Nokia used to be a solid hardware manufacturer. One of Elop's bone-headed moves was to move to the same outsourced manufacturing model as the competition.
Even if I give you that 'upper middle class' was hyperbole, you still haven't refuted the observation that the surest correlation with later wealth is the wealth of your parents. The only way for you to 'win' your argument is to stubbornly insist on a literal reading of that hyperbole.
And yes, your next set of given examples do nothing to refute that either.
A unified response is necessary, according to the analyst. Funny how that sounds like "too bad the House of Commons refused to be an American lapdog for a change".
So, when pointed out that a cheap calculator is a much better educational deal than an expensive tablet, your answer is 'install an emulator on the expensive tablet'?
Just when I thought Apple fans couldn't sink any lower...
Fine, so don't run shit in the background. If I have something running in the background, it's not up to my OS vendor to suddenly decide that's not important and throttle it down.
And to the other idiot answering: not all users have full control over what APIs their applications do or don't call.
Because every time the writers try something else than the 'noble humanists on a starship', a very vocal portion of the fandumb starts a ruckus: "That's not what Roddenberry wanted".
For sure, they win some new fans who like what they do, but you may have noticed that these are not as fanatical as the TOS fanbois, and don't garner ratings and income as much.
Snowden being a swivel-eyed nut and his cause being championed by an increasingly strident and irrational Greenwald did the cause of freedom more harm than good.
I take away a different lesson from this: maybe it's a good idea to wait until you have more facts before starting to run around screaming "The sky is falling!!!!111".
The fact that some real shady things in terms of corporate and governmental surveillance do go on is no reason to just give up being rational.
The problem with your demand is that people run out of things to link to on this and some other subjects.
In other words, why don't you address the substance, instead of trying to shift the debate to the source? Even from across the Atlantic it is obvious that the Republicons have a hard-on hate for any kind of public service.
I think Evangelion is overrated. Those who keep gushing about it are usually the worst of weeyaboos.
That being said, what made my decision to skip Pacific Rim easier was the blatant dishonesty coming from the production team. When some of your visuals are 1-to-1 copies, don't feed me a line that you didn't use Evangelion as an inspiration. That kind of lying tells me you were only in this for the money, with no interest in any quality whatsoever.
I don't mind blockbuster fare, just as I don't mind fast food either. When I do consume it, I do demand it is made with some minimal care for the end product though.
If you boil everything down to bare bones, there are only a few plots. What matters is execution. When your monster invasion movie has at least three scenes ripped off from Evangelion in the trailer alone, that is a bad sign, to give just one example.
There is a reason Nolan films do well: Nolan is not perfect, but he does go the extra length in execution.
At least as probable a scenario would be some fundamentalist with access to nuclear weapons deciding that God wants him to wipe out the godless liberals in NYC.
Since when is asking someone to back up an assertion an argument from authority?
Also, there is the fact that the fallacy does not apply when providing an argument from a relevant authority. Or do you think you know better than your GP, too?
And since when is drawing the conclusion that someone unwilling to back up his argument is arguing in bad faith (even if expressed in an insulting way) an ad hominem?
In short, if I conclude from this post that you're not just arguing in bad faith, but too stupid to know the meaning of the words you use, I am drawing a conclusion from the provided facts.
When you're in a hole, continuing digging is a bad idea.
your numbers are a bit off. Ad revenue is around 1 billion and rising (especially in the mobile space), on around 600 million active users. Around $1 per user is still not $120 per year, but I figure the a losses will be higher if a significant fraction of users drop out of the target audience for ads.
No, the ads are not there to support the free subscriptions. The ads are not a means to an end, they are an end in itself, and the consumer of the ad is the product being sold. Giving that consumer an out means that that consumer should pay a lot more in subscription fees than they bring in in ad revenue, especially considering that with a significant amount of the users opting out the value of the rest of the userbase drops.
Unless of course you pull the bait and switch tactic of promising an ad-free experience and later add ads anyway, like cable television did.
Slashdot Mirror
Nokia used to be a solid hardware manufacturer. One of Elop's bone-headed moves was to move to the same outsourced manufacturing model as the competition.
The majority of these are middle-class or higher. You are blinded by your own privilege: that is wealthy.
And every attempt at trying to deflect away from this is making you look more blinkered.
Even if I give you that 'upper middle class' was hyperbole, you still haven't refuted the observation that the surest correlation with later wealth is the wealth of your parents. The only way for you to 'win' your argument is to stubbornly insist on a literal reading of that hyperbole.
And yes, your next set of given examples do nothing to refute that either.
Because even if I give him his absurd premise, it still means all he has produced so far is an outlier.
