If another country were to invade my country, resisting that invasion would be a defensive war. Of coarse civilians would die, the difference is that not fighting might have worse consequences.
You're willing to accept the 80% or so chance that not enough users will buy your app to make decent money, but you aren't willing to accept the 5% risk that Apple will reject your app. That doesn't make sense.
I supported the Iraq war, and I was kidding myself. This video made me realize the kind of horrific things that 'normally' happen to civilians in war. Now I am absolutely against anything but a truly defensive war.
I've bought two iPhones. Of coarse when I bought my second, I gave my old one to my brother, and when he bought a new iPhone he sold it to a friend. There are at least three people who want my current iPhone if I decide to buy Apple's next phone. None of the iPhone models are so old that they are obsolete. Judging by my experience the vast majority of iPhones that that have been sold are probably still in circulation.
Bandwidth doesn't work the way oil or minerals do. It can't be saved for the future. Unused bandwidth is basically a wasted resource. Why wait for a TV broadcast, which is inconvenient, when the technology exists for me to watch what I want when I want.
I haven't watched 'traditional' television since I discovered hulu.com and bought a computer to drive my HDTV. I can't believe I used to be willing to make an appointment to watch a TV show.
I agree about the 3G though. Cell phone networks have been slow to realize that they need to develop a high speed high bandwidth data only network and deploy it everywhere.
But most of the cost of solid rocket motors is the fuel, so making them reusable doesn't save much on launch costs. This would be a reusable liquid fueled rocket, where most of the cost is the rocket motors.
Increasing prices for early adopters is how Apple handeled the release of the first iPhone. When demand went down two months later Apple reduced the price by $200. They got so much bad press they had to give everyone who bought before the price decrease a $100 credit. Now Apple deals with scalpers by having the two purchase limit instead.
I think source code availability might actually make it easier for someone to write a trojan. Without it they would have to write a program from scratch that looks like a legitimate program. If they can get the source code all they have to do is make some small modifications, release it under a different name for free, and by the time people realize what's going on the damage is already done.
The only reason people want this is so they can use two devices on the same 3G connection. It's not as convenient as having a 3G card in each device. I would rather have a reasonably priced 'pay as you go' plan that allows me to connect as many devices as I want. Or at least a special 'unlimited' plan that allows me to connect two devices.
The iPad runs expensive applications, a laptop runs free applications.
There are free applications available for both the iPad and laptops. I'm not sure why you think iPad applications are expensive. In my experience an expensive iPad app is $10, a cheep laptop application is $50.
I think I'm not alone in thinking how annoying it is to have common-sense features be added in at a later date which would have already been done with a simi-open platform.
Apple's design philosophy is that it's usually better not to have a feature than to have that feature implemented poorly. It seems to have worked out pretty well for most users. Also, what kind of 'semi-open' platform would allow adding system wide copy-paste or multitasking.
It would probably be different if you could prove who stole your stuff. The cops can't just ignore every single case of theft regardless of the circumstances, especially not a highly public case where they have all the proof they need to prosecute the people responsible. If they did ignore it there would be absolutely no deterrent to theft.
Most iPad apps cost less than $10. Apple gets about 30% from each iPad app sold. Even if the average user bought 20 apps at $5 each Apple would only get $30 per iPad minus hosting costs.
Apple makes a lot more than that in profit from the iPad. Maybe you should try checking your facts before applying 'common sense'.
What do you think Apple's motivation is for blocking flash? They still make all their money on hardware sales. The app store only exists to encourage people to develop for their products. The only reason that makes any sense is that Apple wants a higher quality product.
- Intentional leaks by Apple. The most likely in me eyes since it's now twice.
I think that's very unlikely. Why would Apple leak prototypes when they could just leak pictures and feature lists. Leaking pictures and stats would allow them to showcase the features they want people to know about without as much risk of giving competitors an advantage. It also lets respected news organizations be the first to report on the features, rather than some shady blog.
Are you saying people can't enjoy good design without a degree in industrial design? That's like saying someone can't appreciate a reliable car unless they're an auto mechanic.
Any global warming "solution" that doesn't involve actually lowering the CO2 level of the atmosphere isn't a solution.
I don't see why that is the case. Thinking rationally involves deciding which actions give you the greatest probability of achieving your goals. Looking in to all our options gives us the best chance of stopping global warming.
Even with the disasters that have happened, in terms of the cost to the human race, it's a lot less damaging than fighting a war to get oil. We should continue to develop new technologies that don't rely on oil. But until those technologies can replace oil offshore drilling is our best alternative.
I think this is a good move for HP. The slate would have been the same as all the tablet pc's that came before it which basically failed in the market. A web OS tablet might be a decent competitor to the iPad.
In the case above the farmer knew his seeds were roundup ready because he sprayed roundup on section of his crop and harvested seeds from the plants that survived. That's why he lost.
Either you have to contradict all of your past propaganda about how robust Macs are, or you have to admit that the iPad is not nearly as "suitable" as you want to make it out to be.
No I don't. I can just say Mac OS is better than Windows, but iPad OS is better than Mac OS.
Slashdot Mirror
If another country were to invade my country, resisting that invasion would be a defensive war. Of coarse civilians would die, the difference is that not fighting might have worse consequences.
