Linux market share is less than 2% of desktop computing.
If you have a product that targets the geek demographic like a graphics card, then supporting Linux is in a company's best interest, but its not surprising to see why many companies refuse to support Linux.
Adding checks in the code just waste time and will still piss off customers who will still leave bad reviews. Specifying all the requirements in the user description will confuse most people out there and just adds clutter. People side loading apps can't leave reviews and are probably doing something illegal anyways, so there is little incentive to support them.
The Android Market already has a mechanism to filter out devices on a market level specified in the manifest file and it works. It provides an easy way for developers to deal with the fragmentation of Android without pissing off users. The failure is on Amazon for not supporting the best practices of Android.
Unpaid internships are a lot better than nothing on the resume.
It all depends on you spin your experience. If you say that you got an unpaid internship because you have no other opportunities, it looks bad. If you say that it is an interesting company and got the chance to learn something new, then it can be a good thing.
I started out with an unpaid internship and used that experience to get me a good paying job. I treat my internships like any other job and sell my accomplishments and got a good paying job out of it.
The risk of legal action and malware is negligible. Companies can sell something for 1 cent and people will still pirate it because there is a free alternative.
If you remove the free alternative, then the price that these people are willing to pay would be much higher.
How do you know if you received a bad sample? You can contact the manufacturer or store and get it exchanged to see if you can get a new one. If you find they won't let you exchange or that it was still faulty, then you can include that information in an informative one star review.
If you say that it broke within half an hour and that is it, I will assume that the error was on the reviewer 9 out of 10 times especially if other reviews are more positive.
pricing, starting at 2 GB for $30/month and going up to 10 GB for $80/month.
With prices like that I bet they start encouraging tethering (or maybe even give it away for free). The overage penalties are high so the 10GB will actually appeal to some. Will they let victims, er, users change their plans on a monthly basis?
The ideal situation for phone companies is to charge for 10 GB a month, while the customer uses none of that.
The overage fees aren't that high. If you are only using 6 GB a month, you will save money using the 2 GB plan over the 10 GB plan. You break even at 7GB or 8GB a month depending on whether you compare to the 2 GB or 5 GB data plans
Unless you can reliably estimate that you can use 9 to 10 GB a month, the 10 GB plan is not economical. Phone companies are just using it as a way to convince its customers to pay for more coverage than they need.
One star reviews are crap and zero stars would just make it worst
If someone can't say one nice thing about the product, chances are they are a poor reviewer. Two and three star negative reviews are much more trustworthy because the reviewers will actually weigh the pros and cons of the product.
Probably because Amazon isn't going to take down a review because one person complains. This could be considered a good thing about the review process. How do they know that you don't have an agenda?
If you think a review is bad, you can mark it as unhelpful and write a a better review. Amazon expects that their are going to be bad reviews so it provides a mechanism to regulate it.
People are conditioned to think that USB drives aren't dangerous because 99% of the their experiences with them aren't dangerous. They are just harmless devices to store your files on.
When they see one on the ground, they will think it is that someone lost their files and they would like to see who it belongs to. It is stupid to expect people not to do this and the security should be designed around that. You don't go against human nature
The reason the app quality on Android is poor is because it is harder to make money. They have more incentive to develop for the iPhone because their users are more willing to spend money. Shortening the refund window is just on small step Google took to help attract developers.
Most of the people who complain about the 15 minute policy are the ones who are too cheap to buy stuff anyways. Most people don't even know about the refund policy and it isn't a factor in the buying decision.
I develop for the Android and the reason I have a lite version has nothing to do with the refund policy. It is to promote my app and convince people to upgrade to the paid version. Both versions share the same code base, so it is easy to maintain and I find the benefits far outweigh the costs.
The 15 minutes isn't intended to be used for full evaluation. It is designed to prevent people from mistakes, really crappy apps and getting scammed by misleading app descriptions.
People abused the app refund window before, so developers wanted to get rid of it. As a compromised, Google decided to shorten the refund to 15 minutes which cuts down on the abuses, while still offering customers protection from being scammed. It is isn't perfect but its better than nothing.
