CONTENT noun 1a : something contained —usually used in plural 1b : the topics or matter treated in a written work 1c : the principal substance (as written matter, illustrations, or music) offered by a World Wide Web site [Internet users have evolved an ethos of free content in the Internet — Ben Gerson] 2a : substance, gist 2b : meaning, significance 2c : the events, physical detail, and information in a work of art 3a : the matter dealt with in a field of study 3b : a part, element, or complex of parts 4: the amount of specified material contained : proportion
So it's only content if it's in a web page. If you want to play a flash game locally, it isn't content. If you go to newgrounds to play the same game, then it is. If you happen to get a flash drive with a movie in FLV format, it's not content. You got the idea. Also, it's only content if it's "as written matter, illustrations, or music". So, say, Facebook's image uploader isn't content. Neither is a virtual desktop.
Finally, my point: dictionaries are our friends, yes, but they're like friends with severe learning disabilities on which we shouldn't rely too much for crucial information. This poor job at defining something as simple as content I think is a good proof (if it isn't, see Wittgenstein's musings on defining the word "game"). As for "consuming content", "consume" was applied for pretty much every good that could be consumed, as in (2 b: use up; 3 a: to eat or drink especially in great quantity), and then being poorly applied to "content", which is itself a badly defined word meaning sort of "intellectual property packaged for distribution", which is pretty much "art", and good luck entering the old debate of what is or isn't "art". But, nevertheless, you don't really consume art, unless you are fire. You can enjoy it. You can use it. Watch it. Interact with it. It depends on what it is. So, by this oblique route, we get to the reason why "consuming content" was crafted, when we realize what it actually means: "to do whatever it is that you're supposed to do with whatever it is that thing or idea or whatever that someone sold or gave or leased or showed to you".
Emulating x86 on ARM seems to be the worst way to compansate for the lack of apps. And is it even possible? I mean, even discounting the usual losses due to emulation, x86 chips are usually much more powerful. Even if it were possible to get decent speeds, it wouldn't be feasible, since emulation (especially when high-level, which I'm assuming would have to be the case) usually causes annoying compatibility problems. Look at Wine. It's great work, doesn't even have to emulate different hardware and is not always a joy to use. If we're talking about a possible shift to ARM, Debian already has a humongous amount of software for it. Maybe Ubuntu could be used for a few vendors, though if I had to bet, I'd pick a mix of Windows 8 (~80%) and Android due to familiarity with the system, even if it's on a new architecture. Vendors aren't usually smart.
But if you're an interviewer and you have to choose between two people, one who answers "Because you're the only people who'll talk to me" and one who answers "Because your output seems interesting and your public image seems like somewhere I'd fit in" - who do you think would be more likely to be productive?
Could be the last one, the one who likes your company. Could be the first one, the one who is obviously not bullshitting. Or they both could equally suck. Unless they are applying for a position in PR, where the ability to bullshit convincingly (or, at least, keep the bullshittee wondering) is desirable, this question tells you almost nothing. People usually want to be picked on interviews (otherwise what's the point in going?), so they will show you their best side (or make one up). And it doesn't matter what you want from this question: as the "correct" answer (I like your products / your work interests me a great deal / I have always wanted to clean your gutters etc.) is so obvious, most people will go for it. Whoever doesn't is either pathologically sincere or doesn't want the job badly enough. As an objective filter for productive individuals, it is very close to being worthless. Of course a good interviewer could actually judge the person not on the answer, but on delivery, general disposition etc., but a good interviewer will do that without needing empty questions such as this one anyway.
This is a particularly fun question to answer. My suggestion is that you grab a nearby sheet of paper and start calculating right away, so after weird two minutes during which the interviewer will be pretty confused, you can say something like "well, exactly five years from now will be a saturday, and at precisely this time on saturdays I'm usually at the supermarket. Considering my shopping routine and the time I usually get there, I'll probably be at the frozen foods section. Leap years have already been factored. Now if your question wasn't really that specific and you only wanted a general idea, I can redo the math by adopting a standard year as a sequence of 360 days."
I have just blamed the compiler for it a few posts down, then read your post. Funnily enough, IceWeasel runs extremely well on my AMD machine, while the Windows version sucks. Fedora never did like my system, it seems, and I recall F15 taking about half a minute to launch Firefox. It did behave erratically, but no more than KDE, so I can't really blame Firefox for its hiccups on Fedora with any degree of certainty.
