Your opinion of scumbag is presumably down to your belief that someone making a business to enable recreational drug transactions between people is a bad thing. Not everyone holds the same opinion.
It was certainly illegal. But not all laws are just.
There's also the matter of choosing the watch size and the strap, which will involve trying the watches on. Just handing them over on demand would probably lead to a lot of requests for exchanges.
I'm pretty much as feminist as a man can be. But that doesn't extend to pretending that the majority of men are not stronger than the majority of women. If your feminism enables you to believe something that is contrary to scientific fact, then you have a problem.
And no, I don't believe in arming anyone. Least of all on a plane.
To be honest, I just don't know if most apps are worth paying for.
How long do you spend considering it? How long do you spend considering buying a coffee from a cafe you haven't been to before? How long do you spend considering a sandwich? A new chocolate bar?
And I'm sure you'd like them to get off your lawn too.
Generally speaking when people think young people have changed, what they're not realising is they themselves have changed. Young people aren't different, and neither are older people. You've just moved from one set to the other, and so your outlook on others has changed.
The company I'm contracting for right now does both platforms. They require twice as many developers for the Android version, yet it takes longer to ship, and has more bugs.
Fragmentation is a very, very, real problem with Android.
Of course, someone should ask Gil Amelio how that analysis worked for Apple back in the 90's.
Android is the largest platform (because it's used on the most phones.) But iOS stopped losing market share to it some time ago.
The #1 reason why I would fear developing for apple is they have a tendency to block and steal the really good ideas. http://www.pcworld.com/article...
You're kidding right? WiFi syncing (obvious), using an icon that features both the standard symbol for WiFi (obviously) and the standard symbol for Syncing (obviously). That's what's in common? And nothing else.
It couldn't be more obvious if you painted obvious on it with day-glo paint. You'd have to be pretty stupid to think that was copied.
Amusing that I said "What some here will miss" and you posted to prove that you missed it. It's not often I bother poking down to the -1 level but I have on this occasion, so I might as well correct you.
WhatsApp is exclusive to phones. What sense does not allowing its use on laptops make?
I already pointed out that social apps are in the overlap of the Venn diagram. And as I said "availability doesn't affect that. The company that create WhatsApp have decided what platforms they are doing. It's irrelevant to the point about certain apps being baturally phone ones and some being naturally desktop.
Unless you pair a Bluetooth keyboard and plug in an external monitor.
You still have no way of operating the GUI elements. Phones have a touchscreen interface. That monitor you plugged in isn't one. And in carrying all those bits, you might as well have brought a laptop that's actually built for the job, and won't be hamstrung.
Whilst you're fucking about with your bundle of crap, other people have long since finished the task.
Unfortunately for Apple, they're not Microsoft! They don't have the market share on anything to dictate.
That's not unfortunate for Apple. Their business model is built on selling things at a profit when they don't have market share dominance. Thus the don't face the same disaster as is happening to Microsoft who's business model IS based on having near-monopoly market share.
So don't sweat about it. Give it a few years, and the "Apple difference" won't really be so different, and they'll be seen as perhaps a Sony or Toshiba.
It's theirs to lose. Companies like Sony and Nintendo lost it. Apple could too. But provided they keep the quality up, they'll stay where they are.
It's not just a mater of convenience of having a computer in your pocket when you''re not at work. There's a Venn diagram of apps, some of which are interchangeable between mobile and desktop, but others which only make practical sense on one or the other.
e.g. Car and pedestrian navigation apps are phone territory. They make no sense on the desktop. Spreadsheets and word-processing are desktop territory, then make little sense on a phone. Social media makes sense on both.
(What some here will miss is that availability of apps doesn't contradict this. Yes, I can buy a GPS that connects to a PC, and get some arcane navigation app for a laptop. But it makes no sense to do so. Likewise with office apps for phones - they allow viewing and changing the odd item. You wouldn't create or do extensive editing there.)
Oh, don't get me wrong, nudging with taxes is absolutely essential.
My point is that libertarians and Adam Smith laissez faire, invisible hand types universally decry it as distorting the market, not part of the market. And to that extent I agree with them, it isn't part of the market. It's their philosophy that the market must be left alone that is wrong.
Here's the problem, you fear the guy filming YOU, when you're being filmed by everyone. There is no difference except your feelings on on the subject.
Not just my feelings, that's the common feeling. And if you don't understand that or dismiss it as the reason why Google Glass has failed, then you must be autistic.