If developers don'tt like the short refund window, they can make an evaluation version, which isn't that hard to do. A featured limited evaluation version will promote the app 10x better than having a 24 hour refund window too.
Do you realize that the ISP's think you are a bad customer?
Those who download copyrighted content use a greater amount of bandwidth compared to the average user. They would rather you go and clog up their competitors network.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Copyrights and trademarks are the tools to protect the rights of inventors and promote progress of the software industry.
Most of the value in the software industry comes from the implementation of ideas and not the idea itself. If you spent millions of dollars developing a type of software, chances are a competitor will have to do they same so there are already barriers of entry.
Copyrights are able to protect someone from directly copying your work, but they don't stop anyone from independently implementing a better version. You can still build a better mousetrap.
They should just treat all forms like of software like video games. You can copy all the ideas you want, but your specific implementation of the idea and artwork will be protected. Imagine if someone patented first person shooters or if someone patented the idea of using a device to trap mice.
The biggest obstacle of breaking into the app market is creating a quality app and marketing it so people will buy it.
The Lodsys patents are completely unfair and we don't like being taken advantage of, but the amount of money they are asking for is less than 0.5%. It won't stop anyone from implementing their killer idea to make money.
I Think the problem is that "Johnny" doesn't like programming. Why fix that?
Not everyone who has an aptitude for software development enjoys programming.
I am a programmer who doesn't care for programming. I am more passionate about designing programs that people enjoy using. Programming is just a means to an end.
I started studying computer science in college but stopped after getting into assembly and digital logic because I don't care to do all this tedious work when I can use C++. I ended up studying business and the only reason I ended up becoming a programmer was because it was the only decent paying job I could find in this economy.
99 cents is such a small amount of money for an app compared to the price of a beer at a bar. I don't see how it can be a bad value, especially if it provides a much better experience than using the Yellow Pages
They should have invested in more security in the past, but they don't own a time machine. The best and most cost effective way to deal with the problem short term was to pay off the hackers.
Of course it would be stupid if they relied on extortion for their security policy. They should have viewed this as a wake up call and they should invest a lot more in security to prevent this from happening again.
I am sure that the hackers had some proof that they hacked the system. It is clear that their goal was money and they knew that companies will take them more seriously if they had proof. If they hacked the system after being paid off, it would make other companies more reluctant to pay them off in the future.
Even if they weren't 100% sure of the hackers intentions, the $100,000 is small change compared to the millions they could have lost if their system was compromised. You can do a costs benefit analysis of each scenario and see that it would be best paying off the extortion short term.
If someone robs you at gun point, it is in your rational self interest to give them your money. Their gun could be out of ammo or the guy doesn't have the balls to kill you, but you just don't take the risks. The amount of money you have on you is much smaller compared to the value of your life, so it is an easy decision. After the event, you analyze what went wrong and take precautions to prevent it from happening again.
It was in their rational self interests to pay off the ransom.
Allowing hackers to compromise their computers can easily costs the company millions of dollars.
Alerting the shareholders would damage company's credibility on Wall Street causing its stock to lose value and for it to lose actual business because of negative PR. Do you expect the shareholders to give you a merit badge for honesty after their portfolios loses $100,000?
If the company is smart, it would be a wake up call and they will spend a lot more money on security to prevent this from happening again. They don't get that luxury when a hacker has the balls, so paying them off is the best way to protect their business short term.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux market share is less than 2% of desktop computing.
If you have a product that targets the geek demographic like a graphics card, then supporting Linux is in a company's best interest, but its not surprising to see why many companies refuse to support Linux.
Adding checks in the code just waste time and will still piss off customers who will still leave bad reviews. Specifying all the requirements in the user description will confuse most people out there and just adds clutter. People side loading apps can't leave reviews and are probably doing something illegal anyways, so there is little incentive to support them.
