No they didn't. I repeat, the ebook business model is exactly the same as the app store model. It's not something new and devious devised by a conspiracy.
Google gets my trust because it allows me to export data from their services - like Google Docs.
That's a feature, not a reason to trust.
Because they give me free stuff that I don't have to pay for.
The drug dealer gives out free samples. Do you trust him?
If the consequences are that I get more targeted ads instead of untargeted ones...oh the horror!
What you're making clear is not that you trust them, but that you don't care about privacy.
I like them because I have an inexpensive Nexus 4 instead of an overpriced iOS product. I love them because of the cheap and fast Internet they're rolling out in Kansas. Need I go on?
No. You've made it quite clear it's not about privacy for you. You've sold your soul, and if Google fucked you up the ass, you'd still ask for more. Google gets a free pass from you no matter what they do.
Others have pointed out that an iPhone doesn't need to connect to a computer to update. It does it over the air since iOS 5.0. I'll add that it's not "far fetched", it's fact. The numbers that are upgraded are measured both by Apple themselves, and by the various companies that do web analytics.
Google's business model is based on trust. If customers lose their trust, Google suffers.
They lost my trust when I found out they were storing at least 2 years worth of my searches without my knowledge or permission. How have they kept your trust?
They have a huge incentive to remain trustworthy. So yes, I currently trust Google more than any other business on earth.
Why does Google have any more incentive to be trustworthy than other companies? It doesn't. With most other companies you are the customer. With Google, your private data is their product.
Apple have done nothing wrong. Their ebook deal is exactly the same as their App Store deal. The person/company that puts the book/app on the store decides the price. Apple get 30% of it.
Waaaaiiit. You trust your ISP more than Google? Seriously?
There is no IT company I distrust more than Google, so it follows that I do indeed trust my ISP more than Google.
And when you change your service provider? What then?
And when you decide to change from Google, what then?
The only way you can keep your email address no matter what companies you decide to do business with is to have your own domain. And when you do that, it's easy enough to pick a service that includes email. Yes, you pay. But that's the only way to never have to change your email address whilst not being married for life to some company.
Google are arguably not the worst people to trust when it comes to IT and email.
That is arguable, and I'd argue the opposite. Google is the worst company to trust when it comes to IT and email. I didn't always think that way. Then I found out Google were storing at least 2 years worth of my Google searches, and AFAIK hadn't asked me beforehand. That's information I don't trust anyone to have, least of all Google.
I will never trust them again, and I think other people are foolish for doing so.
How many people paid for email before Google came along? It used to be your ISP gave you email included in your service. It was email that wasn't data-mined to profile you.
It's not arbitrary at all - it's pretty precise. Especially if you take note of the longer definition I gave in other messages. A PC is capable of running DOS or Windows x86 natively.
It's simply history and a family tree. PC is a family tree of hardware architectures, with the root being the IBM PC.
Most of the other definitions that have been tried in messages here are arbitrary.
This definition includes Windows PCs, Linux PCs, Macs, and Android devices, especially Android devices with SL4A or AIDE installed. It does not include game consoles or iOS devices that aren't provisioned to a valid developer license.
A more rational definition is those machines that evolved from the IBM PC and it's clones. That means an CPU that evolved from the X86 line, and certain other commonalities of PC architecture. Basically if it can run DOS or Windows natively then it's a PC.
This definition includes Windows PCs, Linux PCs, x86 based Macs. But doesn't include Android devices nor iOS devices.
Not "personal computer" no. It's an informal term.
But PC, yes. It's those machines that are descended from the IBM PC and it's clones. They have x86 derived CPUs and have "PC architectures" with a line of decent from those original PCs.
So no, smartphones are not PCs. Though you may choose to call them personal computers if you want.
Most people here are talking very woolly, subjective and self serving definitions of PCs.
My definition is clear and doesn't have there problems. An iPad isn't a PC because it doesn't have a processor that evolved from the x86 line nor other aspects of the PC architecture.
The P in PC stands for personal. That means that you can do whatever you like with it. It is a GENERAL PURPOSE device IN YOUR OWN CONTROL.
No. Personal means you get your own, rather than have to share the computer with all the other people in the office (Mini-computer) or comany (Mainframe). It's not about control, as a PC may still be locked down, and in control of others. Personal as a word actually applies more to phones and tablets than Desktop computers.
