No, I just meant that they really only have information about the apps they work with, but the summary generalizes that information to be about all iPhone apps. It could easily be the case that their data is representative, but it may not be the case either.
Without some sort of information about the popularity of each app, it is really tough to combine the 60% and 34% in a meaningful way (for instance, it is at least possible for a single one of the 40% apps to have more individual installations than the entire 60%, or popular apps may be pirated at much higher rates, or whatever).
It means what it says, but the poster I replied to misunderstood it, and then someone else replied to me vehemently arguing that it meant 60% of installs...
Actually reading the article, I was right, quoting from approximately the fifth paragraph:
Just over 60% of paid apps using Pinch have been pirated. This estimate is also low, since application pirates occasionally disable our tracking. When an application is pirated, an average of 34% of all installs are cracked -- in other words, about half of legitimate paid downloads.
He says that for apps that have seen piracy, an average of 34% of the installs are pirated.
So the 60% was just their way of stating the biggest possible percentage.
I wonder if maybe he is being clever with his phrasing, and instead of 60% of all app installations being cases of piracy, the fact he is trying to state is that of the apps in the app store (more probably, the apps that they instrument), 60% of them have been pirated at least once.
Well, if you are going to go in that direction, don't forget the earth and the sun. I'm not sure about the galaxy, but it may be what gives the internet its momentum.
The large numbers involved probably mean that the users of each brand are pretty much the same as the users of any other brand, but it would be interesting if someone were able to figure out if a given brand suffered from the 'hammer hands' effect, where their users generally treated the computer more roughly.
That's just something a bunch of people latched onto as a problem; modern wall warts (switched-mode, the light ones) barely use any juice at all when nothing is connected to them, and devices aren't really that bad (my entire house, a few alarm clocks and a rudimentary entertainment center with an older 27" CRT, draws less than 40 watts when stuff is turned off, which is ~ 350 KW-h per year, or 9 gallons of gasoline (but it would take more like 30 gallons to actually generate that much electricity...)).
So people that commute hundreds of miles each week are scrimping and scratching and messing and whatnot to reduce their annual consumption by (probably) less than 1 weeks driving.
There isn't enough land to go back to living a hunter gatherer lifestyle (or even a long-rotation agriculture lifestyle, or probably, any sort of pre-steam machine agriculture).
So there are too many people to do that, regardless of the willingness of those people to live that lifestyle.
I sure thought people were driving less. I even heard stories about people who stopped going to work because it didn't even pay for the gas they needed to get there (those people obviously weren't thinking their situation through very much as they are still spending a lot of their income on gasoline at $2, but whatever).
From what I gather, the vulnerabilities in the article all stem from trustworthy sites acting like untrustworthy sites (that is, something malicious gets stuck in a supposedly trusted RSS feed or whatever), so that particular separation probably isn't that important.
The idea of an extension that executes code from every page it visits is pretty scary, I hope none of those exist.
Extensions that do not retrieve data (or even untrusted data) should also be reasonably safe from the types of attack discussed in the article (because the attacks discussed in the article all result from executing malicious data).
And after they lose, people will have to sign a worship disclaimer every Sunday stipulating that their faith does not guarantee that they will be protected by the Almighty.
Blizzards really aren't comparable to the others. Electrical infrastructure generally isn't built to withstand a major ice storm, but those don't happen all that often, and the thing in New York a year or two ago was just bad, not a calamity.
Cities that have big problems with blizzards have those problems because they choose not to invest capital in snow removal equipment, so when they get a lot of snow, it takes a long time to remove it. In areas where it snows a lot every year, snow removal isn't an issue.
I'm not a great composer, so I don't really know, but I don't think that the difficult part of composition is actually the transcription (sure, it's tedious, but I don't think it is the hard part).
Slashdot Mirror
If a 1% tax is $400, that means that the tuition is about $40,000. The students paying $40,000 are just going to pay the $400, they don't care.
As assholes, Americans should be very careful of all the people out there that are dicks.
No, I just meant that they really only have information about the apps they work with, but the summary generalizes that information to be about all iPhone apps. It could easily be the case that their data is representative, but it may not be the case either.
Without some sort of information about the popularity of each app, it is really tough to combine the 60% and 34% in a meaningful way (for instance, it is at least possible for a single one of the 40% apps to have more individual installations than the entire 60%, or popular apps may be pirated at much higher rates, or whatever).