You're willing to accept the 80% or so chance that not enough users will buy your app to make decent money, but you aren't willing to accept the 5% risk that Apple will reject your app. That doesn't make sense.
I supported the Iraq war, and I was kidding myself. This video made me realize the kind of horrific things that 'normally' happen to civilians in war. Now I am absolutely against anything but a truly defensive war.
I've bought two iPhones. Of coarse when I bought my second, I gave my old one to my brother, and when he bought a new iPhone he sold it to a friend. There are at least three people who want my current iPhone if I decide to buy Apple's next phone. None of the iPhone models are so old that they are obsolete. Judging by my experience the vast majority of iPhones that that have been sold are probably still in circulation.
Bandwidth doesn't work the way oil or minerals do. It can't be saved for the future. Unused bandwidth is basically a wasted resource. Why wait for a TV broadcast, which is inconvenient, when the technology exists for me to watch what I want when I want.
I haven't watched 'traditional' television since I discovered hulu.com and bought a computer to drive my HDTV. I can't believe I used to be willing to make an appointment to watch a TV show.
I agree about the 3G though. Cell phone networks have been slow to realize that they need to develop a high speed high bandwidth data only network and deploy it everywhere.
But most of the cost of solid rocket motors is the fuel, so making them reusable doesn't save much on launch costs. This would be a reusable liquid fueled rocket, where most of the cost is the rocket motors.
They're not really 'scare' quotes. It's just a shorthand for saying 'this is what my source called it, but some people may disagree'.
I think I speak for most people on slashdot when I say we are against any form of censorship.
Increasing prices for early adopters is how Apple handeled the release of the first iPhone. When demand went down two months later Apple reduced the price by $200. They got so much bad press they had to give everyone who bought before the price decrease a $100 credit. Now Apple deals with scalpers by having the two purchase limit instead.
I think source code availability might actually make it easier for someone to write a trojan. Without it they would have to write a program from scratch that looks like a legitimate program. If they can get the source code all they have to do is make some small modifications, release it under a different name for free, and by the time people realize what's going on the damage is already done.
The only reason people want this is so they can use two devices on the same 3G connection. It's not as convenient as having a 3G card in each device. I would rather have a reasonably priced 'pay as you go' plan that allows me to connect as many devices as I want. Or at least a special 'unlimited' plan that allows me to connect two devices.
The profit margin was an assumption. But here's a web site that breaks it down. The other numbers come from my personal experience and basic math.
The iPad runs expensive applications, a laptop runs free applications.
There are free applications available for both the iPad and laptops. I'm not sure why you think iPad applications are expensive. In my experience an expensive iPad app is $10, a cheep laptop application is $50.
I think I'm not alone in thinking how annoying it is to have common-sense features be added in at a later date which would have already been done with a simi-open platform.
Apple's design philosophy is that it's usually better not to have a feature than to have that feature implemented poorly. It seems to have worked out pretty well for most users. Also, what kind of 'semi-open' platform would allow adding system wide copy-paste or multitasking.
It would probably be different if you could prove who stole your stuff. The cops can't just ignore every single case of theft regardless of the circumstances, especially not a highly public case where they have all the proof they need to prosecute the people responsible. If they did ignore it there would be absolutely no deterrent to theft.
The iPad costs $500 to $850.
Most iPad apps cost less than $10. Apple gets about 30% from each iPad app sold. Even if the average user bought 20 apps at $5 each Apple would only get $30 per iPad minus hosting costs.
Apple makes a lot more than that in profit from the iPad. Maybe you should try checking your facts before applying 'common sense'.
What do you think Apple's motivation is for blocking flash? They still make all their money on hardware sales. The app store only exists to encourage people to develop for their products. The only reason that makes any sense is that Apple wants a higher quality product.
- Intentional leaks by Apple. The most likely in me eyes since it's now twice.
I think that's very unlikely. Why would Apple leak prototypes when they could just leak pictures and feature lists. Leaking pictures and stats would allow them to showcase the features they want people to know about without as much risk of giving competitors an advantage. It also lets respected news organizations be the first to report on the features, rather than some shady blog.
Are you saying people can't enjoy good design without a degree in industrial design? That's like saying someone can't appreciate a reliable car unless they're an auto mechanic.
Any global warming "solution" that doesn't involve actually lowering the CO2 level of the atmosphere isn't a solution.
I don't see why that is the case. Thinking rationally involves deciding which actions give you the greatest probability of achieving your goals. Looking in to all our options gives us the best chance of stopping global warming.
Even with the disasters that have happened, in terms of the cost to the human race, it's a lot less damaging than fighting a war to get oil. We should continue to develop new technologies that don't rely on oil. But until those technologies can replace oil offshore drilling is our best alternative.
I think this is a good move for HP. The slate would have been the same as all the tablet pc's that came before it which basically failed in the market. A web OS tablet might be a decent competitor to the iPad.
This was under his control. He knew there were GMO seeds on his land and he deliberately selected and replanted only the GMO seeds.
In the case above the farmer knew his seeds were roundup ready because he sprayed roundup on section of his crop and harvested seeds from the plants that survived. That's why he lost.
Either you have to contradict all of your past propaganda about how robust Macs are, or you have to admit that the iPad is not nearly as "suitable" as you want to make it out to be.
No I don't. I can just say Mac OS is better than Windows, but iPad OS is better than Mac OS.