I'm assuming you run Windows. I have noticed something along those lines. The same version of Firefox works beautifully on my AMD when I use Linux, but when I boot to Windows 7 and try to use Firefox, it craps all over my desktop. It tends to crash, freeze and memory and CPU usage spike all the time. Now that I read your comment, I'm thinking it could very well be the compiler used. Firefox for Windows is compiled on either Microsoft's compiler or ICC, if I recall correctly. On the other hand, IceWeasel is obviously compiled with GCC by the good folks of Debian. And Peacekeeper reports very different scores for my browsers: Firefox 9.0.1 has 1076 points while IceWeasel 9.0.1 gets 1814. IceWeasel scores a bit lower on Canvas, which is probably fglrx's fault (it tends to suck), but nevertheless wins by a ridiculous wide margin. Intel has resorted to this sort of foul play in the (recent) past, so it's not tinfoil hat territory I'm navigating here.
Because if carrier lock down is not permitted for subsidized phones then that market will end very quickly. As such it would not be something I would want to come to the US. One of the reasons for the explosion in smart phone popularity other than marketing is that buyers never had to pay for the phone up front.
It already happened in my country about three years ago, so I feel like I can enlighten you. First, realize the phone isn't really being paid by the carriers. You, as the customer, are the one paying for anything "subsidized". Always. The cost of your phone is simply factored in what you pay for data. So what happens is they keep offering the phones+data at roughly the same price they are now, and when you finish paying for the phone, you'll keep paying only for data, which is obviously cheaper, or you'll get a new phone and keep paying about the same. What they currently do is force you to get a new phone on credit every year or so (or keep paying for it but get nothing in return).
Plus, a bonus for customers: with no barrier for changing carriers, the free market reigns supreme and they start competing more fiercely. Right now, as I understand, changing carriers over there is quite expensive because it demands that you pay for a new phone (well, half, being "subsidized" as they are), so sometimes it's economically advantageous for the user to keep using a carrier that has worse signal and bigger prices. Also you have to match phones and carriers according to a pathetically artificial compatibility list. It's nuts. The carrier's customers are getting majorly screwed over there with this sort of lock-in.
It's worse: it actually backfires. Anecdote time: Bioshock 2 is on a Steam sale right now for 4.99. I have already played it... er... "at a friend's house" or whatever, but I won't be buying it now, even at its low price, because I don't want to have to deal with Games For Windows Live. I draw the line at one crapware on my machine per game, and preferably one that adds a bit of value. There's no way in hell I'm going to run two types of DRM at the same time, especially when one of them limits the number of installations and requires me to call a number to ask for a "refill". Buying the game anew would probably be chaper than making the call, seeing as it's of the international kind. Which sucks an unspecified bit for me and exactly 4.99 for 2Kgames.
I'd fully expect it to be my main tablet. But I'd only use it to browse the web, and that I could do on a 486 DX2 66MHz. Of course the internet has changed and HD video and flash games, for instance, are off the table, but for IM, e-mail, Wikipedia et al? 366MHz should be enough for everyone.
Yeah. People are so spoiled nowadays that they pretty commonly mistake habits for addictions. A few years ago, a friend of mine went to college and started drinking a bottle of beer daily. In two weeks he said he was an alcoholic and that he had to quit. Two weeks! And then he narrated the detox process as if he were Homer (either Simpson or the greek guy, they both work in this comparison). He was just an impressionable idiot, though.
Nonsense. The burger itself is tiny (I can eat 6 Big Macs in a row and not break a sweat), the large fries are about what you'd expect for an individual. Combined, they aren't even what I'd call a normal sized meal, as they can only keep me satisfied for about three hours. The only thing truly enourmous is the soda cup. It's almost a liter of a way too sugary drink. Who drinks that much liquid during a small meal, anyway?
Disclaimer: so people don't think I'm a fat, mad slob that'll always want MOAR FOOD, I'm 1,75m and 65kg. And most of the burgers I tend to eat around here are four times the size of a Big Mac and cost about seven tenths of one.
Why would you think he meant to refute anything? He was only updating a statistical figure. You may be only trolling, since here his intent was more than obvious, but expectying a reply to be either "This!" or a complete refutation is not an uncommon stance here in Slashdot. Collaborative discussion is rare, giving way to a belligerent disposition that fosters binary thought.
From TFA. That could be an explanation - a biased sample, especially if the Apple store is one of the partners. They sell a lot and mostly to iOS devices.
Maybe they only track "apps" and Android owners tend to use their browsers more or they are redirected to it from an app (which is forbidden in iOS, if I recall correctly).