I have no objection to being illuminated. Pretty much everywhere I go there are lights illuminating me. It doesn't bother me in the slightest. But point a torch in my face for more than a second and it's a problem.
Point a mobile phone camera at the wrong person at the wrong time, and violence will ensue. If you don't believe it, take a look at YouTube. The problem with Google glass is you're always pointing it at someone whenever you look at them. And a good proportion of that time will be inappropriate.
It seems there are a few people around here who don'g understand that. But then there are a fair few people here who are borderline autistic, socially inept nerds. Big overlap.
No, taxes intended to modify people's action to some positive result are government nudging. Your libertarians and your Adam Smith types certainly wouldn't accept them as being part of the market.
They are STILL being very quiet, because having thought about it for some time they still don't have a market solution to pollution.
Indeed. This is an example of an issue on which the Libertarians and believers in the Adam Smith's "invisible hand" are being very quiet. Because they have no answer. Regulation and government nudging are the only things that can deal with a pollution problem.
That will just cause people to buy/rent a second car for use on the days their existing car isn't permitted...
If this were to happen all year round, sure people would buy a second car. But not for the very rare day that this happens. And there are only a limited number of rental cars available. Of which only half would be useful.
The registration database includes information as to wether the vehicle uses petrol, diesel or electric etc so it's no harder to enforce.
There's no ring of barriers round Paris with computer controlled opening, such as you are imagining. This is enforced by police using eyesight. Even/odd is far easier than petrol/diesel, even if there were agreement that it would be reasonable to ban one or the other based on fuel. The French sense of egalitarianism would be happier with odd/even switched over each day, rather than one kind of car being continually banned every day.
Slashdot Mirror
Your opinion of scumbag is presumably down to your belief that someone making a business to enable recreational drug transactions between people is a bad thing. Not everyone holds the same opinion.
It was certainly illegal. But not all laws are just.
You're probably right. In which case he impersonated the typical Android blowhard extremely well. :-)
There's also the matter of choosing the watch size and the strap, which will involve trying the watches on. Just handing them over on demand would probably lead to a lot of requests for exchanges.
Thanks, I did so enjoy the unintended irony of your post.
I'm pretty much as feminist as a man can be. But that doesn't extend to pretending that the majority of men are not stronger than the majority of women. If your feminism enables you to believe something that is contrary to scientific fact, then you have a problem.
And no, I don't believe in arming anyone. Least of all on a plane.
I dare say that a flight attendant (mostly women) is not going to stop a (co)pilot (mostly men) with a plan for murderous suicide.
I know several of your friends and they all pointed out you're a habitual liar.
To be honest, I just don't know if most apps are worth paying for.
How long do you spend considering it?
How long do you spend considering buying a coffee from a cafe you haven't been to before?
How long do you spend considering a sandwich?
A new chocolate bar?
And I'm sure you'd like them to get off your lawn too.
Generally speaking when people think young people have changed, what they're not realising is they themselves have changed. Young people aren't different, and neither are older people. You've just moved from one set to the other, and so your outlook on others has changed.
The company I'm contracting for right now does both platforms. They require twice as many developers for the Android version, yet it takes longer to ship, and has more bugs.
Fragmentation is a very, very, real problem with Android.
Of course, someone should ask Gil Amelio how that analysis worked for Apple back in the 90's.
Nice to quantify the age of your opinions.
Android is the largest platform (because it's used on the most phones.) But iOS stopped losing market share to it some time ago.
The #1 reason why I would fear developing for apple is they have a tendency to block and steal the really good ideas.
http://www.pcworld.com/article...
You're kidding right? WiFi syncing (obvious), using an icon that features both the standard symbol for WiFi (obviously) and the standard symbol for Syncing (obviously). That's what's in common? And nothing else.
It couldn't be more obvious if you painted obvious on it with day-glo paint. You'd have to be pretty stupid to think that was copied.
Amusing that I said "What some here will miss" and you posted to prove that you missed it. It's not often I bother poking down to the -1 level but I have on this occasion, so I might as well correct you.
WhatsApp is exclusive to phones. What sense does not allowing its use on laptops make?
I already pointed out that social apps are in the overlap of the Venn diagram. And as I said "availability doesn't affect that. The company that create WhatsApp have decided what platforms they are doing. It's irrelevant to the point about certain apps being baturally phone ones and some being naturally desktop.
