As more and more devices of varying features and sizes have been released by Apple, there's been more and more work developers have had to do to adopt the different sizes/features of those devices (I still see new releases on the app store that state a new feature of "Support for iPhone 5S size" or similar)
It hasn't been until recently that Apple has given developers the tools to create views that don't need to know the specifics of the device it's running on, thereby avoiding silly checks like if(device == IPHONE) {....} else if(device == IPAD) {....}
Answer is 'No' to both, precisely for the reasons I've given.
I don't want to pay to see 15-20 mins of commercials before a movie. And no, the "theatre experience" doesn't make up for it - not by a long shot.
I'd much rather wait whatever amount of time for it to show up on Netflix/whatever services, and watch it in the comfort of my home, without a bunch of strangers augmenting the 'experience'.
Apple will not attempt to create a TV set top box unless the business model allows then to somehow reap revenue from both the subscriber and the content creator
That's why I think fines should be based on a percentage of revenue for the timeframe of the infraction, instead of a fixed (usually capped) amount. That would make it difficult for them to say with certainty that it would cost less to break the law than to actually deal with it (not to mention the investors' backlash if it affects dividends, etc).
I agree with this too. I understand their desire to make sure people don't post things that are "too long", but 140 is too damn short!
I way to potentially solve the problem: give one @-user mention and 1 URL link free - that don't count towards the limit; that would make conversations a lot more useful without adding stupid bloat.
Couldn't we just sue the patent office for not doing its job right and causing all this harm to others (developpers, etc.) that end up having to cleaning up the mess the PTO created out of their own pockets?
in making purchases based on the lowest possible price.
Exactly. That reminds me of the joke in Armegeddon:
Rockhound: "You know we're sitting on four million pounds of fuel, one nuclear weapon and a thing that has 270,000 moving parts built by the lowest bidder. Makes you feel good, doesn't it?"
- It mentions that the Shuttle didn't "technically" explode, but that it broke apart, really fast, and the fuel ignited into a fireball. I'd call that an explosion.
That's why he states things like "there was no blast", etc... so he's right that "technically" it didn't explode (the tank would have done that), but the end result is the same, as you said. - It complains about NASA commemorating the Challenger's "73 seconds of flight", claiming that it took almost 3 more minutes for it to hit the ground after breaking up. I guess he subscribes to the Toy Story definition of flight: Falling With Style.
"Powered flight" is what they talk about; most pieces took more than that 3 minutes to fall back to the ground/ocean so one could count that as well if they wanted to push things.
- It dismisses the assertion that millions of people saw the tragedy unfold as false, claiming instead that most cable networks cut-away during launch...
Puhleez... Nothing to see here, move along.
Agreed. At lot of schools had assemblies that day to watch the first teacher go to space, live. The article completely missed that fact (most likely intentionally to prove a point).
I agree that it's sad to see this, the beginning of the end of the original shuttle program.
The Challenger accident is what got me really interested in the whole program; I remember staying up late at night watching all the news casts for any bits of new information about the incident. Pretty much the same thing when Columbia was lost.
I've always wanted to go see a shuttle launch, but now I don't think I'll really get the chance given this uncertainty.
I prefer they violate patents and fight that flu aggressively now, instead of it eventually getting here and having to deal with it here, at which point it will be harder to control, and we'd probably end up having to do the same thing anyways.
Yes, but not before some company gets rich by extorting exhorbitant fees to create treatments which the poorest won't be able to afford; they'll then use that money to lobby to have 100-year extensions (renewable every 50 years) on said patent.
Yeah, nice try, posting a blurb on an article about Urinary Tract Infection. Nice job discrediting yourself.
Since you obviously didn't bother reading anything in the link I provided, I'll provide a relevant section here:
" In cases of kidney or urinary tract infection (UTI) the urine will contain bacteria, but otherwise urine is virtually sterile and nearly odorless when it leaves the body."
Slashdot Mirror
More info on Security Now #502
As more and more devices of varying features and sizes have been released by Apple, there's been more and more work developers have had to do to adopt the different sizes/features of those devices (I still see new releases on the app store that state a new feature of "Support for iPhone 5S size" or similar)
It hasn't been until recently that Apple has given developers the tools to create views that don't need to know the specifics of the device it's running on, thereby avoiding silly checks like
if(device == IPHONE) {....} else if(device == IPAD) {....}
I don't want to pay to see 15-20 mins of commercials before a movie. And no, the "theatre experience" doesn't make up for it - not by a long shot.