The Android Market already has a mechanism to filter out devices on a market level specified in the manifest file and it works. It provides an easy way for developers to deal with the fragmentation of Android without pissing off users. The failure is on Amazon for not supporting the best practices of Android.
Unpaid internships are a lot better than nothing on the resume.
It all depends on you spin your experience. If you say that you got an unpaid internship because you have no other opportunities, it looks bad. If you say that it is an interesting company and got the chance to learn something new, then it can be a good thing.
I started out with an unpaid internship and used that experience to get me a good paying job. I treat my internships like any other job and sell my accomplishments and got a good paying job out of it.
The risk of legal action and malware is negligible. Companies can sell something for 1 cent and people will still pirate it because there is a free alternative.
If you remove the free alternative, then the price that these people are willing to pay would be much higher.
This forces Microsoft to put their ass on the line and deliver.
If Microsoft risks losing half its revenue, they are going to spend the resources to prevent it.
How do you know if you received a bad sample? You can contact the manufacturer or store and get it exchanged to see if you can get a new one. If you find they won't let you exchange or that it was still faulty, then you can include that information in an informative one star review.
If you say that it broke within half an hour and that is it, I will assume that the error was on the reviewer 9 out of 10 times especially if other reviews are more positive.
pricing, starting at 2 GB for $30/month and going up to 10 GB for $80/month.
With prices like that I bet they start encouraging tethering (or maybe even give it away for free). The overage penalties are high so the 10GB will actually appeal to some. Will they let victims, er, users change their plans on a monthly basis?
The ideal situation for phone companies is to charge for 10 GB a month, while the customer uses none of that.
The overage fees aren't that high. If you are only using 6 GB a month, you will save money using the 2 GB plan over the 10 GB plan. You break even at 7GB or 8GB a month depending on whether you compare to the 2 GB or 5 GB data plans
Unless you can reliably estimate that you can use 9 to 10 GB a month, the 10 GB plan is not economical. Phone companies are just using it as a way to convince its customers to pay for more coverage than they need.
One star reviews are crap and zero stars would just make it worst
If someone can't say one nice thing about the product, chances are they are a poor reviewer. Two and three star negative reviews are much more trustworthy because the reviewers will actually weigh the pros and cons of the product.
Probably because Amazon isn't going to take down a review because one person complains. This could be considered a good thing about the review process. How do they know that you don't have an agenda?
If you think a review is bad, you can mark it as unhelpful and write a a better review. Amazon expects that their are going to be bad reviews so it provides a mechanism to regulate it.
People won't read or remember the boring security manual and have been conditioned to believe that most security warnings are bogus.
People are conditioned to think that USB drives aren't dangerous because 99% of the their experiences with them aren't dangerous. They are just harmless devices to store your files on.
When they see one on the ground, they will think it is that someone lost their files and they would like to see who it belongs to. It is stupid to expect people not to do this and the security should be designed around that. You don't go against human nature
How are they going to implement this scheme.? Put everyone's name and information on a list then distribute it to Internet companies?
People will have to identify themselves first for this thing to work which defeats the purpose.
The reason the app quality on Android is poor is because it is harder to make money. They have more incentive to develop for the iPhone because their users are more willing to spend money. Shortening the refund window is just on small step Google took to help attract developers.
Most of the people who complain about the 15 minute policy are the ones who are too cheap to buy stuff anyways. Most people don't even know about the refund policy and it isn't a factor in the buying decision.
I develop for the Android and the reason I have a lite version has nothing to do with the refund policy. It is to promote my app and convince people to upgrade to the paid version. Both versions share the same code base, so it is easy to maintain and I find the benefits far outweigh the costs.
The 15 minutes isn't intended to be used for full evaluation. It is designed to prevent people from mistakes, really crappy apps and getting scammed by misleading app descriptions.
People abused the app refund window before, so developers wanted to get rid of it. As a compromised, Google decided to shorten the refund to 15 minutes which cuts down on the abuses, while still offering customers protection from being scammed. It is isn't perfect but its better than nothing.