Could it be that Android on a tablet doesn't identify itself as a mobile browser? (this is easy to check, I just can't since I don't own a tablet)
It's hard to take statistical data seriously when you don't know how it was generated. Especially when it looks suspicious like this. iOS users spending 19% more seems not that farfetched, but for them to account for 92% of all sales is hard to believe.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd argue the amount of liberals and conservatives tends to always be about the same. The reference point moves, though. Let me try to come up with am example to illustrate what I mean.
Gay rights: gay marriage is being discussed today. Liberals are for it, conservatives think they should just shut up and have their diabolic gay sex extramaritally. A few decades ago, sodomy laws banning gay sex were common. Liberals were for their abolition, conservatives thought they should shut up and stop wanting legalize perversions. Thomas Jefferson wrote a law in 1778 that demanded castration for homossexual men. Liberals were for it, conservatives wanted them to just shut up and let gays take the already existent penalty, death, like the girlish men they were.
See? There was always pressure on both sides, but the reference point changed a lot. It's hard to find conservatives today that'd want gay men to be killed by the state. And that's what will happen to the internet, given time. If you doubt it, think about the Patriot Act. It would never fly in the 90s, even most conservatives of the time would find it baffling. I may be a bit too optimistic here, but I think there would be, at least, lots of marches and vocal oppositors. But once 9/11 happened and, in a nationwide panic, it became institutionalized, then the reference point moved. And now you don't see a lot of people trying to repeal it, because they're used to it. The frog has been slowly boiled.
So, SOPA/PIPA. They will pass it, through either the exploitation of a scary event or sheer insistence, and then the debate will shift from "should we give those companies absolute, instantaneous power over the internet?" to "which companies should wield such absolute, instantaneous power over the internet?".
The problem is you can't keep people enraged, shocked and surprised by any significant amount of time. So they will vote again, again and again, and once we stop making such a ruckus (because, frankly we have other things to do), it will pass. Even if we never yield, a new generation of internet users will come that, if not supportive, is already used to the idea of internet control, so they will not be shocked enough to voice their concerns so loudly. That's how these things almost always go and how society gradually changes its most ingrained values, for better or for worse.
Just let her browse internet porn on an unpatched version of Windows XP so you won't have to say a word. And remember: the best kind of parenting is lazy parenting.
Well, obviously China has too many Wangs. How do you think they got to more than a billion people in the first place? By having too many storks?
There's a reference in the links, if you choose to follow them:
When a white friend told Chris Rock that he was on a street called Martin Luther King and asked what he should do, Chris Rock answered, "Run!" At another time and on a more serious note, Rock said: "I don't care where you live in America, if you're on Martin Luther King Boulevard, there's some violence going on." He is right.
What bother me in TFA is that the last sentence says
patents issued to Microsoft and Google for avoiding walking or driving down Martin Luther King Boulevard!"
and the links lead us to
Microsoft Patents Bad Neighborhood Detection
IBM Patents Real-Time Auto Insurance Surcharges
And a column about MLK-named roads and avenues being violent. There's no mention of Google in any of the linked articles, so WTF was the submitter on?
Steam DRM is trivial to bypass for anyone but the simplest Billy Joe Bob
Last I heard, they'd ban your account as soon as they detected you using a pirated game with it, taking away any games you had paid for. Hell, they might even ban your account if you used a crack on a game you'd actually paid for. That's a huge deterrent.
Why would you add a pirated game to your legitimate Steam account? That'd be all kinds of dumb when your objective is only to run said game. The idea is to add a "pirate Steam" to your Steam-dependant legitimate game.
(Also, Portal 2 apparently had all kinds of clever DRM checks that rendered the game unplayable if cracked. I looked into this because the DRM is buggy and an obstacle to me playing my legitimately-purchased copy.)
It doesn't. I have played it flawlessly, therefore if what you say is true, it's yet another case of DRM hurting only paying customers.
Not really:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2012_01/putting_sopa_on_a_shelf034765.php
By the same Merriam-Webster:
Definition of CONTENT
noun
1a : something contained —usually used in plural
1b : the topics or matter treated in a written work
1c : the principal substance (as written matter, illustrations, or music) offered by a World Wide Web site [Internet users have evolved an ethos of free content in the Internet — Ben Gerson]
2a : substance, gist
2b : meaning, significance
2c : the events, physical detail, and information in a work of art
3a : the matter dealt with in a field of study
3b : a part, element, or complex of parts
4: the amount of specified material contained : proportion
So it's only content if it's in a web page. If you want to play a flash game locally, it isn't content. If you go to newgrounds to play the same game, then it is. If you happen to get a flash drive with a movie in FLV format, it's not content. You got the idea. Also, it's only content if it's "as written matter, illustrations, or music". So, say, Facebook's image uploader isn't content. Neither is a virtual desktop.