So that's 2 out of 400. A whopping .5%. Are you familiar with the concept 'outlier'?
A unified response is necessary, according to the analyst. Funny how that sounds like "too bad the House of Commons refused to be an American lapdog for a change".
So, when pointed out that a cheap calculator is a much better educational deal than an expensive tablet, your answer is 'install an emulator on the expensive tablet'?
Just when I thought Apple fans couldn't sink any lower...
No I don't. I happen to have a good enough command of English to engage in things like figures of speech.
Since you obviously can't do better but take things literally, I'd suggest you shouldn't cast aspersions on others' intelligence.
TL;DR: you're an idiot.
Fine, so don't run shit in the background. If I have something running in the background, it's not up to my OS vendor to suddenly decide that's not important and throttle it down.
And to the other idiot answering: not all users have full control over what APIs their applications do or don't call.
Third possibility: you're a fanboi who'd eat shit sandwiches if the Apple store sold them.
That's not an upgrade. That's a downgrade to MS-DOS. I want my modern PC to do actual multitasking, not half-assed TSR stuff.
Because every time the writers try something else than the 'noble humanists on a starship', a very vocal portion of the fandumb starts a ruckus: "That's not what Roddenberry wanted".
For sure, they win some new fans who like what they do, but you may have noticed that these are not as fanatical as the TOS fanbois, and don't garner ratings and income as much.
Snowden being a swivel-eyed nut and his cause being championed by an increasingly strident and irrational Greenwald did the cause of freedom more harm than good.
I take away a different lesson from this: maybe it's a good idea to wait until you have more facts before starting to run around screaming "The sky is falling!!!!111".
The fact that some real shady things in terms of corporate and governmental surveillance do go on is no reason to just give up being rational.
Which of those two gets paid to walk through bad weather? "Neither rain nor snow...", remember?
The problem with your demand is that people run out of things to link to on this and some other subjects.
In other words, why don't you address the substance, instead of trying to shift the debate to the source? Even from across the Atlantic it is obvious that the Republicons have a hard-on hate for any kind of public service.
You provided no example, merely an assertion on your end.
Perhaps you're not entirely clear on what a reference is? Then again, since you've amply proven your stupidity already, I am not surprised at all.
I think Evangelion is overrated. Those who keep gushing about it are usually the worst of weeyaboos.
That being said, what made my decision to skip Pacific Rim easier was the blatant dishonesty coming from the production team. When some of your visuals are 1-to-1 copies, don't feed me a line that you didn't use Evangelion as an inspiration. That kind of lying tells me you were only in this for the money, with no interest in any quality whatsoever.
I don't mind blockbuster fare, just as I don't mind fast food either. When I do consume it, I do demand it is made with some minimal care for the end product though.
It's not just simply a glut; it's a bad glut.
If you boil everything down to bare bones, there are only a few plots. What matters is execution. When your monster invasion movie has at least three scenes ripped off from Evangelion in the trailer alone, that is a bad sign, to give just one example.
There is a reason Nolan films do well: Nolan is not perfect, but he does go the extra length in execution.
No, you asserted something was shifty. You did not provide references.
In other words, you are a liar. And a stupid one, the evidence that you are in fact lying is only a couple of posts above the lie itself.
You crucify climate scientists for less, so no whining.
At least as probable a scenario would be some fundamentalist with access to nuclear weapons deciding that God wants him to wipe out the godless liberals in NYC.
Since when is asking someone to back up an assertion an argument from authority?
Also, there is the fact that the fallacy does not apply when providing an argument from a relevant authority. Or do you think you know better than your GP, too?
And since when is drawing the conclusion that someone unwilling to back up his argument is arguing in bad faith (even if expressed in an insulting way) an ad hominem?
In short, if I conclude from this post that you're not just arguing in bad faith, but too stupid to know the meaning of the words you use, I am drawing a conclusion from the provided facts.
When you're in a hole, continuing digging is a bad idea.
your numbers are a bit off. Ad revenue is around 1 billion and rising (especially in the mobile space), on around 600 million active users. Around $1 per user is still not $120 per year, but I figure the a losses will be higher if a significant fraction of users drop out of the target audience for ads.
No, the ads are not there to support the free subscriptions. The ads are not a means to an end, they are an end in itself, and the consumer of the ad is the product being sold. Giving that consumer an out means that that consumer should pay a lot more in subscription fees than they bring in in ad revenue, especially considering that with a significant amount of the users opting out the value of the rest of the userbase drops.
Unless of course you pull the bait and switch tactic of promising an ad-free experience and later add ads anyway, like cable television did.
An Anonymous Coward defending science illiteracy that can't even count? I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.