I'd much rather wait whatever amount of time for it to show up on Netflix/whatever services, and watch it in the comfort of my home, without a bunch of strangers augmenting the 'experience'.
Tablets? Phablets? Nope, Apple didn't think of those.
Once they see they can subject you to ads, they'll start enforcing them on you.
Then they'll make them interactive in such a way that you can't ignore them if you want to see the content you're paying for.
That's why I think fines should be based on a percentage of revenue for the timeframe of the infraction, instead of a fixed (usually capped) amount. That would make it difficult for them to say with certainty that it would cost less to break the law than to actually deal with it (not to mention the investors' backlash if it affects dividends, etc).
I agree with this too. I understand their desire to make sure people don't post things that are "too long", but 140 is too damn short! I way to potentially solve the problem: give one @-user mention and 1 URL link free - that don't count towards the limit; that would make conversations a lot more useful without adding stupid bloat.
Of course, because they've got balls for trying to get this done as if it weren't "surveillance".
You mean, to present them from least relevant to totally irrelevant?
The App Store replaces your shopping cart and shipping desk, not your sales and marketing department.
It also replaces 30% with nothingness, since, as you said, you still need your sales and marketing departments.
I've yet to read any developers say that the MAS replaced their departments, thereby making the "Apple MAS Tax" of any real value.
I'm pretty sure nobody at LEGO or the producers of the movie signed off on any of that!
Couldn't we just sue the patent office for not doing its job right and causing all this harm to others (developpers, etc.) that end up having to cleaning up the mess the PTO created out of their own pockets?
in making purchases based on the lowest possible price.
Exactly. That reminds me of the joke in Armegeddon:
Rockhound: "You know we're sitting on four million pounds of fuel, one nuclear weapon and a thing that has 270,000 moving parts built by the lowest bidder. Makes you feel good, doesn't it?"
- It mentions that the Shuttle didn't "technically" explode, but that it broke apart, really fast, and the fuel ignited into a fireball. I'd call that an explosion.
That's why he states things like "there was no blast", etc... so he's right that "technically" it didn't explode (the tank would have done that), but the end result is the same, as you said.
- It complains about NASA commemorating the Challenger's "73 seconds of flight", claiming that it took almost 3 more minutes for it to hit the ground after breaking up. I guess he subscribes to the Toy Story definition of flight: Falling With Style.
"Powered flight" is what they talk about; most pieces took more than that 3 minutes to fall back to the ground/ocean so one could count that as well if they wanted to push things.
- It dismisses the assertion that millions of people saw the tragedy unfold as false, claiming instead that most cable networks cut-away during launch...
Puhleez... Nothing to see here, move along.
Agreed. At lot of schools had assemblies that day to watch the first teacher go to space, live. The article completely missed that fact (most likely intentionally to prove a point).
I agree that it's sad to see this, the beginning of the end of the original shuttle program.
The Challenger accident is what got me really interested in the whole program; I remember staying up late at night watching all the news casts for any bits of new information about the incident. Pretty much the same thing when Columbia was lost.
I've always wanted to go see a shuttle launch, but now I don't think I'll really get the chance given this uncertainty.
info@plotpatents.com
"lucrative shipping routes, perhaps even the storied Northwest Passage; new cruise ship destinations; and important commercial fisheries."
:)
Great. Add more pollution to the area. Just what it needs!
Now know that the patent will end some day.
Yes, but not before some company gets rich by extorting exhorbitant fees to create treatments which the poorest won't be able to afford; they'll then use that money to lobby to have 100-year extensions (renewable every 50 years) on said patent.
Did you not check out the floor model when you purchased it? Or did you simply buy online?
Simply send a paper copy of the report to them. Each day.
They'll get the message.
Bender: "I'm not reading all that crap. Summarize it in one word!"
Leela: "Sabotage."
One could also say centralized servers are relics also, with the advent of peer to peer networking (Bittorrent, etc).
Yeah, nice try, posting a blurb on an article about Urinary Tract Infection. Nice job discrediting yourself.
Since you obviously didn't bother reading anything in the link I provided, I'll provide a relevant section here:
" In cases of kidney or urinary tract infection (UTI) the urine will contain bacteria, but otherwise urine is virtually sterile and nearly odorless when it leaves the body."