Finally, my point: dictionaries are our friends, yes, but they're like friends with severe learning disabilities on which we shouldn't rely too much for crucial information. This poor job at defining something as simple as content I think is a good proof (if it isn't, see Wittgenstein's musings on defining the word "game"). As for "consuming content", "consume" was applied for pretty much every good that could be consumed, as in (2 b: use up; 3 a: to eat or drink especially in great quantity), and then being poorly applied to "content", which is itself a badly defined word meaning sort of "intellectual property packaged for distribution", which is pretty much "art", and good luck entering the old debate of what is or isn't "art". But, nevertheless, you don't really consume art, unless you are fire. You can enjoy it. You can use it. Watch it. Interact with it. It depends on what it is. So, by this oblique route, we get to the reason why "consuming content" was crafted, when we realize what it actually means: "to do whatever it is that you're supposed to do with whatever it is that thing or idea or whatever that someone sold or gave or leased or showed to you".
Will MS just ignore Motorola Mobile if Google really buys it or are we going to have a legal showdown, I wonder?
If you don't like the patent system and you own thirty or so billion dollar companies, reform it by lobbying your government.
FTFY.
4) All sales come from products
You obviously don't know Craigslist or eBay...
Emulating x86 on ARM seems to be the worst way to compansate for the lack of apps. And is it even possible? I mean, even discounting the usual losses due to emulation, x86 chips are usually much more powerful. Even if it were possible to get decent speeds, it wouldn't be feasible, since emulation (especially when high-level, which I'm assuming would have to be the case) usually causes annoying compatibility problems. Look at Wine. It's great work, doesn't even have to emulate different hardware and is not always a joy to use. If we're talking about a possible shift to ARM, Debian already has a humongous amount of software for it. Maybe Ubuntu could be used for a few vendors, though if I had to bet, I'd pick a mix of Windows 8 (~80%) and Android due to familiarity with the system, even if it's on a new architecture. Vendors aren't usually smart.
But if you're an interviewer and you have to choose between two people, one who answers "Because you're the only people who'll talk to me" and one who answers "Because your output seems interesting and your public image seems like somewhere I'd fit in" - who do you think would be more likely to be productive?
Could be the last one, the one who likes your company. Could be the first one, the one who is obviously not bullshitting. Or they both could equally suck. Unless they are applying for a position in PR, where the ability to bullshit convincingly (or, at least, keep the bullshittee wondering) is desirable, this question tells you almost nothing. People usually want to be picked on interviews (otherwise what's the point in going?), so they will show you their best side (or make one up). And it doesn't matter what you want from this question: as the "correct" answer (I like your products / your work interests me a great deal / I have always wanted to clean your gutters etc.) is so obvious, most people will go for it. Whoever doesn't is either pathologically sincere or doesn't want the job badly enough. As an objective filter for productive individuals, it is very close to being worthless. Of course a good interviewer could actually judge the person not on the answer, but on delivery, general disposition etc., but a good interviewer will do that without needing empty questions such as this one anyway.
"Where do you see yourself in five years?"
This is a particularly fun question to answer. My suggestion is that you grab a nearby sheet of paper and start calculating right away, so after weird two minutes during which the interviewer will be pretty confused, you can say something like "well, exactly five years from now will be a saturday, and at precisely this time on saturdays I'm usually at the supermarket. Considering my shopping routine and the time I usually get there, I'll probably be at the frozen foods section. Leap years have already been factored. Now if your question wasn't really that specific and you only wanted a general idea, I can redo the math by adopting a standard year as a sequence of 360 days."
Full disclosure: I'm unemployed.
I have just blamed the compiler for it a few posts down, then read your post. Funnily enough, IceWeasel runs extremely well on my AMD machine, while the Windows version sucks. Fedora never did like my system, it seems, and I recall F15 taking about half a minute to launch Firefox. It did behave erratically, but no more than KDE, so I can't really blame Firefox for its hiccups on Fedora with any degree of certainty.
I'm assuming you run Windows. I have noticed something along those lines. The same version of Firefox works beautifully on my AMD when I use Linux, but when I boot to Windows 7 and try to use Firefox, it craps all over my desktop. It tends to crash, freeze and memory and CPU usage spike all the time. Now that I read your comment, I'm thinking it could very well be the compiler used. Firefox for Windows is compiled on either Microsoft's compiler or ICC, if I recall correctly. On the other hand, IceWeasel is obviously compiled with GCC by the good folks of Debian. And Peacekeeper reports very different scores for my browsers: Firefox 9.0.1 has 1076 points while IceWeasel 9.0.1 gets 1814. IceWeasel scores a bit lower on Canvas, which is probably fglrx's fault (it tends to suck), but nevertheless wins by a ridiculous wide margin. Intel has resorted to this sort of foul play in the (recent) past, so it's not tinfoil hat territory I'm navigating here.