Unless you pair a Bluetooth keyboard and plug in an external monitor.
You still have no way of operating the GUI elements. Phones have a touchscreen interface. That monitor you plugged in isn't one. And in carrying all those bits, you might as well have brought a laptop that's actually built for the job, and won't be hamstrung.
Whilst you're fucking about with your bundle of crap, other people have long since finished the task.
I remember selling direct to customers, back in the Symbian days, before iOS or Android existed. The market was tiny and it was a pain in the arse.
As a matter of interest how many Android developers are selling from their own website, rather than an app store. Not many I guess.
Unfortunately for Apple, they're not Microsoft! They don't have the market share on anything to dictate.
That's not unfortunate for Apple. Their business model is built on selling things at a profit when they don't have market share dominance. Thus the don't face the same disaster as is happening to Microsoft who's business model IS based on having near-monopoly market share.
So don't sweat about it. Give it a few years, and the "Apple difference" won't really be so different, and they'll be seen as perhaps a Sony or Toshiba.
It's theirs to lose. Companies like Sony and Nintendo lost it. Apple could too. But provided they keep the quality up, they'll stay where they are.
It's not just a mater of convenience of having a computer in your pocket when you''re not at work. There's a Venn diagram of apps, some of which are interchangeable between mobile and desktop, but others which only make practical sense on one or the other.
e.g. Car and pedestrian navigation apps are phone territory. They make no sense on the desktop.
Spreadsheets and word-processing are desktop territory, then make little sense on a phone. Social media makes sense on both.
(What some here will miss is that availability of apps doesn't contradict this. Yes, I can buy a GPS that connects to a PC, and get some arcane navigation app for a laptop. But it makes no sense to do so. Likewise with office apps for phones - they allow viewing and changing the odd item. You wouldn't create or do extensive editing there.)
That's your loss. It doesn't mean Apple won't continue to thrive without you.
Oh, don't get me wrong, nudging with taxes is absolutely essential.
My point is that libertarians and Adam Smith laissez faire, invisible hand types universally decry it as distorting the market, not part of the market. And to that extent I agree with them, it isn't part of the market. It's their philosophy that the market must be left alone that is wrong.
Here's the problem, you fear the guy filming YOU, when you're being filmed by everyone. There is no difference except your feelings on on the subject.
Not just my feelings, that's the common feeling. And if you don't understand that or dismiss it as the reason why Google Glass has failed, then you must be autistic.
Poor beleaguered Apple. All those predictions of doom always coming true. They've hardly got $100 billion to rub together these days.
I have no objection to being illuminated. Pretty much everywhere I go there are lights illuminating me. It doesn't bother me in the slightest. But point a torch in my face for more than a second and it's a problem.
Point a mobile phone camera at the wrong person at the wrong time, and violence will ensue. If you don't believe it, take a look at YouTube. The problem with Google glass is you're always pointing it at someone whenever you look at them. And a good proportion of that time will be inappropriate.
It seems there are a few people around here who don'g understand that. But then there are a fair few people here who are borderline autistic, socially inept nerds. Big overlap.
No, taxes intended to modify people's action to some positive result are government nudging. Your libertarians and your Adam Smith types certainly wouldn't accept them as being part of the market.
They are STILL being very quiet, because having thought about it for some time they still don't have a market solution to pollution.
Indeed. This is an example of an issue on which the Libertarians and believers in the Adam Smith's "invisible hand" are being very quiet. Because they have no answer. Regulation and government nudging are the only things that can deal with a pollution problem.
That will just cause people to buy/rent a second car for use on the days their existing car isn't permitted...
If this were to happen all year round, sure people would buy a second car. But not for the very rare day that this happens.
And there are only a limited number of rental cars available. Of which only half would be useful.
The registration database includes information as to wether the vehicle uses petrol, diesel or electric etc so it's no harder to enforce.
There's no ring of barriers round Paris with computer controlled opening, such as you are imagining. This is enforced by police using eyesight. Even/odd is far easier than petrol/diesel, even if there were agreement that it would be reasonable to ban one or the other based on fuel. The French sense of egalitarianism would be happier with odd/even switched over each day, rather than one kind of car being continually banned every day.
There already is a shared car scheme in Paris, which followed on from the shared bicycles scheme Velib.
https://www.autolib.eu/en/vent...
And the issue here is pollution, not traffic. These shared cars are electric, so not a problem.