If developers don'tt like the short refund window, they can make an evaluation version, which isn't that hard to do. A featured limited evaluation version will promote the app 10x better than having a 24 hour refund window too.
I don't buy games often
I don't think Capcom cares about your opinion if you don't buy games often.
Do you realize that the ISP's think you are a bad customer?
Those who download copyrighted content use a greater amount of bandwidth compared to the average user. They would rather you go and clog up their competitors network.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Copyrights and trademarks are the tools to protect the rights of inventors and promote progress of the software industry.
Most of the value in the software industry comes from the implementation of ideas and not the idea itself. If you spent millions of dollars developing a type of software, chances are a competitor will have to do they same so there are already barriers of entry.
Copyrights are able to protect someone from directly copying your work, but they don't stop anyone from independently implementing a better version. You can still build a better mousetrap.
They should just treat all forms like of software like video games. You can copy all the ideas you want, but your specific implementation of the idea and artwork will be protected. Imagine if someone patented first person shooters or if someone patented the idea of using a device to trap mice.
The biggest obstacle of breaking into the app market is creating a quality app and marketing it so people will buy it.
The Lodsys patents are completely unfair and we don't like being taken advantage of, but the amount of money they are asking for is less than 0.5%. It won't stop anyone from implementing their killer idea to make money.
I Think the problem is that "Johnny" doesn't like programming. Why fix that?
Not everyone who has an aptitude for software development enjoys programming.
I am a programmer who doesn't care for programming. I am more passionate about designing programs that people enjoy using. Programming is just a means to an end.
I started studying computer science in college but stopped after getting into assembly and digital logic because I don't care to do all this tedious work when I can use C++. I ended up studying business and the only reason I ended up becoming a programmer was because it was the only decent paying job I could find in this economy.
It is over 2.5 times harder to get a 4.8 vs a 4.5 in practice.
I guess it is all about perspective. To me, the score represents the ration of 5-star ratings compared to everything else which isn't a linear scale
99 cents is such a small amount of money for an app compared to the price of a beer at a bar. I don't see how it can be a bad value, especially if it provides a much better experience than using the Yellow Pages
So from "quite good" to "stunning" is a 0.3 rating on a 1 to 5 scale? That's quite a non-linear scale.
The scale isn't linear
A 4.5 requires getting a 7 5-star ratings for every 1-star. A 4.8 requires getting 19 5-star ratings for every 1-star.
They should have invested in more security in the past, but they don't own a time machine. The best and most cost effective way to deal with the problem short term was to pay off the hackers.
Of course it would be stupid if they relied on extortion for their security policy. They should have viewed this as a wake up call and they should invest a lot more in security to prevent this from happening again.
I am sure that the hackers had some proof that they hacked the system. It is clear that their goal was money and they knew that companies will take them more seriously if they had proof. If they hacked the system after being paid off, it would make other companies more reluctant to pay them off in the future.
Even if they weren't 100% sure of the hackers intentions, the $100,000 is small change compared to the millions they could have lost if their system was compromised. You can do a costs benefit analysis of each scenario and see that it would be best paying off the extortion short term.
If someone robs you at gun point, it is in your rational self interest to give them your money. Their gun could be out of ammo or the guy doesn't have the balls to kill you, but you just don't take the risks. The amount of money you have on you is much smaller compared to the value of your life, so it is an easy decision. After the event, you analyze what went wrong and take precautions to prevent it from happening again.
You can rate apps without writing a review. The developer was saying that a greater percentage of ratings come with reviews on the Android market.
It was in their rational self interests to pay off the ransom.
Allowing hackers to compromise their computers can easily costs the company millions of dollars.
Alerting the shareholders would damage company's credibility on Wall Street causing its stock to lose value and for it to lose actual business because of negative PR. Do you expect the shareholders to give you a merit badge for honesty after their portfolios loses $100,000?
If the company is smart, it would be a wake up call and they will spend a lot more money on security to prevent this from happening again. They don't get that luxury when a hacker has the balls, so paying them off is the best way to protect their business short term.