As a 42 year old system engineer (*nix) I can say your inexperience is showing. There hasn't been a company I've worked for who didn't have a plethora of Macs in the hands of the developers, SysAdmins *and* managers.
So I guess you still live in your basement? There is a world out there. And Macs have very low adoption (single digit) within corporations.
There is already no reason to use foreign gambling sites. If you need to setup a VPN or proxy, it's enough to convert 99% of the people to Lotto-Quebec.
which is that you need a license from Lotto-Québec to operate in the gambling buisness. If we don't want to block foreign gambling web sites, we should also allow foreign lotteries to operate in Quebec.
Personally, if I wanted to play poker online, I would use Lotto-Québec, which I trust a lot more than an offshore company. How do I know they are not selling my hand to another player?
that Bing maps is a failure, how will Microsoft compete against Google in the search business without maps? Will they integrate Google Maps results to Bing?
There is more to value than price. Presumably they are cheaper from what you are saying. (I honestly have no idea and can't be bothered to look) But what about the service itself? Is it a better service? Are they more timely? Is it safe? Are the vehicles clean? Is it reliable? Basically, when you consider everything and weight it according to what really matters, is Uber a better value than a traditional taxi?
Short answer: no, it isn't. On average I would even say it is worse. There isn't always a Uber driver available. There isn't one waiting for you at the airport. Drivers are less professional. They are possibly not insured. If it was the same price, I'd take regular taxi all the way.
As a potential customer I don't give a crap about whether or not they have to pay license fees. That doesn't improve or detract from the service as far as I'm concerned. I also don't care about the legal battles over the licensing. What I do care about is whether at the end of the day Uber better value for money. So I put it to you again, why is Uber better? Why would I give Uber my dollar instead of a traditional taxi company? Where will I get the best value for money?
In my city Uber is about 10-15% cheaper. The only reason to use it is price. If licenses are a bad thing, then we should end them democratically for everyone. But if, as a society, we think they should remain, then Uber drivers should have to pay for it.
If they are actually providing a better value then more power to them.
Of course they are. They don't need to pay for a license. They pocket 90% of the savings and the user gets the other 10%. Force them to pay the same licenses fees as every other taxi driver, and their price will be the same as regular taxis. Possibly even more if they can get them out of business.
You get basic economics wrong. A tax is never 100% passed to the consumer, unless the demand elasticity is null. In practice, some part of the tax is absorbed by the seller/producer, and in part by the consumer.
Some of them might invest in green energies, however they will make much more money in the short term (and that's all they care about) if we don't fight climate change.
BS. Oil companies fought scientists for years and still are. They want us to do nothing about climate change. Only recently they stopped saying that climate change didn't exist.
The problem is that some people, called homeopaths, make a living out of it and that it is close to a fraud. Profits don't fund medical science. Profits fund homeopaths and corporations developing the pills. And worse, they do not admit it is a placebo.
I understand Samsung is free to innovate. But my point was that for most people, Samsung's keyboard is a regression, not an innovation. Now that Google has a Korean keyboard, there is no reason left for Samsung to keep heir keyboard anyways. Especially if they can't maintain it, they should get rid of it.
What innovation did Samsung bring with its keyboard? If I don't need Korean, why would I need it? Samsung make OS images specific to many countries/carriers. Most of these could do just fine without a Korean keyboard.
Swype wasn't added by Google to the play store. It was added by Swype itself. They (and not Google) choose to sell directly to carriers/manufacturers instead of selling through the play store.
It's hijacking when you try to distribute your modified software as the original. Sourceforge is free to fork Firefox and call it SourceFox or whatever. But that's not what they are doing.
Slashdot Mirror
And gorillas are black. Of course the algorithm isn't racist, but was probably developed and tested mostly by white males.
Yeah, like Slashdot. For some reasons that "disable advertisement" box always revert to uncheck after some time.
Probably not. Mobile IE is therefore too for those who likes ads.
how do you know they only had one kid during those three years?
but are they available on the most popular Safari browser used, mobile Safari?
Still, developpers using Macs must not be greater than say, 10-20%.