But that is by the by. Differentiate between the generic description "personal computer" and "PC". PC is originally from the trademark for the IBM PC, and came to be used as the generic term for clones as well. It now means those machines that evolved from those machines. It implies X86 and certain commonalities of architecture. If your ordinary x86 build of DOS or Windows can run on it natively, it's a PC.
I see PCs as general computing devices, with their primary attribute being the term "general".
I've always categorised PCs as those machines that evolved from the IBM PC, including it's clones. This implies it uses a CPU evolved from the x86 line. And some degree of inherited architecture that can be followed down the line.
So I never included C64s, Amigas, Apple IIs, Macs in their 68xxx, or Power PC days etc. But did start to include Macs when they switched to x86 with PC architecture mother boards.
So it's pretty easy for me to classify mobile devices. iPad isn't a PC. Mobile phones aren't PCs. Microsoft Surface isn't a PC. Microsoft Surface Pro is a PC.
(To pre-empt a likely response, I differentiate "Personal Computer" from "PC". I accept that people used the term Personal Computer for older computers such as the Apple II. But "PC" came to be associated with the IBM PC and it's clones. AFAIR, It wasn't widely used before that.)
You're making a comparison on all Nintendos products, including all Nintendo handhelds. And comparing it to iPad, thereby excluding all Apple handhelds (iPhone, iPod Touch).
You're like someone trying to play RTCW multiplayer with a flamethrower. (Yes, that is my most up to date gamer reference.)
You know, it is just great that you personally is not going to sue those people. Pat yourself on the back for me. But it is not a "logical error" when people are not willing to risk their money, business and project on assumptions that all code they have copied will be managed in the same way.
The thing that doesn't seem to be getting through is that I don't care if someone else can't take my code for free and then make money with it. Why would I?
And "don't care" doesn't mean I necessarily want to prevent it either. For example a company used one of my games to run on their stand at an Expo. They weren't selling it, but it clearly helped out his business otherwise they wouldn't have put it up front and centre on their stand.
Don't care means; Why spend it working out licensing terms for the benefit of someone who wants to profit from my free time?
I would love to see substantiation of the last sentence in your post. The only correlation that's ever been shown between climate change denial and anything else is political affiliation and whether or not you identify as a conservative.
RTFA. That's what the results of the study are. AGW denial is correlated with belief in conspiracy theories, and with belief in laissez-fraire free markets (not the same thing as conservatism.)
"Of course it doesn't disprove the point. It's simply that both Republican and Democrat are right wing." No True Scotsman
No it's not an example of "No True Scotsman", as the party is called the Democratic Party, not the Left-Wing party. They don't tend to call themselves a left-wing party, and indeed would take "socialist" as an insult.
You ignored France - or are they right wing too? Russia, also right wing?
I'm familiar with the current politics and policies of America and the UK. Not so much with the other two.
Perhaps you can enlighten me just how far "left" you would have to go for you to consider it not "right wing", nothing in the real world seems to support your idea.
You make the mistake of thinking that it's a scale, and you just pick an arbitrary point on it to divide left and right. That's not it. Individual policies tend to be easy to classify into political ideologies. Policies supporting free markets for example are right wing. Policies promoting social justice are left wing. To judge where a particular party is, you have to assess the sum of their individual policies.
Can you provide even one example of a country starting a war for "social justice" purposes?
Civil and revolutionary wars mainly. For example the Cuban revolution.
Wars between sovereign states are usually instigated by right wing justifications. Because the high const of waging war needs an economic justification. Left wingers tend more towards negotiation and aid.
As I said, for at least a decade. Edit and continue running using the new code.
There are only certain type of change that you can make. For example you can't change the size or number of member variables of a class. But still it's there for some other changes you can make, such as adding or deleting lines of code.
Slashdot Mirror
No they didn't. I repeat, the ebook business model is exactly the same as the app store model. It's not something new and devious devised by a conspiracy.
Google gets my trust because it allows me to export data from their services - like Google Docs.
That's a feature, not a reason to trust.
Because they give me free stuff that I don't have to pay for.
The drug dealer gives out free samples. Do you trust him?