But after being pestered by so many Big Brothers and other related horrors, it's very hard for me to frown upon the chinese here.
Because if carrier lock down is not permitted for subsidized phones then that market will end very quickly. As such it would not be something I would want to come to the US. One of the reasons for the explosion in smart phone popularity other than marketing is that buyers never had to pay for the phone up front.
It already happened in my country about three years ago, so I feel like I can enlighten you. First, realize the phone isn't really being paid by the carriers. You, as the customer, are the one paying for anything "subsidized". Always. The cost of your phone is simply factored in what you pay for data. So what happens is they keep offering the phones+data at roughly the same price they are now, and when you finish paying for the phone, you'll keep paying only for data, which is obviously cheaper, or you'll get a new phone and keep paying about the same. What they currently do is force you to get a new phone on credit every year or so (or keep paying for it but get nothing in return).
Plus, a bonus for customers: with no barrier for changing carriers, the free market reigns supreme and they start competing more fiercely. Right now, as I understand, changing carriers over there is quite expensive because it demands that you pay for a new phone (well, half, being "subsidized" as they are), so sometimes it's economically advantageous for the user to keep using a carrier that has worse signal and bigger prices. Also you have to match phones and carriers according to a pathetically artificial compatibility list. It's nuts. The carrier's customers are getting majorly screwed over there with this sort of lock-in.
It's worse: it actually backfires. Anecdote time: Bioshock 2 is on a Steam sale right now for 4.99. I have already played it... er... "at a friend's house" or whatever, but I won't be buying it now, even at its low price, because I don't want to have to deal with Games For Windows Live. I draw the line at one crapware on my machine per game, and preferably one that adds a bit of value. There's no way in hell I'm going to run two types of DRM at the same time, especially when one of them limits the number of installations and requires me to call a number to ask for a "refill". Buying the game anew would probably be chaper than making the call, seeing as it's of the international kind. Which sucks an unspecified bit for me and exactly 4.99 for 2Kgames.
I'd fully expect it to be my main tablet. But I'd only use it to browse the web, and that I could do on a 486 DX2 66MHz. Of course the internet has changed and HD video and flash games, for instance, are off the table, but for IM, e-mail, Wikipedia et al? 366MHz should be enough for everyone.
Yeah. People are so spoiled nowadays that they pretty commonly mistake habits for addictions. A few years ago, a friend of mine went to college and started drinking a bottle of beer daily. In two weeks he said he was an alcoholic and that he had to quit. Two weeks! And then he narrated the detox process as if he were Homer (either Simpson or the greek guy, they both work in this comparison). He was just an impressionable idiot, though.
Nonsense. The burger itself is tiny (I can eat 6 Big Macs in a row and not break a sweat), the large fries are about what you'd expect for an individual. Combined, they aren't even what I'd call a normal sized meal, as they can only keep me satisfied for about three hours. The only thing truly enourmous is the soda cup. It's almost a liter of a way too sugary drink. Who drinks that much liquid during a small meal, anyway?
Disclaimer: so people don't think I'm a fat, mad slob that'll always want MOAR FOOD, I'm 1,75m and 65kg. And most of the burgers I tend to eat around here are four times the size of a Big Mac and cost about seven tenths of one.
working with SK would be great!
Yes, but this is SH. He's cool too, but his books are less realistic.
Why would you think he meant to refute anything? He was only updating a statistical figure. You may be only trolling, since here his intent was more than obvious, but expectying a reply to be either "This!" or a complete refutation is not an uncommon stance here in Slashdot. Collaborative discussion is rare, giving way to a belligerent disposition that fosters binary thought.
The numbers across our retailing partners sites
From TFA. That could be an explanation - a biased sample, especially if the Apple store is one of the partners. They sell a lot and mostly to iOS devices.
Maybe they only track "apps" and Android owners tend to use their browsers more or they are redirected to it from an app (which is forbidden in iOS, if I recall correctly).
Could it be that Android on a tablet doesn't identify itself as a mobile browser? (this is easy to check, I just can't since I don't own a tablet)
It's hard to take statistical data seriously when you don't know how it was generated. Especially when it looks suspicious like this. iOS users spending 19% more seems not that farfetched, but for them to account for 92% of all sales is hard to believe.