As a 42 year old system engineer (*nix) I can say your inexperience is showing. There hasn't been a company I've worked for who didn't have a plethora of Macs in the hands of the developers, SysAdmins *and* managers.
So I guess you still live in your basement? There is a world out there. And Macs have very low adoption (single digit) within corporations.
Yeah, as long as you like ads, and don't care about your privacy, there is nothing wrong with Safari.
There is already no reason to use foreign gambling sites. If you need to setup a VPN or proxy, it's enough to convert 99% of the people to Lotto-Quebec.
which is that you need a license from Lotto-Québec to operate in the gambling buisness.
If we don't want to block foreign gambling web sites, we should also allow foreign lotteries to operate in Quebec.
Personally, if I wanted to play poker online, I would use Lotto-Québec, which I trust a lot more than an offshore company. How do I know they are not selling my hand to another player?
It could be to keep people into their ecosystem. For the same reason they run services such as Hotmail and give Windows 10 for free.
So they should sell Bing, not only Bing Maps.
that Bing maps is a failure, how will Microsoft compete against Google in the search business without maps? Will they integrate Google Maps results to Bing?
There is only one version of SSL still used. So soon enough, SSL will be legacy and all supported versions will be called TLS.
There is more to value than price. Presumably they are cheaper from what you are saying. (I honestly have no idea and can't be bothered to look) But what about the service itself? Is it a better service? Are they more timely? Is it safe? Are the vehicles clean? Is it reliable? Basically, when you consider everything and weight it according to what really matters, is Uber a better value than a traditional taxi?
Short answer: no, it isn't. On average I would even say it is worse. There isn't always a Uber driver available. There isn't one waiting for you at the airport. Drivers are less professional. They are possibly not insured.
If it was the same price, I'd take regular taxi all the way.
As a potential customer I don't give a crap about whether or not they have to pay license fees. That doesn't improve or detract from the service as far as I'm concerned. I also don't care about the legal battles over the licensing. What I do care about is whether at the end of the day Uber better value for money. So I put it to you again, why is Uber better? Why would I give Uber my dollar instead of a traditional taxi company? Where will I get the best value for money?
In my city Uber is about 10-15% cheaper. The only reason to use it is price.
If licenses are a bad thing, then we should end them democratically for everyone. But if, as a society, we think they should remain, then Uber drivers should have to pay for it.
If they are actually providing a better value then more power to them.
Of course they are. They don't need to pay for a license. They pocket 90% of the savings and the user gets the other 10%.
Force them to pay the same licenses fees as every other taxi driver, and their price will be the same as regular taxis. Possibly even more if they can get them out of business.
You mean gas stations, not oil companies.
Anyways, what I said applies to every industries, oil included.
You get basic economics wrong.
A tax is never 100% passed to the consumer, unless the demand elasticity is null. In practice, some part of the tax is absorbed by the seller/producer, and in part by the consumer.
Some of them might invest in green energies, however they will make much more money in the short term (and that's all they care about) if we don't fight climate change.
BS. Oil companies fought scientists for years and still are. They want us to do nothing about climate change. Only recently they stopped saying that climate change didn't exist.
The problem is that some people, called homeopaths, make a living out of it and that it is close to a fraud. Profits don't fund medical science. Profits fund homeopaths and corporations developing the pills. And worse, they do not admit it is a placebo.
I understand Samsung is free to innovate. But my point was that for most people, Samsung's keyboard is a regression, not an innovation. Now that Google has a Korean keyboard, there is no reason left for Samsung to keep heir keyboard anyways. Especially if they can't maintain it, they should get rid of it.
What innovation did Samsung bring with its keyboard? If I don't need Korean, why would I need it?
Samsung make OS images specific to many countries/carriers. Most of these could do just fine without a Korean keyboard.
Swype wasn't added by Google to the play store. It was added by Swype itself. They (and not Google) choose to sell directly to carriers/manufacturers instead of selling through the play store.
They should be able to do all that while making their keyboard available in the Play Store, and therefore easily updatable.
Why is Samsung making a keyboard in the first place?
It's hijacking when you try to distribute your modified software as the original. Sourceforge is free to fork Firefox and call it SourceFox or whatever. But that's not what they are doing.