If the consequences are that I get more targeted ads instead of untargeted ones...oh the horror!
What you're making clear is not that you trust them, but that you don't care about privacy.
I like them because I have an inexpensive Nexus 4 instead of an overpriced iOS product. I love them because of the cheap and fast Internet they're rolling out in Kansas. Need I go on?
No. You've made it quite clear it's not about privacy for you. You've sold your soul, and if Google fucked you up the ass, you'd still ask for more. Google gets a free pass from you no matter what they do.
Windows Update was originally just a website. During Windows 95 days the user had to pro-actively visit the site to get updates.
Which was still better, back in 1995, than what Android has today.
To say that most upgrade is very far fetched.
Others have pointed out that an iPhone doesn't need to connect to a computer to update. It does it over the air since iOS 5.0. I'll add that it's not "far fetched", it's fact. The numbers that are upgraded are measured both by Apple themselves, and by the various companies that do web analytics.
iOS is a single target, get one sploit that works, you know it'll work on all of them.
The problem with your theory is that Android gets hit with malware all the time. iOS doesn't.
Google's business model is based on trust. If customers lose their trust, Google suffers.
They lost my trust when I found out they were storing at least 2 years worth of my searches without my knowledge or permission. How have they kept your trust?
They have a huge incentive to remain trustworthy. So yes, I currently trust Google more than any other business on earth.
Why does Google have any more incentive to be trustworthy than other companies? It doesn't. With most other companies you are the customer. With Google, your private data is their product.
You're a fool if you trust Google.
Apple have done nothing wrong. Their ebook deal is exactly the same as their App Store deal. The person/company that puts the book/app on the store decides the price. Apple get 30% of it.
Waaaaiiit. You trust your ISP more than Google? Seriously?
There is no IT company I distrust more than Google, so it follows that I do indeed trust my ISP more than Google.
And when you change your service provider? What then?
And when you decide to change from Google, what then?
The only way you can keep your email address no matter what companies you decide to do business with is to have your own domain. And when you do that, it's easy enough to pick a service that includes email. Yes, you pay. But that's the only way to never have to change your email address whilst not being married for life to some company.
There was a time before GMail. Email came as part of the services of the ISP. And it wasn't data-mined.
Google are arguably not the worst people to trust when it comes to IT and email.
That is arguable, and I'd argue the opposite. Google is the worst company to trust when it comes to IT and email. I didn't always think that way. Then I found out Google were storing at least 2 years worth of my Google searches, and AFAIK hadn't asked me beforehand. That's information I don't trust anyone to have, least of all Google.
I will never trust them again, and I think other people are foolish for doing so.
How many people paid for email before Google came along? It used to be your ISP gave you email included in your service. It was email that wasn't data-mined to profile you.
They're still reading your email.
It's not arbitrary at all - it's pretty precise. Especially if you take note of the longer definition I gave in other messages. A PC is capable of running DOS or Windows x86 natively.
It's simply history and a family tree. PC is a family tree of hardware architectures, with the root being the IBM PC.
Most of the other definitions that have been tried in messages here are arbitrary.
Well, the segmented control, and the tab bar control are both types of radio button.
iOS just doesn't have the vertically stacked circular radio button style.
This definition includes Windows PCs, Linux PCs, Macs, and Android devices, especially Android devices with SL4A or AIDE installed. It does not include game consoles or iOS devices that aren't provisioned to a valid developer license.
A more rational definition is those machines that evolved from the IBM PC and it's clones. That means an CPU that evolved from the X86 line, and certain other commonalities of PC architecture. Basically if it can run DOS or Windows natively then it's a PC.
This definition includes Windows PCs, Linux PCs, x86 based Macs. But doesn't include Android devices nor iOS devices.
Not "personal computer" no. It's an informal term.
But PC, yes. It's those machines that are descended from the IBM PC and it's clones. They have x86 derived CPUs and have "PC architectures" with a line of decent from those original PCs.
So no, smartphones are not PCs. Though you may choose to call them personal computers if you want.
Most people here are talking very woolly, subjective and self serving definitions of PCs.
My definition is clear and doesn't have there problems. An iPad isn't a PC because it doesn't have a processor that evolved from the x86 line nor other aspects of the PC architecture.