I thought Apple users breath smelled like Steve.
Or is that what you meant by 'fresh'?
It means what it says, but the poster I replied to misunderstood it, and then someone else replied to me vehemently arguing that it meant 60% of installs...
Actually reading the article, I was right, quoting from approximately the fifth paragraph:
Just over 60% of paid apps using Pinch have been pirated. This estimate is also low, since application pirates occasionally disable our tracking. When an application is pirated, an average of 34% of all installs are cracked -- in other words, about half of legitimate paid downloads.
He says that for apps that have seen piracy, an average of 34% of the installs are pirated.
So the 60% was just their way of stating the biggest possible percentage.
I wonder if maybe he is being clever with his phrasing, and instead of 60% of all app installations being cases of piracy, the fact he is trying to state is that of the apps in the app store (more probably, the apps that they instrument), 60% of them have been pirated at least once.
Well, if you are going to go in that direction, don't forget the earth and the sun. I'm not sure about the galaxy, but it may be what gives the internet its momentum.
His point was that the Google updater should take advantage of the preexisting system functionality.
The large numbers involved probably mean that the users of each brand are pretty much the same as the users of any other brand, but it would be interesting if someone were able to figure out if a given brand suffered from the 'hammer hands' effect, where their users generally treated the computer more roughly.
A Google search for "Aspire One fan" shows multiple vendors selling the fans for $20 or so, and a couple selling 'thermal modules' for about $40.
I just sent him some cookies.
That's just something a bunch of people latched onto as a problem; modern wall warts (switched-mode, the light ones) barely use any juice at all when nothing is connected to them, and devices aren't really that bad (my entire house, a few alarm clocks and a rudimentary entertainment center with an older 27" CRT, draws less than 40 watts when stuff is turned off, which is ~ 350 KW-h per year, or 9 gallons of gasoline (but it would take more like 30 gallons to actually generate that much electricity...)).
So people that commute hundreds of miles each week are scrimping and scratching and messing and whatnot to reduce their annual consumption by (probably) less than 1 weeks driving.
There isn't enough land to go back to living a hunter gatherer lifestyle (or even a long-rotation agriculture lifestyle, or probably, any sort of pre-steam machine agriculture).
So there are too many people to do that, regardless of the willingness of those people to live that lifestyle.
I sure thought people were driving less. I even heard stories about people who stopped going to work because it didn't even pay for the gas they needed to get there (those people obviously weren't thinking their situation through very much as they are still spending a lot of their income on gasoline at $2, but whatever).
That seems especially bad compared to this, never mind LCD or Plasma:
http://reviews.cnet.com/green-tech/tv-consumption-chart/
(but those numbers are for the TVs as they come out of the box, so who knows)
From what I gather, the vulnerabilities in the article all stem from trustworthy sites acting like untrustworthy sites (that is, something malicious gets stuck in a supposedly trusted RSS feed or whatever), so that particular separation probably isn't that important.
The idea of an extension that executes code from every page it visits is pretty scary, I hope none of those exist.
Extensions that do not retrieve data (or even untrusted data) should also be reasonably safe from the types of attack discussed in the article (because the attacks discussed in the article all result from executing malicious data).
And after they lose, people will have to sign a worship disclaimer every Sunday stipulating that their faith does not guarantee that they will be protected by the Almighty.
Blizzards really aren't comparable to the others. Electrical infrastructure generally isn't built to withstand a major ice storm, but those don't happen all that often, and the thing in New York a year or two ago was just bad, not a calamity.
Cities that have big problems with blizzards have those problems because they choose not to invest capital in snow removal equipment, so when they get a lot of snow, it takes a long time to remove it. In areas where it snows a lot every year, snow removal isn't an issue.
Really, we just need a port on the mouth of the Mississippi, it doesn't actually have to be shaped like New Orleans.
I saw some crazy program on Discovery or the History channel that proposed building a giant floating city to support the port.
It depends a great deal on the exact chance of the bridge breaking.
I'm not a great composer, so I don't really know, but I don't think that the difficult part of composition is actually the transcription (sure, it's tedious, but I don't think it is the hard part).
Generally, people with Parkinson's have been pretty willing.