The P in PC stands for personal. That means that you can do whatever you like with it. It is a GENERAL PURPOSE device IN YOUR OWN CONTROL.
No. Personal means you get your own, rather than have to share the computer with all the other people in the office (Mini-computer) or comany (Mainframe). It's not about control, as a PC may still be locked down, and in control of others. Personal as a word actually applies more to phones and tablets than Desktop computers.
But that is by the by. Differentiate between the generic description "personal computer" and "PC". PC is originally from the trademark for the IBM PC, and came to be used as the generic term for clones as well. It now means those machines that evolved from those machines. It implies X86 and certain commonalities of architecture. If your ordinary x86 build of DOS or Windows can run on it natively, it's a PC.
I see PCs as general computing devices, with their primary attribute being the term "general".
I've always categorised PCs as those machines that evolved from the IBM PC, including it's clones. This implies it uses a CPU evolved from the x86 line. And some degree of inherited architecture that can be followed down the line.
So I never included C64s, Amigas, Apple IIs, Macs in their 68xxx, or Power PC days etc. But did start to include Macs when they switched to x86 with PC architecture mother boards.
So it's pretty easy for me to classify mobile devices. iPad isn't a PC. Mobile phones aren't PCs. Microsoft Surface isn't a PC. Microsoft Surface Pro is a PC.
(To pre-empt a likely response, I differentiate "Personal Computer" from "PC". I accept that people used the term Personal Computer for older computers such as the Apple II. But "PC" came to be associated with the IBM PC and it's clones. AFAIR, It wasn't widely used before that.)
OK, apart for the childish game player comments.
You're making a comparison on all Nintendos products, including all Nintendo handhelds. And comparing it to iPad, thereby excluding all Apple handhelds (iPhone, iPod Touch).
You're like someone trying to play RTCW multiplayer with a flamethrower. (Yes, that is my most up to date gamer reference.)
It's neither small nor superficial, as the original report referred to in TFA makes clear.
You know, it is just great that you personally is not going to sue those people. Pat yourself on the back for me. But it is not a "logical error" when people are not willing to risk their money, business and project on assumptions that all code they have copied will be managed in the same way.
The thing that doesn't seem to be getting through is that I don't care if someone else can't take my code for free and then make money with it. Why would I?
And "don't care" doesn't mean I necessarily want to prevent it either. For example a company used one of my games to run on their stand at an Expo. They weren't selling it, but it clearly helped out his business otherwise they wouldn't have put it up front and centre on their stand.
Don't care means; Why spend it working out licensing terms for the benefit of someone who wants to profit from my free time?
I would love to see substantiation of the last sentence in your post. The only correlation that's ever been shown between climate change denial and anything else is political affiliation and whether or not you identify as a conservative.
RTFA. That's what the results of the study are. AGW denial is correlated with belief in conspiracy theories, and with belief in laissez-fraire free markets (not the same thing as conservatism.)
"Of course it doesn't disprove the point. It's simply that both Republican and Democrat are right wing."
No True Scotsman
No it's not an example of "No True Scotsman", as the party is called the Democratic Party, not the Left-Wing party. They don't tend to call themselves a left-wing party, and indeed would take "socialist" as an insult.
You ignored France - or are they right wing too? Russia, also right wing?
I'm familiar with the current politics and policies of America and the UK. Not so much with the other two.
Perhaps you can enlighten me just how far "left" you would have to go for you to consider it not "right wing", nothing in the real world seems to support your idea.
You make the mistake of thinking that it's a scale, and you just pick an arbitrary point on it to divide left and right. That's not it. Individual policies tend to be easy to classify into political ideologies. Policies supporting free markets for example are right wing. Policies promoting social justice are left wing. To judge where a particular party is, you have to assess the sum of their individual policies.
Can you provide even one example of a country starting a war for "social justice" purposes?
Civil and revolutionary wars mainly. For example the Cuban revolution.
Wars between sovereign states are usually instigated by right wing justifications. Because the high const of waging war needs an economic justification. Left wingers tend more towards negotiation and aid.
As I said, for at least a decade. Edit and continue running using the new code.
There are only certain type of change that you can make. For example you can't change the size or number of member variables of a class. But still it's there for some other changes you can make, such as adding or deleting lines of code.